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

Loanranger

Googlewhacker wrote: »

Exactly and whilst we are at it, ban same sex gyms as well, ban charity events that are for only one sex, ban clubs from allowing one sex in for free, ban same sex clubs etc

If things are to be equal it works both ways.

No chip on your shoulder though?

Print_Screen

SnowMan wrote: »

When offering impaired annuity rates insurers will offer enhanced annuity rates to those who have suffered a heart attack not just because a heart attack reduces their life expectancy but because a heart attack itself indicates that they are likely to be male. How on earth do you decide which bit you strip out and can allow for without discriminating.......

We'll that's the crux isn't it? taking events and applying them generally.

Take the extreme example of car insurance. You are a 23 yr old driver and a satelite falls to Earth impacting your parked car.

You claim and at your next renewal your premiums go up as you are deemed more at risk, but why, you are not at fault?

It's this kind of statistical analysis that leads to problems. No fault is taken into account just the fact you had an accident regardless of blame.

Paulgonnabedebtfree

Underwriter wrote: »

Although this is off topic, if you have truly been abstinent for 25 years and you don't have any other problems which can be associated with drug addition like mental health issues or another addiciton like alcohol (yes I know I'm generalising but I haven't got time to be more specific!) then you should be accepted at standard rates for life and critical illness cover and probably disability cover as well. Most companies accept people with a history of heroin addiction (the highest rated) after six years or so of abstinence.

What you propose about changing terms after the policy is in force would be totally impractical. For a start we have enough trouble getting applicants to tell the truth before their cover starts, they would never tell us of health problems once the policy was in force! And where would you draw the line - would people have to tell us if they had a heart attack, or put on wieght or took up smoking? It would not only be impossible to police, but the point of insurance is you apply and once you are accepted you have certainty over your cover for the whole term of the policy, so whatever happens to you provided you told the truth on your application form you are guaranteed the cover you paid for.

Anyway back on topic, hot off the press, it looks like the ECJ have upheld the challenge but it won't come into force until the end of next year...

My own experience has shown that standard rates weren't available about ten years ago for me even though I sorted out the problem and the underlying issues. Also, I do appreciate what you say about being unable to change the terms once a policy is in force. Indeed, I ended up accepting reducing term assurance cover (I since cancelled due to the expense and having no dependants) for about £80 a month on a loan of around £80k. This was around age 43. Far too high but I tried others and was turned down without a medical.
I feel that there was a large element of hypocrisy though. I say this because on the one hand I couldn't get cover (or only very heavily loaded cover) for a problem that was long gone. This is presumably because they felt I might die early. Yet on the other hand, they were all too willing to take my pension money without a better annuity deal even though they were already effectively saying that I would die young.
In the end I got so sick of the hypocrites that I decided to dispense with term assurance (no dependants) and pension and take my luck as it comes.
Due to having no dependants, I should manage OK on a state pension and selling my flat back to the bank when I eventually retire. Even if that doesn't work, I learned to live on my wits long ago and those lessons are never fully forgotten .

Tojo_Ralph

Loanranger wrote: »

The Equal Pay Act became law in 1970 and has been in force ever since.

However my comment as stated refers to the Equality Act (circa 2010), which by any standards is recent.

Dazla_2

If the courts pass it for Insurance to be sexless then the next will be ageless, then will not be able to discriminate by postcode.

Think of this; if insurance becomes sexless and the price goes to the higher sex, then what if insurance becomes ageless or can't discriminate by location, then what will happen to the price?

I know that this is possibly a little far fetched, but when or where does it stop? Then our already overpriced insurance premiums will become even more... overpriced!!!

Floridachick

When will they see that Insurance is all about the 'Risk' element when it comes to pricing. Various factors have to be taken into account when assessing a car insurance risk, such as where you live, what car it is, your age, car age etc. Should these also be deemed illegal? If all these were taken out of the equation, I would imagine many drivers deemed to be a low risk when taking these factor into account will see their premiums rocket.

I am sure that the proposed changes will only increase the cost of all aspects of insurance in the long run. A bit of a hollow victory!!!!

Spatchelor

I cannot believe this idea! :mad: Insurance premiums are based on RISK! That includes where you live, where you keep your car overnight, how many miles you drive in a year, the type of car, your age AND your sex!

I am pleased to see the law on insurance in changing i.e automatic fines through the post if there is a break in insurance renewal or if the car is not declared SORN, but this will make more people drive uninsured. Premiums for young people are already so high, over £1,000 for a car worth £200!

I can understand the INDIVIDUAL frustration of young men who have to pay higher premiums and yet are very safe drivers, but they belong to a group who ARE a higher risk. I could argue that as I haven't had an accident or any claim in the last 10 years then I shouldn't pay anything!

I shouldn't have to pay for other peoples accidents and claims. I don't expect to pay for other peoples groceries in Tesco's!

stevemcol

Spatchelor, an excellent first post.

stmartinsdiver

The issue this European Court ruling raises is far bigger than just car insurance. More importantly, it also means that pension annuities will be similarly affected with the value of a man's annuity dropping by 8%. Insurance companies have always calculated premiums which reflect the level of risk which is why young drivers pay more and young male drivers pay more than young female drivers. This ruling is the thin end of the wedge and the European Court should not be allowed to dictate how any business determines the cost of it's offering in a competative market place where market forces and real life dictate prices of products and services.

capondoug

Not only should insurance be sexless, it should be entirely based on the risk of the individual. Until an individual has had a claim he/she is no risk. Only once there has been a claim is there a valid reason for the premium to rise and rise again with each additional claim.
It should be illegal to stereotype individuals whether it be by race, age, sex, religion or any other grouping.
Surely we have human rights to be treated as individuals?