dtgreene: Actually, in this case, efficient use of resources means targeting crime prevention efforts at the areas where crime has actually occurred more often.
No, prevention efforts are best targeted at where crime is likely to occur. To use an extreme example: there is no point targeting an area that has had a huge crime rate in the past if the expected future crime rate is very low (like if all former residents are dead or gone). Prevention in the present is only effective against future crimes, not past crimes. Targeting crime prevention at current high crime areas works because current trends are usually an indicator of future trends (meaning current high crime areas are likely to be high crime areas in the future).
Bookwyrm627: Charging more for insurance: This is all about identifying where the payouts are more likely to occur (or larger). Young drivers routinely have higher premiums. This is not ageism since stats tend to show that young drivers are more likely to incur costs. Are there insurance pools based on ethnicity?
dtgreene: Actually, I would argue that that is ageism. Even if young drivers *are* more likely to get into accidents, I consider it unfair to penalize all young people for that sort of thing.
That is exactly how insurance pools work: everyone pays in to support those that actually have a problem. To help keep costs down for non-young people, all young people pay more because young people are more likely to incur payouts. And the people that actually DO get into an accident or something typically experience an insurance hike, and sometimes a massive one.
Penalizing the whole group for something only a few people did is also fairly common, regardless of how fair it may be.
dtgreene: Also, don't forget the practice of charging different premiums for men and women, which IMO should be illegal (for all insurance types). It's especially problematic when insurance (or anything else) discriminates against someone for being the gender that the person doesn't even identify with in the first place (or, for that matter, against being transgender).
I'm unclear on what the complaint actually is here. Do you have a reputable reference for these things happening?
dtgreene: For instance, according to an article found with a simple google search, muslims are more likely to experience death anxiety than other religious groups. Should they have to pay more because of that?
I'm unfamiliar with the term "death anxiety". Define what you mean by it, and we'll talk.
dtgreene: Similarly, I could mention that people of Jewish heritage are more likely to carry certain mutations that can lead to genetic diseases; should they be penalized because of that?
Insurance is basically a company betting that the money they pull in from premiums will be greater than the money they pay out when policies are triggered (for lack of a better term). So if Jewish people are more likely to trigger a payout, then they absolutely will be paying more money into the pot. The alternative is charging everyone more because Jewish people are causing more expenses due to a higher propensity for sickness; you commented above about the unfairness of making those not responsible take part of the penalty.
I suppose an alternative would be making the people who are actually sick pay a lot more to cover the costs they are generating. What is your opinion on that idea?
Edit: Grammar.
