Printable View
Heh just wait until someone tries to pull this bull - "Well men get into more accidents then women so if you go by accident record when setting car insurance rates by driving record discriminates against men."
I kid you not that in the United States people have made the argument that credit scoring is racist (because some minority groups have on average lower credit scores) and have proposed that insurance companies not be allowed to use credit scoring data when setting premiums. Boggle.
Do they use an individuals credit score or their race as a proxy for it?
No. Race isn't asked when running an insurance quote.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Actually, as more information gets out about this ruling it turns out that it's mostly a British problem again; other EU countries hardly have this problem at all. When it comes to car insurance for example in Belgium they differentiate according to car driven, which takes out the actuarization by proxy through sex, and replaces it with the type of driver that is likely to drive a certain type of car.
That seems like sort of a shallow substitution. Ideally, they would take both factors into account. Arguably gender is more significant than car choice.
^^ I am not so sure about that. I don't want to know the insurance of a BMW 3/M3 for Switzerland with that system though :eek:
They differentiate according to car driven in the UK too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
I pay a higher premium for a hot hatch than I would for a standard hatch of the same price.
I'm surprised at the suggestion that anywhere doesn't differentiate.
Yes they should (and currently do) take both factors into account into UK. And I agree too that gender is a more significant factor than car choice.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
Okay, two questions: Isn't insurance about spreading out the risk? And secondly, why exactly is it fair again to discriminate against me based on something I can't change?
Would you guys also discriminate based on race, religion or profession?
Doesn't that lead the whole concept of insurance ad absurdum?
The issue isn't discriminating against areas you can't control but identifying real issues of real risk. The law for instance specificallyQuote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
Quote:
Would you guys also discriminate based on race, religion or profession?
Doesn't that lead the whole concept of insurance ad absurdum?
The issue isn't discriminating against areas you can't control but identifying real issues of real risk. The law for instance specifically allows eg charging for pregnancy-related insurance. My odds of getting pregnant are nil - with the potentially massive related costs etc, is that unfair?Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
You don't choose your profession? :weird:Quote:
Would you guys also discriminate based on race, religion or profession?
Anyway, that is on my insurance questions.
Well, the point of insurance, as I understand it, is to take an area where you may or not run afoul of something, say, illness and spread the risk over all participants. Thus diminishing the risk.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
However, higher insurance premiums for the "high risk" part of your total clientele is a double punishment - let's take breast cancer as an example. First you have to deal with the issues involving cancer and then you also are punished for it by having to pay more. When in reality, you can't actually do anything about it.
And yes, I do see such things as unfair. Because you're rewarded or punished for something you can't influence. I'm eagerly awaiting mandatory gene examinations by health insurers just so they can make it even more unfair.
They use zip codes instead.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
So far, it's been decided that our genome is private data. But who knows what the future will bring? Life insurance can already demand blood tests....and DNA is used routinely in courts....:bulb:Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
Y'know, on further thought I'm not so sure I'm as disgusted with the ruling wrt car insurance (but I'm very opposed to the ruling wrt annuities and the like). Essentially, car insurers run very large and complex regressions to figure out what factors are important in terms of the risk of paying out for a claim, right? Well, it may be that gender is just an easily measured substitute for a real, underlying variable that's harder to measure (e.g. aggressiveness in driving). If it was possible to fully capture the gender differences through other measurements (though they might be more difficult/costly), I can see how discriminating on the basis of gender might be unfair to those men who don't fit the other criteria. Essentially, current laws allow insurance companies to be lazier than they should be since gender has such a good correlation with risk.
On annuities or other life-expectancy-related products, discrimination on the basis of gender is absolutely essential. There are no underlying variables they're ignoring - the biology of gender itself is a risk factor for dying earlier (ie the correlation is the causation). Thus, acknowledging a biological basis for inequality between the genders is hardly unreasonable.
Because there is a basis for it. The discrimination is not invidious, race and gender are incidental to what the insurers and actuaries are really concerned about, risk.Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
Why look for complexity beyond the statistical fact that car insurance companies pay out more in claims to men than to women?Quote:
Originally Posted by wiggin
Analysis into the underlying reasons why insurance companies pay out more in claims to men than to women is undoubtedly interesting (aggression in driving resulting in more accidents etc), but the pertinent point from the insurer's point of view, is simply that they do, regardless of the reasons.
Well, I think you could argue both sides on this one. Correlation does not always imply causation, so generalizing to an entire class on the basis that a correlation is pretty good is a problem when that class is normally protected from discrimination. For example, just because most women are incapable of lifting loads of X weight doesn't mean we should automatically reject all applications from women for a job that requires that skill just because we're too lazy to separate them out.
Obviously, if there is a causal link there (I honestly don't know), then IMO all problems disappear.
But insurers really have no concern as to the whys here: Whether a man is more likely to crash a car because he is a man. That doesn't matter.
What matters to the insurance company is the bottom line. Profit. Cost.
And men incur a higher cost to the insurance company in terms of claims.
It depends on how often actuaries update their models, doesn't it? Sometimes I think insurance companies are still operating on the assumption that we're still in 1970, when the little lady stayed home with the kids, but didn't need to drive all over hell's half acre and back just to get Dick and Jane to piano lessons or team games, let alone drive a regional territory for business. I think it's an urban myth that women are bad drivers, or careful drivers, compared to men. Or that teens new to driving still look like reckless boys laying rubber and drag racing down Main Street. :haha:
Allstate is running a new ad campaign that's fairly age and gender-specific: teen Becky (texting on her pink cell phone) crashes into a parked car, then leaves the scene. Teen boy is distracted by the hot babe (jogging in her pink exercise outfit) and crashes into a light pole, which falls on his car. Of course, the not-so-subliminal message is to parents who cover their teen drivers' insurance. I can tell you first hand.....it's not cheap.
I disagree.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
There is a marked difference in the genders and in ages when it comes to driving statistics, which, for genders, is a large part of why this ruling is kicking up such a fuss.
Oh and when it comes to profit and loss you can bet your bottom dollar insurance companies are bang up to date in their risk models.
Besides, in the UK at least, it's the law. This from the Association of British Insurers
From 6 April 2008, the Sex Discrimination (Amendment of Legislation) Regulations specify the conditions under which insurance companies are allowed to differentiate based on gender differences when pricing insurance policies. One condition is that the use of gender as a factor in the assessment of risk is based on relevant and accurate statistical data. A second condition is that this data must be compiled, published and regularly updated in accordance with guidance issued by HM Treasury.
I'm too lazy to look up what the US Insurance Commission requires, or how they define "relevant" or "regular" updates. :p
Our laws for driving have changed a lot in just five years, regarding use of cell phones, texting, number of passengers with a Junior Driver, even the age of driving without a supervising passenger over 21 years old. It might be anecdotal, but the teenaged girls in my area are much riskier drivers than their male counterparts. :hmm:
edit: oh yeah, but those teens are much less of a risk than the white-haired 80 year olds that refuse to give up the car keys.....
Just read on a random website (carinsuranceexplained.com :weird:) that 85% of serious road offences are committed by men. In the UK.
That is not surprising. What it is, is a huge difference in cost to insurance companies between the genders. If it's a true statistic of course.
Of course, I understand why insurance companies do this. But without a causal connection, I'm not sure it should be legal. I'm sure there are plenty of connections between race and insurance payouts as well, but I don't think it would be fair to make that explicit connection in determining insurance premiums. It's easier there because they can use proxies for race (e.g. location) that work pretty well, but even so the gender causal connection needs to be demonstrated if we're going to argue it isn't arbitrary gender discriminationQuote:
Originally Posted by Timbuk2
Well, when does all this causal or correlation data sort of undo the whole point of insurance? I mean, if you get everyone into one pool, young/old/male/female/good driver/bad driver/2 miles to the grocery/100 miles to work......theoretically, all the risk variables should cancel out, and everyone would be considered "equal". That would mean tons of new drivers carry the same premium as the old drivers, with everyone in-between by the law of averages.
:confused:
The system can in fact probably reach that sort of equilibrium. It will almost certainly involve a higher premium for most drivers than is the case right now, and there will be more people who would seek to opt out of the system entirely because over the long-term their premiums are more than they would expect to pay out of pocket without insurance and they feel they can handle the greater volatility.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
I believe your counter to that is to require everyone to pay for the insurance, whether it will be good for them or not. I just don't see how you reconcile what is, effectively, universal private industry taxation with your antipathy for government feeding the coffers of corporations.
Ah. So, why don't car insurers do it the proper way then? Everyone pays the same premium (or a premium dependant on car choice) and when you cause an accident, your premium goes up. Furthermore, your premium decreases with time when you cause no accidents.Quote:
Originally Posted by Timbuk2
Thus you hit the guys which cause accidents and don't hit the guys who don't cause accidents, instead of painting everyone with a broad brush just because he's been born male. I actually don't quite see the need to discriminate here.
But it's already law in most states, that driving is a privilege that comes with mandatory insurance coverage. Whom should we "thank" for that? The lawyers pursuing personal injury or medical malpractice law suits, the medical industry pursuing payments that can lead to personal bankruptcy, the insurers pursuing lobbyists, or the lobbyists pursuing legislators? It's a massive clusterfuck of special interests that looks like herding cats. :sour:Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
I can't really reconcile any of this, in case you hadn't noticed. :p When it comes to private insurance (whether it's for auto, home, flood, wind, injury or illness) it's basically buying into a lottery to spread the risk/liability around. It's a myth that we have much choice in these things, or can "opt-out" on principle. That's why I understand the need for public transit as well as FEMA, Medicaid and Medicare.Quote:
I believe your counter to that is to require everyone to pay for the insurance, whether it will be good for them or not. I just don't see how you reconcile what is, effectively, universal private industry taxation with your antipathy for government feeding the coffers of corporations.
The alternative looks like only a small number of people could "afford" to live in tornado alley, major river valleys, coastal shore lines; only wealthy people could "afford" to drive cars, have an accident, have children, grow old, or get sick.
And what employer would want to base their HQ in those kinds of places?
As it does today.Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
As it does today.Quote:
Furthermore, your premium decreases with time when you cause no accidents.
As above. The people who cause accidents are penalised with higher premiums today. And those that don't, over time, are rewarded with lower premiums today.Quote:
Thus you hit the guys which cause accidents and don't hit the guys who don't cause accidents, instead of painting everyone with a broad brush just because he's been born male. I actually don't quite see the need to discriminate here.
It's all about insurance companies making a profit by mitigating risk, see. And car insurance is a cut-throat, highly competitive business. Better for us, the consumer, when premiums correlate exactly with risk .
I don't want to pay higher premiums by going down this regulated road, where natural market forces are distorted.
What about the women who will now be forced to pay a higher premium because they are lumped in with men who pose a higher risk? I'm sure they don't want to pay more. And you talk of discrimination.
Bah. Let the market decide.
Hey! I've been driving for decades. Paying insurance premiums for decades. When do I get that good driver discount?
I had one fender-bender back in '02 but didn't even make a claim....the other driver did. I paid a garage less than $100 to plunge out the dent and replace the plastic light cover.
The teenaged girl driving a crappy jalopy on her way to the hospital, with another teenaged girl in the back seat moaning about abdominal pains, and a couple of other teenaged girls talking in their phones and playing music, she filed a claim with her insurer. Turned out this girl had already had her rates raised from other accidents, and didn't have full coverage, or her deductible was greater than she could pay OOP. Or something.
She started calling me at home, saying I should pay for damages beyond our fender-bender. I said no, and she became an insurance stalker of sorts. My only option was to notify my insurance company and ask them to "deal with it".
My premium rates went up after that, and never did come back down. Not even after I replaced that large expensive car with a newer, smaller model that was just as "safe". Then I added a teenaged driver to the policy, and even bought an umbrella liability policy. Just in case. I don't dare do the math from YEARS of paying monthly premiums and never making a claim. It would be too depressing to think of how many insurance employees have milked me. :mad:
Zip codes are used because different areas have higher rates of theft, vandalism and accidents. Seriously why would an insurance company go to lengths to discriminate on race? Thats beyond paranoia.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
You poor 'Mericans have yet to invent the no-claims bonus?Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
For each year that I have insurance on a car and don't make a claim, I get a discount on my premium. The more years of no-claims, the greater the discount. :confused:
So good is the discount if you have built up many years of no-claims, that you can even pay a tiny bit extra on your premium to protect your no-claims bonus should you need to make a claim. No-claims protection. Saves you from losing what could be decades worth of built-up discount.