Ban urged on 'sexist' insurance
Discussion
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3130233.stm
"The European social affairs commissioner Anna Diamantopoulou has told the BBC that women are being punished when they buy insurance because of biological differences to men.
The commissioner, who is championing plans for a new directive on sex discrimination, says insurers should not take account of pregnancy or longer life expectancy when setting premiums."
They're also trying to scrap single-sex car insurers like Diamond, as they descriminate according to gender.
Good or bad?
"The European social affairs commissioner Anna Diamantopoulou has told the BBC that women are being punished when they buy insurance because of biological differences to men.
The commissioner, who is championing plans for a new directive on sex discrimination, says insurers should not take account of pregnancy or longer life expectancy when setting premiums."
They're also trying to scrap single-sex car insurers like Diamond, as they descriminate according to gender.
Good or bad?
I don't really see it as making much difference, as your premium is calculated according to risk - so if statistically it costs less to insure women, women will pay lower premiums whether it's through a specialist insurer or not.
If they're going to scrap this, I suggest they also scrap insurers who only cover people who have more than 4 year's NCB...discriminating against those who have more accidents!
Rob.
If they're going to scrap this, I suggest they also scrap insurers who only cover people who have more than 4 year's NCB...discriminating against those who have more accidents!
Rob.
I'm confused.
Insurance is based upon risk.
Risk is determined from factors that are deemed to have an effect.
So a blind man is a greater risk driving than an all-seeing man.
If pregnancy is deemed to have an effect on risk, or for that matter obesity then it should be included.
Frucking EU muppets.
Insurance is based upon risk.
Risk is determined from factors that are deemed to have an effect.
So a blind man is a greater risk driving than an all-seeing man.
If pregnancy is deemed to have an effect on risk, or for that matter obesity then it should be included.
Frucking EU muppets.
swilly said:
I'm confused.
Insurance is based upon risk.
Risk is determined from factors that are deemed to have an effect.
So a blind man is a greater risk driving than an all-seeing man.
If pregnancy is deemed to have an effect on risk, or for that matter obesity then it should be included.
Frucking EU muppets.
I think the reasoning is that it is unfair to classify someone as a higher/ lower risk based on their gender, just as it would be unfair to say that someone is a higher/ lower risk because they're of a certain race.
IMHO it is irrelevant whether they are important factors for the insurance companies. Employers, for example, have to follow strict codes of non-descrimination so why is insurance any different?
It does raise the question of where you draw the line on what can/ can't be used to quantify risk, as factors such as age have an obvious bearing on a persons insurance risk.
OK, it's not in answer to your question, but does raise another point I sometimes think about.
Namely: How far can you go with this "PC Everyone-is-Equal" crap? How long before you can claim discrimination because someone else is quoted a lower insurance quote than you? Why do you have to pay more just because you have a history of wrapping TVR's around trees? That sounds unfair!
Ditto with jobs. Why should a company discriminate against me because I have less experience/a lesser degree/less team playing skills/whatever than the person who gets the job? That sounds unfair - just because they are more capable, why should they get the job?
Please don't take this to mean that I approve of the above situation, quite the opposite. But how long before we get there? Currently, I am sure that if any insurance company was to offer more expensive premiums to people of foreign ethnic origin there would be a public outcry, but why is this descrimination illegal and descrimination on the basis of age (or something else) legal?
Oli.
Namely: How far can you go with this "PC Everyone-is-Equal" crap? How long before you can claim discrimination because someone else is quoted a lower insurance quote than you? Why do you have to pay more just because you have a history of wrapping TVR's around trees? That sounds unfair!
Ditto with jobs. Why should a company discriminate against me because I have less experience/a lesser degree/less team playing skills/whatever than the person who gets the job? That sounds unfair - just because they are more capable, why should they get the job?
Please don't take this to mean that I approve of the above situation, quite the opposite. But how long before we get there? Currently, I am sure that if any insurance company was to offer more expensive premiums to people of foreign ethnic origin there would be a public outcry, but why is this descrimination illegal and descrimination on the basis of age (or something else) legal?
Oli.
On the same idea why does insurance go up if you get a speed ing fine. The whole point of the fine is to make you slow down, if it doesn't then the system needs changing. What about people on nine points could be some of the safest as one more mistake and no car.
Just to ruin my own arguement what about those that have been banned
Just to ruin my own arguement what about those that have been banned
I wonder what would happen if you could statistically prove that people of a certain race were better risks (ie - less likely to stuff it) than others.
I can imagine the ad.
"We don't want *you* to pay for all those white/black/asian/whatever people who have more accidents"
Allowed to run that ad? Then why can they run "Women are better drivers" type ads. A "men are better drivers" type ad would provoke a media backlash I suspect.
Just rambling.
I can imagine the ad.
"We don't want *you* to pay for all those white/black/asian/whatever people who have more accidents"
Allowed to run that ad? Then why can they run "Women are better drivers" type ads. A "men are better drivers" type ad would provoke a media backlash I suspect.
Just rambling.
Mr E said:
I wonder what would happen if you could statistically prove that people of a certain race were better risks (ie - less likely to stuff it) than others.
I can imagine the ad.
"We don't want *you* to pay for all those white/black/asian/whatever people who have more accidents"
Allowed to run that ad? Then why can they run "Women are better drivers" type ads. A "men are better drivers" type ad would provoke a media backlash I suspect.
Just rambling.
the whole thing's a crock - where will it end!?Mr E said:
Allowed to run that ad? Then why can they run "Women are better drivers" type ads. A "men are better drivers" type ad would provoke a media backlash I suspect.
Just rambling.
One thing that always puzzled me was that when I was sorting out the ex's car insurance a couple of years back, the 'women only' insurers were all about 25% more expensive then the likes of Direct line and elephant. My ex had been with a 'women only'a s she thought it was cheaper, but it wasn't.
I therefore concluded that those ads are just to con lazy women who can't be bothered phoning round insurance companies....
voyds9 said:
On the same idea why does insurance go up if you get a speed ing fine. The whole point of the fine is to make you slow down, if it doesn't then the system needs changing. What about people on nine points could be some of the safest as one more mistake and no car.
Just to ruin my own arguement what about those that have been banned
Imagine someone has just got out of jail after 20 years, in for murder. Would you trust this person to look after your children? In your logic, the fact that they had been punished would make them less of a risk than an unconvicted member of the public.
If you read the whole article they're talking about women paying more for health insurance because they could get pregnant in the normal course of things and have to claim..
It kind of makes sense if you do intend having kids, but if you don't then you've paid higher premiums (than a similarly healthy bloke) for no reason..
It kind of makes sense if you do intend having kids, but if you don't then you've paid higher premiums (than a similarly healthy bloke) for no reason..
Gassing Station | General Gassing [Archive] | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff