Quote Originally Posted by Timbuk2 View Post
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.
Anti-Discrimination is a two-way-street. No one wants to pay more. Let's make the problem with those methods a bit more jarring:

You know how Lewk goes on about deterrence and how punishment by law is supposed to prevent crime through said deterrence and that the amount of deterrence correlates directly with the amount of punishment?

If we follow that reasoning and also apply the logic the insurer use, we should also punish men more harshly since they are the ones responsible for the majority of crimes out there.

THAT is the kind of reasoning behind those risk-"mitigation" tactics. It does not "mitigate" anything because it places the burden of the insurance on those who already are suffering from problems.

Just imagine, pre-natal diagnostics determine that your child will have heart problems at the age of 7. Your premiums just shot through the roof. Isn't that risk-"mitigation" a great thing? Now you have a sick child and have to struggle to pay the costs? Ain't that grand? Good thing that the risk was mitigated. For the insurer, that is.