Bookwyrm627: Charging more for insurance: This is all about identifying where the payouts are more likely to occur (or larger).
Starmaker: Then, what insurance is even for? If companies are allowed to subdivide pools to hypothetically pinpointing my payouts with perfect accuracy, why do I even need a middleman grifter between me and the payment recipient?
As I understand it, and in very broad strokes, people pay for insurance so that if something goes wrong, money is available to correct it.
For example, auto insurance is required to have a license here in the US, with the idea being that money will be available to the innocent party even if the one who caused the accident can't afford to pay to fix/replace the vehicle.
Health insurance is bought so money is available if/when high medical costs are incurred.
Theoretically, insurance companies try to balance offering premiums low enough to attract customers and having premiums high enough to cover when people actually trigger a policy. So if jewish people as a whole are much more likely to have health conditions, then their policies are likely to cost more. If young people are more likely to cause driving accidents, then young people are more likely to trigger costs, so their policies are likely to be higher. This is also why a death insurance policy for a 20 year-old tends to be much, much cheaper than the same coverage for a 70 year old.
If insurance companies could subdivide pools with perfect accuracy, then each individual person would be paying money based on their specific health risks + conditions. Insurance policies tend to go up after being used (or in the event of demonstrated risky behavior, like driving significantly over the speed limit) because the individual person has demonstrated they may be/are more likely to trigger policy pay outs.
The question becomes "How much subdivision is allowed, and how much of the burden must people without problems pay to offset those with problems?"
