Submitted by NewsHugh t3_10jfw35 in Connecticut
Comments
Prestigious-Tie2049 t1_j5kb115 wrote
As much as I enjoy petting them, pitbulls are the most common dogs that kill or maim people.
SKIPPY_IS_REAL t1_j5lxlxm wrote
You're talking about a maximum of 23 deaths a year versus 4.5 million pitbulls in the US. That's the biggest waste of concern I have ever heard of.
Prestigious-Tie2049 t1_j5lyryy wrote
Yeah and there’s only ~45,000 gun deaths out of ~81 million gun owners in America, so we should get rid of all gun control laws too, right?
SKIPPY_IS_REAL t1_j5lz0l5 wrote
I'm prior military and have my concealed carry permit...
Prestigious-Tie2049 t1_j5m0a27 wrote
And? Or is that supposed to make me scared or something.
SKIPPY_IS_REAL t1_j5m0p8s wrote
? Are you broken?
Prestigious-Tie2049 t1_j5m1i03 wrote
Only on Tuesdays.
SKIPPY_IS_REAL t1_j5m1veb wrote
- Your argument about pitbulls is ridiculous because the problem is not the dog, it's the owner, as proven by the 99.99995% of pitbulls that attack zero people ever. 2 your gun comment was pro gun. If you don't understand that, learn grammar. And 3, if you think someone on the internet, who you will never know the real name of, could threaten you, you need to go outside.
Prestigious-Tie2049 t1_j5m2ein wrote
It appears we agree only on point number 2.
But if you fail to make the connection between point number one, of pitbulls and dog attacks, and gun owners and violent shootings, I can’t really help you. 🤷♂️
SKIPPY_IS_REAL t1_j5m3ddo wrote
How about car owners and violent hit and runs? We should get rid of all cars. There is a certain amount of risk you have to accept in a society. The elimination of that risk always comes with an elimination of freedom. No matter how much freedom you give up, there will always be some level of danger. I have made that consideration in my life. I don't own a pit, but I love dogs and would own a pit of that was the dog that spoke to me. I also don't like the idea of being shot, but I also don't really like that coyotes come out of the woods next to where my kid plays and like that I have the ability to shoot one if I have too. I'll keep my freedoms, I fought for them and I get the feeling you didn't.
bigclams t1_j5ojyz7 wrote
>We should get rid of all cars
Based, I'm about it
_343_Guilty_Spark__ t1_j5ouomk wrote
The fact that you both think you’re so much smarter than the other is adorable
Prestigious-Tie2049 t1_j5ov1lv wrote
I never claimed to be smart.
_343_Guilty_Spark__ t1_j5pz9nm wrote
This response actually says otherwise. My apologies, carry on
BobbyRobertson t1_j5kc04x wrote
Sure, but that apparently doesn't translate into increased costs for insurance companies. If it did they would be able to demonstrate that with their actuarial tables. They can demonstrate that young drivers crash more and cause more damage when they drive, so they have to pay higher premiums. If they can't demonstrate that pitbull owners cause more claims than other breeds then they shouldn't be able to charge more.
Prestigious-Tie2049 t1_j5kest4 wrote
https://www.injuredcalltoday.com/dog-attacks-by-breed/
Sorry dude. The facts have been well studied for decades.
BobbyRobertson t1_j5kf1zm wrote
Then why can't the insurance companies show that it costs them more money?
That's all I want them to do. If they want more money from people that own pitbulls, they should be able to show that pitbulls cost them more money. According to that State Representative in the article, they can't do that.
Insurance isn't a game of "I charge what I want". They use actuarial science, which might as well be magic to me, to determine what to charge. If that process can't show that pitbulls cost insurance companies more, then they shouldn't get to charge more.
evilmonkey002 t1_j5l7k02 wrote
I don’t know why you’re getting downvoted. You’re absolutely right. Insurance companies are the best bean counters in the world and if pit bulls were actually costing them money there is a 100% chance they could show it.
bobupvotes t1_j5le5r5 wrote
Some clarification on that bolded statement.
Being unable to actuarially demonstrate it shouldn’t be interpreted as there’s no statistical difference. Actuaries are overly conservative and will not make public statements like ‘breed x is more dangerous than y’ unless they have definitive evidence and are willing to fight on that hill. Otherwise, there’s reputation risk and potential punishment from the governing body for making statements like that.
What that statement reads to me is that they don’t have enough data to work with to control for all the variables and make a definitive conclusion about breeds. For reference, pet insurance is still very much considered a niche market in insurance and just might not have enough in-house data (or consortium data if that exists for the pet market) to come to any conclusions that they're willing to stand behind.
Source: Am an actuary
BobbyRobertson t1_j5n3o0a wrote
Thanks for the insight!
I understand it doesn't mean it's proof there's no difference between the two situations, but I feel insurance companies should have to show their work to treat people differently. It feels like it'd be too easy for them to overestimate their risk and lock classes of people out of the market. But obviously I'm not in the industry, I'm just skeptical
bobupvotes t1_j5nass3 wrote
Pricing is often a race to the bottom. If you’re pricing someone out, another company will gladly undercut you and make the sale. Fact that all companies are practicing this likely means they have some data supporting a difference between breeds but aren’t comfortable coming out and saying there’s a definitive difference.
noonan1371 t1_j5nty25 wrote
Sorry dude, Your facts are incorrect. A pitbull is a generic term for many different breeds. Sorry, Forbes was too ignorant to look deeper into the fact that a pitbull is not a stand-alone breed.
Whaddaulookinat t1_j5lbk4e wrote
>pitbulls are the most common dogs that kill or maim people.
The real numbers of this are very wonky. If you say "large terriers" are the most common dogs to kill or maim that's be more true... But they're the most populous dog group in the US. Statistically mastiffs, great Danes, and huskies are the most dangerous vis-a-vis their population.
"Pitbull" is a nebulous breed, and often confused with other non-terrier breeds.
Justagreewithme t1_j5m3u74 wrote
Well, yeah, being the most common large dog, that makes sense. 1 in 5 dogs is a pit bull.
AGK47_Returns t1_j5lqit5 wrote
Yeah that seems like a pretty level-headed take on the matter.
AtomWorker t1_j5orifa wrote
Germany would disagree with you. They consider certain breeds dangerous enough that they’re heavily regulated if not banned outright. They also require every dog to be registered and taxed. They’re a bit crazy with this stuff but the idea is to encourage responsible ownership.
A friend told me that they can even do welfare checks to ensure an owner can adequately care for their pet.
I might have disagreed with this stuff in the past, but given how irresponsible so many people are I’ve changed my mind on these kinds of policies.
FishTogetherSchool t1_j5ow6zn wrote
Former libertarian, same. After seeing anti-vaxxers in full swing I realized the government should not treat citizens like rational agents. If Germany is doing something like this it is because this is pragmatic and has good outcomes, not because it checked out after going through the ideology litmus test
Luis__FIGO t1_j5qufbl wrote
That's not really true, they ban the IMPORT of a few breeds, but you can only get those breeds from breeders in Germany.
AtomWorker t1_j5txwxt wrote
There are exemptions to those bans, but it's not like the US where any random asshole can just go buy whatever dog they want. There are a ton of bureaucratic hoops, the dog must be registered and they could reject ownership anyway. That said, I've been told that they have a thriving black market.
PhilipLiptonSchrute t1_j5letd0 wrote
> Insurance companies are taking advantage of a commonly held belief that some breeds of dogs are more dangerous
[Serious] How much more proof is needed when looking at how many people are sent to the hospital from a dog attacks each year, and of those how many are pitts?
The data is there.
BobbyRobertson t1_j5lhfcn wrote
I want however much data it takes for an actuary to put their license on the line and say "This costs our company more"
SKIPPY_IS_REAL t1_j5lyd9x wrote
You're right, 23 deaths from pit bulls a year and 4.5 million pits in the US. The data is there.
Whydoyouhatefreedom t1_j5kl4vb wrote
I have been bitten by dogs 2 times. Once while riding my bike, and the other while working on a house. Both times were Pitbulls…
Justagreewithme t1_j5m477a wrote
I have been bitten by two dogs too. One a German Shepard, the other a Rottweiler. Never had a pitbull even try.
volanger t1_j5kymal wrote
I worked in a dog kennel for 5 years. I was bitten several times, worst was trying to break up a fight between a nerotic husky and another husky, unexpected was by a sociopathic mutt. Never once bitten by a pit bull.
silasmoeckel t1_j5l7c8m wrote
There is 3 ways this works.
Breed based, they go off some questionable basis and people pay more for those.
Training based, they go off real information and we get better trained dogs. Line info also helps. So a well trained animal from a line well behaved animals is cheaper. This is good for all of us.
Breed blind, responsible dog owners pay for irresponsible ones.
I would go with training maybe a mix, if you have a questionable breed you can send it off to a qualified trainer (with insurance and licensing) for intensive training to pay less. Making things breed blind does not encourage people to get real dog training thats required to make good dogs. I'll trust a pitbull thats passed through a few months of in kennel schutzhund training over somebody's little fluffykins purse dog any day. Split the difference and if it can pass the testing even.
volanger t1_j5kyngs wrote
Good. This should pass
hamhead t1_j5la4g6 wrote
I don’t understand why this would be a matter for law. If an insurance company wants to change more for something why can they, assuming it doesn’t involve a protected class (which this doesn’t).
namerx7 t1_j5kyg1g wrote
can i vote against it?
HighJeanette t1_j5kq6du wrote
Nope
AGK47_Returns t1_j5lqf9d wrote
Yep.
BobbyRobertson t1_j5k772l wrote
>Nuccio, who is also a member of the National Council of Insurance Legislators, said insurance companies have been unable to actuarially demonstrate that dogs often thought of as more dangerous were in fact more likely to hurt someone.
And that's all I really need to see. Insurance companies are taking advantage of a commonly held belief that some breeds of dogs are more dangerous and using it as cover to make more money where they don't actually have an increased cost.
e: These are people who can tell you down to the dollar and cents how much money it costs them to insure a manual car vs an automatic car of the same make and model, provide health insurance to someone that smokes vs their twin that doesn't, and any other kinds of tiny minutiae that cost them more to insure. If they come back and say "There's no cost difference to us whether someone owns a pitbull or a golden lab" I think that's what should determine what they're allowed to charge.