Sex bias insurance ruling to hit women
- Thread starter Don
- Start date
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2007
- Messages
- 6,577
- Reaction score
- 740
It's a trick question because what the law is intending is worded poorly such that the insurance companies will take advantage of it. The rules always end up being, "Hey you are screwing this group! You gotta treat everyone the same!" To which the insurance companies say, "Fine we'll screw them all the same. Then it's equal."
Hmm .... I always thought it was simply that males got higher premiums for being male. I never interpretted it to mean that females got lower premiums for being female. Therefore, in my eyes, they are REVERSING THE WRONG PREMIUM ADJUSTMENT!
Instead of increasing the premiums for females, they should be decreasing the premiums for males.
At least ......... IMO.
.
Instead of increasing the premiums for females, they should be decreasing the premiums for males.
At least ......... IMO.
.
(Bolding is mine.) Such a law makes this result a business-survival necessity. Insurance companies are not non profit organisations—a profit must be made if they are to stay in business and risk assessments are the tools used to calculate probable margins of profit and loss. If I held significant stock in an insurance company restricted in this manner, I'd have a hissy fit.
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2005
- Messages
- 28,750
- Reaction score
- 2,934
- Location
- right here
- Website
- www.veinglory.com
I think insurance premiums should be the same for men and women. Some drivers are dangerous and they are more likely to be guys. But most are safe and unfortunately we all have to pay a bit more to cover the idiots. The fact idiot driver are male doesn't mean all men should be penalized when most of the drive safely.
This is just nuts.
17/18 y.o. boys are crazier drivers than girls; everybody knows this and the statistics back it up.
17/18 y.o. boys are crazier drivers than girls; everybody knows this and the statistics back it up.
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2005
- Messages
- 28,750
- Reaction score
- 2,934
- Location
- right here
- Website
- www.veinglory.com
It's our friend the consequential paradox again. Most crazy teen drivers are male, but most male teen drivers are not crazy. I don't think we should assume that because a teen driver is male they are crazy. We should all just pay a but more and dump drivers whose record goes downhill into a high fee-charging system.
The problem being that the premiums are so high for 17/18 y.o male drivers it pretty much ensures that a high percentage of them will drive without insurance.
If I or my brother had tried that, we would have been ripped a new one. This is where parents come in. No insurance? No car. Not in my house!
At a defensive driving class I was told that women have more accidents. I don't know if that's NY state or all across the country. The reason given was that men take the same route to work and home every day while women are off to different places at different times of the day. They also have kids in the car distracting them
Not all parents take that view.
Consider a 17 y.o who needs a car to get to work. Their premium is £4,000, they earn £14,000 a year.
I can see the temptation
Consider a 17 y.o who needs a car to get to work. Their premium is £4,000, they earn £14,000 a year.
I can see the temptation
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2005
- Messages
- 28,750
- Reaction score
- 2,934
- Location
- right here
- Website
- www.veinglory.com
The premiums are high because the costs are high. Not sure what to do about that.
But we generally don't let actuarial risk get divided by gender. That's why you can't preferentially hire a man because they are less (statistically) likely to take extensive paid parental leave etc.
But we generally don't let actuarial risk get divided by gender. That's why you can't preferentially hire a man because they are less (statistically) likely to take extensive paid parental leave etc.
As a feminist, I'm fine with this; gender equality is a two way street. Insurance premiums should be decided based on a person's claims record.
I was under the impression that both Life Insurance and Pension Annuities both currently take gender into consideration.
I do wonder if this will have any impact on the use of age as a factor in determining insurance pricing. I suppose this could be somewhat alleviated by a 'continuous years of no claim' bonus.
If using statistical risk based on gender is discriminatory, does the same apply to age?
If, statistically, women are involved in fewer accidents, then it makes sense to start them at a lower rate. It's simple risk management.
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2005
- Messages
- 28,750
- Reaction score
- 2,934
- Location
- right here
- Website
- www.veinglory.com
If statistically woman take more paid time off then it makes sense to hire men. It's simply protecting the bottom line.
Ah. The eternal problem of using broad brush strokes. Veinglory is right, imho. I would bristle at the idea of men being paid more than women due to their being statistically less likely to leave the workforce to have children. In the interests of equality, then, I bristle at the idea that women should pay less for insurance based on statistics.
They did this in Michigan in the late 1970's, early 1980's. I used to pay 30% less then my male friends until I was 20, and then all my rates jumped up so it wouldn't be gender biased. Of course, Michigan is renowned in the US for having some of the highest car insurance rates in the country. (It's not unusual to pay more annually for basic car insurance coverage than the car being covered is worth.)
Of course they're not going to even out the rates to make it even. Where's themoney good business sense in that?
Of course they're not going to even out the rates to make it even. Where's the
There's a difference between hiring people and selling services. If insurance companies offer everyone low premiums without looking at the statistics, they lose money, which could also result in people losing jobs.
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2005
- Messages
- 28,750
- Reaction score
- 2,934
- Location
- right here
- Website
- www.veinglory.com
I thin the reverse it ture.
A small business or start up can go broke supporting a person through pregnancy and maternity leave.
The insurance company with just take gender out of the equation but still charge the client pool the same amount. Because all companies have to do it there will be no loss of competitive advantage.
A small business or start up can go broke supporting a person through pregnancy and maternity leave.
The insurance company with just take gender out of the equation but still charge the client pool the same amount. Because all companies have to do it there will be no loss of competitive advantage.
