Insurance Gender discrimination decision is made

[boiltheocean]

Not only does this ruling effect insurance prices but also it means millions of men face a reduction in pension payouts.

This is just a huge 🤬 you to the general public in a time when nobody can spare extra living costs. I'd like to punch the asshats that though this was the right thing to do.

 

[wfooshee]

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.

No, it's not.

I resented very much growing up as a single lad with a relatively powerful 2-seat mid-engine car, and paying 1200 bucks a year (back in 1986) to insure it. This was at nearly 30 years of age, mind you, and 25 is a major drop in rates.

I never ever, for even a single oscillation of a cesium atom, felt I was being discriminated against. Yes, a married female driving the 4-cylinder version of the same car would pay less than half what I paid. Factors: the car is slightly less expensive, she's less than half as likely as I am to crash it into somebody (there were no cell phones then, and no texting, so all she had was the radio-cassette -- a CD if she was up-town.) Why would I get a break for that? There's nothing even remotely discriminatory about it.

If that same woman applied for a professional position, for which she was eminently qualified, years of experience, much previous success, and I went in as an untrained, inexperienced dufus looking for the same job, yet was hired instead of her, and for the same, or even more money, then see, that's discrimination. The person who should have benefited in the situation is left out in the cold.

Same thing with insurance. If she doesn't get a lower rate by being a lower risk, but instead has to subsidize my higher risk, also at a benefit to me of a rate closer to an arbitrary median, then now she's being discriminated against. I am not being discriminated against by paying a higher premium for my higher risk. Gender has EVRYTHING to do with that, and it's a legitimate factor, most especially in the late teens and early 20s. The male "Pick me! Pick me!" gene is not very thorough in behavior selection and the decision making that goes along with that.

 

[Stevisiov]

I find this ruling silly.

Yes I can't afford a car, purely because of the insurance, and yes if I was female, I probably could afford the insurance. Truthfully I'm not a reckless driver, I probably don't deserve that fat extra lump sum my insurer bolts on due to the risk factor of me being male, its not entirely fair...

...but. As others have said, insurance is not a fair business, and being being hit by factors you can't control is not exclusive to gender alone. Profiling is important for an insurance company to function efficiently in my eyes, even if that means it short changes people.

 

[blaaah]

You don't seem to appreciate that it is not your fault that you are male, you can't help being male. Being of a certain gender should not change quality and fairness of life in society, some males may not be able to drive at all because it costs too much, but if they were female they might just afford it. That simple fact is a pure discriminatory moral outrage.
Risk has nothing to do with it.
Insurance may not be a fair business, but it has to be fair specifically on gender, it's the law. If insurance companies don't like the law they can F off. And run some other administrative business.

 

[Stevisiov]

You don't seem to appreciate that it is not your fault that you are male, you can't help being male. Being of a certain gender should not change quality and fairness of life in society, some males may not be able to drive at all because it costs too much, but if they were female they might just afford it. That simple fact is a pure discriminatory moral outrage.
Risk has nothing to do with it.
Insurance may not be a fair business, but it has to be fair specifically on gender, it's the law. If insurance companies don't like the law they can F off. And run some other administrative business.

There are a lot of factors in my life which I will get penalised for, factors I can do nothing about. Life isn't fair, probably better to just get on with it.

 

[blaaah]

True life is not fair, but the European Union does protect some aspects of all Europeans life from birth, one of those things is gender.

 

[Joel]

Thing is, it's not the insurance ccmpany's fault you're male and thus more likely to wrap your car around a tree.

 

[blaaah]

Thing is, it's not the insurance ccmpany's fault you're male and thus more likely to wrap your car around a tree.

Indeed, so they can either obey the law, or go away. Insurance companies don't have the right to exist or operate how ever they like. But humans do have the right to be treated equally whether male or female- if they are European residents.

 

[Joel]

Indeed, so they can either obey the law, or go away. Insurance companies don't have the right to exist or operate how ever they like. But humans do have the right to be treated equally whether male or female- if they are European residents.

I'm not arguing that gender based pricing is legal in the EU, because it's not. But it's laws like these that just end up hurting everyone except the insurance company. They're not going to lower men's pricing, they're just gonna jack up the prices on women's insurance too. It's not fair to women that they're much less likely to have an accident, but still have to pay just as much.

 

[Touring Mars]

Risk has nothing to do with it.

Risk has everything to do with it... that's what insurance companies do. That is their sole function and reason for existing - to insure against possible future outcomes.

Insurance may not be a fair business...

By this do you mean that insurance is discriminatory? If so, then you'd be right. But it must be discriminatory, otherwise it simply wouldn't work.

but it has to be fair specifically on gender

The question is, is gender a factor in one's risk of being in a road traffic accidents or not? That is a question that can be answered objectively, and it would seem that the answer is 'yes'... it would seem, in any case, that insurers are generally united in their assessment that female drivers pose a lower risk and are therefore offered lower premiums than their male counterparts... I'm positively certain that they are not doing this out of the goodness of their hearts, or for any other reason than it makes good business sense. With these things in mind, it would appear foolish to force insurers to charge women the same premiums as men, for no better reason than to pay lip service to 'gender equality'.

 

[blaaah]

I'm not arguing that gender based pricing is legal in the EU, because it's not. But it's laws like these that just end up hurting everyone except the insurance company. They're not going to lower men's pricing, they're just gonna jack up the prices on women's insurance too. It's not fair to women that they're much less likely to have an accident, but still have to pay just as much.

It's a good point, but it is fair on a gender basis which overrides the risk basis, male vs female = same price. Female less risk, which could give a right to lower price but is overruled on gender fairness. It would be an unfair advantage for females to have lower insurance. If prices are equal it has to be fairer than a price differentiation on gender.
There is no logic to it hurting everyone more. If a company takes in a total income of £10 in premiums, £6 from men and £4 from women, and pays out £10 in claims. It will continue to pay out £10 in claims but take £5 each on premiums. Where is the higher cost logic. If the overall costs do get higher then that is just the Insurance companies profiteering which is not related to the actual gender ruling.

 

[blaaah]

Risk has everything to do with it... that's what insurance companies do. That is their sole function and reason for existing - to insure against possible future outcomes.



By this do you mean that insurance is discriminatory? If so, then you'd be right. But it must be discriminatory, otherwise it simply wouldn't work.


The question is, is gender a factor in one's risk of being in a road traffic accidents or not? That is a question that can be answered objectively, and it would seem that the answer is 'yes'... it would seem, in any case, that insurers are generally united in their assessment that female drivers pose a lower risk and are therefore offered lower premiums than their male counterparts... I'm positively certain that they are not doing this out of the goodness of their hearts, or for any other reason than it makes good business sense. With these things in mind, it would appear foolish to force insurers to charge women the same premiums as men, for no better reason than to pay lip service to 'gender equality'.

Yes I see your points are based on statistics,risk, probabilities, objective decisions on business etc.
All those things get brushed together and put in the bin when it comes to human rights. The science or the maths is irrelevant, the law is telling the insurance industry "you can not calculate premiums on gender risk".
If the definition of Insurance companies is purely of calculated risk then for the public to accept the equality change, maybe it needs to be given another name.
The Vehicle Safety and Protection Licence, bit like a driving License but it's an "insurance license" but not strictly, The people would acknowledge it's based on moral fairness and access to the right of driving in your country. Just like a driving license you could get points for indiscretions, like accidents. This only ever need be a 3rd party only institutionalised scheme as a minimum requirement. Integrated into the driving license/vehicle license it may also stop a lot of insurance fraud and criminal movements.

 

[Touring Mars]

You have to ask, why do insurance companies currently charge women less for car insurance than their male counterparts? Clearly, if men and women were completely equivalent in terms of risk, then there should be no difference in their premiums... but that is not the case. That insurance companies treat men and women differently is a consequence of the fact that, in terms of their risk of a car accident anyway, they are simply not equivalent. To suggest otherwise would be a mere assumption. But forcing insurance companies to operate on the basis of unproven assumptions (i.e. that men and women are equivalent risk) rather than to operate on evidence and statistics, can only be a bad idea. Men and women ought to be treated 'equally', insomuch as they are charged according to their relative risk. Only if that relative risk is zero should there be zero difference in their premiums. This is the only 'fair' conclusion - if one group is lower risk than the other, it is not fair to demand they pay the same for their coverage as a higher risk group.

'Gender equality' will always be constrained by the obvious fundamental truth that men and women are different, and while civilised societies may strive to minimise/eliminate unfair discrimination based on gender, society is also compelled to acknowledge and reflect real differences too. Life expectancy is an obvious and relevant example. Life expectancy for women is almost universally higher than that for men. No law can alter this basic fact, and no law should attempt to ignore it either. Unfortunately, this law does exactly that.

 

[EddieExplosion]

A couple of points...

Statistics can be manipulated so it is hardly fair to generalise by Sex, Race, age etc. There is a massive diversity of people within these demographics!

The most obvious example would be the claim that men are more dangerouse drivers than women. You may be able to state this statisticaly but that does not mean the argument holds any weight. It is true that men have more accidents than women, however there are fewer female drivers on the road so the statistic is compromised.

Insurance companies only really look at top level statistics without delving too deeply. This is why insurance quotes are broken down into such broad categories, such as, males under 24 years of age. No one can possibly can claim that a quite based on such flimsy generalisations can be representative of that demographic.

The fact is insurance companies do not have either the inclination or the resource to break down their statistics beyond the extremly broad demographics everyone is talking about.

And ultimately any form is discriminiation is wrong.

 

[wfooshee]

Our point is not whether the insurance companies should obey the law. Obviously they should. Our point is that the law has no basis whatsoever, because price differences based on gender are not discriminatory. No one said, "Hey, you're a girl, so you cost less." There is real, genuine, and factual data to back up the claim that the girl exposes the insurance industry to a lower risk, therefore her share of contribution to that risk should be lower. If it's not, then that is the point discrimination occurs. "Your risk is lower but we don't care. Pay up!"

Discriminination is arbitrary. Choose a man instead of a woman as a shift supervisor, regardless of qualifications: that's arbitrary. Pay a woman for the same work less than you pay a man: that's arbitrary. Lay off an older high-cost high-quality worker to bring in entry-level cheap help. That's not quite arbitrary, as there is a cost factor involved, but it's certainly discriminatory. The older person did nothing wrong except get "too expensive."

Risk assessment is not arbitrary, therefore it is not discriminatory. The law is stupid, on that one basis.

In the American judicial system, such a law would last about 38 milliseconds before being challenged in court. Oh: rather like happened to Obamacare!

 

[Touring Mars]

From a report on gender differences in driving and insurance risk...

We agree with the conclusion of the Department of Gender and Women’s Health at the World Health Organisation. The department has called for recognition of the fundamental differences between men and women drivers and the development of gender-differentiated policies in relevant areas. In the UK, motor insurance underwriting takes such gender-differentiation into account to ensure each gender effectively pays for its own class of claims at different ages. Young men are charged more than young women because they cause more frequent and expensive accidents. In our view, this is justified on the basis of the evidence that we have reviewed.

The Department of Gender and Women’s Health at the World Health Organisation seem quite convinced that the non-equivalence in risk for male and female drivers is real... I would contend that the insurance industry merely reflects this reality, as opposed to the idea that the insurance industry is either misinterpreting the statistics, or arbitrarily deciding to discriminate against men by charging higher premiums for no reason.

 

[Tornado]

All those things get brushed together and put in the bin when it comes to human rights.

Forcing women to be be treated the same even when they shouldn't is no less discriminatory than treating women differently when they shouldn't.

 

[Keef]

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

Milton Friedman was a free-market pioneer. If you want to cause a ruckus, I'll help you set John Maynard Keynes' body on Obama's doorstep.

 

[Pupik]

Milton Friedman was a free-market pioneer. If you want to cause a ruckus, I'll help you set John Maynard Keynes' body on Obama's doorstep.

Great, now we need a sticky thread "You will not state the desire for the market to crash or an economist to be injured."

 

[blaaah]

Forcing women to be be treated the same even when they shouldn't is no less discriminatory than treating women differently when they shouldn't.

Women have been unfairly discriminated against by giving them cheaper insurance than men. It's positive discrimination, just like you can have positive racism.
They must sacrifice their positive for the greater good. I have already given examples, the general public pay millions of pounds each year for services for the deaf and blind and physically disabled. Why should people without these conditions subsidise services for them? Because it's protection for a group of people so they can be treated equally and experience services others can without costing them additional payment to access them. Access to a service can not be of a variable price to differing genders. I'm afraid the females must lose their gender given benefit of being lower risk drivers, in order to help those who are of a higher risk gender. That is fairness, helping those who are worse off than yourself, resulting in a fair equal price for all, females will not pay more than males.
I'm wondering where I stand on the massive insurance age issue though, I'm not sure whether I would choose the moral viewpoint or the practical one on that, undecided...

 

[DK]

^ What if that economist supported policies which led to a country needing to be bailed out by the IMF?

 

[Touring Mars]

Women have been unfairly discriminated against by giving them cheaper insurance than men. It's positive discrimination, just like you can have positive racism. They must sacrifice their positive for the greater good.

Women are not being discriminated against (or 'for') at all. They enjoy lower premiums because they are lower risk and that is how insurance works. That is not discrimination.

I'm afraid the females must lose their gender given benefit of being lower risk drivers, in order to help those who are of a higher risk gender. That is fairness, helping those who are worse off than yourself, resulting in a fair equal price for all, females will not pay more than males.

How is it fair that everyone pays the same? It is patently unfair to ask the same premiums from a non-smoker and a heavy smoker, just as it is unfair to ask the same premiums from a fit, healthy young person as someone dying from cancer.

Insurance companies are not in the business of caring why or how someone may have come to be higher risk - all they are concerned with is what that risk is and charge accordingly. I'm failing to see why a private insurance company ought to operate on any principle other than "For the same level of required cover, higher risk means higher premiums and lower risk means lower premiums".

 

[blaaah]

How is it fair that everyone pays the same? It is patently unfair to ask the same premiums from a non-smoker and a heavy smoker, just as it is unfair to ask the same premiums from a fit, healthy young person as someone dying from cancer.

But this is what happens with the state funded NHS, smokers get all the treatment for cancer for free, paid for by every one including the non-smokers. There are no tailored premiums, everyone pays the same no matter how fit you are or if you are a fat, drug addicted smoker with cancer and aids.

Insurance companies are not in the business of caring why or how someone may have come to be higher risk - all they are concerned with is what that risk is and charge accordingly. I'm failing to see why a private insurance company ought to operate on any principle other than "For the same level of required cover, higher risk means higher premiums and lower risk means lower premiums".

Because Insurance companies, even private ones do not get to dictate the rules of business, the rules of business are set in law, European Law. What they think based on statistics is illegal if they put it into practice.
The principle you suggest is not right because it favours females and penalises males. It is illegal to penalise on gender, equally it is illegal to favour on gender even if it's based on true scientific reasoning. Gender Risk is banned from being a consideration for insurance companies, even if that is their business, they are banned from doing it, for extremely good and sound moral reasons of gender fairness. And equality. If there is a natural imbalance in society or nature, then authorities will artificially rebalance it, this is one of those authorised rebalancing manoeuvres.
Maybe if there is another gender difference floating around we can examine it to see how the morality might apply to that and if it is right or not , I can't think of one right now though.

 

[Joel]

It's a good point, but it is fair on a gender basis which overrides the risk basis, male vs female = same price. Female less risk, which could give a right to lower price but is overruled on gender fairness. It would be an unfair advantage for females to have lower insurance. If prices are equal it has to be fairer than a price differentiation on gender.
There is no logic to it hurting everyone more. If a company takes in a total income of £10 in premiums, £6 from men and £4 from women, and pays out £10 in claims. It will continue to pay out £10 in claims but take £5 each on premiums. Where is the higher cost logic. If the overall costs do get higher then that is just the Insurance companies profiteering which is not related to the actual gender ruling.

Because the insurance companies aren't going to say, "we used to get $4 from women, and $6 from men, so let's charge $5 each now!"
They're going to say "hahahaha the government is making us have the same price, now both men and women are going to pay $6!"


They aren't going to find an equilibrium, they're just going to make both genders pay what the high risk gender pays. Isn't that discrimination? Making women pay high prices for high risk insurance, when really they're lower risk? How is that remotely fair? Women are statistically better drivers than men, so they pay less for insurance, it's completely 100% fair. It's the same thing with pensions, men's pensions are (were) higher because women have longer life expectancy. And in this case, they aren't going to raise women's pensions, they're just going to drop the men's pensions down to where they were.


As much as the EU wants to think it's not true, people are different. Some people are better than other people, and that's all there is to it. In this example, women are statistically better drivers than men, and that's a fact. To penalize the people who are better (in this case women drivers), just because others (men drivers) aren't as good as them, is discrimination, and incredibly unfair.

 

[Danoff]

The crux of the problem as I see it is that there is a difference between arbitrary discrimination and pertinent information. The faulty assumption here is that there is no pertinent information based on gender, that all distinction between gender is arbitrary discrimination.

 

[Touring Mars]

But this is what happens with the state funded NHS, smokers get all the treatment for cancer for free, paid for by every one including the non-smokers. There are no tailored premiums, everyone pays the same no matter how fit you are or if you are a fat, drug addicted smoker with cancer and aids.

This is true - but it doesn't mean that it is right. The NHS is a publicly funded institution (paid for mainly by our taxes) and hence everyone pays the same (well, every tax payer pays the same anyway) and everyone gets the same level of treatment (well, is supposed to), whether that is enough or not. But the NHS is not a good example of how private industry operates!... nor is it a very good example of an efficient or perfectly fair system where people always get the treatment they need or want.

Because Insurance companies, even private ones do not get to dictate the rules of business, the rules of business are set in law, European Law. What they think based on statistics is illegal if they put it into practice. The principle you suggest is not right because it favours females and penalises males. It is illegal to penalise on gender, equally it is illegal to favour on gender even if it's based on true scientific reasoning. Gender Risk is banned from being a consideration for insurance companies, even if that is their business, they are banned from doing it, for extremely good and sound moral reasons of gender fairness. And equality.

Until today it was perfectly legal and, in my view, perfectly justifiable too. So what's changed? A European court has, in its wisdom, decided that enforcing gender 'equality' is more important than recognising the reality that certain aspects of gender are not equal (such as life expectancy and car accident risk, for example) despite clear evidence to show that this is so.

If there is a natural imbalance in society or nature, then authorities will artificially rebalance it, this is one of those authorised rebalancing manoeuvres.

"Authorities will artifically rebalance it"?? What's wrong with simply facing reality and allowing private companies to operate on sound business principles rather than forcing them to pretend as if these differences don't exist, and in turn force lower risk individuals to pay as much as anyone else? This can only put prices up for everyone.

There seems to be this view in certain parts of the media that insurance companies are there for the social good... nothing could be further from the truth.

 

[blaaah]

Because the insurance companies aren't going to say, "we used to get $4 from women, and $6 from men, so let's charge $5 each now!"
They're going to say "hahahaha the government is making us have the same price, now both men and women are going to pay $6!"

That not a problem, It's up to the insurance company to decide how much they charge, they are free to do that. Just as long as it's equal, the was not to reduce the overall cost of premiums, but create a gender equality.

 

[blaaah]

There seems to be this view in certain parts of the media that insurance companies are there for the social good... nothing could be further from the truth.

I never thought that, the company is strictly a business to make money.
The EU is there for the social good. That is why they made the law, or in fact to just uphold the law that already existed, the insurance industry had a special exemption, that exemption has now been rescinded.

 

[Joel]

The crux of the problem as I see it is that there is a difference between arbitrary discrimination and pertinent information. The faulty assumption here is that there is no pertinent information based on gender, that all distinction between gender is arbitrary discrimination.

I think it all comes from how "discrimination" has become such a dirty word. Discrimination is often perfectly justified (as it is in the case of car insurance and pensions).


EDIT:

That not a problem, It's up to the insurance company to decide how much they charge, they are free to do that. Just as long as it's equal, the was not to reduce the overall cost of premiums, but create a gender equality.

Why are they free to make their own pricing points, but not based on gender? I it justified to charge more based on age? Why or why not?

 

[wfooshee]

The fact simply is that the genders are not the same. Saying they are the same does not make it so. Repeatedly saying they are the same STILL does not make it so.

A high-risk driver paying more for insurance is NOT unfair, nor is it discriminatory. Calling it unfair over and over and calling it discriminatory over and over does not make it so.

Now, had the company refused coverage simply because someone was male (or female,) that WOULD be discriminatory. There is no basis for saying "We can't possibly afford what he might do to our company, regardless of what we can charge him, therefore we will not cover him. He is male, therefore uninsurable." Nobody's gonna buy that. but neither should that high-risk driver with 2 DUIs and 7 accidents over the last 5 years get a free ride on his insurance because some high-risk female has to come up to the same rate.

And yes, I understand the risk scales are not going away. Someone with multiple problems will pay more than a clean-record driver, and that's perfectly fair.

This is NOT a good thing, nor is it a good precedent. As mentioned before, the next thing will be retired groups lobbying against age "discrimination" in rates, when they are absolutely a higher risk group.

There is simply nothing "fair" about charging women the same as men, when their risk factor is far lower.