DNA of relative indicts man, cuckolding ignored

[Vincent Penquerc'h]

> When AAA Insurance meets with Joe Sixpack to discuss his 
> health or life 
> or earthquake insurance, they seek to collect enough information to 
> have a reasonable chance of turning a profit on the deal. Else why 
> would they exist as a business?

But there is a necessary asymmetry here. If you could determine
with good precision whether someone will be affected by an illness,
when, how much, etc, then this wouldn't work, save for superstition
on the part of Joe Sixpack. Since the contract is based on a bet on
the likelihood of premium/payouts balance, the more you can find
out about the future of the insured person's organism future, the
closer the premiums will match the payouts, reliably. *IF* you can
determine this, of course. So the goal will be for the insurer to
get access to as much info as possible to assess how to set the
premiums, while preventing the insured from knowing as much, so
there is still the uncertainty and the value of "peace of mind"
gotten by the insured, and that's worth something too.
The converse is also true. And both raise the problem of assessment
of the data - how does the insurer get the data (getting DNA from
the would be insured ? with the insured's knowledge or not ? From
the contract clause that subordinates the insurance to the supplying
of the data by the insured ? Will credit bureaus expand to cover
this kind of thing ?)
If there is total symmetry, insurance loses its point entirely.
Could we see a gradual disappearance of some sorts of insurance
for events that cease to be probabilistic ?
Just musing. All of it already happens, but I'm curious about the
limit of it (in the mathemetical sense) when the precision of the
prediction tends towards infinity.

-- 
Vincent Penquerc'h