[callmeed]

>> Mr. car washer. By your argument, McDonalds should charge twice as much for a big mac to fat people because they are more likely to get health problems and sue McDonalds.

No, The consequences of faulty equipment or service are fairly acute–i.e. someone dies or something is damaged right away. I think long-term consumer risks like obesity and lung cancer are different than what the author is referring to.

Also, most class actions suits against McDonalds have been thrown out [1]. Malpractice lawsuits and the like are very numerous, on the other hand.

* >> I think this model is just wrong and charging any customers more due to profiling should not be practiced by any company*

That's absurd. The entire insurance industry is based on this. As is any financial product that takes your credit score into account.

[1] http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-27/mcdonald-s-obesity-...

[sonnyhe2002]

The McDonalds was just an example. Your points about lawsuits to being thrown away against McDonald, is irrelevant. Whether people successfully sue McDs or not, is not the point, McDs should not charge more to certain people. Do you agree? Yes, the insurance industry do charge more depending on the person. But my point still remain, The model is Bad. Besides if you have a SET price, you should not change it because of probability or risk per person.

[Dylan16807]

McDonalds can certainly refuse to sell to groups like lawyers if they have a persistent high cost from such a self-selecting group. I have no problem with this.