MSE News: Insurance costs to soar as gender discrimination banned

Percy1983

Trying not to drop to insults but you are showing limited intelligence here.

I ahve explained a very simple system which could work and you don't understand it, feel free to disagree but at least know what you are arguing against first.

Anyway I will explain the system which could work to you in one post to try and close allt he points you clearly don't understand.

People choose to insure there car, if insured and it gets damaged regardless of who is to blame your insurance fixs it, like wise if you are not insured you are responsible for all loses to in relation to your car regardless of who is to blame.

Apply similar to health/life insurance, I get crippled in accident in said car, my insurance pays, if sombody gets crippled in an accident involving me there insurance covers it.

By all means disagree with it, but to claim I have a lack of intelligence due to your lack of understanding is a bit silly.

Percy1983

lisyloo wrote: »

If I slip on your driveway because you left a pothole there then YOU are liable.
If you have insurance to pay then great, if you don't I can sue you and if you have money I can get a court order and get the balliffs in or get an attachements to your earnings.
So it's not about cars, or insurance, it's about legal liability you disgree with.

So yes we are never going to agree as I don't believe you should be able to sue me because you weren't looking where you were going...

I'll get my coat...

lisyloo

Trying not to drop to insults but you are showing limited intelligence here.

Percy - I did not write that comment ok?

if sombody gets crippled in an accident involving me there insurance covers it.

My main issues are
1) In practice there are many (millions) of people who cannot afford to insure themselves. You are saying "TOUGH" to them all.
2) Morally it should be the party that is taking the risk and doing the harm that buys the insurance, wherther that be a council, a hospital, an airline, a company or an individual.

You clearly don't have a lack of intelligence as you appear to have done well with your financial planning.
However fundamentally I disagree with you as I believe that morally the person taking the risk should cover others IF there is a potential substantial impact on others.
I respect your right to disagree, but this is so fundamental that I don't think we will ever agree.

So yes we are never going to agree as I don't believe you should be able to sue me because you weren't looking where you were going...

My MIL walked into a toolbox left by workmen laying a carpet.
She got £4K for her cut leg.
I agree with you she should have been looking where she was going, but legally the workmen have a "duty of care".
Sorry, but I think you'd lose.

Percy1983

lisyloo wrote: »

Percy - I did not write that comment ok?

Any comments back weren't aimed at you sorry if they seemed if they where, having the same debate with 2 people at the same time.

I do believe this comes down to very different outlooks, I believe people should look after themselves, eg you say what about those who can't afford insurance, simple answer get a better education/job and earn more.

By all means I am happy to agree to disagree on the matter, we will never reach a conclusion we both agree on.

As I say as much as I disagree with the system I will keep playing along with it, but this judgement has taken it one step in the right direction in my eyes.

FionaTS

Obviously. The costs of meeting this requirement, in so shorter time (in order for insurers to meet Solvency 2 deadlines - nothing about "justice" involved there), will be passed straight on to the man -or woman, of course, I wouldn't want to be discriminatory - in the street. Alternativelyy, certain insurers will simply not offer terms to anybody under a certain age, potentially leading to a surge in uninsured drivers. Presumably, the same of amount of fatal accidents, caused 95 times out of hundred by men under 25, will occur but they will not be dealt with by insurers, instead enter the MIB and the taxpayer so we all pay more again. Hurrah.

lisyloo

simple answer get a better education/job and earn more

That was exactly what I was trying to do (and did do) when I was a student !!
but I was quite poor for a few years.

For some people like a lot of pensioners and some long term sick/disabled people this will never be a possibility.

Percy1983

FionaTS wrote: »

Obviously. The costs of meeting this requirement, in so shorter time (in order for insurers to meet Solvency 2 deadlines - nothing about "justice" involved there), will be passed straight on to the man -or woman, of course, I wouldn't want to be discriminatory - in the street. Alternativelyy, certain insurers will simply not offer terms to anybody under a certain age, potentially leading to a surge in uninsured drivers. Presumably, the same of amount of fatal accidents, caused 95 times out of hundred by men under 25, will occur but they will not be dealt with by insurers, instead enter the MIB and the taxpayer so we all pay more again. Hurrah.

Back to my previous point, I only have one more thing in common with the average boy racer than you and that is a penis, so why should I pay the bill for them while you don't?

TSx

I may have had my mind swayed on one level here.

There is basically no difference between an all you can eat restaurant charging less for women because statistically, they eat less and an insurer charging less for women because statistically, they claim less.

Both cases involve a potential risk (paying out more than they take in), yet people would rightly be in uproar if restaurants started charging on that basis.

Is there a difference?

StevieJ

TSx wrote: »

I may have had my mind swayed on one level here.

There is basically no difference between an all you can eat restaurant charging less for women because statistically, they eat less and an insurer charging less for women because statistically, they claim less.

Both cases involve a potential risk (paying out more than they take in), yet people would rightly be in uproar if restaurants started charging on that basis.

Is there a difference?

But they do, I guess they are not sure that women eat less but they know children do, so they charge less for children.

lisyloo

There is no difference - except for the cost.
The cost of the food is relatively inconsequential. You're mostly paying for buildings, staff etc.
The cost of a claim - which might be hundreds, thousands or millions is much larger.

But otherwise there is no difference that I can see and there is a defniite biological basis for different food consumption levels e.g. body mass and body composition (on average).