Everybody needs insurance, in one form or another (at least in the US).
I wonder if a company like Google that can possibly determine non-obvious risk factors, has a major advantage here.
E.G., imagine if people who searched for the term "dui attorney" were 40x more likely to be involved in a vehicular homicide as a defendant. Google could refuse to insure those searchers, and, as such, significantly cut everyone else's premiums (giving them a major competitive advantage).
I have no special knowledge about the distribution of insurance payouts, but I would guess it follows a power distribution. If so, removing the top 10% of payout insurees could HUGELY decrease insurance payouts.
Does anyone know if the major costs to auto/home/health insurers are payouts?
Excluding healthcare, do people care if folks who exhibit risky behavior pay higher premiums? In the US, young men (actuarian-proven to be higher risk) pay higher auto insurance, and everyone seems fine with it.
I wonder if a company like Google that can possibly determine non-obvious risk factors, has a major advantage here.
E.G., imagine if people who searched for the term "dui attorney" were 40x more likely to be involved in a vehicular homicide as a defendant. Google could refuse to insure those searchers, and, as such, significantly cut everyone else's premiums (giving them a major competitive advantage).
I have no special knowledge about the distribution of insurance payouts, but I would guess it follows a power distribution. If so, removing the top 10% of payout insurees could HUGELY decrease insurance payouts.
Does anyone know if the major costs to auto/home/health insurers are payouts?
Excluding healthcare, do people care if folks who exhibit risky behavior pay higher premiums? In the US, young men (actuarian-proven to be higher risk) pay higher auto insurance, and everyone seems fine with it.