Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
How about the insurance agent asking him how relevant they'll be when said technology actually appears? Meanwhile, no Universal Health Care for Americans cause not good reasons.
Totally agree with your main point, partially disagree with this off topic point. Agree that collision insurance should stay the same regardless of the number of vehicles you own, since that essentially covers the driver.I just don't see the issue. I could have 20 cars, insurance as related to accidents while occupied would still only be 1 car at a time. If I own 1 car, wreck it, go buy another, wreck it, buy another, wreck it. How is that different then me crashing 3 cars I already own in a row?
If I own 20 cars and I let my friend drive one and he wrecks it, since it wasn't me driving the insurance company would say tough shit.
And doesn't that make more sense then insuring a car? Because just because you insure that car doesn't mean anyone can drive it. It's still limited to certain people as expressed on the policy. So it reality, you really are just insuring the driver (in most cases. This is not including collector cars, seasonal cars or other fringe examples).
I really don't think health insurance companies have much to worry about for the foreseeable future. Obamacare is one of the best things to happen to them, making it mandatory to get insurance or get a fine. Plus lifespans are actually going down among the poor. The health insurance industry is going to be very profitable for a long, long time.Insurance companies worried about their business model becoming obsolete. Sucks to be them. Even health insurance companies worry about their future. They should get real jobs, like cleaning toilets.
Sure, I agree with you 100%. But whats going to happen the first time a Google car has to choose between running over a small child meaning death for the child or running head-on into an oncoming car, meaning death for both drivers?
Who is going to put their seal of approval on THAT piece of code?
As someone who actually enjoys driving cars I am hoping that we will be able to take control of and operate the vehicle at will.
Every time we have a self-driving car discussion, this silly false dichotomy comes up.
Why must the car hit the child or die in a crash with an oncoming car? Couldn't the self-driving car pull into the lane the oncoming car pulled out of? Couldn't it signal the oncoming car to return to its own lane? Couldn't it plot a course that misses the child AND the other car (even if it ends up in a ditch)? And what about self-driving cars makes them more prone to these sorts of false dichotomies, rather than the non-self-driving cars operated by distracted, limited humans?
After all, in the time it takes your inferior carbon mind to recognize the peril you are in, the superior electronic being has recognized the threat, plotted at least 4 ways around the situation, and executed the most likely path to avoid all problems. Welcome your robotic masters, meatbag. It's your only hope.
Every time we have a self-driving car discussion, this silly false dichotomy comes up.
Why must the car hit the child or die in a crash with an oncoming car? Couldn't the self-driving car pull into the lane the oncoming car pulled out of? Couldn't it signal the oncoming car to return to its own lane? Couldn't it plot a course that misses the child AND the other car (even if it ends up in a ditch)? And what about self-driving cars makes them more prone to these sorts of false dichotomies, rather than the non-self-driving cars operated by distracted, limited humans?
Wouldn't any car you are driving fall under that category? A car sitting in your driveway could have a separate type of coverage for just sitting in your driveway.
Last I checked, a hurricane can come through, plow through one garage (but not the other), hence only damaging one of the two cars (or both).
I'm not sticking up for insurance companies, but that does... well.. kind of make sense?
I just don't see the issue. I could have 20 cars, insurance as related to accidents while occupied would still only be 1 car at a time. If I own 1 car, wreck it, go buy another, wreck it, buy another, wreck it. How is that different then me crashing 3 cars I already own in a row?
If I own 20 cars and I let my friend drive one and he wrecks it, since it wasn't me driving the insurance company would say tough shit.
And doesn't that make more sense then insuring a car? Because just because you insure that car doesn't mean anyone can drive it. It's still limited to certain people as expressed on the policy. So it reality, you really are just insuring the driver (in most cases. This is not including collector cars, seasonal cars or other fringe examples).
I was talking to my co-workers a while back about all the cars that have those indicator lamps on the mirrors indicating that someone is next to you.
These are becoming very common place now. Well imagine in 10-15 years when the cars on the road now start experiencing failures. Either with the light indicator or the sensing system. People will have become so used to these always working that the light won't be on and they will just merge right in to someone.
I'm kind of the same way with my spotter mirrors. I don't even look back anymore because I am so confident in my spotter mirrors (to the point I feel sligtly uncomfortable driving a car without them).
The things that's most bullshit about insurance is that you pay PER CAR. Why do we not pay per person? It doesn't matter how many cars you have, you can only drive 1 at a time. Just base it off your most expensive car. And then you don't have to worry about who was driving what car and what kind of insurance there was. This person was either insured to drive cars or they weren't.
It's a valid point, I have also wondered why home owners insurance will cover everything in the garage except the automobiles.
how is a car sitting in the garage different from the lawnmower? Outside of the obvious cost.
I was talking to my co-workers a while back about all the cars that have those indicator lamps on the mirrors indicating that someone is next to you.
These are becoming very common place now. Well imagine in 10-15 years when the cars on the road now start experiencing failures. Either with the light indicator or the sensing system. People will have become so used to these always working that the light won't be on and they will just merge right in to someone.
I'm kind of the same way with my spotter mirrors. I don't even look back anymore because I am so confident in my spotter mirrors (to the point I feel sligtly uncomfortable driving a car without them).
There inevitably will be a scenario that can't work out. You have to be able to program it to prioritize. You can't have it just end up in a loop where it just can't resolve it because it is programmed to preserve life. The point is really that the scenario would happen less often but since we don't have artificial intelligence we have to program it to react.
It is not a false scenario, it a very real scenario that gets played out by humans all through out the world. However, as humans we understand that humans are not amply suited to make those kinds of decisions in that short amount of time and so we accept that whatever happens happens and is up to the free will of those involved. We just hope for the best, but understand that probably won't be the case.
But a machine does not have free will. It very much follows a flow chart of logic developed by a person sitting at a computer. So when that car follows a decision we know that the car did not make the decision, a human made a calculated decision that resulted in whatever happened. I assure you, people will want to know why that decision was made.
Someone made the assertion in this thread that driving is a trivial matter. It is not, it is a very complex operation with a lot of sensory input at any given moment.
Science is not religion. However the dogmatic hate and denial of what science can offer, is similar to faith. So the irony is strong with you.God, we are doomed.
"when human-caused accidents mostly disappear."
"If you're in a crashless world, or if the number of crashes is severely reduced through the use of technology"
Wayyyyyyyyyyy too much faith in "robots".
These driverless cars are programmed by humans, using human logic, and having human error. There will STILL be human caused accidents.....just not OCCUPANT caused accidents.
I'm telling you guys, you are looking at a new religion.
Dibs, ill put name all over that shit, hit the kid, who the fucks going to take care of the kid when the parents die? some nitwit?
Insurance companies are already in trouble, having less payouts would greatly help them. If anything this is a boon to them.
Plus they no longer have to worry about the teen driver plague.
I wouldn't put money on that. Much like how the oil industry was struck with cheaper oil because of fracking, so too will the health insurance industry have to deal with a changing market. The market will respond. People get sick because people get older. Fix that, and a lot less people need health insurance.I really don't think health insurance companies have much to worry about for the foreseeable future. Obamacare is one of the best things to happen to them, making it mandatory to get insurance or get a fine. Plus lifespans are actually going down among the poor. The health insurance industry is going to be very profitable for a long, long time.
The things that's most bullshit about insurance is that you pay PER CAR. Why do we not pay per person? It doesn't matter how many cars you have, you can only drive 1 at a time. Just base it off your most expensive car. And then you don't have to worry about who was driving what car and what kind of insurance there was. This person was either insured to drive cars or they weren't.
The medical system in this country is great. the problem is we have a segment that can't afford it. Within that segment is a bunch off legitimate inability to afford it and some are deadbeats who can't afford it and some prioritize other things or commit fraud. All but the first are cause for heartburnI haven't heard many people make a realistic argument that we should NOT have a great medical system in this country. Personally I feel being healthy should be a perk of living in the greatest nation on the planet.
The main issue, amongst conservatives and Republicans, is the method in which it has been implemented. By virtue of being alive you are forced to either purchase a product from a private company or pay a tax (supreme courts words). I think you would be hard pressed to find any other tax that you must by pay by virtue of being alive.
The medical system in this country is great. the problem is we have a segment that can't afford it. Within that segment is a bunch off legitimate inability to afford it and some are deadbeats who can't afford it and some prioritize other things or commit fraud. All but the first are cause for heartburn
Was anything done to address cost. Nope.
The solution appears to fuck up the system and compell people to pay more taxes and de facto taxes to include more people with coverage. Now if we just cut people tax credits to buy into the existing system, it wouldn't have cost anything more than it will cost when it goes into full swing and taxes would still go up, but it wouldn't have fucked up the actual quality of care. Then we could methodically and carefully focused on costs starting with lawsuits.
I really don't think health insurance companies have much to worry about for the foreseeable future. Obamacare is one of the best things to happen to them, making it mandatory to get insurance or get a fine. Plus lifespans are actually going down among the poor. The health insurance industry is going to be very profitable for a long, long time.
I REALLY am not betting on fountain of youth technology to affect much except for the very wealthy. People don't just get sick because of age, they also get sick from malnutrition and environmental toxins. The middle class is disappearing and our infrastructure is falling apart. If you're lower middle class or below in the USA, your lifespan expectancy is currently going down.I wouldn't put money on that. Much like how the oil industry was struck with cheaper oil because of fracking, so too will the health insurance industry have to deal with a changing market. The market will respond. People get sick because people get older. Fix that, and a lot less people need health insurance.
The technology to do that isn't around the corner, but it isn't too far away either. WIthin the next 14 years, the health insurance industry will face trying times. Remember, America doesn't live in a bubble. Other countries who have Universal Health Care have to contend with an ageing population that's costing them money. As for car insurance, I'm sure they'll lobby their way, but they'll also have to lobby against Google as well. Google isn't the only company who wants their self driving cars on the road.
That is a valid argument, although I would counter that saying insurance companies will do their absolute best to deny coverage wherever they can. It's practically a stereotype of how many loopholes there are in insurance policies to allow them to deny coverage to clients. This an industry with its hooks DEEP into government and the economy as a whole. When you have that kind of influence, you can manipulate the market to keep you going. Just look at the banks!The ACA actually is driving Insurance companies out of the health insurance business Justin Haskins - New Report: Insurers Leaving Obamacare Exchanges in Droves. Insurance still works basically the same as it did when the Lloyds of London founded in a coffee house back in 1688. More on how insurance works How Insurance Works. Insurance is only as good as its diverse policy holder pool; introduce a large number of adverse risk; poof - bankrupt insurance co.
Once a technology is created that people want, it's really hard to create a flood gate to control it. Smart phones are a good example. As much as Apple wants you to believe a proper smart phone costs $700, in reality there's plenty of good smart phones for $100. Hence why Steve Jobs wanted to go thermal nuclear war against Android.I REALLY am not betting on fountain of youth technology to affect much except for the very wealthy. People don't just get sick because of age, they also get sick from malnutrition and environmental toxins. The middle class is disappearing and our infrastructure is falling apart. If you're lower middle class or below in the USA, your lifespan expectancy is currently going down.
As others mentioned there will still be insurance the safer driving is overall the more money insurance companies will make think about this. For an insurance company that charges people thousands per year for insurance, what really kills them is when a major accident happens especially one involving and ER visit or death. If the cars simply get better at avoiding all this then the big ticket payouts reduce and the small items that are very predictable and there for easy to make money off of become a larger percentage of their profit. That $10 billing charge is now a stable source of income lol. Won't be surprising to me if self driving cars turn the weather into the biggest annoyance for insurance companies. Insurance rates will go down, they will probably hire less people, but the companies themselves will still be plenty profitable. So for most its just a big win.
Of all the accidents I and my family have ever been in, I can only think of 2 that self driving cars would not have fixed, both were heavy snow conditions. All the other ones were the fault of distracted or careless human drivers either my family member or someone in another car doing something stupid. I really am for self driving cars because I think they can make the roads and our lives immensely better in so many ways. And it is amazing to see how many people are so against change that has the possibility of being so positive. Read through this document if you have any doubt about the possibilities for improvement in self driving cars
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pubs/812115.pdf
The nuts and bolts of it are this, 94% of all car accidents were caused by drivers. So why are we all working so hard to defend the drivers? And only 2% of these are due to environment, if machines are going to make mistakes you would think they would be most likely to do so because of environmental conditions. In order for machines to be worse than drivers they would have to be so bad that they would increase the rate of accidents for other factors by 2000% And so far we don't seem to have any indication that self driving vehicles are that bad even in their infancy they seem to be as good or better than humans already.
Lets say that you don't trust autonomous cars in bad weather, even then if they can be flipped on during good weather and off during bad weather they would still reduce accidents a ton.
Well all I can say is you have an incredibly more optimistic view on both technology distribution and government not protecting the interests of the wealthy than I do. I mean in the USA, what's the big barrier to us having Thorium reactors? Better railway systems? More accessible health care? More affordable internet? Not having data-capped internet? It's certainly not the lack of technology. While I'm still incredibly skeptical that we'll see dramatic life-extending technology in our lifetimes, I find it even more implausible that this technology would be used in ways that benefit everyone. I would never underestimate the ability of large companies to profit off of something, at any expense.I predict that within 3-4 years we will hear about this technology actual working, cause it isn't at the moment. It only works on mice, hence the problem. As for income, that's another subject. But I'm willing to bet that governments around the world would give away this technology to stop spending money on health care.
Well all I can say is you have an incredibly more optimistic view on both technology distribution and government not protecting the interests of the wealthy than I do. I mean in the USA, what's the big barrier to us having Thorium reactors? Better railway systems? More accessible health care? More affordable internet? Not having data-capped internet? It's certainly not the lack of technology. While I'm still incredibly skeptical that we'll see dramatic life-extending technology in our lifetimes, I find it even more implausible that this technology would be used in ways that benefit everyone. I would never underestimate the ability of large companies to profit off of something, at any expense.
I was in a single payer system. Leaving that behind is partly why I moved to the US. Single payer is fine for the small shit probably more efficient because they cold cock lawsuits. But for the serious shit, you will suffer. Single payer systems use waiting lists to ration care. Not only is the a chance you may not make it to the care you do need, if you manage to last you suffer unnecessarily with the illness and it probably has taken a permanent toll on your quality of life for the rest of your life.Single payer system seems to be the way that's worked the best so far for countries that have tried. But there is a label...a word...that follows that plan, and it's a label that most politicians are scared to death to say in public. Once the American public openly acknowledges they want, at least parts, of that label then we can do stuff like single payer. The system that we implemented left in capitalism, because that's the answer you are allowed to say. Each side has pro/cons, we haven't discovered utopia yet.