| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
bonifaceviii
Canada2890 Posts
The golden rule is: "complain and threaten to remove your business, and the company will buckle just to not have to deal with you". Remember, though, this is only for businesses that depend on customer loyalty. It doesn't work as well in retail situations, unless you have a meltdown or something. | ||
|
xarthaz
1704 Posts
| ||
|
TrainFX
United States469 Posts
Gratz on your refund but it's only because you complained, not because of sexism or anything of the sort. The moment you have an accident or get a ticket and your insurance rates go up you can bet they will tack on that additional 15%. "for standing up for what I believe in", According to customer service thats exactly why they gave you a refund, but hey I'm not a customer service rep so this is just my meaningless opinion. I guess we can all thank racism for giving discrimination such a negative connotation, it's not always a bad thing to do! When I use the bathroom I always make sure to discriminate between the toilet and the bath tub. Sure I could shit in either but I choose to discriminate because it MAKES SENSE! I bet if we took a look at the statistics of problems after shitting in a tub or a toilet we would come to the conclusion we'd all rather shit in the toilet! According to those of you who agree with OP, I'm being totally shapist and thats just morally wrong and I should shit evenly.... Arguments like this is why millions of people have died from similarly pointless arguments. | ||
|
ToxNub
Canada805 Posts
I would stop giving my business to such insurance companies, unfortunately, you probably don't have much of a choice. | ||
|
Signet
United States1718 Posts
link The ruling ordered changes effective Dec. 21, 2012, to auto insurance, life insurance, medical coverage and other plans, potentially affecting tens of millions of customers across the continent. For example, many women driver would see their car insurance costs rise even though they are considered safer on the road. EU Justice Commissioner Viviane Reding said it was "now clear that an insurance company must not distinguish between women and men; all customers must be treated equally." "This is a matter of respect for fundamental rights. It is now also becoming a matter of good business practices," Reding said. (I hope this is an appropriate update.) | ||
|
WyghtWolf
Israel145 Posts
Yeah, I'm ignorant when it comes to female drivers in other countries, but in Israel, whenever you see a woman behind the wheel, you should run, as far and as fast as you can... And if you happen to be driving behind her, be prepared to hit the brakes at a second's notice... | ||
|
bonifaceviii
Canada2890 Posts
For Britons the knock-on effect of this ruling is that men will no longer receive higher annuities than women. This piece of "discrimination" was based on the undeniable fact that women live longer, and thus providing them with an annuity is, on average, more expensive. The result will be a cut in income for many male employees who, as previous blogs have discussed, are increasingly reliant on DC pensions and who in Britain have not much choice about buying an annuity. (The answer will be for married men to opt for joint life annuities where there should be no change in rate. But that won't help single men or widowers.) Ignoring the facts of demography is a very strange approach. Does the court have a secret plan to reduce female life expectancy? Ah yes, by increasing the cost of car insurance for women, they will force them into being passengers in cars driven by testosterone-fuelled young men. See, it's joined-up thinking, after all. lol | ||
|
Signet
United States1718 Posts
On March 02 2011 09:21 WyghtWolf wrote: given the statistical likeliness that a woman will get into an accident being much higher, wouldn't it be more logical to charge women higher, causing them to be more careful when they're driving? Yeah, I'm ignorant when it comes to female drivers in other countries, but in Israel, whenever you see a woman behind the wheel, you should run, as far and as fast as you can... And if you happen to be driving behind her, be prepared to hit the brakes at a second's notice... In the US (and it sounds like, in the EU) women are safer drivers. Men are charged more not to cause them to be more careful, but simply as a form of risk management for the insurance company. | ||
|
WyghtWolf
Israel145 Posts
On March 02 2011 09:37 Signet wrote: In the US (and it sounds like, in the EU) women are safer drivers. Men are charged more not to cause them to be more careful, but simply as a form of risk management for the insurance company. Here we just get screwed over... Women get charged less, but also total more cars =/ And surprisingly, they aren't even drunk when that happens. at least when men crash a car here, they have the decency to at least go without sleep for a few days first, or getting hammered to a point where their liver screams: "Oh god! please stop! don't drink anymore! I'm going to blow up now!" Women? They just go around "Weee!!!!" and wrap the car around a tree, or run over a biker =/ Guess that's what you get when 99% of testers are horny heterosexual males with a sucky marriage... | ||
|
DyEnasTy
United States3720 Posts
| ||
|
heroyi
United States1064 Posts
Did the 15 minute call save you 15% or more on your car insurance? MWHAHAHAHA http://www.geico.com/about/commercials/ Edit: After fully reading OP post, are there people on this thread that are actually supporting the "statistic" of the reasoning behind the "discrimination" ruling? | ||
|
Gobe
210 Posts
| ||
|
TrainFX
United States469 Posts
Lololol at governments. | ||
|
Signet
United States1718 Posts
On March 02 2011 09:49 Gobe wrote: The problem is that this logic doesn't apply anywhere else, if you charge a certain minority higher rates because of statistics, it'd be considered discrimination. The only reason this is allowed is because it's discriminating against men. Eh, women in the US pay more for health insurance (until age 45ish). The EU ruling bans the practice entirely, including in the auto insurance market where the actuarial evidence shows men being a higher risk. I dunno that I agree with their ruling or not - it's a gray area since the statistics are valid but the principle is generally frowned upon. However I do applaud the court for being logically consistent in applying it to all insurance premiums, not just the areas where gender pricing is beneficial to men. | ||
|
Mentalizor
Denmark1596 Posts
A bar/club in Copenhagen is infamous for entry and free drinks for women costing only 60dkk (around 8€, I guess it's around 11$) and the same to men is 360dkk (around 42€ and guess around 66$). It's pretty smart. Alot of girls will ofc enter, since they can have a cheap night out. And the guys will pay just to get a chance to get with all the girls. The bar has been pulled to court several times, and have been forced to pay a fine of only a few thousand dkk (800-1200€ - 1100-1600$). That's less than they will make in a single evening just by pulling this off. The danish system clearly states that sexual harrassment can lead to (up to) 25.000dkk fines (8000€ - 11000$) fines and/or employees to get fired. But since no staff is feeling harrassed they can only fine. And since no "real" sexual "damage" has been done (ppl aren't exactly walking away crying) they can in no way pull off the big fees. Now, the manager of the place has publicly admitted to do this (to get girls in cheap, so the guys will pay the party), since that's how nature work. You couldn't do it the other way around. And if everyone were to pay 220dkk (20€+ - 28$+) there would be enough girls - end as a result - not enough guys. And besides, guys are more likely to actually benefit from the free drinks. Thoughts on this? | ||
|
bonifaceviii
Canada2890 Posts
On March 02 2011 09:48 heroyi wrote: Edit: After fully reading OP post, are there people on this thread that are actually supporting the "statistic" of the reasoning behind the "discrimination" ruling? Yes, there are. Insurance is, by definition, a business that works by prejudging people and discriminating against them according to shared traits. People who don't claim pay the people who do, and to make sure there is enough being paid in you need to know statistically who claims more. In the case of auto insurance, men do. | ||
|
WyghtWolf
Israel145 Posts
On March 02 2011 10:06 bonifaceviii wrote: Yes, there are. Insurance is, by definition, a business that works by prejudging people and discriminating against them according to shared traits. People who don't claim pay the people who do, and to make sure there is enough being paid in you need to know statistically who claims more. In the case of auto insurance, men do. You know, I've always known how to system works, but I've never managed to find a word to describe it... A few minutes ago, my sister was watching a documentry or something, and I heard the name "Madoff" mentioned. I remembered it from somewhere, but couldn't place it. Looked it up, and found that he ran the highest ponzi scheme in history. In a way, you could say that the insurance companies are sort of running ponzi schemes of their own, since they can only pay to clients with other clients' money, but they don't promise and outragous revenue. In this case, I think the only ones who benefit from it are the employees of the company themselves, since, not only do they generate profit from the people who buy policies, but also(in the case of large insurance companies like AIG), they get people to invest money in their company, earning them even more. | ||
|
YejinYejin
United States1053 Posts
They want to charge you just enough based on your demographic for them to make the maximum profit. If they charge too much, people will stop buying insurance policies because they no longer think it's worth it. If they don't charge enough, people of whatever demographic will get in as many crashes as expected, and the company won't have earned enough money to pay out. Why would they charge men and women the same if they have factual evidence that men and women don't get in accidents at the same rate? Now if you want to question their data, you can do that, but assuming that their data and analysis is accurate, this practice of giving out different quotes is perfectly logical. Bars and clubs are not exactly the same. I'm pretty sure it's cheaper for women everywhere. Bars know that women attract men, so if there are more women there, more men will come and pay to get in. And it's just a cover fee, anyway. It's not like the women are coming in for free, and get a free open bar, and never pay anything the entire night. Anyways, these bars and clubs don't do the extensive amount of number-crunching to figure out a profit-maximizing price for men and women, respectively. And why should they? It's extremely complicated mathematical work, and they don't have anywhere near the same sample size that insurance companies do. | ||
|
Lamphead
Canada241 Posts
| ||
|
heroyi
United States1064 Posts
On March 02 2011 10:06 bonifaceviii wrote: Yes, there are. Insurance is, by definition, a business that works by prejudging people and discriminating against them according to shared traits. People who don't claim pay the people who do, and to make sure there is enough being paid in you need to know statistically who claims more. In the case of auto insurance, men do. I am well aware of how the system works. What I don't agree is on how the company works, although they can be a life saver if you have the right plans and get in the right accidents. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Counter-Strike Heroes of the Storm Other Games |
|
GSL
Shopify Rebellion Sundays
Spirit vs Mixu
BSL
Ret vs TerrOr
DragOn vs StRyKeR
Replay Cast
Afreeca Starleague
Shine vs Rush
WardiTV Weekly
Monday Night Weeklies
Sparkling Tuna Cup
Afreeca Starleague
Light vs EffOrt
PiGosaur Cup
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
