Is it fair to discriminate on age, gender or race in insurance pricing?

XRAT

Dear Mrs Universe,
"When is there going to be a directive for equality for women in the workplace?"
That will be about the same time as men are paid just to lay across the bonnet of a car for a photo, or women stop to let them cross the road just because they have long blonde hair. Or sue their employer for sex discrimination.., yes it happens, but about 0.01% of the time!

All of the options should be allowed if the insurer can evidence a link to risk.

Uncle_Rob

N.I.M wrote: »

I didnt click on them and dont believe they should be considered...HOWEVER, I work with stats, not in insurance mind, and I can see why these could be considered under certain circumstances.

Some races are genetically predisposed to certain illnesses. For the ske of argument say Irish people were more predisposed to developing liver issues for reasons unrelated to alcohol consumption, no idea if we are or not but just as an example, then insurers would charge the irish a premium to cover them for liver related illnesses. Or is that racist?

It all depends what you are insuring for. In this hypothetical Irish case, they may pay more for Heath Insurance and less for Life Insurance. What is unfair about that? If there is a genuine statistical difference in risk, why should insurers not be allowed to price for or discount for it?

Car insurance is only quoted on age/sex basis when the driver has no claims or convictions. The hypothetical 45 year old bad woman driver (DdraigGoch Tues 9th 6.23pm) will find her premiums increased to reflect her bad driving record. It is however statistically provable that 18 year old men are much more likely to be involved in an accident that 45 year old women

This EU ruling is PC gone mad.

webbhost

I voted that they should be allowed to use age and disability ONLY.

The reason I say this is because your religion, gender, sexual preference etc do not actually physically affect your driving in any way. Just because I'm a bloke doesn't mean I must be a worse driver than a woman??

However, when it comes to AGE, I actually think premiums should get more expensive, as they are going to gain slower response times, poorer vision etc.

It would make sense if they charged more for older people (talking 60+ here), however the drivers can also opt-in to provide professional documentation to state their eye sight is still to standard, and that their reactions are still fast, this would therefore reduce the premium because they have shown that they are not a liability waiting to happen.

With regards to young drivers, I also think that these should stay the way they are.. However the black-box should come into big play. My only quarrel with the black box insurance is that you have to take the insurance policy BEFORE they will fit the box?

Why doesn't the goverment or insurance industry make it possible for you to fit the black box before considering a black-box insurance, and then submit your driving habits when you "take up" the insurance policy?

I love the idea of black boxes but I won't be getting one because I don't want to be tied down to a policy with it to find out I might have been cheaper elsewhere.

webbhost

seem to have gone a little off-subject there... oops

webbhost

Uncle_Rob wrote: »

It all depends what you are insuring for. In this hypothetical Irish case, they may pay more for Heath Insurance and less for Life Insurance. What is unfair about that? If there is a genuine statistical difference in risk, why should insurers not be allowed to price for or discount for it?

Car insurance is only quoted on age/sex basis when the driver has no claims or convictions. The hypothetical 45 year old bad woman driver (DdraigGoch Tues 9th 6.23pm) will find her premiums increased to reflect her bad driving record. It is however statistically provable that 18 year old men are much more likely to be involved in an accident that 45 year old women

This EU ruling is PC gone mad.

With regards to the 18 year old drivers, I'm pretty sure when I was watching road wars that it said something like 1 in 3 young drivers will write off their first car within the first 2 years?

That taken into consideration I think its more than justifiable to take age into consideration. Perhaps insurance for older people is cheaper because the "bad" drivers that have written off their cars ended up dead or had their license revoked??

Just a thought like but I'd call that a "natural selection" for car drivers

BNT

webbhost wrote: »

I voted that they should be allowed to use age and disability ONLY.

The reason I say this is because your religion, gender, sexual preference etc do not actually physically affect your driving in any way. Just because I'm a bloke doesn't mean I must be a worse driver than a woman??

The EU ruling doesn't just apply to motor insurance, though. It applies to all insurance. Some risks are statistically different for different genders, etc.

Sand_castle

I always thought that car insurance was based on risk but having recently been made redundant the cost of my insurance was increased by over 25%.

This is despite the fact that I have over 15 years of no claims, do not drive any differently now that I am unemployed and I will no longer be driving 30 miles a day in rush hour!

Let's face it, the insurance companies will make any excuse to raise premiums and make more money for their shareholders.

savvy06

Sand_castle wrote: »

I always thought that car insurance was based on risk but having recently been made redundant the cost of my insurance was increased by over 25%.

This is despite the fact that I have over 15 years of no claims, do not drive any differently now that I am unemployed and I will no longer be driving 30 miles a day in rush hour!

Let's face it, the insurance companies will make any excuse to raise premiums and make more money for their shareholders.

Me too driving for 28 years without a claim, but being "unemployed" after redundancy,meaning I drive my car less has increased the cost! How can that be fair or even logical.

madmish00

The ruling is utterly ridiculous and a completely heavy handed approach to political correctness. At the end of the day insurance is about risk and nothing else. The factors that are 'discriminatory' are the factors that affect risk.

Car Insurance - More young male drivers are involved in accidents.
Life Insurance - Women on average live longer than men so are less of a risk
Pension Annuities - On the reverse because they live longer than men the pension pot needs to last longer so annuities are lower.
Health Insurance - People with pre-existing medical problems are more likely to make a claim. Some conditions are more prevalent in certain populations.

I struggle to see how sexuality is linked to risk and do not understand the earlier comment referencing drink and drug use in respect of this factor.

However, to say that none of these factors can be taken into consideration leaves very little on which to judge the risk of offering that insurance increasing the cost to everyone with the only benefit being reaped by the insurance companies.

That said - other than car insurance which is compulsory - the other concern is that when prices go up less people will take out other forms of insurance because they will no longer feel it is worth it. The knock on effect of that remains to be seen!

Toptips

MrsUniverse wrote: »

I am absolutely outraged by this European directive. When is there going to be a directive for equality for women in the workplace? When are we going to get equal pay and equal treatment? When are we going to get equal opportunities?

How dare they use the equality card to make money and increase insurance premiums for women? And largely I have to say this is to pay for the chaos that men cause on the roads. I know men in their 40's with over 30 points on their licence and direct debits to local courts to pay for speeding fines.

:mad:

I think you'll find that there are laws about equal pay for work of equal value.
But its not equal and nor should it be anything to do with gender. In many workplaces, if you can do the job well, work a 60 hour week, don't take career breaks, never sick, etc you'll do well regardless of gender; if not, you won't