|
On March 02 2011 19:12 xM(Z wrote:
i think the real problem here is not that youre discriminated against, but that youre discriminated against ... for profit.
men dont like to 'feel' used.
It's not about feeling used.
For me it's being charged because machismo assholes drive like idiots and wreck all the time and not on the merits of my pretty damn clean driving record. I've been annoyed at the insurance industry for awhile though so I should really...ignore it.
|
On March 02 2011 19:17 Jayme wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2011 19:12 xM(Z wrote:
i think the real problem here is not that youre discriminated against, but that youre discriminated against ... for profit.
men dont like to 'feel' used.
It's not about feeling used. For me it's being charged because machismo assholes drive like idiots and wreck all the time and not on the merits of my pretty damn clean driving record. I've been annoyed at the insurance industry for awhile though so I should really...ignore it.
your argument is based on a statistic. people agreed that statistics are 'manufactured' to serve a purpose and you fell for it.
but nvm that, what you said only proves my point. you feel used by the "machismo assholes" that "drive like idiots".
|
On March 02 2011 19:22 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2011 19:17 Jayme wrote:On March 02 2011 19:12 xM(Z wrote:
i think the real problem here is not that youre discriminated against, but that youre discriminated against ... for profit.
men dont like to 'feel' used.
It's not about feeling used. For me it's being charged because machismo assholes drive like idiots and wreck all the time and not on the merits of my pretty damn clean driving record. I've been annoyed at the insurance industry for awhile though so I should really...ignore it. your argument is based on a statistic. people agreed that statistics are 'manufactured' to serve a purpose and you fell for it. but nvm that, what you said only proves my point. you feel used by the "machismo assholes" that "drive like idiots".
No, he feels used by the insurance industry. they are the ones that make a profit
|
On March 02 2011 19:37 Vain wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2011 19:22 xM(Z wrote:On March 02 2011 19:17 Jayme wrote:On March 02 2011 19:12 xM(Z wrote:
i think the real problem here is not that youre discriminated against, but that youre discriminated against ... for profit.
men dont like to 'feel' used.
It's not about feeling used. For me it's being charged because machismo assholes drive like idiots and wreck all the time and not on the merits of my pretty damn clean driving record. I've been annoyed at the insurance industry for awhile though so I should really...ignore it. your argument is based on a statistic. people agreed that statistics are 'manufactured' to serve a purpose and you fell for it. but nvm that, what you said only proves my point. you feel used by the "machismo assholes" that "drive like idiots". No, he feels used by the insurance industry. they are the ones that make a profit
i know that, you know that, but he denied it at first so i rephrase it just so he could see that we were talking about the same thing in different 'coating'.
|
In Denmark, it's pretty normal that women are given way more favorable offers in big coorporations. As the goverment has issued that Denmark needs more women on the top level of danish business.
These offers are usualy women only courses and trainee positions that men can't apply for.. If there would be men only positions or internships, the left wings would gnaw off their own legs and club the people doing it with them..
Double standards ftw..
|
On November 23 2010 10:54 Fa1nT wrote:
They do the same with age, problem? Statistically, male and females, young and old, have different rates of accidents, and thus should be charged separately.
The European... whatever it is, just forbade health insurances in europe to charge according to gender.
|
On March 02 2011 19:57 JustPassingBy wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2010 10:54 Fa1nT wrote:
They do the same with age, problem? Statistically, male and females, young and old, have different rates of accidents, and thus should be charged separately. The European... whatever it is, just forbade health insurances in europe to charge according to gender.
I believe it was the European Court, and they outlawed sexual discrimination on insurance of all kinds.
The insurance industry in Europe just got quite a large shakeup, even though it doesn't come into effect until the end of 2012.
|
Russian Federation4235 Posts
On March 02 2011 19:22 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2011 19:17 Jayme wrote:On March 02 2011 19:12 xM(Z wrote:
i think the real problem here is not that youre discriminated against, but that youre discriminated against ... for profit.
men dont like to 'feel' used.
It's not about feeling used. For me it's being charged because machismo assholes drive like idiots and wreck all the time and not on the merits of my pretty damn clean driving record. I've been annoyed at the insurance industry for awhile though so I should really...ignore it. your argument is based on a statistic. people agreed that statistics are 'manufactured' to serve a purpose and you fell for it. but nvm that, what you said only proves my point. you feel used by the "machismo assholes" that "drive like idiots".
You can't manufacture statistics in an (ideal) competetive environment. If it was indeed economical to charge men less for car insurance, someone would do it and reap the benefits of a huge and loyal client base (getting a giant boost because it's a "discrimination" issue, not just a price issue). With all the sexism talks and men being pissed about being charged twice the money, only a fool wouldn't charge the "true price" and get all those clients if it was possible.
But alas, insurance makes money from statistics, they don't have anything else. Arguing that at least requires a strong background, not just "I feel it ain't no fair" talks.
To be honest, all those discrimination talks from americans are borderline retarded. I can't even imagine how a society built upon a dangerously false implication that all people are somehow equal could function.
The reasons behind women getting paid less at least in Russia are very trivial. It's not that a woman could not do a job as well as a man. No, just as an employer, you would never give a job that requires responsibility (and therefore, has good salaries) to a person who might go MIA for a year without warning and is government-protected in that situation. Women are completely disabled during and after pregnancy and culture prohibits any enforcements on birth control, so they are just not reliable enough for key positions. Better hire her as a secretary that you can easily replace when needed. There are women with careers in Russia as well as in the other countries, but they have to build abit more reputation before being accepted at the top level, for the very same reasons. Unfair? Well, maybe, unfair for those seeking great job options. But had it been regulated at the stage of application (like if you could actually go to court after not being accepted for the job you formally qualified for), it would be unfair to employers, because they would be forced to hire inferior (pure statistic, nothing personal) employees. With business already being hard to establish here, I can see perfectly why such "discrimination" is a good thing.
|
so if u bother to look up men have higher rates of automobile accidents then women. *simple google search isn't that hard kids*
obviously the insurance will follow suit
after reading the thread, it seems people actually know this and still don't understand, in which case i can't help you, you are beyond hope. ( although the post above mine is pretty good)
|
On March 02 2011 20:12 HeavOnEarth wrote:
so if u bother to look up men have higher rates of automobile accidents then women. *simple google search isn't that hard kids*
obviously the insurance will follow suit
after reading the thread, it seems people actually know this and still don't understand, in which case i can't help you, you are beyond hope. ( although the post above mine is pretty good)
So if blacks statistically happened to have more automobile accidents than whites, would you expect insurance companies to charge all blacks more too? Or what about if gays had more accidents, should they be charged more as well for being gay?
|
On March 02 2011 20:23 Angra wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2011 20:12 HeavOnEarth wrote:
so if u bother to look up men have higher rates of automobile accidents then women. *simple google search isn't that hard kids*
obviously the insurance will follow suit
after reading the thread, it seems people actually know this and still don't understand, in which case i can't help you, you are beyond hope. ( although the post above mine is pretty good) So if blacks statistically happened to have more automobile accidents than whites, would you expect insurance companies to charge all blacks more too? Or what about if gays had more accidents, should they be charged more as well for being gay?
Yup. Although obviously the latter would be hard to implement, and doesn't really make sense.
If black male teens are high at risk, then obviously their demographic should be charged more . Otherwise you get the other option- charge people who are doing better the difference, the insurance doesn't magically have money coming out a tree, you see.
|
On March 02 2011 20:26 HeavOnEarth wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2011 20:23 Angra wrote:On March 02 2011 20:12 HeavOnEarth wrote:
so if u bother to look up men have higher rates of automobile accidents then women. *simple google search isn't that hard kids*
obviously the insurance will follow suit
after reading the thread, it seems people actually know this and still don't understand, in which case i can't help you, you are beyond hope. ( although the post above mine is pretty good) So if blacks statistically happened to have more automobile accidents than whites, would you expect insurance companies to charge all blacks more too? Or what about if gays had more accidents, should they be charged more as well for being gay? Yup. Although obviously the latter would be hard to implement, and doesn't really make sense. If black male teens are high at risk, then obviously their demographic should be charged more . Otherwise you get the other option- charge people who are doing better the difference, the insurance doesn't magically have money coming out a tree, you see.
Do you know how much of an outrage there would be if that were to happen? Any insurance company that did that would probably lose close to all of their business for racial or sexual discrimination, or there would be so much of an outcry that the government would have to step in and make it illegal to discriminate in that way.
So why isn't it that way with gender?
|
On March 02 2011 19:37 Vain wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2011 19:22 xM(Z wrote:On March 02 2011 19:17 Jayme wrote:On March 02 2011 19:12 xM(Z wrote:
i think the real problem here is not that youre discriminated against, but that youre discriminated against ... for profit.
men dont like to 'feel' used.
It's not about feeling used. For me it's being charged because machismo assholes drive like idiots and wreck all the time and not on the merits of my pretty damn clean driving record. I've been annoyed at the insurance industry for awhile though so I should really...ignore it. your argument is based on a statistic. people agreed that statistics are 'manufactured' to serve a purpose and you fell for it. but nvm that, what you said only proves my point. you feel used by the "machismo assholes" that "drive like idiots". No, he feels used by the insurance industry. they are the ones that make a profit
My brother and sister were talking about this yesterday, and he told me that apparently all the top insurance companies have made a loss for the last 10 years. No source for this, so don't take it as gospel, but it's interesting if true.
|
Talking as someone who knows some of the models being used by insurance companies I can tell you the following. The more the insurance companies differentiate between different groups of people the more money they make. Afterall anyone pretty much pays what they do anyway (mayby they give a very small discount), and then they let the bad risks in their portfolio pay substantially more.
My criticism on this is that if you were to apply this indefinately you would simply end up in the situation where everyone is paying for his own damages, thus destroying the entire idea behind insurance. Which is you trow everything on a big heap and whomever is unfortunate enough to need it gets some of the money from that heap. And thats IMHO how it should be. This differentiation / discrimination is ridiculous. I wouldn't be surprised if people with glasses would cause more accidents as well, should we charge them more? Should we ask more money for health insurance of people who had the unfortune of being born with a chronic disease?
Plus there already exist models to reward people who drive safely, i.e. based on their actions not for what they are, such as the bonus-malus system.
|
On March 02 2011 20:30 The KY wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2011 19:37 Vain wrote:On March 02 2011 19:22 xM(Z wrote:On March 02 2011 19:17 Jayme wrote:On March 02 2011 19:12 xM(Z wrote:
i think the real problem here is not that youre discriminated against, but that youre discriminated against ... for profit.
men dont like to 'feel' used.
It's not about feeling used. For me it's being charged because machismo assholes drive like idiots and wreck all the time and not on the merits of my pretty damn clean driving record. I've been annoyed at the insurance industry for awhile though so I should really...ignore it. your argument is based on a statistic. people agreed that statistics are 'manufactured' to serve a purpose and you fell for it. but nvm that, what you said only proves my point. you feel used by the "machismo assholes" that "drive like idiots". No, he feels used by the insurance industry. they are the ones that make a profit My brother and sister were talking about this yesterday, and he told me that apparently all the top insurance companies have made a loss for the last 10 years. No source for this, so don't take it as gospel, but it's interesting if true.
Well the automobile industry is not really profitable as a whole. Most P&C insurers subsidize their automobile block of business with housing insurance.
Anyway, drop in profits really have to do with the decline in the yield curve. Profits for automobile industry is mostly driven by investment income. Also, given the large amount of competition, they usually offer competitive prices by assuming a certain return on their assets. Take this into consideration and the fact that the yield curve has hit historic lows in the past few years, the bottom line impact is that this line of business has been not that great for the industry as a whole.
|
It's pretty ridiculous that insurance companies aren't going to be allowed to do proper risk assessment in the EU any more. Women on average cost them less so they charge women less in order to attract more women. It makes complete sense. If someone wanted to do that for any group that generally makes less claims (whether that's based on race, age, sex, number of pets owned or whatever) then that's absolutely fine. The whole point of insurance is that you make a risk assessment and then charge to take on that risk. Why screw over insurance companies so much in this way?
I say this as a 21 year old male who has to pay roughly double for car insurance compared to what he would as a woman, by the way. It sucks that I have to pay for some idiot males' mistakes but it's those idiots' faults, not insurers. I mean, sure, it's nice that my premium should go down a bit now, but it's a very stupid ruling that will likely have further implications of removing the idea that men and women are different on average and thus as a group can be treated differently by private companies in a way that is non-discriminatory but simply accurate assessment and common sense.
|
I dint think OP's example is valid, but there are things like this. For example, there are a lot of research going on about breast cancer than prostate and testicular cancer
|
On March 02 2011 20:05 BluzMan wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2011 19:22 xM(Z wrote:On March 02 2011 19:17 Jayme wrote:On March 02 2011 19:12 xM(Z wrote:
i think the real problem here is not that youre discriminated against, but that youre discriminated against ... for profit.
men dont like to 'feel' used.
It's not about feeling used. For me it's being charged because machismo assholes drive like idiots and wreck all the time and not on the merits of my pretty damn clean driving record. I've been annoyed at the insurance industry for awhile though so I should really...ignore it. your argument is based on a statistic. people agreed that statistics are 'manufactured' to serve a purpose and you fell for it. but nvm that, what you said only proves my point. you feel used by the "machismo assholes" that "drive like idiots". You can't manufacture statistics in an (ideal) competetive environment. If it was indeed economical to charge men less for car insurance, someone would do it and reap the benefits of a huge and loyal client base (getting a giant boost because it's a "discrimination" issue, not just a price issue). With all the sexism talks and men being pissed about being charged twice the money, only a fool wouldn't charge the "true price" and get all those clients if it was possible. But alas, insurance makes money from statistics, they don't have anything else. Arguing that at least requires a strong background, not just "I feel it ain't no fair" talks. To be honest, all those discrimination talks from americans are borderline retarded. I can't even imagine how a society built upon a dangerously false implication that all people are somehow equal could function.
http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/19980516133725data_trunc_sys.shtml
"The investigators discovered that teenage boys start recklessly, with about 20 per cent more crashes per mile driven than teenage girls. Males and females between the ages of 20 and 35 run almost identical risks. Females over the age of 35, however, are significantly more likely to crash than their male counterparts."
you can fake any statistic by not taking into accounts all the facts or by 'leading' the result into the desired direction.
|
On March 02 2011 21:57 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2011 20:05 BluzMan wrote:On March 02 2011 19:22 xM(Z wrote:On March 02 2011 19:17 Jayme wrote:On March 02 2011 19:12 xM(Z wrote:
i think the real problem here is not that youre discriminated against, but that youre discriminated against ... for profit.
men dont like to 'feel' used.
It's not about feeling used. For me it's being charged because machismo assholes drive like idiots and wreck all the time and not on the merits of my pretty damn clean driving record. I've been annoyed at the insurance industry for awhile though so I should really...ignore it. your argument is based on a statistic. people agreed that statistics are 'manufactured' to serve a purpose and you fell for it. but nvm that, what you said only proves my point. you feel used by the "machismo assholes" that "drive like idiots". You can't manufacture statistics in an (ideal) competetive environment. If it was indeed economical to charge men less for car insurance, someone would do it and reap the benefits of a huge and loyal client base (getting a giant boost because it's a "discrimination" issue, not just a price issue). With all the sexism talks and men being pissed about being charged twice the money, only a fool wouldn't charge the "true price" and get all those clients if it was possible. But alas, insurance makes money from statistics, they don't have anything else. Arguing that at least requires a strong background, not just "I feel it ain't no fair" talks. To be honest, all those discrimination talks from americans are borderline retarded. I can't even imagine how a society built upon a dangerously false implication that all people are somehow equal could function. http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/19980516133725data_trunc_sys.shtml"The investigators discovered that teenage boys start recklessly, with about 20 per cent more crashes per mile driven than teenage girls. Males and females between the ages of 20 and 35 run almost identical risks. Females over the age of 35, however, are significantly more likely to crash than their male counterparts."you can fake any statistic by not taking into accounts all the facts or by 'leading' the result into the desired direction.
bro thats a 1998 article on a sketchy site with no crenditals(aka sources)
GOOD TRY THO
hi5
|
This ruling kinda has me confused. I think what insurance companies do isn't discrimination, it's stereotyping (that doesn't make it right or any less annoying though). If "John Smith" applies for insurance, the company looks at their record, say "hmm, men cost us more in the past, we'll assume this man will too". I understand it's not fair but I'm not sure how insurance companies can operate otherwise.
Some companies do discriminate though - they completely refuse to offer insurance to men or to drivers below the age of 50. I wonder if this will be allowed to continue.
And if car insurance companies could no longer set premiums based on age, what about health insurance companies? Why should someone in their 60's pay more for health insurance or life insurance than someone in their 20's? It's seems pretty obvious to everyone why they do this, but how is this "discrimination" any worse than that covered by the recent EU ruling?
And what about disability? Why should someone with a disability, (e.g. asthma or diabetes) pay more for insurance?
And why should charges for anything discriminate on age? Why should someone aged under 18 pay less for a cinema ticket when they take up a seat and use all the same facilities?
I just really don't get how this ruling can be enforced because it opens up the possibility to so many things being called discrimination. But then I'm not a legal expert.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
