Insurance Gender discrimination decision is made

[blaaah]

I have discussed it quite a few times before in other threads, but the European court has made it's decision now which can not be appealed. Different prices based on gender are now unlawful. The insurance industry must change their practise. Women's car insurance will go up (around 25% higher). Men's pensions will go down.
So this applies to the whole of Europe. I wonder how America will react to this decision? Does it calculate risk on gender?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/insurance/motorinsurance/8354197/Women-and-pensioners-insurance-costs-set-to-rise.html
I wonder if we now have the right to not notify of gender on quote forms? You would need a unisex name of course.
There are many people and organisations and politicians who are saying this decision is crazy. I can only assume they are sexist. When you are born into this world you didn't get to choose your gender so why should you exist in your culture and go through life and have to pay a lot more for it than other people of a different gender? It simply gives one gender an unfair advantage in life, and another a handicap.

 

[Pupik]

America has always had insurance biases based on gender, whether auto insurance or life insurance; typically, women are less likely to do a smoky burnout in a Dairy Queen parking lot on a Saturday night, just as men aren't as likely to suffer from breast cancer. Although those of either sex might show these symptoms, it's comparatively rare.

Take a look at our forums to see the ratio of ladies to men in our automobile/racing forums, and you get a pretty good idea that most of the fairer sex aren't driving like idiots just to impress others or discover the limits of their vehicle while their friend holds a camera.

Most medical insurance plans do not discriminate as much (if at all), but if you have a pre-existing condition, it may increase (the most common reason). My wife's medical insurance and life insurance was a little higher for a few years after being treated for cancer, but they went down after it all pretty much went into remission.

So insurance gender discrimination has been in the U.S. as long as I can remember. Actuaries get their say in the matter, as usual...but think of how bad it would be if your insurance policy couldn't afford to pay out a claim because it didn't discriminate?

 

[blaaah]

but think of how bad it would be if your insurance policy couldn't afford to pay out a claim because it didn't discriminate?

I'm not sure what you mean by that or how it could happen.

 

[Dotini]

I have discussed it quite a few times before in other threads, but the European court has made it's decision now which can not be appealed. Different prices based on gender are now unlawful. The insurance industry must change their practise. Women's car insurance will go up (around 25% higher). Men's pensions will go down.
So this applies to the whole of Europe. I wonder how America will react to this decision? Does it calculate risk on gender?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/insurance/motorinsurance/8354197/Women-and-pensioners-insurance-costs-set-to-rise.html
I wonder if we now have the right to not notify of gender on quote forms? You would need a unisex name of course.

I recall that at one time insurance companies employed underwriters to use actuarial tables to determine rates. I don't know how they do it anymore. It used to be that the business of America was business, and what's good for GM was good for the world. Thanks to Milton Friedman and various other ideologies and corrupt practices, I see nothing sustainable in neo-liberal economic policies beyond further stagflation and bankruptcy.

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_15/b3928042_mz011.htm

 

[Robin]

Just saw this on the news, I'm so glad that they are going to offer a unisex car insurance quote from now on because us men have had it so bad for years paying double a girl of similar experience would pay. Just because most of the young male species it seems can't drive cars without flipping them on country lanes doesn't mean a careful driver like me should get punished.

They put the figure at a 10-15% saving for men and up to a whopping 40% increase for women. So hard luck for girls but its much fairer this way. 17 year old girls paying £1500 odd when a guy the same age is paying £3500 odd is insane.

Robin.

 

[Keef]

This law is ridiculous. How do governments not realize that legislating against discrimination is actually perpetuating it in the opposite direction?

As Pupik already stated, men get hit with higher insurance premiums for a reason. It's unacceptable for any government to be stepping into these arenas.

 

[Famine]

You don't honestly believe that, in the cartel called the British motor insurance industry, anyone will benefit from this except the insurance companies, surely?

Data like this should be used to calculate risk. A girl is more likely to have a low speed, low cost collision. A boy is more likely to have a high speed, high cost collision. The boy is more of a risk and the premium should be higher.

No doubt we'll also see risk assessment based on age thrown out next, as age discrimination? And risk assessment based on occupation thrown out, as wealth discrimination? Or let's just bin the whole thing and charge a flat (and no doubt exorbitant) fee for car insurance, because assessing the risk you pose to an insurer is in breach of the Magna Carta and assumption of guilt before proven guilty.


Utterly ridiculous decision which will only hurt the car driver. Again.

 

[Robin]

A whole industry which is based on speculation is discrimination in itself.

For that matter a truly fair way is that there should be no car insurance and you pay out of your pocket when you crash, ah if only...

 

[Dotini]

A whole industry which is based on speculation is discrimination in itself.

For that matter a truly fair way is that there should be no car insurance and you pay out of your pocket when you crash, ah if only...

At one time US citizens could post a bond in lieu of purchasing insurance.

 

[Famine]

A whole industry which is based on speculation is discrimination in itself.

Yes - which begs the question of why focus just on gender? Like I said above.

You know this ruling means you're going to be paying more, right?

For that matter a truly fair way is that there should be no car insurance and you pay out of your pocket when you crash, ah if only...

That also currently exists. If you can prove you have £2m in an account (I don't know why it's £2m - but bear in mind that insurers don't just pay to fix your car after you stuff it, but everything else you hit and anyone you affected) for the purposes of reparation, you can certify yourself and self-insure.


The point of car insurance is to cover the cost of accidents. The premium you pay represents the likely cost of the accident you'll have divided by the frequency of how likely you are to have that accident - which is a calculation of the chance the insurance company will have to pay for your accident. Your gender affects both of these things.

 

[Duke]

I'm not sure what you mean by that or how it could happen.

He means that an insurance company could not pay for a covered claim expense because it didn't have the money to do so because the government made a stupid law telling them they couldn't charge enough in premiums to cover their payouts.

Everybody loves to hate insurance companies, but that money they pay you has to come from somewhere.

 

[blaaah]

I think If an insurance company fails to make a payment because they can't afford it, they are breaking the law. They can only operate if they can show they can cover claims. They must raise premiums if they do not have enough funds.
........

My point is an ethical/moral one, which has nothing to do with the science or mathematical probabilities of risk. I can even make it more simple by assuming that 100% of males were more dangerous drivers than females, even if this was a fact the premiums should be exactly the same. Due to the fact males can not choose to be females, their gender is be punished just because they can cause more harm, to make it fair to the insurance industry or women, male insurance could be subsidised and partly paid for by the government. Female insurance would need no subsidy as their risk would be lower. Thats fair, just as in society millions are spent on making things available for the deaf or blind, and business have to give disabled access etc, this costs everyone else money. But it is fair. Males can not help being a statistical risk, so they need help from the government/public money to pay for their insurance premiums. But an easier way is too change the insurance law rather than increase general tax to pay for male premiums.
Males are still punished for making a claim, they will lose their no claims bonus and have to pay excess etc. To make it correctly fair the government should pay a portion of those excess fees and bonus losses.
As i have said this is an ethical viewpoint.

 

[Duke]

To make it correctly fair the government should pay a portion of those excess fees and bonus losses.
As i have said this is an ethical viewpoint.

Ahh, yes, make the government pay for it. So where does that money come from, then?

 

[blaaah]

The money comes from every member of the public, that is what makes it reasonably fair.
Just like the cost of Disabled access to shops and business does not get paid by disabled people, it gets paid by everyone. Males are a disability in the insurance risk sense. Everyone should cover their costs to allow them normal price access to driving.

There could be more work and projects planned on how to make males safer drivers. Which could be a separate effort from the financial gender division of motoring costs.

 

[Famine]

That'd be discrimination against women by a public institution.

 

[Robin]

Yes - which begs the question of why focus just on gender? Like I said above.

Well its a personal opinion but I tend to agree that there should be a flat rate charge for most things like income tax etc because you are still one person. So I have no problem if they start to focus on other areas which could be deemed discrimination. Even age when pertaining to car insurance is unfair because one could argue you get less responsive as you get older and the insurers basing the low premium on amount of use is speculation.

You know this ruling means you're going to be paying more, right?

Exactly how? Unless the general cost of living, tax etc all goes up in the mean time to counteract the savings of this ruling in I don't see how I would pay more.

That also currently exists. If you can prove you have £2m in an account (I don't know why it's £2m - but bear in mind that insurers don't just pay to fix your car after you stuff it, but everything else you hit and anyone you affected) for the purposes of reparation, you can certify yourself and self-insure.

Oh well, unfortunately I haven't got that money lying around Interesting to know though.

The point of car insurance is to cover the cost of accidents. The premium you pay represents the likely cost of the accident you'll have divided by the frequency of how likely you are to have that accident - which is a calculation of the chance the insurance company will have to pay for your accident. Your gender affects both of these things.

....and that calculation is lumping me with the ricers and joy riders which is pure speculation. Why don't they individually assess everyone in the country for car insurance (like they do with mortgages) and calculate an individual likelihood of a crash (going beyond national statistics and what you fill in on the internet). Of course there isn't enough man power in the land to do that!

Robin.

 

[blaaah]

That'd be discrimination against women by a public institution.

No because access and costs are equal.
Are all the nationwide systems for deaf/blind/disabled people discrimination for those who don't have those disabilities?
These people have a difficulty which can be helped,
males have a difficulty which females don't have. Males can't help being more dangerous.
Unless a court needs to decide whether males can decide how risky they are. Another debate?

Perhaps they must take injections of hormones and provide a doctors certificate to the insurance companies to show you are less male like in driver risk. It's inhuman and thats why we have laws to protect human characteristics. Such as being Male or Female. I expect there are plenty of things females could have assistance with which disadvantages them in society or are you opposed to that?

What the insurance industry can still do is punish those who drive more dangerously than their normal gender mean average. The average should be different for males and females. But the mean average for both genders should be the same premium, even though the mean average male driver will cause much more damage.
That is fair yes. If you are a bad driver you will pay more.

 

[wfooshee]

As stated, it is not discrimination, it's risk assessment. Something a company whose business is based on risk should be allowed to do.

Should society send everyone to prison for a couple of weeks so the murderer doesn't actually have to pay for his crime with a life sentence? Of course not. That's not discrimination, it's "this guy gets what he deserves."

Edit: So blaaah is a Socialist. Those with higher need should be carried by those with higher ability.

Um, no.

 

[Robin]

Should society send everyone to prison for a couple of weeks so the murderer doesn't actually have to pay for his crime with a life sentence? Of course not. That's not discrimination, it's "this guy gets what he deserves."

Ah but in that metaphor we know categorically who the murders is. In the real world we are all being treated as potential murderers so in a way we already are all serving time in prison (metaphorically) in the prices we pay on our premiums.

Robin.

 

[blaaah]

As stated, it is not discrimination, it's risk assessment. Something a company whose business is based on risk should be allowed to do.

Should society send everyone to prison for a couple of weeks so the murderer doesn't actually have to pay for his crime with a life sentence? Of course not. That's not discrimination, it's "this guy gets what he deserves."

A company can make a risk assessment if it chooses, but it can't change the price because of that assessment as it's gender discrimination risk.

The murder analogy has little connection at all.
If a murderer can not help being a murderer from birth , he is not responsible he would not be put in prison, any fault would lie with whoever allowed the murder to be done and for not taking care of the murderer. He should be in a secure medical facility, and treated in a respectable way, if he killed someone it would be negligence of the facility not his fault as he was already born a murderer, that is his existence.
A bit like keeping lions in a zoo, if the lion kills a member of the public or staff, it is the Zoo's fault not the lions, if the lion can be safely caught it will go back in the cage and be treated as normal afterwards. A lion can't help being born a Lion.

Edit: So blaaah is a Socialist. Those with higher need should be carried by those with higher ability.

Um, no.

I have just given one view, you could say that is a socialist view if you wanted to express that, but it doesnt label me, if there was another topic I might give an anti-socialist viewpoint. So labels don't work.
Also in 30 minutes time I may completely change my mind and disagree with my own view I have just expressed. I can do this. So that's why I don't think branding is appropriate.

 

[Famine]

Well its a personal opinion but I tend to agree that there should be a flat rate charge for most things like income tax, inheritance tax etc because you are still one person. So I have no problem if they start to focus on other areas which could be deemed discrimination.

It's not a tax and insurers are not public institutions. What you pay is calculated according to what risk you pose.

Exactly how? Unless the general cost of living, tax etc all goes up in the mean time to counteract the savings of this ruling in I don't see how I would pay more.

It's a complex chain of events that starts with an excuse to put prices up and ends with the fact that it's operated as a cartel.

The motor insurance industry currently operates at a loss, due to a massive spike in personal injury claims - you may have noticed a 30% increase in your premium compared to last year. This gives them all the ammunition they need to institute a massive hike and blame it on the Belgians.

Oh well, unfortunately I haven't got that money lying around

Bugger, ain't it?

....and that calculation is lumping me with the ricers and joy riders which is pure speculation. Why don't they individually assess everyone in the country for car insurance (like they do with mortgages) and calculate an individual likelihood of a crash (going beyond national statistics and what you fill in on the internet). Of course there isn't enough man power in the land to do that!

They do. I made this post yesterday on this topic.

The fact your genitals are on the outside is just one factor. Your age, marital status, employment status (and job), location, type of driving, where you park it, where you leave it, where you live, what you drive, how far you drive it, when you drive it and what you've been caught doing while driving it all carry risks of how often you, personally, are likely to crash and what type of crash you, personally, are likely to have.

If you're a recently-widowed, 19 year old, male bomb disposal technician living in Birkenhead, with 11 points (all for speeding while drunk) on your licence, 2 multiple-vehicle collisions in the last 3 years, driving a Bugatti Royale that you park on the road overnight and leave in a multi-storey car park during the day you're more of a risk to an insurance company than (anyone else in history?) a recently-widowed, 19 year old, female bomb disposal technician living in Birkenhead, with 11 points (all for speeding while drunk) on your licence, 2 multiple-vehicle collisions in the last 3 years, driving a Bugatti Royale that you park on the road overnight and leave in a multi-storey car park during the day. Your premiums should reflect this.

No because access and costs are equal.

Not it isn't - women have no access to it at all.

Institutions funded by non-voluntary contributions from the public may not discriminate against any sector of that public - individuals have no choice to opt in and may not opt out. Institutions funded by voluntary contributions from anyone who chooses may discriminate against any group - individuals have choice to opt in and may opt out.

 

[Sureboss]

*barges in.

It's a stupid ruling that is only going to make it cost the driver more. Bet the insurers are happy, as they now can charge more. Yay!

Some of the results of this anti-discrimination drive are ludicrous, you have to use gender in assessing someone's risk on the road. Or can I go and moan to Brussels that using my occupation (which is actually good for insurance, but never mind) to assess my risk is discriminatory towards me?

 

[Alex.]

Ok so we've established the insurers make a net gain on it. Most of the people here are males with a decent no claims. I'm a male with the maximum no claims I can actually have at this age. That age is 18 and I just paid £1200 to insure a 3cyl 4 seater 2007 Aygo. There needs to be a system where everyone starts on a level ground and their driving incidents follow them. I hate to say this but at least 60% of all female drivers I have driven in proximity to were terrible. They're always the ones who squeeze onto your side of the road to get past a car on the curb as you are in the exact same part of the road, forget to indicate or brake on a straight road because it's about to kink left at about 5degrees. Yes a lot of adolescent males drive like complete idiots because they think they're invincible, but it's the ones who don't know their limits that put up the prices by pranging it every 6 months with the same mistakes. Sure I've driven too fast before, I've nearly crashed before, but so has everyone else. Just the other day I did the stupidest thing I've ever done and got into a race, and nearly smashed it up on a dual carriage way braking zone, Had I braked literally inches later I'd have badly damaged my car and god knows about me and my 2 passengers. Somehow I've just argued myself out of my own point by proving that some people are just lucky and others aren't when driving irresponsibly. I guess it's the guys who do that often, I most certainly don't and since that day have slowed down a lot.

 

[Omnis]

I like how people complain about insurance companies and then support the complete obliteration of anything resembling risk groups. When do we stop calling "insurance" insurance?

 

[Famine]

Ok so we've established the insurers make a net gain on it.

No we haven't:

The motor insurance industry currently operates at a loss, due to a massive spike in personal injury claims - you may have noticed a 30% increase in your premium compared to last year.

 

[Danoff]

I recall that at one time insurance companies employed underwriters to use actuarial tables to determine rates. I don't know how they do it anymore. It used to be that the business of America was business, and what's good for GM was good for the world. Thanks to Milton Friedman and various other ideologies and corrupt practices, I see nothing sustainable in neo-liberal economic policies beyond further stagflation and bankruptcy.

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_15/b3928042_mz011.htm

What is the deal with the incessant Milton Friedman bashing? That guy was friggin awesome! He was the single loudest voice for free market thinking for a very long time, and now that he's gone, who is taking his place?

Seriously, you have some sort of personal vendetta. Did he leave a flaming bag of dog poo on your porch or something?

 

[Moglet]

Why not reduce all premiums but increase excess amounts? That way the higher the risk, the more money you'll pay through claims. It might also put a stop to the ridiculous amounts of false claims for injury that filter through the system. Instead of spending loads of cash on huge premiums, the money saved can be used for the excess amount only if required.

Or, base the price of the insurance on the individual. It starts off at a base rate that is only affected by the type of car and area you live in. Then it changes as you go through your life insuring different cars, making claims etc.

I'm probably overlooking something huge here but they seem like better solutions than hiking the prices for females. Hell, if they're going to hike them then why not just put them up but keep them lower than males due to the decrease in risk?

 

[Joel]

Lol let's stop discrimination by discriminating even more and just making everyone have to pay a :censored:ton more!


There's a reason that men's car insurance is higher. The proof is on this very forum, due to the fact that a guy's life revolves around proving he isn't gay and is more masculine than everyone else, a guy is more likely to drive like an asshat. It's really not that difficult to understand, and yeah it kinda sucks with me being a 16 year old boy, but it's not the insurance company's fault that teenage boys like to drive like a knob.

 

[Dotini]

What is the deal with the incessant Milton Friedman bashing? That guy was friggin awesome! He was the single loudest voice for free market thinking for a very long time, and now that he's gone, who is taking his place?

Seriously, you have some sort of personal vendetta. Did he leave a flaming bag of dog poo on your porch or something?

I want to dig up his corpse and parade around with his head on a pike. Wanna help dig?

 

[Tornado]

So, the European court doesn't know what the word "discrimination" actually means. Is that anything we didn't know?

I wonder how America will react to this decision?

I imagine silent laughter in the back of the room of every insurance company in the country, followed by an attempt to force the U.S. government to do the same thing so insurance companies can make piles of money off of it.

Hell, if they're going to hike them then why not just put them up but keep them lower than males due to the decrease in risk?

Because that is exactly what this decision disallows. Females are statistically a lower risk for costly insurance payouts, but because they are females insurance companies aren't allowed to treat them as a statistically lower risk for costly insurance payouts.