” . . .and while subsidies might occur based on the criteria I cited . . .”
“. . . .doubtless supported by the industry-leader’s own extensive and impeccable data... “
+++++++++++++++
Yes. These subsidies are being made, at the expense of non-dangerous-dog owning customers.
” . . extensive and impeccable data . . “
And you approve of the practice.
False. I neither endorsed nor repudiated the practice. Apparently what State Farm is implying is that insurance rates for small dog breeds (meaning generally not dangerous) are used to subsidize larger (more dangerous) breeds—without any singling out of Pit Bulls as excessively dangerous with respect to rates of attack.
If the Pit Bull breed belonged in a class by itself in comparison to all the other "dangerous breeds", State Farm would doubtless and appropriately put the breed in a class by itself—and reduce the rates for all other breeds. But apparently State Farm is so dominated by Pit Bull lovers that they act against their own best business interests—not. Again, their policy of lumping Pit Bulls with the other large breeds speaks volumes as far as the lack of compelling evidence that Pits are significantly more likely to attack someone than any of the other "dangerous breeds".
Why would State Farm ignore the profoundly elevated risk that Pit Bulls supposedly represent—according to the breed's predominantly hysterical detractors—if that were indeed supported by their own comprehensive data? It would make no sense. And State Farm's data is minimally comparable—and most likely superior—to that of any other company in the industry...
There are NO non-dangerous dogs. ALL dogs are potentially dangerous.