EU Gender Directive
Discussion
otolith said:
Pricing on factors we can't control is only unfair in the sense that life is not fair and insurance tries to predict reality.
The purpose of insurance is not the equal redistribution of misfortune.
Ok then, so if the stats supported it would YOU support pricing on ethnicity? I suspect not. Why? Because it's racist.The purpose of insurance is not the equal redistribution of misfortune.
So how come racism is not acceptable when pricing insurance, but sexism (until recently) was, and Ageism still is?
No one has yet put their finger on that.
Edited by mrmr96 on Thursday 15th November 16:08
BertBert said:
mrmr96 said:
But can you explain why do you think that pricing on any non controllable feature of a person is ok, but ethnicity is not?
Did I say that?Are you saying that you WOULD support pricing on ethnicity too?
Robb F said:
mrmr96 said:
Ok then, so if the stats supported it would YOU support pricing on ethnicity?
I would.However since you don't make any distinction between race and gender (or other non controllable factors) you're a person who probably won't be able to explain to my why some are acceptable and some not; because your view is that they're all acceptable. That's cool, it's your view. But I'm not sure there's much left for you and I to discuss. Thanks for your input though.
mrmr96 said:
No, I was assuming that you would and trying to speed the conversation up.
Are you saying that you WOULD support pricing on ethnicity too?
Sorry for being slow Are you saying that you WOULD support pricing on ethnicity too?
Yes I would. I would view that not as discrimination as that is a pejorative term. If you differentiate between one population against another on the basis of (insurance) risk, I'm fine with having premiums
set accordingly.
Bert
BertBert said:
mrmr96 said:
No, I was assuming that you would and trying to speed the conversation up.
Are you saying that you WOULD support pricing on ethnicity too?
Sorry for being slow Are you saying that you WOULD support pricing on ethnicity too?
Yes I would. I would view that not as discrimination as that is a pejorative term. If you differentiate between one population against another on the basis of (insurance) risk, I'm fine with having premiums
set accordingly.
Bert
I'm still trying to find someone who does draw a distinction between gender discrimination (or anything else non-controllable) and race discrimination though, so I can understand why they treat these facets differently.
mrmr96 said:
otolith said:
Pricing on factors we can't control is only unfair in the sense that life is not fair and insurance tries to predict reality.
The purpose of insurance is not the equal redistribution of misfortune.
Ok then, so if the stats supported it would YOU support pricing on ethnicity? I suspect not. The purpose of insurance is not the equal redistribution of misfortune.
mrmr96 said:
I'm still trying to find someone who does draw a distinction between gender discrimination (or anything else non-controllable) and race discrimination though, so I can understand why they treat these facets differently.
It's a shame that you keep using the word "discrimination", as it's such a loaded, pejorative term. A common view I see expressed here is that premiums should (fairly) be related to risk, which is a statistical concept based on historic data gathered over the years and used to predict future claims likelihood. If there is sufficient data to demonstrate with sufficient confidence that any one characteristic of an individual gives rise to a greater risk then individuals with those characteristics should (fairly) be expected to pay higher premiums.Everyone should start at a set amount for a certain car and if your a tit it goes up if you goood it goes down. Why should a decent 17 year old lad pay the same as a vile idiotic chav? i was always careful yet i was lumped in with everyone else because i happened to be the same sex it's not fair! and women can be worse than men too.
What affect is this likely to do to mens premiums?
What affect is this likely to do to mens premiums?
Andehh said:
I utterly detest positive discrimination, like forcing all companies to have 40% of their executive staff be female (something like that), but when it comes to risk situations like this I see it perfectly reasonable to expect men to pay more. Statistics don't lie...
with regard to the executive staff rule, i saw an interview that said it was causing reduction in performance in some companies. Staff should be chosen on merit and ability not on sex or some meaningless figure about having so many men and women.
Can someone who thinks insurance pricing should not be affected by factors beyond our control, and that individuals should be treated as such and not lumped in with a general group, please answer my question re life insurance.
Should a 75 y/o who wants level term life insurance for 25 yrs pay the same as a 25 y/o buying the same product. It's not his fault he's 75. And some 75 y/olds will make it to 100, and some 25 y/olds will die before they're 50.
And lets face it, when it comes to previous history of death, both of them have been claim free!!!
Should a 75 y/o who wants level term life insurance for 25 yrs pay the same as a 25 y/o buying the same product. It's not his fault he's 75. And some 75 y/olds will make it to 100, and some 25 y/olds will die before they're 50.
And lets face it, when it comes to previous history of death, both of them have been claim free!!!
Ninjaboy said:
... i was always careful yet i was lumped in with everyone else because i happened to be the same sex it's not fair! and women can be worse than men too.
That is the legal position. You have the right to be treated as an individual not as a member of a class of persons identified by a protected characteristic such as race or gender. Life is unfair. It need not be discriminatory. If the insurance companies want to charge you more for insurance because you are male the onus is on them to prove that you are a higher risk because you are male. Statistics do not prove anything about the individual.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
...Should a 75 y/o who wants level term life insurance for 25 yrs pay the same as a 25 y/o buying the same product. It's not his fault he's 75. And some 75 y/olds will make it to 100, and some 25 y/olds will die before they're 50.
And lets face it, when it comes to previous history of death, both of them have been claim free!!!
A 75 year old is biologically different froma 25 year old. In any event not all the protected characteristics are treated equally. Indeed there are plenty of things that are realistically beyond our control that are outside the scope of discrimination law.And lets face it, when it comes to previous history of death, both of them have been claim free!!!
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Can someone who thinks insurance pricing should not be affected by factors beyond our control, and that individuals should be treated as such and not lumped in with a general group, please answer my question re life insurance.
Should a 75 y/o who wants level term life insurance for 25 yrs pay the same as a 25 y/o buying the same product. It's not his fault he's 75. And some 75 y/olds will make it to 100, and some 25 y/olds will die before they're 50.
And lets face it, when it comes to previous history of death, both of them have been claim free!!!
Hello. I've thought about this a bit before. Like; do I agree with car insurance being priced according to age. I'm not sure if I've come to a firm decision one way or the other yet. (It's rare for me to go undecided for so long! haha!)Should a 75 y/o who wants level term life insurance for 25 yrs pay the same as a 25 y/o buying the same product. It's not his fault he's 75. And some 75 y/olds will make it to 100, and some 25 y/olds will die before they're 50.
And lets face it, when it comes to previous history of death, both of them have been claim free!!!
One possible thought is that I can see a case for agreeing that the price should be different in this case. The reason being that they can both control when they take the product out. The 75 y/o would have got cheap cover when he was young. The young man will pay a higher premium when he's old. Over the course of their lives there will be no distinction.
However if you look at it from a "at this moment in time" point of view; one is young and the other old, and whilst they both have the opportunity to buy cover as a young man and as an old man, the fact remains that there's a differential 'as at today'. And they have no control over their age 'as at today'.
So I can see a case both ways, and I've not decided what I feel about it.
mrmr96 said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Can someone who thinks insurance pricing should not be affected by factors beyond our control, and that individuals should be treated as such and not lumped in with a general group, please answer my question re life insurance.
Should a 75 y/o who wants level term life insurance for 25 yrs pay the same as a 25 y/o buying the same product. It's not his fault he's 75. And some 75 y/olds will make it to 100, and some 25 y/olds will die before they're 50.
And lets face it, when it comes to previous history of death, both of them have been claim free!!!
Hello. I've thought about this a bit before. Like; do I agree with car insurance being priced according to age. I'm not sure if I've come to a firm decision one way or the other yet. (It's rare for me to go undecided for so long! haha!)Should a 75 y/o who wants level term life insurance for 25 yrs pay the same as a 25 y/o buying the same product. It's not his fault he's 75. And some 75 y/olds will make it to 100, and some 25 y/olds will die before they're 50.
And lets face it, when it comes to previous history of death, both of them have been claim free!!!
One possible thought is that I can see a case for agreeing that the price should be different in this case. The reason being that they can both control when they take the product out. The 75 y/o would have got cheap cover when he was young. The young man will pay a higher premium when he's old. Over the course of their lives there will be no distinction.
However if you look at it from a "at this moment in time" point of view; one is young and the other old, and whilst they both have the opportunity to buy cover as a young man and as an old man, the fact remains that there's a differential 'as at today'. And they have no control over their age 'as at today'.
So I can see a case both ways, and I've not decided what I feel about it.
How about two 25 y/olds buying the product, one with cancer or some other awful illness and one with a clean bill of health. Surely in a world of fairness and not charging people for factors beyond their control, how can you justify charging extra for the person with cancer. Or, as would probably happen now, insurers just refusing to cover them at all? Would you force life insurers to cover people with life threatening illnesses at the same terms as a healthy person. What would this do to overall premium levels?
TwigtheWonderkid said:
mrmr96 said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Can someone who thinks insurance pricing should not be affected by factors beyond our control, and that individuals should be treated as such and not lumped in with a general group, please answer my question re life insurance.
Should a 75 y/o who wants level term life insurance for 25 yrs pay the same as a 25 y/o buying the same product. It's not his fault he's 75. And some 75 y/olds will make it to 100, and some 25 y/olds will die before they're 50.
And lets face it, when it comes to previous history of death, both of them have been claim free!!!
Hello. I've thought about this a bit before. Like; do I agree with car insurance being priced according to age. I'm not sure if I've come to a firm decision one way or the other yet. (It's rare for me to go undecided for so long! haha!)Should a 75 y/o who wants level term life insurance for 25 yrs pay the same as a 25 y/o buying the same product. It's not his fault he's 75. And some 75 y/olds will make it to 100, and some 25 y/olds will die before they're 50.
And lets face it, when it comes to previous history of death, both of them have been claim free!!!
One possible thought is that I can see a case for agreeing that the price should be different in this case. The reason being that they can both control when they take the product out. The 75 y/o would have got cheap cover when he was young. The young man will pay a higher premium when he's old. Over the course of their lives there will be no distinction.
However if you look at it from a "at this moment in time" point of view; one is young and the other old, and whilst they both have the opportunity to buy cover as a young man and as an old man, the fact remains that there's a differential 'as at today'. And they have no control over their age 'as at today'.
So I can see a case both ways, and I've not decided what I feel about it.
How about two 25 y/olds buying the product, one with cancer or some other awful illness and one with a clean bill of health. Surely in a world of fairness and not charging people for factors beyond their control, how can you justify charging extra for the person with cancer. Or, as would probably happen now, insurers just refusing to cover them at all? Would you force life insurers to cover people with life threatening illnesses at the same terms as a healthy person. What would this do to overall premium levels?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff