|
On November 23 2010 12:38 Typhon wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2010 12:36 Servolisk wrote:
I have seen little justification of the statistics used to determine rates.
Someone posted a link showing men are in more fatal accidents. That is obviously incomplete in scope and missing normalizing factors such as how many men vs. women are drivers, and how many men are in more risky driving jobs (taxi, truck, etc).
Secondly, even if women, overall, were completely less likely to be involved in accidents, it is not a highly useful statistic. Gender is very simple and highly variable; there are much better statistics the companies could use to more accurately fulfill their risk-assessment purposes.
Lastly, this is not justified given that the companies do not follow this with race and age (for the younger side of the scale they do, but iirc they do not compensate for elderly drivers, though I may be wrong). It is not justifiable to only selectively apply such general metrics. No one is even arguing about statistics justification. The insurance companies aren't charging you more because they hate penises.
We should at least see the basis in math before being wrapped in an argument justifying it, but whatever. I would not personally assume every rate decision is infallible, for many reasons, such as the mathematical basis varies between companies and that rate justification of insurance companies is something scrutinized by law, and not only for ethics (so why not by us?).
|
I'm sure that when immigrants arrived in North America, there were statistical disparities between them and the rest of the population. That doesn't mean that these groups were different just because they were of a different origin - it was likely caused by socioeconomic factors, instead.
I don't think we can rule out the possibility of something outside of genetics that causes the differences in car safety between men and women. And until we find out what's causing it, and smooth it out if we can, this discrimination is immoral in my eyes.
|
On November 23 2010 12:40 Typhon wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2010 12:37 TrainFX wrote:
On a related subject did you know that airlines price in a discriminatory manner as well?
Ever wondered why they say business or pleasure?
Ever wondered why tickets get more expensive as the take off date approaches?
I think that is a much more valid discussion about price discrimination founded upon what is the moral thing to do. Perhaps if the OP were better educated, or better informed, he could have drawn parallels between the two to support his argument, what a pity. That's market segmentation -- which is a little different (and less arguable). business travellers have less time and more money and so they are willing to pay for tighter schedules and larger seats (which is what business class offers -- it's not "businessmen get automatically charged more for the ticket"). It's the same concept as selling name-brand shampoo alongside generic -- people who can afford it buy what they like and the people who can't buy at their price point.
ahhh but business men are "automatically charged more for the ticket" . The lady at the computer doesn't stop to ask if your business is doing well or not does she?
Anyways what I'm trying to argue is supply and demand. Insurance companies, like all other companies that sell products must arrive at a price to sell their product. While the price may seem arbitrary it is not. If I were to accept that insurance companies are discriminating against men by charging higher prices simply because they are men then I must also accept the belief that Apple is discriminating against poor people by charging more than the cost of the product simply because I'm poor. Insurance companies, like Apple, factor in cost and markup to determine the final selling price. Once again for any of the slower people out there, how could they get people to pay their prices if supply wasn't meeting demand?????
Alas free market capitalism strikes again!
EDIT: Yea I know legally you have to have insurance but my point is valid none the less.
|
Unfortunately sexism has turned a lot like racism, if it goes the other way it's "okay". My uncle has been fighting for years for custody of his kids from his negligent, alcoholic, deadbeat ex.
|
On November 23 2010 12:46 html wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2010 12:43 Typhon wrote:On November 23 2010 12:40 html wrote:
I juste want to point out, this type of discrimination dont maximize their profit. They can have the same cash flow by asking the same premium at everyone. They dont make more money by using this tarification method. So stop saying they do it to maximize their profit, it's stupid... no, it's obviously unprofitable. Company A charges $400 for everyone Company B charges $350 for women, and $400 for men. Assuming that women actually do cost less and Company B is making a profit at $350, then B takes all the good customers and company A has all the high-risk customers. the segmented pricing will always beat a flat pricing, as long as someone is calculating the odds correctly. And the insurance companies have all the numbers, so they can calculate the odds better than anyone else can. Ur not fair, the point of my example was: imagine all companies dont use discrimination They wount have less money^^
Unless you go through the government, the companies won't just stop using risk-adjusted prices. If they "all agreed to fix a price," that would probably result in some anti-trust suit. So I'm going to continue to say that it maximises their profit, unless they are legally forbidden from doing so.
|
On November 23 2010 12:48 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2010 12:46 WhuazGoodJaggah wrote:On November 23 2010 12:44 micronesia wrote:On November 23 2010 12:42 WhuazGoodJaggah wrote:On November 23 2010 12:27 micronesia wrote:
If someone gave me and my sister a golf videogame for the Holidays, we both got the same product. My sister would play single player for 15 minutes and then never pick the game up again (even that's an exaggeration lol). I would play for 100 hours and use their free online servers a lot and whatnot. I am costing the company more money, I got a lot more out of it, etc. But, my sister and I were both offered the same product. Charging me more for the game because men are more likely to play golf online, and charging my sister less because women typically play for 15 minutes and then put the game down permanently is analogous to this insurance debate. the game is a product the usage of the online service is a "service" the insurance is also a service can't mix all that up. I'm fine with calling it a service. I don't think that affects my point though. it does a lot, because you own the product but you use the service. so it does not matter at all how many hours you play a golf game offline. all you can compare is the online service you use you didnt buy as a product but as a service. And how does this affect the point I was making? I am going to use the service more than my sister... that doesn't mean I was offered a different service than her.
as I said you mixed up things you can't mix up like this and it was product and service. you said you and your sister bought the same product, thats correct. then you said you should be charged more because you cost the company more because you also use their online SERVICE.
|
On November 23 2010 12:43 cz wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2010 12:40 Cauld wrote:On November 23 2010 12:36 cz wrote:On November 23 2010 12:33 Cauld wrote:On November 23 2010 12:24 cz wrote:On November 23 2010 12:20 Cauld wrote:On November 23 2010 12:14 Kashll wrote:
Insurance companies I believe are the only companies allowed to legally discriminate. And they do it based solely on statistics. That's not true at all and I already posted examples. Discrimination simply isn't illegal. Kid's menus are discrimination. Senior Citizen discounts are discrimination. Affirmative actions is discrimination and clearly government sponsored. Curves for women is discrimination. Bars discriminate as well by not serving minors, and this again is government mandated. There's plenty of examples out there, just look for them. But the law has mandated that sexism in certain situations is illegal, such as with respect to hiring, university admissions, housing and a slew of other situations. I / we are making the argument that the reasoning behind that mandate should mean that it should also apply to insurance companies, because insurance is required by law. But insurance isn't required by law. It's only required if you want to drive. Driving isn't a right (Though I agree that in much of the country it is required in practice, if not by law). So I believe that's a false equivalence, though I'm by no means an expert on logic or logical phrases. Is there evidence that the law in regards to the situations you mentioned above works counter to statistical evidence? For example is sexism illegal in regards to university admissions despite the fact that one gender is more likely to succeed in university? Well, access to jobs and universities and housing isn't required by law, but sex (and religion and race, etc) are protected traits. Well, the government doesn't provide car insurance, but it does provide housing, jobs and universities. Maybe that's related to the sexism issue. I'm not convinced it is illegal to discriminate based on sex for education. I mean there are single gender universities. I think single-gender universities are a separate issue. Also I'm talking about jobs and housing in general, not just govt. provided, same for private universities taking no govt funding. Women entering the professional workforce (doctors, lawyers, etc) and entering universities was a HUGE issue in the 1960s and 1970s, and it was ended with new laws that made gender a protected trait whereby discrimination in a wide variety of areas was illegal.
I guess I just don't see the need for protecting every type of discrimination. I know that its a hard to determine 'line' and that it will vary from person to person, but I just don't see the issue in regards to gender and differing car insurance premiums. If one gender weren't allowed insurance at all I would certainly be opposed to that. I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to making it illegal to use gender as a basis for insurance, but I don't really see the need for that either.
Are you similarly opposed to life insurance policies being cheaper for women than for men, since their life expectancy is longer?
|
On November 23 2010 12:50 TrainFX wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2010 12:40 Typhon wrote:On November 23 2010 12:37 TrainFX wrote:
On a related subject did you know that airlines price in a discriminatory manner as well?
Ever wondered why they say business or pleasure?
Ever wondered why tickets get more expensive as the take off date approaches?
I think that is a much more valid discussion about price discrimination founded upon what is the moral thing to do. Perhaps if the OP were better educated, or better informed, he could have drawn parallels between the two to support his argument, what a pity. That's market segmentation -- which is a little different (and less arguable). business travellers have less time and more money and so they are willing to pay for tighter schedules and larger seats (which is what business class offers -- it's not "businessmen get automatically charged more for the ticket"). It's the same concept as selling name-brand shampoo alongside generic -- people who can afford it buy what they like and the people who can't buy at their price point. ahhh but business men are "automatically charged more for the ticket" . The lady at the computer doesn't stop to ask if your business is doing well or not does she? Anyways what I'm trying to argue is supply and demand. Insurance companies, like all other companies that sell products must arrive at a price to sell their product. While the price may seem arbitrary it is not. If I were to accept that insurance companies are discriminating against men by charging higher prices simply because they are men then I must also accept the belief that Apple is discriminating against poor people by charging more than the cost of the product. Insurance companies, like Apple, factor in cost and markup to determine the final selling price. Once again for any of the slower people out there, how could they get people to pay their prices if supply wasn't meeting demand????? Alas free market capitalism strikes again!
I don't see how your Apple analogy is analogous: poor people are being offered the same product at the same price, but simply can't afford it. Men aren't being offered the same insurance product (or service or agreement or whatever) at the same price as an (identical) female would, so it's different. Yes, men will statistically cost the insurance company more but as argued before lengthily that's not part of the product/service that is being bought.
|
On November 23 2010 12:50 TrainFX wrote:
ahhh but business men are "automatically charged more for the ticket" . The lady at the computer doesn't stop to ask if your business is doing well or not does she?
You can actually show up to the ticket counter with a suit and briefcase and buy economy class, you know? the lady won't force you to buy business class.
|
United States24799 Posts
On November 23 2010 12:52 WhuazGoodJaggah wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2010 12:48 micronesia wrote:On November 23 2010 12:46 WhuazGoodJaggah wrote:On November 23 2010 12:44 micronesia wrote:On November 23 2010 12:42 WhuazGoodJaggah wrote:On November 23 2010 12:27 micronesia wrote:
If someone gave me and my sister a golf videogame for the Holidays, we both got the same product. My sister would play single player for 15 minutes and then never pick the game up again (even that's an exaggeration lol). I would play for 100 hours and use their free online servers a lot and whatnot. I am costing the company more money, I got a lot more out of it, etc. But, my sister and I were both offered the same product. Charging me more for the game because men are more likely to play golf online, and charging my sister less because women typically play for 15 minutes and then put the game down permanently is analogous to this insurance debate. the game is a product the usage of the online service is a "service" the insurance is also a service can't mix all that up. I'm fine with calling it a service. I don't think that affects my point though. it does a lot, because you own the product but you use the service. so it does not matter at all how many hours you play a golf game offline. all you can compare is the online service you use you didnt buy as a product but as a service. And how does this affect the point I was making? I am going to use the service more than my sister... that doesn't mean I was offered a different service than her. as I said you mixed up things you can't mix up like this and it was product and service. you said you and your sister bought the same product, thats correct. then you said you should be charged more because you cost the company more because you also use their online SERVICE.
I still don't see how this somehow invalidates or changes my ultimate point (or are you not asserting that?) My sister and I were both granted access to the same 'free' service as a result of purchasing the product. The fact that I'm using it more does not mean I was offered something different from my sister.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
Often pricing schemes depends on asymmetrical information. The more information the vendor has about the customer at the point of sale, the more accurate prices can be tailored to the particular customer. In the case of insurance, they will have your age, your sex, your driving history, and your car. That's what they use to compute a price for you.
In the case of insurance this is particularly important since the risk profiles for all individuals are different and forcing everyone to the same price point would mean an unjustified sharing of risk and be a potential moral hazard. Generally this mean low risk individuals are rewarded greatly for being so low risk, and high risk individuals are sufficiently punished as a signal for them to reduce their risky behavior. It's an important lesson to communicate to the people of society and helps to keep premiums lower for everyone.
|
I've read every post, and right now I'm too enraged to allow coherent thoughts to pass from my brain to my finger tips.
I don't understand how anyone can possibly believe this is "fair" or a "scientific risk assessment?"
The OP is not being a whiny baby about having to pay 15 bucks a month more for his car insurance. It's about principal... this brings me to a true story:
My father is the chief engineer at a very large pipe manufacturing company. His job is basically to oversee/organize/teach the engineers who design the machinery. A position came available and he was to interview three different applicants.
The first 2, were well educated young white married males. He didn't hire either of them because he didn't think they would be a good fit for the company. Plain, simple, cut and dry, "Sorry, I wish you the best, but we've gone another route with our hiring process" type of thing.
The third applicant was a single, black mother who had an engineering degree from an unaccredited university and was unable to form complete sentences in proper English during the interview. She didn't get hired either. After her interview was over my father's boss approached him to ask if he had decided to hire her. When my father told his boss that he hadn't, the lawyers went into crisis mode.
My father had to sit with 2 attorneys for a day and a half explaining why, answering questions, writing letters, etc. to show that he had just cause for not hiring her, and that she was less qualified that two other applicants who also didn't get hired.
Now, I recognize that that story was pretty off topic, but it DOES cover the the United States' view on discrimination quite accurately.
My personal opinion on ANY type of preference given to a person is that it should be based entirely on merit.
/end raged typing
|
On November 23 2010 12:52 Cauld wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2010 12:43 cz wrote:On November 23 2010 12:40 Cauld wrote:On November 23 2010 12:36 cz wrote:On November 23 2010 12:33 Cauld wrote:On November 23 2010 12:24 cz wrote:On November 23 2010 12:20 Cauld wrote:On November 23 2010 12:14 Kashll wrote:
Insurance companies I believe are the only companies allowed to legally discriminate. And they do it based solely on statistics. That's not true at all and I already posted examples. Discrimination simply isn't illegal. Kid's menus are discrimination. Senior Citizen discounts are discrimination. Affirmative actions is discrimination and clearly government sponsored. Curves for women is discrimination. Bars discriminate as well by not serving minors, and this again is government mandated. There's plenty of examples out there, just look for them. But the law has mandated that sexism in certain situations is illegal, such as with respect to hiring, university admissions, housing and a slew of other situations. I / we are making the argument that the reasoning behind that mandate should mean that it should also apply to insurance companies, because insurance is required by law. But insurance isn't required by law. It's only required if you want to drive. Driving isn't a right (Though I agree that in much of the country it is required in practice, if not by law). So I believe that's a false equivalence, though I'm by no means an expert on logic or logical phrases. Is there evidence that the law in regards to the situations you mentioned above works counter to statistical evidence? For example is sexism illegal in regards to university admissions despite the fact that one gender is more likely to succeed in university? Well, access to jobs and universities and housing isn't required by law, but sex (and religion and race, etc) are protected traits. Well, the government doesn't provide car insurance, but it does provide housing, jobs and universities. Maybe that's related to the sexism issue. I'm not convinced it is illegal to discriminate based on sex for education. I mean there are single gender universities. I think single-gender universities are a separate issue. Also I'm talking about jobs and housing in general, not just govt. provided, same for private universities taking no govt funding. Women entering the professional workforce (doctors, lawyers, etc) and entering universities was a HUGE issue in the 1960s and 1970s, and it was ended with new laws that made gender a protected trait whereby discrimination in a wide variety of areas was illegal. I guess I just don't see the need for protecting every type of discrimination. I know that its a hard to determine 'line' and that it will vary from person to person, but I just don't see the issue in regards to gender and differing car insurance premiums. If one gender weren't allowed insurance at all I would certainly be opposed to that. I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to making it illegal to use gender as a basis for insurance, but I don't really see the need for that either. Are you similarly opposed to life insurance policies being cheaper for women than for men, since their life expectancy is longer?
The law has established the precedents with respect to what society feels should be protected. As noted, most of that occurred to protect women.
And yes I'd support the life insurance thing, though it is different as life insurance is not required by law (though you don't have to own a car).
|
On November 23 2010 12:51 Typhon wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2010 12:46 html wrote:On November 23 2010 12:43 Typhon wrote:On November 23 2010 12:40 html wrote:
I juste want to point out, this type of discrimination dont maximize their profit. They can have the same cash flow by asking the same premium at everyone. They dont make more money by using this tarification method. So stop saying they do it to maximize their profit, it's stupid... no, it's obviously unprofitable. Company A charges $400 for everyone Company B charges $350 for women, and $400 for men. Assuming that women actually do cost less and Company B is making a profit at $350, then B takes all the good customers and company A has all the high-risk customers. the segmented pricing will always beat a flat pricing, as long as someone is calculating the odds correctly. And the insurance companies have all the numbers, so they can calculate the odds better than anyone else can. Ur not fair, the point of my example was: imagine all companies dont use discrimination They wount have less money^^ Unless you go through the government, the companies won't just stop using risk-adjusted prices. If they "all agreed to fix a price," that would probably result in some anti-trust suit. So I'm going to continue to say that it maximises their profit, unless they are legally forbidden from doing so.
If at least you understand they could maximises their profit in an environment without discrimination, I'm ok with that.
|
On November 23 2010 12:44 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2010 12:42 WhuazGoodJaggah wrote:On November 23 2010 12:27 micronesia wrote:
If someone gave me and my sister a golf videogame for the Holidays, we both got the same product. My sister would play single player for 15 minutes and then never pick the game up again (even that's an exaggeration lol). I would play for 100 hours and use their free online servers a lot and whatnot. I am costing the company more money, I got a lot more out of it, etc. But, my sister and I were both offered the same product. Charging me more for the game because men are more likely to play golf online, and charging my sister less because women typically play for 15 minutes and then put the game down permanently is analogous to this insurance debate. the game is a product the usage of the online service is a "service" the insurance is also a service can't mix all that up. I'm fine with calling it a service. I don't think that affects my point though.
I had to think about your post for a bit. I have a couple things to say about why it isn't a great analogy. First, you enter an agreement with insurance companies to pay them at regular intervals and receive a payment when you are in an accident. There is no formal agreement in your golf game example. The free online servers are a freebie you get with the game - your money is spent to purchase the game, not maintain an agreement. There are many cases where online service is discontinued and in breach of no contract.
Second, reliable statistics do not exist in your example while they do for car insurance. Even if there are good statistics on who plays games, and even what genre, I contend that the specific games are still in question. Some FPS players play CS, others BF, others CoD, some all three, and some play a game until the next big one comes out.
|
Going to get out of this argument, can't spend another two hours here.
|
On November 23 2010 10:49 Vanished131 wrote:
At least you understood my original premise. This is unjustified. Discriminating solely on the basis of sex is immoral and is protected in the United States of America, yet they get away with it due to statistics.
I'm a guy, and I'm also pursuing a degree in mathematics and statistics. It's not a matter of getting away with it, nor is it sexual discrimination. They feed the numbers in to a computer, and ask it which things are key predictors of insurance claims. It says gender, end of story, you charge higher rates based on gender. That would be like saying that its unfair to charge women more than men for breast cancer insurance.
|
United States24799 Posts
On November 23 2010 12:58 Kwidowmaker wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2010 12:44 micronesia wrote:On November 23 2010 12:42 WhuazGoodJaggah wrote:On November 23 2010 12:27 micronesia wrote:
If someone gave me and my sister a golf videogame for the Holidays, we both got the same product. My sister would play single player for 15 minutes and then never pick the game up again (even that's an exaggeration lol). I would play for 100 hours and use their free online servers a lot and whatnot. I am costing the company more money, I got a lot more out of it, etc. But, my sister and I were both offered the same product. Charging me more for the game because men are more likely to play golf online, and charging my sister less because women typically play for 15 minutes and then put the game down permanently is analogous to this insurance debate. the game is a product the usage of the online service is a "service" the insurance is also a service can't mix all that up. I'm fine with calling it a service. I don't think that affects my point though. I had to think about your post for a bit. I have a couple things to say about why it isn't a great analogy. First, you enter an agreement with insurance companies to pay them at regular intervals and receive a payment when you are in an accident. There is no formal agreement in your golf game example. The free online servers are a freebie you get with the game - your money is spent to purchase the game, not maintain an agreement. There are many cases where online service is discontinued and in breach of no contract. Second, reliable statistics do not exist in your example while they do for car insurance. Even if there are good statistics on who plays games, and even what genre, I contend that the specific games are still in question. Some FPS players play CS, others BF, others CoD, some all three, and some play a game until the next big one comes out.
I don't see why we can't be more specific with my example to make it comparable.
1) Purchasing the golf game constitutes a legal contract with the company where they promise to let you have access to their free online servers for a minimum of 1 year.
2) Extensive research has been done by the videogame company's actuaries to evaluate who is "high risk" for using the free online servers a lot.
|
On November 23 2010 12:54 Moody wrote:
I've read every post, and right now I'm too enraged to allow coherent thoughts to pass from my brain to my finger tips.
I don't understand how anyone can possibly believe this is "fair" or a "scientific risk assessment?"
The OP is not being a whiny baby about having to pay 15 bucks a month more for his car insurance. It's about principal... this brings me to a true story:
My father is the chief engineer at a very large pipe manufacturing company. His job is basically to oversee/organize/teach the engineers who design the machinery. A position came available and he was to interview three different applicants.
The first 2, were well educated young white married males. He didn't hire either of them because he didn't think they would be a good fit for the company. Plain, simple, cut and dry, "Sorry, I wish you the best, but we've gone another route with our hiring process" type of thing.
The third applicant was a single, black mother who had an engineering degree from an unaccredited university and was unable to form complete sentences in proper English during the interview. She didn't get hired either. After her interview was over my father's boss approached him to ask if he had decided to hire her. When my father told his boss that he hadn't, the lawyers went into crisis mode.
My father had to sit with 2 attorneys for a day and a half explaining why, answering questions, writing letters, etc. to show that he had just cause for not hiring her, and that she was less qualified that two other applicants who also didn't get hired.
Now, I recognize that that story was pretty off topic, but it DOES cover the the United States' view on discrimination quite accurately.
My personal opinion on ANY type of preference given to a person is that it should be based entirely on merit.
/end raged typing
Your true story is only tangentially related to the issue at hand.
edit: to clarify, the concept at issue is that someone is pre-judged based on some category and whether they deserve it. The way I see it, the OP is the black mother who got two points off for being a "high-risk" category, rather than the other way around. It doesn't have to do with affirmative action at all.
|
On November 23 2010 12:55 cz wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2010 12:52 Cauld wrote:On November 23 2010 12:43 cz wrote:On November 23 2010 12:40 Cauld wrote:On November 23 2010 12:36 cz wrote:On November 23 2010 12:33 Cauld wrote:On November 23 2010 12:24 cz wrote:On November 23 2010 12:20 Cauld wrote:On November 23 2010 12:14 Kashll wrote:
Insurance companies I believe are the only companies allowed to legally discriminate. And they do it based solely on statistics. That's not true at all and I already posted examples. Discrimination simply isn't illegal. Kid's menus are discrimination. Senior Citizen discounts are discrimination. Affirmative actions is discrimination and clearly government sponsored. Curves for women is discrimination. Bars discriminate as well by not serving minors, and this again is government mandated. There's plenty of examples out there, just look for them. But the law has mandated that sexism in certain situations is illegal, such as with respect to hiring, university admissions, housing and a slew of other situations. I / we are making the argument that the reasoning behind that mandate should mean that it should also apply to insurance companies, because insurance is required by law. But insurance isn't required by law. It's only required if you want to drive. Driving isn't a right (Though I agree that in much of the country it is required in practice, if not by law). So I believe that's a false equivalence, though I'm by no means an expert on logic or logical phrases. Is there evidence that the law in regards to the situations you mentioned above works counter to statistical evidence? For example is sexism illegal in regards to university admissions despite the fact that one gender is more likely to succeed in university? Well, access to jobs and universities and housing isn't required by law, but sex (and religion and race, etc) are protected traits. Well, the government doesn't provide car insurance, but it does provide housing, jobs and universities. Maybe that's related to the sexism issue. I'm not convinced it is illegal to discriminate based on sex for education. I mean there are single gender universities. I think single-gender universities are a separate issue. Also I'm talking about jobs and housing in general, not just govt. provided, same for private universities taking no govt funding. Women entering the professional workforce (doctors, lawyers, etc) and entering universities was a HUGE issue in the 1960s and 1970s, and it was ended with new laws that made gender a protected trait whereby discrimination in a wide variety of areas was illegal. I guess I just don't see the need for protecting every type of discrimination. I know that its a hard to determine 'line' and that it will vary from person to person, but I just don't see the issue in regards to gender and differing car insurance premiums. If one gender weren't allowed insurance at all I would certainly be opposed to that. I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to making it illegal to use gender as a basis for insurance, but I don't really see the need for that either. Are you similarly opposed to life insurance policies being cheaper for women than for men, since their life expectancy is longer? The law has established the precedents with respect to what society feels should be protected. As noted, most of that occurred to protect women. And yes I'd support the life insurance thing, though it is different as life insurance is not required by law (though you don't have to own a car).
Now I'm confused. You say the law has established the precedents with respect to what society feels should be protected, but you admit that there's been no precedent set with respect to insurance. So is your issue with society, insurance companies, government, etc.?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
