|
On November 24 2010 03:31 JWD wrote:Sure this is discrimination, but so what? OP, are you really suggesting that insurance companies not be able to discriminate based on statistics? Do you know how much more expensive that would make everyone's insurance rates? Not to mention intensifying adverse selection problems, which could be crippling for insurance in general. And all for what? So that you can feel better about being a man? This baffles me.
this sums it up for me ^.^ although it is discrimination there is alot more to it then just that
|
On November 24 2010 03:31 JWD wrote:Sure this is discrimination, but so what? OP, are you really suggesting that insurance companies not be able to discriminate based on statistics? Do you know how much more expensive that would make everyone's insurance rates? Not to mention intensifying adverse selection problems, which could be crippling for insurance in general. And all for what? So that you can feel better about being a man? This baffles me.
So, you're saying than an asian female should get higher insurance rates than a white female?
Because we ALL know how bad the asians drive. /sarcasm
But really, if the rates for one RACIAL GROUP, or an INCOME BRACKET get into more crashes, you WANT asians/latinos to pay more? You want low income families to pay more? You want people that are slightly overweight to pay more? You want people that have a family history of mental illness to pay more? You want people that have a job that requires long drives to pay more? You want people that are blue eyed to pay more? You want people that have red hair to pay more? You want people that are tanned to pay more? You want people that have a green house to pay more?
It's ridiculous.
|
And women pay more to get their hair done, so it evens out.
|
It's pretty sexist, as a society, that we accept this kind of thing when it comes to men, but when it comes to women we are willing to entertain the flimsiest statistics as evidence of discrimination.
That being said, I have no problem with insurance companies using this kind of metric. What I do have a problem with is insurance companies basically assuming all men are the same while ignoring plenty of more relevant information such as: Are you a drinker or drug user? What's your IQ? Your personality type? How much do you drive?
As an individual who doesn't drink and drive, use drugs, and has high conscientiousness and IQ, it seems pretty foolish to lump me into the same group as your average teenage gangbanger-wannabe. Furthermore, I use my license almost exclusively to get to and from work, yet the cost of my insurance per month comes out to about $1 per mile driven -- Yet someone who drives 10x as much as I do would pay the same monthly premium. Personally I think insurance companies could look at these factors, but I think it's more profitable for them to perpetuate the myth that "men" are higher insurance risks when in fact it's only a small subset of this population that actually is a high risk, they just want to pass the costs on to everyone.
|
Just saying, if woman were to be charged more it'd never fly...
|
the problem i see with it, is that its illegal to NOT have insurance, but then to discriminate against someone to FORCE them to have something is where it goes wrong.
if it insurance was optional and thats how they wanted to do it, fine. but its not, it needs to be regulated. insurance is the biggest f**kin scam in this country
|
On November 24 2010 03:48 TLOBrian wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2010 03:31 JWD wrote:Sure this is discrimination, but so what? OP, are you really suggesting that insurance companies not be able to discriminate based on statistics? Do you know how much more expensive that would make everyone's insurance rates? Not to mention intensifying adverse selection problems, which could be crippling for insurance in general. And all for what? So that you can feel better about being a man? This baffles me. So, you're saying than an asian female should get higher insurance rates than a white female? Because we ALL know how bad the asians drive. /sarcasm But really, if the rates for one RACIAL GROUP, or an INCOME BRACKET get into more crashes, you WANT asians/latinos to pay more? You want low income families to pay more? You want people that are slightly overweight to pay more? You want people that have a family history of mental illness to pay more? You want people that have a job that requires long drives to pay more? You want people that are blue eyed to pay more? You want people that have red hair to pay more? You want people that are tanned to pay more? You want people that have a green house to pay more? It's ridiculous.
If living in a green house causes you to drive worse, then yes they should pay more. How is that ridiculous? You cause more accidents, so you pay more. The point of insurance is that over the long run, the amount you put in it is close to the amount you take out of it (minus administrative costs and profit to the insurer), except you pay small amounts on a regular basis rather than huge amounts on an unpredictable basis, which most people prefer. But since nobody can predict the future, the only way to make the small, regular payments end up equal to the large, unpredictable payments is to try as hard as possible to find each driver's individualized probability of getting into a car accident.
And if that means living in a green house increases your probability, then you pay more.
|
On November 24 2010 04:01 PhiliBiRD wrote:
the problem i see with it, is that its illegal to NOT have insurance, but then to discriminate against someone to FORCE them to have something is where it goes wrong.
if it insurance was optional and thats how they wanted to do it, fine. but its not, it needs to be regulated. insurance is the biggest f**kin scam in this country
Ignore what you know about health insurance (which actually is a clusterfuck); car insurance is very competitive and in no way a scam. The alternative to not liking your insurance company is to find another one. The fact that they all charge higher rates for men even though they are highly competitive should tell you something. (In case you can't figure it out, if being a male wasn't a causative factor in driving worse, then an insurance company would've found the causative factor by now and offer gender-equal rates for those males that the factor didn't apply.)
|
On November 24 2010 03:55 wail wrote:
That being said, I have no problem with insurance companies using this kind of metric. What I do have a problem with is insurance companies basically assuming all men are the same while ignoring plenty of more relevant information such as: Are you a drinker or drug user? What's your IQ? Your personality type? How much do you drive?
they don't wtf
The original post in this thread was caused by the OP finding out that ceteris paribus (all other information being equal), if he was a woman he'd get a lower rate. That does not mean that all the other information is being ignored, gender is simply another contributing factor to the equation.
|
Obviously companies should provide tailor-made programs for every individual customer based on a weighting of all possible risk factors, but until that ideal becomes reality I don't really see the problem with the limited discrimination here based on actuarial science. Many people here are only seeing the drawbacks (ie the increased cost for the rare safe driver, and of course everyone thinks they're an above average driver) and not seeing the benefits, ie the reduced costs overall
There would have more of a case for sexism if driving was mandatory and thus insurance was mandatory, but otherwise not really. If you really have such a problem with it consider taking up alternative methods of transportation.
|
On November 24 2010 03:48 TLOBrian wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2010 03:31 JWD wrote:Sure this is discrimination, but so what? OP, are you really suggesting that insurance companies not be able to discriminate based on statistics? Do you know how much more expensive that would make everyone's insurance rates? Not to mention intensifying adverse selection problems, which could be crippling for insurance in general. And all for what? So that you can feel better about being a man? This baffles me. So, you're saying than an asian female should get higher insurance rates than a white female? Because we ALL know how bad the asians drive. /sarcasm But really, if the rates for one RACIAL GROUP, or an INCOME BRACKET get into more crashes, you WANT asians/latinos to pay more? You want low income families to pay more? You want people that are slightly overweight to pay more? You want people that have a family history of mental illness to pay more? You want people that have a job that requires long drives to pay more? You want people that are blue eyed to pay more? You want people that have red hair to pay more? You want people that are tanned to pay more? You want people that have a green house to pay more? It's ridiculous.
If Asian women are statistically getting into more accidents than white females, then yes, they should have to pay for =/
The real world is not fair, everyone is NOT equal in the eyes of money.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
On November 24 2010 03:48 TLOBrian wrote:
But really, if the rates for one RACIAL GROUP, or an INCOME BRACKET get into more crashes, you WANT asians/latinos to pay more? You want low income families to pay more? You want people that are slightly overweight to pay more? You want people that have a family history of mental illness to pay more? You want people that have a job that requires long drives to pay more? You want people that are blue eyed to pay more? You want people that have red hair to pay more? You want people that are tanned to pay more? You want people that have a green house to pay more?
It's ridiculous.
If the insurance companies find it beneficial to their business to research their clients and if the discrimination is merited, it will help control costs for everyone. If the discrimination is not merited competition through the free market will eliminate the discrimination.
When it is illegal to discriminate, the insurance markets develop moral hazard. The size of the moral hazard depends on the variation of risk profiles for the insured. For life insurance and car insurance, the costs are controlled by allowing discrimination on key characteristics like gender, age, and habits.
When it is illegal to discriminate base on key characteristics, like in health insurance market, the moral hazards cause the costs to spiral out of control. I'm sure everyone just loves that health insurance is ridiculously priced.
|
This discussion reminds me of "Gattaca".
|
On November 23 2010 10:49 Vanished131 wrote:
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.
Testosterone makes you subject to random irrational aggression. If you have less than the average dude, it's unjust. If you have more or equal than the average dude, it's just.
|
Just the title of this thread makes me want to facepalm.
|
Dear Geico,
I don't know how the insurance business works, but you are charging me more than other people and that is wrong.
Sincerely,
OP
|
United States12607 Posts
On November 24 2010 04:37 bonifaceviii wrote:
Dear Geico,
I don't know how the insurance business works, but you are charging me more than other people and that is wrong.
Sincerely,
OP
hahaha yep, that's exactly what I read too.
|
On November 24 2010 04:13 bonifaceviii wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2010 03:55 wail wrote:
That being said, I have no problem with insurance companies using this kind of metric. What I do have a problem with is insurance companies basically assuming all men are the same while ignoring plenty of more relevant information such as: Are you a drinker or drug user? What's your IQ? Your personality type? How much do you drive? they don't wtf The original post in this thread was caused by the OP finding out that ceteris paribus (all other information being equal), if he was a woman he'd get a lower rate. That does not mean that all the other information is being ignored, gender is simply another contributing factor to the equation.
I've asked my insurance carrier repeatedly whether they offer any sort of lower rate for non-drinkers. They don't, even though alcohol is a huge factor in automobile accidents. I'd even be willing to have a breathalyzer installed in my vehicle to confirm that I'm never getting behind the wheel intoxicated -- Again, nothing. No automobile insurance company has ever asked me for a urine or blood sample to test whether I've taken drugs either.
I've never had any insurance carrier ask about say, my IQ, my grades in school, whether I had any disciplinary action taken against me, or any other sort of proxy metric for determining conscientiousness. No insurance carrier has ever requested any sort of psychological information confirming that I'm not a risk-taking personality.
Some carriers do offer lower rates for low-mileage, however many don't. Even those that do break things down into very crude categories, e.g. Do you drive more/less than 5000 miles per year? Statistically miles driven is one of the biggest factors in predicting claim costs so there's really no excuse for not offering rates that scale based on mileage.
|
I think I've seen questions about weekly alcohol consumption on a car insurance application before, but don't hold me to that.
Metrics like grades and IQ are not all created equal, and you have to make sure an actuarial table is filled with rigorously comparable data that can be stretched, squeezed and rearranged into numerous permutations without losing its integrity. A standard psychological or intelligence metric would have to be applied to all applicants, and needless to say that would be at the company's cost.
As for mileage, I very much agree with you.
|
On November 23 2010 10:57 zeppelin wrote:
men get paid a lot more than women on average so if your income as a man doesn't more than make up for the difference in insurance premiums you should spend less time pretending to be a victim and more time improving your career skills
I dont know if that is true. A lot of statistics on wage by gender are corrupt. Imagine how many women miss work days because of their menstrual cycle or pregnancy matters? Then these days off are discounted in the women salary, and it looks as if they are receiving less. A lot of women with hgih degrees and MBA ends up getting married and choose to stay at home taking care of kids... I'm sure many statistics will label them as unemployed just to make it seem as if a woman's degree is less desired than a man's.
Anyway, what most people said is true. They do this sort of discrimination in many countries and the reason is based on statistics. Men are more likely to get in a car crash than women.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
