Should Insurance Be Sexless - Martin's Blog & Site Vote

popadom

SueC wrote: »

I'm not sure what your point is. Sorry.

Well your saying women shouldnt take time off if they want to be equal- i dont think women go out getting pregant hoping to get time off.
In the 1300s there was a shortage of people-so wages were higher-this would happen if theyre was a decrease in children-the point being if women didnt have kids it would cost employers more(not so bad for us employees)
Im presuming your mother would have had time off to have you -so saying women shouldnt have time off in order to be equal is silly as most of our mothers (if they worked) would have to take time off.
And men cant control their testosterone.

SueC_2

rgay1992 wrote: »

Well your saying women shouldnt take time off if they want to be equal- i dont think women go out getting pregant hoping to get time off.
In the 1300s there was a shortage of people-so wages were higher-this would happen if theyre was a decrease in children-the point being if women didnt have kids it would cost employers more(not so bad for us employees)
Im presuming your mother would have had time off to have you -so saying women shouldnt have time off in order to be equal is silly as most of our mothers (if they worked) would have to take time off.
And men cant control their testosterone.

Righty ho.

HanSpan

SueC wrote: »

Thanks for your support, although it's probably best not to get me started.... I may move onto pensions and death in service entitlements etc.... if you're unmarried and 'child-free' that's where you REALLY get screwed over....

Oh go on - I will be cheering you on as I'm both of those and haven't had a good rant about having to pay a premium to cover others' (of both sexes) spouses pensions costs for some time!

As to the business of whether car insurance should take gender into account I'm actually struggling as I can see the argument either way. I think its quite reasonable for a business of any type to calculate a business model that makes them the most profit. That's what they are there to do - insurance is a business not a public service. On the other hadnd I feel it is only 'fair' if the risk is genuinely affected by just gender, rather than differing claim levels being actually due to other factors whicht just happen to occur more in one gender or the other. I'd really need to understand how the actuaries calculate the risks to make up my mind (and I can't see insurance companies divulging that or everyone would skew their answers).

Oh and as to the argument that 'as its compulsory it should be fairer' or that it should be flat rated like the NHS I think that's nonsense. It's only compulsory if you own a car, and car ownership is a choice (yes I know the arguments about living in the countryside and so on but ultimately where you live is a choice too).

SueC_2

HanSpan wrote: »

Oh go on - I will be cheering you on as I'm both of those and haven't had a good rant about having to pay a premium to cover others' (of both sexes) spouses pensions costs for some time!

As to the business of whether car insurance should take gender into account I'm actually struggling as I can see the argument either way. I think its quite reasonable for a business of any type to calculate a business model that makes them the most profit. That's what they are there to do - insurance is a business not a public service. On the other hadnd I feel it is only 'fair' if the risk is genuinely affected by just gender, rather than differing claim levels being actually due to other factors whicht just happen to occur more in one gender or the other. I'd really need to understand how the actuaries calculate the risks to make up my mind (and I can't see insurance companies divulging that or everyone would skew their answers).

Oh and as to the argument that 'as its compulsory it should be fairer' or that it should be flat rated like the NHS I think that's nonsense. It's only compulsory if you own a car, and car ownership is a choice (yes I know the arguments about living in the countryside and so on but ultimately where you live is a choice too).

Wanna be in my gang?

Googlewhacker

rgay1992 wrote: »

Well your saying women shouldnt take time off if they want to be equal- i dont think women go out getting pregant hoping to get time off.
In the 1300s there was a shortage of people-so wages were higher-this would happen if theyre was a decrease in children-the point being if women didnt have kids it would cost employers more(not so bad for us employees)
Im presuming your mother would have had time off to have you -so saying women shouldnt have time off in order to be equal is silly as most of our mothers (if they worked) would have to take time off.
And men cant control their testosterone.

Which is why I keep saying maternity leave should be reduced to 6 months whereas paternity leave increased to 6 months and as such there is less likely to be discrimination in the hiring process as the risk for a bloke taking paternity leave is as high as maternity leave.

popadom

Googlewhacker wrote: »

Which is why I keep saying maternity leave should be reduced to 6 months whereas paternity leave increased to 6 months and as such there is less likely to be discrimination in the hiring process as the risk for a bloke taking paternity leave is as high as maternity leave.

Parents do need bonding time -they dont want to pop a baby out and then six months later have to go to work knowing my 6 month old is in the care of childminders-i think its a bit young. I think the idea to make both men and women have the same time is good-but i think 6 months is too short.

SueC_2

Do you know what? The more I think about it, the more I think employers should just pay everyone to come into work when they feel like it, insurance companies should provide cover for everyone at an equal (and minimal) cost, and shops should just give everything away to us all, whatever we want, whenever we want.

Come the revolution.............

Googlewhacker

rgay1992 wrote: »

Parents do need bonding time -they dont want to pop a baby out and then six months later have to go to work knowing my 6 month old is in the care of childminders-i think its a bit young. I think the idea to make both men and women have the same time is good-but i think 6 months is too short.

Well considering it is still the same amount as the moment (bar two weeks) but just split more fairly then businesses won't lose out.

popadom

Googlewhacker wrote: »

Well considering it is still the same amount as the moment (bar two weeks) but just split more fairly then businesses won't lose out.

But what is silly is we work for these employers and most do day in day out-its not alot to ask to have time off of children. You give the best part of your life to work .

CutTheJargon

tbourner wrote: »

I want to know what stats they use though, is it just a list of road accidents and deaths with a M or F next to it? Cos if so, it's rubbish. How many female travelling salespeople do you know? How many female truck drivers or delivery people do you know? Or any other driving job for that matter. Compared to men, women do far fewer miles. My mum is in the statistics, she hasn't crashed for 40 years!! She hasn't driven for 35 years but do they take that into account?

Er, actually I know loads of female travelling sales people. I have been one for 27 years covering up to 40,000 miles per year, the last 24 years totally accident free. I am penalised now as I have no 'no claims' of my own and have just had to pay a huge insurance over the past year as I now run my own car. Thankfully I have halved it this year, so no system is totally fair. However, I do worry that you must drive round with a blindfold on.

Where have you been for the past 3 decades? In your cave???