EPTSexism... Against Men - Page 23
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
SCdinner
Canada516 Posts
| ||
|
Treemonkeys
United States2082 Posts
On November 24 2010 06:24 bonifaceviii wrote: I'm not sure what kind of constructive alternative you're proposing, then. Abolishing insurance? The alternatives are rather long winded, but it still should be said that forcing tax payers to pay for everything is not at all an workaround for unethical pricing. | ||
|
Treemonkeys
United States2082 Posts
On November 24 2010 06:26 SCdinner wrote: Corperations are usually allowed to set their own pricing and can use sex as determination of pricing. Insurance can charge men more to drive, hair dressers can charge women more for a hair cut, ect. It's within their rights. Rights are pretty much arbitrary. Just because it's "within their rights" doesn't mean it is good. | ||
|
kidcrash89
198 Posts
On November 24 2010 06:26 Treemonkeys wrote: The alternatives are rather long winded, but it still should be said that forcing tax payers to pay for everything is not at all an workaround for unethical pricing. But forcing select groups of people, surely which contain "good" drivers, to pay more makes sense? Mind that individuals of such select groups would need to make up for the costs not paid for by people outside these groups leading to considerably higher rates than a standardized system. I fail to see the logic behind this difference | ||
|
Treemonkeys
United States2082 Posts
On November 24 2010 06:29 kidcrash89 wrote: But forcing select groups of people, surely which contain "good" drivers, to pay more makes sense? I fail to see the logic I wouldn't say it makes more sense but at least it is screwing over less people. | ||
|
kidcrash89
198 Posts
On November 24 2010 06:30 Treemonkeys wrote: I wouldn't say it makes more sense but at least it is screwing over less people. I agree, but it screws less people more. I'm not trying to say one is right or wrong, just offering different outlooks. TBH insurance is a shit show to begin with | ||
TanGeng
Sanya12364 Posts
On November 24 2010 06:24 Treemonkeys wrote: Yes, because of this it is a requirement for driving first and foremost, not protection from risk. It's a requirement for driving because the government has decided that no one will be able to cover the liability to others on their own. Government is compelling people to buy risk protection. | ||
|
Krikkitone
United States1451 Posts
On November 24 2010 06:24 Treemonkeys wrote: Yes, because of this it is a requirement for driving first and foremost, not protection from risk. Never hard of a landlord billing food that way, usually you pay a static price for a static amount of food. Like in college dorms. It is protection from risk... that applies to other people (ie you don't need auto insurance if you have a savings bond dedicated to any damage you may cause other people) Basically, I know that everyone else the government has let on the road is capable of paying for any damage they may cause to Me. The problem is there is no way to give someone a 'static amount' of insurance coverage. We will give you $100 for auto repair per month... you only need to pay us $105 per month... what type of idiot would take that? or We will give you $100 for auto repair per month... you only need to pay us $95 per month... what type of idiot would offer that? No its we will give you $10,000 for auto repair if 1. you pay us 100$ per month AND 2. you have an accident that takes $10,000 to repair #2 means no one consumes a static amount of coverage.... Insurance is ALWAYS a buffet, they are just trying to use statistics to figure how hungry you are going to be. They charge more money to people they thing are going to eat more food. also, it is not unethical pricing... it is very ethical. Taxes charge rich people more is that unethical, or should US citizenship require yearly dues? (Gold Membership at $5,000/year and you get to vote in federal elections) No, because rich people generally get more benefits from government (they have more to $ lose in case of anarchy) Differentiated pricing is not unethical, unsubstantiated differentiated pricing is a poor decision, and potentially unethical | ||
|
nihlon
Sweden5581 Posts
On November 24 2010 06:22 Krikkitone wrote: I'm sure they have senior citizen discounts. And if it was actually worth the time+expense, they would and should. (a restaurant stands to lose maybe 10$ worth of food from a single customer, not worth developing a complex model.... an insurance company can lose $100,000 from a single customer) Yes, because pissing off costumers by charging them differently for an "All you can eat" buffet is great for business. | ||
|
TanGeng
Sanya12364 Posts
On November 24 2010 06:31 kidcrash89 wrote: I agree, but it screws less people more. TBH insurance is a fucking shit show to begin with Because of moral hazard, a uniform rate by the government will screw more people more. | ||
|
Struan
United States5 Posts
On November 24 2010 06:18 Krikkitone wrote: And saying auto insurance rates should be based on personal accident history is like saying life insurance rates should be based on the year that you died. Its missing the point. Not at all. Life insurance can be based on personal health history. That isn't discriminatory like saying "you are just like every other member of your race/gender so you pay that rate" That kind of discrimination is ethically identical to saying "your a low-educated black male who lives in an urban neighborhood, and even though you haven't committed a crime yet we are gonna go ahead and put you in jail because you probably will" Having late stage lung cancer should make you ineligible for life insurance. Just like putting people who have actually committed crimes in jail isn't discrimination. | ||
|
SgCloud
Germany23 Posts
On November 23 2010 11:05 smashczar wrote: This "sexism against men" thing is popping up more and more, it's really dangerous reactionary garbage considering women are the most oppressed and exploited group of people in world history. MY INSURANCE ![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/bUhva.jpg) Those are some interesting numbers right there, I didn't read the whole 23 pages to see if it was already asked/posted, but does anyone have reliable statistics for this one? | ||
|
bonifaceviii
Canada2890 Posts
On November 24 2010 06:35 Struan wrote: Not at all. Life insurance can be based on personal health history. That isn't discriminatory like saying "you are just like every other member of your race/gender so you pay that rate" That kind of discrimination is ethically identical to saying "your a low-educated black male who lives in an urban neighborhood, and even though you haven't committed a crime yet we are gonna go ahead and put you in jail because you probably will" Having late stage lung cancer should make you ineligible for life insurance. Just like putting people who have actually committed crimes in jail isn't discrimination. ...and here we have the justification for not covering "pre-existing conditions", which the Obama administration abolished due to its being morally reprehensible. | ||
|
Treemonkeys
United States2082 Posts
On November 24 2010 06:31 kidcrash89 wrote: I agree, but it screws less people more. I'm not trying to say one is right or wrong, just offering different outlooks. TBH insurance is a shit show to begin with Yeah, it's a shit show for sure. | ||
|
Treemonkeys
United States2082 Posts
On November 24 2010 06:33 nihlon wrote: Yes, because pissing off costumers by charging them differently for an "All you can eat" buffet is great for business. Which insurance companies do not have to worry about because their business is required by law. | ||
|
Krikkitone
United States1451 Posts
On November 24 2010 06:35 Struan wrote: Not at all. Life insurance can be based on personal health history. That isn't discriminatory like saying "you are just like every other member of your race/gender so you pay that rate" That kind of discrimination is ethically identical to saying "your a low-educated black male who lives in an urban neighborhood, and even though you haven't committed a crime yet we are gonna go ahead and put you in jail because you probably will" Having late stage lung cancer should make you ineligible for life insurance. Just like putting people who have actually committed crimes in jail isn't discrimination. Because the government is Specifically prevented from doing that doesn't mean it isn't a good idea. There are those who argue the aborting of unwanted fetuses in the 70's and 80's led to the drop in crime in the 90s. That does not mean it was moral to kill innocents, but it may have been effective. And putting someone in jail/killing them is VERY different from having to pay more money. (especially for something voluntary) btw, Charging men more for life insurance makes sense because they tend to die earlier, just like someone with a mild congenital disease. | ||
|
Krikkitone
United States1451 Posts
On November 24 2010 06:33 nihlon wrote: Yes, because pissing off costumers by charging them differently for an "All you can eat" buffet is great for business. It would be great for business if Rest. A charges 10$ for a buffet Rest. B charges teens 12$, children+seniors 5$, and adults 7$, for the buffet. Rest. B gets all the children/senior/adult business, Rest. A goes out of business because feeding the teens is costing more than it can make at only 10$ | ||
|
Struan
United States5 Posts
On November 24 2010 06:38 bonifaceviii wrote: ...and here we have the justification for not covering "pre-existing conditions", which the Obama administration abolished due to its being morally reprehensible. Health insurance is completely different from life insurance... and it is a gigantic ethical minefield of monopolies and massive bureaucracy. Life insurance is just a bet with a company about when you will die. It is nothing more than a twisted form of gambling. And is no more ethically complicated than whether or not a casino should be allowed to exclude a race or gender entering because they are less profitable (obviously not). | ||
|
noD
2230 Posts
edit you = young | ||
|
TanGeng
Sanya12364 Posts
On November 24 2010 06:48 Krikkitone wrote: It would be great for business if Rest. A charges 10$ for a buffet Rest. B charges teens 12$, children+seniors 5$, and adults 7$, for the buffet. Rest. B gets all the children/senior/adult business, Rest. A goes out of business because feeding the teens is costing more than it can make at only 10$ There is a reason why restaurants don't discriminate on teens and adults and usually give deep discounts for children. Families place a premium on eating together which means that children and teens can be loss leaders for the rest of the family. As long as the restaurant makes money on the whole check, the restaurant is happy. College-age males usually are the worst for buffets, but restaurants can recover a profit on serving alcohol. If the restaurant is really focused on buffet, then they will cut costs to the point where serving everybody at the prevailing buffet price is profitable - even for the giant eaters. There are other strategies to pricing than perfectly matching up your costs to the prices you charge. | ||
| ||
