European judges rewrote the rule book for insurance companies today by banning risk assessment based on gender.
Using differences between men and women as a risk factor in setting premiums for car and medical insurance as well as pension schemes breaches EU rules on equality, declared the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg.
The verdict - which applies from December 21 next year - will force changes in the current practice of basing insurance rates on statistics about differing life expectancies or road accident records of the sexes.
The Association of British Insurers estimates that the decision will actually reinforce price discrimination, with women drivers under 26 in the UK facing a 25 per cent rise in car insurance rates, with a 10 per cent drop in rates for men in the same age group.
Until now, discrimination in setting insurance rates has been permitted under EU equal treatment rules, ‘if sex is a determining risk factor... substantiated by relevant and accurate actuarial and statistical data’.
But today the judges followed advice from the court's Advocate-General that ‘higher-ranking’ equality provisions set out in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the Lisbon Treaty must now apply.
Insurance companies can carry on discriminating between the sexes until December next year - the time when current EU equality rules are due to be reviewed.
The delay will also give insurance companies and risk assessors time to change the template for risk assessment by ignoring traditional statistical gender-based evidence.
One of the firms most affected by today’s ruling is Sheilas' Wheels, an insurance firm which markets its products at women, though it has also been forced to offer premiums to men.
A spokesman said: ‘Today’s ruling by the ECJ will affect millions of women. By December 21 Sheila’s Wheels will fully comply.
‘We have no intention of changing our marketing or losing our appeal to women.’
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z1FOaqdZJY
Women drivers get equality!
Women drivers get equality!
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
Re: Women drivers get equality!
What actuarial facts support this:
Male drivers under age 26 have been subsidizing female drivers under age 26? Whoda thunkit?
?The Association of British Insurers estimates that the decision will actually reinforce price discrimination, with women drivers under 26 in the UK facing a 25 per cent rise in car insurance rates, with a 10 per cent drop in rates for men in the same age group.
Male drivers under age 26 have been subsidizing female drivers under age 26? Whoda thunkit?
Reason is valuable only when it performs against the wordless physical background of the universe.
Re: Women drivers get equality!
Who were these 'European judges".
With their chauvanistic attitude, and unless there exists convincing statistics that women under 26 are SUCH CRAP drivers that they deserve to paid 25% more than a males of the same age, I would say they were Italian men.
With their chauvanistic attitude, and unless there exists convincing statistics that women under 26 are SUCH CRAP drivers that they deserve to paid 25% more than a males of the same age, I would say they were Italian men.
Bah!
Re: Women drivers get equality!
No, no, no.
Male drivers under 26 have traditionally paid higher insurance premiums than females because actuarial data shows that males get into more accidents. The European Court has now said that the sexes cannot be rated differently for insurance purposes even though the actuarial data would support it, so premiums charged to males under 26 will have to fall and premiums charged to females under 26 will have to rise in order to comply with the ruling.
Male drivers under 26 have traditionally paid higher insurance premiums than females because actuarial data shows that males get into more accidents. The European Court has now said that the sexes cannot be rated differently for insurance purposes even though the actuarial data would support it, so premiums charged to males under 26 will have to fall and premiums charged to females under 26 will have to rise in order to comply with the ruling.
"The dildo of consequence rarely comes lubed." -- Eileen Rose
"Colonialism is not 'winning' - it's an unsustainable model. Like your hairline." -- Candace Linklater
"Colonialism is not 'winning' - it's an unsustainable model. Like your hairline." -- Candace Linklater
Re: Women drivers get equality!
As a person who is fascinated by statistics, my preference would be to allow insurance companies to be as creative as they like in carving up the population and setting rates that are appropriate.
But I can support punishing women because young men are bad drivers. It will teach them a lesson.
(Not sure what the lesson is, though).
But I can support punishing women because young men are bad drivers. It will teach them a lesson.
(Not sure what the lesson is, though).
Re: Women drivers get equality!
why would it be impermissible to use the same data to differentiate as to rates based on race, ethnicity, religion, etc. but fine when it is by gender? Indeed, if the data showed otherwise, I'm pretty certain that having women pay higher rates based on their gender alone would be struck down. This is just removing another form of government sanctioned discrimination against a group based on the behavior of some within that group.
Re: Women drivers get equality!
Which is why they've struck down this rating and gone unisex (which has also happened for many purposes in the U.S.). We could carve up young men/women into different groups for lower and higher rates, which happens (e.g., good grades). Of course, the discrimination cuts both ways depending on the type of insurance: for example, women live longer than men on average so will receive more pension payments, but men and women now have to pay the same premiums for a pension annuity, so men subsidize women for this purpose.
Re: Women drivers get equality!
Well...
"Insurance" is an institution that allows participants to cushion the risk of a catastrophic and costly personal event by voluntarily enduring a modest and known amount of pain (the insurance premium) in exchange for being indemnified against the financial cost of the catastrophic event.
Insurance companies make their money by being able to predict, using mountains of historical data, the number and cost of catastrophic losses in a large population, then assessing each person in that population a fee in exchange for indemnifying all of them against well-defined catastrophic losses.
The insurance companies ALL HAVE THE SAME BASIC DATA. They compete against one another on the negative side by controlling the admitted populations, and excluding certain risks. On the positive side, they compete by trying to keep the premiums low, and offering targeted, non-standard coverages and other benefits ("...shrinking deductible...") that might appeal to individuals the customer base.
There is nothing virtuous or malevolent or evil about commercial insurance. It is a pure business transaction, in a free and vibrant market. As we in America see manifested every day on our televisions, the competitors in the Auto insurance industry are offering everying but oral sex to get our business.
But this basic business paradigm leaves seemingly "innocent" pockets of the population in unfortunate circumstances. No insurance company wants to give them coverage because they are perceived as a "bad risk." This may be either because of their personal conduct or circumstances, or because they are a member of a commonly-associated statistical grouping that can collectively be identified as "bad risks." In a less-onerous vein, there are sub-populations that bear statistical risk factors that are worse than other sub-populations, but the difference is not so bad as to make them unacceptable to insurance carriers, but only less desirable and worthy of higher premiums.
For example, lIfe insurers correctly perceive that women live longer than men, and thus would charge them less for term life insurance. To wit, the likelihood that a 50-year-old woman will die during the term of the policy is LESS than the likelihood of a 50-year-old man dying during the same term. So the woman's premium would be less than the man's premium.
Enter the Gub'mint.
Many people who win elective office believe (and, indeed, are elected on the premise that) their mission in life is to promote "fairness" in all things. It is not "fair" that some people should have greater incomes than others, so we will tax the higher earners at a higher rate, thus making life more "fair" for both groups. It is not fair that some people inherit mountains of money, so we will simply confiscate some of it. It is not "fair" that some populations don't do well on competitive examinations that determine who gets hired, promoted, admitted, etc., so we'll toss out the tests to make it "fair" to everybody. It is not "fair" that some people cannot afford to send their children to the college of their choice, so we will give them Gub'mint grants and low-interest loans. It is not "fair" that some people lose their jobs for reasons outside their own control, so we will provide a temporary stipend to such people, to help them get by. And so forth.
And these elected officials have somehow latched onto the idea that they have the right and the obligation to force the insurance industry to meet their sometimes perverse standards of "fairness." And as is always the case when Gub'mint dips its sticky finger into the world of private enterprise, the results are that (1) "fairness" to one person is in fact very unfair to everyone else, (2) insurance companies are demonized, and (3) you end up with regulations that are ridiculous.
You have women paying higher auto insurance premiums because young men are generally bad drivers,
You have women paying higher life insurance premiums than they should because men don't live as long,
You have healthy young people paying much higher health insurance premiums than they should, because the cost of keeping the Old Farts breathing is bankrupting the country,
We have Gub'mint demanding that health insurers accept customers who ARE KNOWN TO HAVE long-term, life-altering diseases and conditions that will likely result in lifetime payouts of millions of dollars - and that the insurance companies not charge them any more in premiums than their healthy neighbors,
You have Gub'mint demanding that healthy young people - who could probably afford to forego health insurance altogether - purchase expensive health insurance, so that Old Farts will not have to pay as much for their insurance.
Does that about cover it?
Women drivers get equality.
Yeah, right.
"Insurance" is an institution that allows participants to cushion the risk of a catastrophic and costly personal event by voluntarily enduring a modest and known amount of pain (the insurance premium) in exchange for being indemnified against the financial cost of the catastrophic event.
Insurance companies make their money by being able to predict, using mountains of historical data, the number and cost of catastrophic losses in a large population, then assessing each person in that population a fee in exchange for indemnifying all of them against well-defined catastrophic losses.
The insurance companies ALL HAVE THE SAME BASIC DATA. They compete against one another on the negative side by controlling the admitted populations, and excluding certain risks. On the positive side, they compete by trying to keep the premiums low, and offering targeted, non-standard coverages and other benefits ("...shrinking deductible...") that might appeal to individuals the customer base.
There is nothing virtuous or malevolent or evil about commercial insurance. It is a pure business transaction, in a free and vibrant market. As we in America see manifested every day on our televisions, the competitors in the Auto insurance industry are offering everying but oral sex to get our business.
But this basic business paradigm leaves seemingly "innocent" pockets of the population in unfortunate circumstances. No insurance company wants to give them coverage because they are perceived as a "bad risk." This may be either because of their personal conduct or circumstances, or because they are a member of a commonly-associated statistical grouping that can collectively be identified as "bad risks." In a less-onerous vein, there are sub-populations that bear statistical risk factors that are worse than other sub-populations, but the difference is not so bad as to make them unacceptable to insurance carriers, but only less desirable and worthy of higher premiums.
For example, lIfe insurers correctly perceive that women live longer than men, and thus would charge them less for term life insurance. To wit, the likelihood that a 50-year-old woman will die during the term of the policy is LESS than the likelihood of a 50-year-old man dying during the same term. So the woman's premium would be less than the man's premium.
Enter the Gub'mint.
Many people who win elective office believe (and, indeed, are elected on the premise that) their mission in life is to promote "fairness" in all things. It is not "fair" that some people should have greater incomes than others, so we will tax the higher earners at a higher rate, thus making life more "fair" for both groups. It is not fair that some people inherit mountains of money, so we will simply confiscate some of it. It is not "fair" that some populations don't do well on competitive examinations that determine who gets hired, promoted, admitted, etc., so we'll toss out the tests to make it "fair" to everybody. It is not "fair" that some people cannot afford to send their children to the college of their choice, so we will give them Gub'mint grants and low-interest loans. It is not "fair" that some people lose their jobs for reasons outside their own control, so we will provide a temporary stipend to such people, to help them get by. And so forth.
And these elected officials have somehow latched onto the idea that they have the right and the obligation to force the insurance industry to meet their sometimes perverse standards of "fairness." And as is always the case when Gub'mint dips its sticky finger into the world of private enterprise, the results are that (1) "fairness" to one person is in fact very unfair to everyone else, (2) insurance companies are demonized, and (3) you end up with regulations that are ridiculous.
You have women paying higher auto insurance premiums because young men are generally bad drivers,
You have women paying higher life insurance premiums than they should because men don't live as long,
You have healthy young people paying much higher health insurance premiums than they should, because the cost of keeping the Old Farts breathing is bankrupting the country,
We have Gub'mint demanding that health insurers accept customers who ARE KNOWN TO HAVE long-term, life-altering diseases and conditions that will likely result in lifetime payouts of millions of dollars - and that the insurance companies not charge them any more in premiums than their healthy neighbors,
You have Gub'mint demanding that healthy young people - who could probably afford to forego health insurance altogether - purchase expensive health insurance, so that Old Farts will not have to pay as much for their insurance.
Does that about cover it?
Women drivers get equality.
Yeah, right.
Re: Women drivers get equality!
Did you not note the intended irony of the title Dave? You really need to lighten up a bit.
I think this is a very bad move, a restriction on trade which I cannot support.
I think this is a very bad move, a restriction on trade which I cannot support.
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
Re: Women drivers get equality!
It's convenient for insurance companies to divide customers into risk groups based on certain characteristics, but those characteristics don't necessarily represent the cause of the increased risk. To use the example at hand, we are so used to hearing that men pose a greater accident risk than women (and therefore pay higher premiums), but what exactly does that mean? Is there something genetic about being a male that predisposes men to be worse drivers than women? Or could it be, for example, that the typical man spends more time driving than the typical women, and so he is perceived to be a greater risk simply because he has greater opportunity to get into an accident? In which case, the real risk factor is not whether the driver is a man or a woman, but the amount of time the driver spends at the wheel. So a man who drives very little is being unfairly penalized because he happens to be a man, even though he does not share the characteristic that makes a driver a higher risk (driving a lot).
If an insurance company is going to discriminate on a basis that would be a prohibited ground in any other business, it should have to prove that there is a causal relationship between its classifications and the risk of loss.
If an insurance company is going to discriminate on a basis that would be a prohibited ground in any other business, it should have to prove that there is a causal relationship between its classifications and the risk of loss.
"The dildo of consequence rarely comes lubed." -- Eileen Rose
"Colonialism is not 'winning' - it's an unsustainable model. Like your hairline." -- Candace Linklater
"Colonialism is not 'winning' - it's an unsustainable model. Like your hairline." -- Candace Linklater
Re: Women drivers get equality!
I've read that men tend to be more aggressive drivers. hence tend to be in more accidents.
Okay... There's all kinds of things wrong with what you just said.
Re: Women drivers get equality!
That might be so, in which case the onus should be on the insurance company to prove through scientific study that the reason for the higher risk relates directly to being a man (by controlling for other factors), rather than, say, because men are more prone to be found having to drive in conditions (e.g. rush hour traffic) that requires them to be more agresssive to get where they need to go, and that women who drive in the same sorts of conditions are just as agressive.Crackpot wrote:I've read that men tend to be more aggressive drivers. hence tend to be in more accidents.
It's as if insurance company were providing fire insurance to 100 homeowners in Neighbourhood A and 100 homeowners in Neighbourhood B, and determines that, since there have been 10 fires in Neighbourhood A and only 5 fires in Neighbourhood B, that living in Neighbourhood A poses a greater risk and so charges the homeowners in Neighbourhood A higher premiums than in Neighbourhood B. But let's say that further investigation determines that faulty wiring was the cause of all of the fires in both neighbourhoods, and there were more fires in Neighbourhood A because 50 homes in that neighbourhood have faulty wiring, whereas only 25 homes in Neighbourhood B have faulty wiring. So even though homes in Neighbourhood A that have brand new wiring are at no risk of fire, they are paying higher premiums, whereas the homes in Neighbourhood B with faulty wiring are paying low premiums even though they pose a high risk of catching fire. In this case the fair thing to do would be to abandon calculating risk rating using geography and instead rate for risk depending on whether a home has faulty wiring or has had it all replaced. But since those sorts of studies are expensive, insurance companies tend to rely on readily available characteristics, such as sex, that may or may not capture the real reasons for differences in risk, meaning that some clients are being screwed and others are experiencing a windfall, simply because they belong to some arbitrarily dietermined group.
"The dildo of consequence rarely comes lubed." -- Eileen Rose
"Colonialism is not 'winning' - it's an unsustainable model. Like your hairline." -- Candace Linklater
"Colonialism is not 'winning' - it's an unsustainable model. Like your hairline." -- Candace Linklater
Re: Women drivers get equality!
Why should they have to prove it Scoot? if they want to charge more for young male drivers, as they believe them to be high risk to insure, surely they should be allowed to conduct their business that way?
If company A wants $3000 a year to insure some 17 year old spotty oik, and company B is willing to risk charging $2500, they company B gets the business, and takes the risk.
If company A wants $3000 a year to insure some 17 year old spotty oik, and company B is willing to risk charging $2500, they company B gets the business, and takes the risk.
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
Re: Women drivers get equality!
And in the example given, what should the insurers do? Tear into the walls of every house to inspect its wiring before they agree to insure it?
Reason is valuable only when it performs against the wordless physical background of the universe.
Re: Women drivers get equality!
Because there are certain grounds upon which it illegal to discriminate without justification, including race, sex, etc. If they want to discriminate on the price of their products between clients they should have to prove that they have a rational justification for doing so.Gob wrote:Why should they have to prove it Scoot? if they want to charge more for young male drivers, as they believe them to be high risk to insure, surely they should be allowed to conduct their business that way?
It took only the most cursory of inspections for my parent's insurance company to determine that their previous home had knob and tube wiring and that they couldn't be insured until it was replaced. The vast majority of wiring problems can be discovered by inspecting the breaker panel, any junction boxes, and outlets and switches. Unless it has been gnawed at by rats, the wiring that is hidden in the walls is generally not going to be the source of a problem if all of the above are in accordance with code. Knob and tube wiring is a major exception to that, which is why insurance companies generally shy away from insuring it except at a hefty price.Andrew D wrote:And in the example given, what should the insurers do? Tear into the walls of every house to inspect its wiring before they agree to insure it?
"The dildo of consequence rarely comes lubed." -- Eileen Rose
"Colonialism is not 'winning' - it's an unsustainable model. Like your hairline." -- Candace Linklater
"Colonialism is not 'winning' - it's an unsustainable model. Like your hairline." -- Candace Linklater
Re: Women drivers get equality!
Fair point, but is it discrimination, or good business practice?Scooter wrote:Because there are certain grounds upon which it illegal to discriminate without justification, including race, sex, etc. If they want to discriminate on the price of their products between clients they should have to prove that they have a rational justification for doing so.Gob wrote:Why should they have to prove it Scoot? if they want to charge more for young male drivers, as they believe them to be high risk to insure, surely they should be allowed to conduct their business that way?
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
Re: Women drivers get equality!
It's convenient business practice, the question is whether it is fair/i] business practice, because we have no way of knowing whether risk is being allocated to those who are truly the most likely to incur a loss.
"The dildo of consequence rarely comes lubed." -- Eileen Rose
"Colonialism is not 'winning' - it's an unsustainable model. Like your hairline." -- Candace Linklater
"Colonialism is not 'winning' - it's an unsustainable model. Like your hairline." -- Candace Linklater
Re: Women drivers get equality!
Teenage Driver Facts:
Deaths. Each Year over 5,000 teens ages 16 to 20 Die due to Fatal injuries caused Car accidents. About 400,000 drivers age 16 to 20 will be seriously injured.
Risks. The risk of being involved in a car accident the highest for drivers aged 16- to 19-year-olds than it is for any other age group. For each mile driven, teen drivers ages 16 to 19 are about four times more likely than other drivers to crash.
Stats. Teenagers are about 10 percent of the US Population but account for 12 percent all Fatal Car Crashes.
Costs. Drivers (both male and female) under age 24 account for 30% - $26 billion Dollars of the total costs of Car accidents in the US.
Male Versus Female. The car accident death rate for teen male drivers and passengers is more than one and a half times female teen driver (19.4 killed per 100,000 male drivers compared with 11.1 killed per 100,000 female drivers.
New Drivers. The risk of a Crash risk is much higher during the first year teenagers are able to drive.
Why are Teenager Drivers at More Risk? According to Studies: Teenager drivers tend to underestimate hazardous driving situations and are less able than older drivers to recognize dangerous situations.
Teenager Drivers are more to speed and tailgate.
Having Male teen passengers in the car has been shown to increase the likelihood of high risk driving behaviors among teenage male drivers.
Of Male drivers killed between 15 and 20 years of age 38% were speeding and 24% had been drinking and driving.
Teens have the lowest rate of seat belt use. According to surveys about 10% of high school students report they do not wear seat belts.
http://www.car-accidents.com/teen-car-accidents.html
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
Re: Women drivers get equality!
Ok, that's fine, but it still doesn't solve anything.
And if teen males on average drive 1.5 times as much as females, then it is the amount of time behind the wheel, and not the sex of the driver, that is actually the cause of the increased risk. So males who drive little would be unfairly subsidizing females who drive a lot.The car accident death rate for teen male drivers and passengers is more than one and a half times female teen driver
If having male teen passengers in the car is the risk factor, then male teen drivers who carry no passengers are unfairly subsidizing those who do carry passengers.Having Male teen passengers in the car has been shown to increase the likelihood of high risk driving behaviors among teenage male drivers.
Presumably females who drink and/or speed are just as likely to get into accidents as males who drink and/or speed. So males who neither drink nor speed should not be forced to pay higher premiums than females who do drink and/or speed.Of Male drivers killed between 15 and 20 years of age 38% were speeding and 24% had been drinking and driving.
"The dildo of consequence rarely comes lubed." -- Eileen Rose
"Colonialism is not 'winning' - it's an unsustainable model. Like your hairline." -- Candace Linklater
"Colonialism is not 'winning' - it's an unsustainable model. Like your hairline." -- Candace Linklater
Re: Women drivers get equality!
While I agree with you that there may be some unfairness in this, at an individual level, is it at all possible to quantify risk down to the level you seem to be requiring?
Or should the broader social groupings be used?
Or should the broader social groupings be used?
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”