Posted On: January 30, 2008, 2:10 pm CST

Posted By: lastbat

Actually, wudchuck, your analogy is perfect for Dustin's point. Risk takers generally do not confine their risk-taking behaviors to one defined and discrete portion of their lives. So someone with a gambling problem would be more likely to be a danger on the road. People who take risks with their money are more likely to take risks elsewhere. Either they have poor decision making skills, or the rush they get needs bigger risks to satisfy their craving, or they fall into despair; there are many reasons why risky behavior spans areas of one's life. I am sure that there will be some people who were not risk-takers at all, but simply fell into a stretch of terrible luck, that will be penalized by using their credit score as a factor in their insurance rates - but the question would then be how many have to be truly harmed (not risk-takers, just unlucky) to knock out the balance of all those benefiting from it? To take away the future benefit the unlucky would receive once they get their credit score back up?