EU Gender Directive
Discussion
Well it's nearly here.
http://www.insurancetimes.co.uk/story.aspx?source=...
Political correctness gone mad I think.
http://www.insurancetimes.co.uk/story.aspx?source=...
Political correctness gone mad I think.
mrmr96 said:
But it's not really "fair" to risk profile people based on characteristics which they have no control over.
You can't control your (birth) gender.
You can't control your age.
You can't control your ethnicity.
So according to this thinking, an 80 y/o should pay the same for life insurance as a 20 y/o. After all, it's not his fault he's 80.You can't control your (birth) gender.
You can't control your age.
You can't control your ethnicity.
And if you have cancer, you should pay the same for life insurance than someone who hasn't. It's not fair to charge someone extra for having a serious illness.
Insurance should never be about what is fair. Premium should be based on your chances of making a claim on the policy.
mrmr96 said:
And according to your thinking it would be OK to charge an Asian man and a White British Man different amounts, all other things being equal? Purely based on their race?
Firstly, there is no evidence to support a differential in the rate between thsoe categories. And how would insurers know anyway, because they don't know what colour you are! So you're talking tripe. mrmr96 said:
Please address my actual point: Would differential pricing based SOLEY on Ethnicity be ok, do you think?
It's a completely nonsense question, because there is no evidence, and would never be any evidence for this. It's like asking should insurers charge more for people who are called Gerald?If there were some know genetic variable between the races that effected their ability to drive, say Caucasians had slower reactions, or Asians had very poor eyesight, then yes, I would support that. I'm sure the disadvantaged group would support it to, as they would know it was factual. But such variations don't exist.
I expect to pay more for my life insurance than someone half my age. I'm more likely to die. It's not my fault, it isn't fair, but it's a fact. I can't deny it. I'm also less likely to crash my car than someone half my age. But more likely to that a woman of the same age. These are facts. Your example of racial profiling in insurance is just made up tosh.
Zeeky said:
The Directive does not prohibit gender discrimination based on biological differences between men and women. It prohibits the use of statistics to discriminate. If insurers can prove that a woman is less risk because she is a woman then discrimination can be justified.
But they can they prove that without statistics?It's so obvious. Look around the supermarket car park and 90% of drivers are women. Look on the motorway during office hours on a weekday. 90% of drivers are men. So even if they had the same number of accidents, the men's accidents would be bigger, and cost insurers more.
But without statistics, you can't prove that.
mrmr96 said:
So what's the justification for charging men more again? Do we have worse eyesight or reactions? Or is it the types of journeys and driving style? We COULD build stats based on race if we wanted to, and they WOULD show certain groups to be higher or lower risk than "average".
You're deliberatly avoiding answering my question because you KNOW it would be absolutely unacceptable, regardless of any stats which would exist.
Yes, you're right, men pay more due to types of journeys and the driving style.You're deliberatly avoiding answering my question because you KNOW it would be absolutely unacceptable, regardless of any stats which would exist.
No, you're wrong, stats would not show certain ethnic groups to be a higher risk, because they aren't. What makes you think stats would show that. What ethnic groups do you think are worse at what and why?
And how have you avoided the question? I said quite clearly that if certain ethnic groups, including my own (white British) were shown to be a higher risk, then I'd support higher premiums. I support higher premiums for men and I'm a man. I support higher life insurance for 50 y/olds and I'm 50.
So I answered your question fully. Will you answer mine thought?
mrmr96 said:
You may be right that there have never been stats collected on this. However I think that IF stats were collected then I think there WOULD be a statistical difference. If there's enough difference between how men and women drive to be statistically significant then I think there will also be a cultural differences between races which influences their driving which would also prove to be statistically significant.
However I'm not about to start pointing figures at any ethinic group as being higher or lower risk, because I don't have any stats on this. So any specific examples are at this point pure speculation. As such my question to you could be said to be hypothetical, for the time being, as there's no stats on it. But what you're telling me is that IF there were stats which showed a difference in risk based on race then you WOULD support differential pricing by race. In this day and age how can you possibly believe that to be socially acceptable?
Why isn't it acceptable? I think it's perfectly acceptable to discriminate fairly. Most people of all races would agree. When they were casting for an actor to play Ali, Will Smith got the gig. I doubt Hugh Grant felt cheated out of the role. If I was looking for someone to play Boris Johnson, Denzil Washington wouldn't make the short list. Why is that wrong. No one complains about that.However I'm not about to start pointing figures at any ethinic group as being higher or lower risk, because I don't have any stats on this. So any specific examples are at this point pure speculation. As such my question to you could be said to be hypothetical, for the time being, as there's no stats on it. But what you're telling me is that IF there were stats which showed a difference in risk based on race then you WOULD support differential pricing by race. In this day and age how can you possibly believe that to be socially acceptable?
I normally wouldn't accept discrimination by gender, except when it's obviously correct to do so.
But fortunately, we would never have to racially discriminate in insurance, because unlike you, I don't believe there is any difference between the ethnic groups.
mrmr96 said:
It is not racist to acknowledge differences between races.
It is racist to discriminate based on race.
You appear to be contrary on both these points.
You're the one who is suggesting that stats, if they were collated, would show a difference in risk based on ethniticy. On what basis do you even think that?It is racist to discriminate based on race.
You appear to be contrary on both these points.
My position is quite clear, there are no stats and if there were, they wouldn't show a difference.
Zeeky said:
Statistics aren't sufficient evidence that a particular individual is a greater or lesser risk simply because of their gender or ethnicity. You don't buy insurance for a class of people, you buy it for yourself.
Everything else being equal, is it a fact that a male driver is always a greater risk because he is male than a female driver is because she is female?
You are correct, you buy insurance as an individual, but insurers, not knowing you, have to rate the risk as a combinatinon of individual and as part of a wider group.Everything else being equal, is it a fact that a male driver is always a greater risk because he is male than a female driver is because she is female?
They take into account your personal ncb, accident and conviction history, but also your car, area, age and gender as a group.
Of course one 17 y/o may be a lower risk than his granny, but 100 17 y/olds will cost an insurer more than their grannies.
Someone living in the Scottish Highlands may get their car stolen, and someone else in C London may not, but overall, claims from C. London will be more frequent.
I don't see how insurers have any other choice.
Would you seriously expect a 75 y/o taking out 25 yrs life insurance to pay the same as a 25 y/old, on the basis that neither of them have ever died before!!
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!!!
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?
BertBert said:
I don't see it the same as you at all. Insurance is based on statistical inference. The predicted likelihood of needing to claim is used. What that does is use statistics, ie how a population behaved is used to predict what might happen to an individual. If the ins co gets that right, then the population of individuals behaves in future like the sample population did in the past.
That is well proven, the onus has been on them and it has worked.
So if you split the insured population into 2, then:
The probability of having a claim given you are male is greater than the probability of having a claim given you are female.
This is NOT discrimination. Discrimination is taking a prejudicial view purely on the basis that you belong to a certain group. It's not the same as what insurance is doing. It's not because you belong to a group, it's about the observed empirical behaviour of the membership of that group.
Take a different example. Split the population into criminals and non-criminals (speeders obviously in the criminal group).
So any guesses? The probability of a person committing a crime given they are a criminal is slightly greater than the probability of a person committing a crime if they are in the non-criminal group.
So is it ok to regard someone differently depending on whether they are in the criminal group? I suggest it is.
The fact that women pose a different insurance risk to men is just coincidental to the fact that women also get discriminated against.
How could the dumbf
ks in the EU not understand that? And I've only got 1 CSE.
Bert
It's obviously 1 CSE more than the idiots responsible for this crackpot ruling.That is well proven, the onus has been on them and it has worked.
So if you split the insured population into 2, then:
The probability of having a claim given you are male is greater than the probability of having a claim given you are female.
This is NOT discrimination. Discrimination is taking a prejudicial view purely on the basis that you belong to a certain group. It's not the same as what insurance is doing. It's not because you belong to a group, it's about the observed empirical behaviour of the membership of that group.
Take a different example. Split the population into criminals and non-criminals (speeders obviously in the criminal group).
So any guesses? The probability of a person committing a crime given they are a criminal is slightly greater than the probability of a person committing a crime if they are in the non-criminal group.
So is it ok to regard someone differently depending on whether they are in the criminal group? I suggest it is.
The fact that women pose a different insurance risk to men is just coincidental to the fact that women also get discriminated against.
How could the dumbf
ks in the EU not understand that? And I've only got 1 CSE.Bert
Zeeky said:
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.
How would this work. Would you have to be interviewed by your prospective insurer before taking out a policy? Surely that's the only way forward if what you are suggesting became the law.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.
You couldn't charge someone extra for having had 5 previous fault claims in the last year. Because if you did, you'd be making an assumption by lumping them in with everyone else with 5 fault claims. This person might have turned over a new leaf, and might never have another claim again.
I can't see any way forward with your theory other than an extensive interview with every potential customer prior to an offer of insurance being made. Maybe some kind of phsycological testing to try and establish their character. Are they risk adverse or not.
Tbh, I can't see a future in it.
Ninjaboy said:
Like i said everyone pays the same at the start, if you don't crash it goes down if you do it goes up. It would also need to have an element of sense with the car type obviously but a VTR saxo would cost the same for all 17 year olds at the start and go up or down depending on what happens.
Would a new 17 y/o pay the same as a 57 y/o taking out their first insurance? If you apply "sense" as you so ironically call it, to the type of car, would you apply "sense" to the area they live in? Would someone in London pay the same as someone in N Yorkshire? What about someone who crashes and doesn't replace their car, so doesn't need further insurance, or someone who has a huge claim killing loads of people plus themselves. You can't charge them more next time, so who picks up the shortfall?
What about people who go on internet forums and spout complete drivel without thinking it thru. Would you charge them extra?
Perhaps you can give us some numbers, say based on 1000 17 y/o VTR drivers. How much they pay to start with, how much is goes down for claim free drivers, and goes up for the claimers.
Edited by TwigtheWonderkid on Saturday 17th November 14:02
Ninjaboy said:
why should i pay more insurance because i happen to be a man and carry the burden of the local chavs.
Because you're a higher risk than the average woman of your age living in your area driving the same car. Because your insurer have no way of knowing if you're one of the local chavs or not. When you earn some no claims bonus and the chavs don't you'll be paying less than the chavs, but more than the woman if she too has earned the same no claims bonus. Because she'll still be a better risk. I don't know anyway to explain it any more simply that that.Edited by Ninjaboy on Saturday 17th November 19:04
SpeckledJim said:
It is all just data. There is no pejorative judgment in the data, it's just numbers.
I can produce data to show that black athletes are good at running quickly, and white athletes are good at swimming quickly. A bookmaker offering odds on a random black 25 athlete in a running and swimming competition against his white equivalent would reflect those differences. That isn't a value judgment, it's just data.
If data existed to show asian blokes were better risks than average, and caribbean women were better risks than average, then there should be no issue in an insurer using that data for their pricing. Insurers are just bookmakers, using the available data to set the right price. If more data is available, the price will be closer to correct.
Age similarly. A 19yo with one year experience is a worse risk than a 40yo with the same experience. Because the 19yo has mental and lifestyle factors that put them at a relative disadvantage. Not a 'good thing' or a 'bad thing', just true, and relevant, and demonstrable in the data.
Enough of your logic and common sense. Stop clouding the issue with facts.I can produce data to show that black athletes are good at running quickly, and white athletes are good at swimming quickly. A bookmaker offering odds on a random black 25 athlete in a running and swimming competition against his white equivalent would reflect those differences. That isn't a value judgment, it's just data.
If data existed to show asian blokes were better risks than average, and caribbean women were better risks than average, then there should be no issue in an insurer using that data for their pricing. Insurers are just bookmakers, using the available data to set the right price. If more data is available, the price will be closer to correct.
Age similarly. A 19yo with one year experience is a worse risk than a 40yo with the same experience. Because the 19yo has mental and lifestyle factors that put them at a relative disadvantage. Not a 'good thing' or a 'bad thing', just true, and relevant, and demonstrable in the data.
Ninjaboy said:
You can use all the condesending language you like, i understand the situation perfectly i just don't agree with it and i don't see how it's fair to the indiviual.
You're right, it isn't fair to the individual. It never can be fair. Is it fair that someone with a serious illness can't get life insurance? Is it fair that someone who lives near a river that often floods can't get flood insurance on their house contents?But is it fair that people who live on a hill or are in perfect health should pay more so those less fortunate can pay less?
Insurance was never meant to be fair, and never can be fair. It's based on perceived risk.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff