iGary said:I thought it said sexiest, too.![]()
I feel that I was duped........duped harder than Oprah.
*sob*
iGary said:I thought it said sexiest, too.![]()
Chip NoVaMac said:Not if the insurance companies could show through actuarial tables that certain ethnic groups show a greater risk.
thedude110 said:Should insurance companies charge flat rates across all policy holders? I'm up for that. Then again, I'm also up for socialism.
That happens. It really does. And Chip is right too about 'ageism,' even though technically there are laws against it. At my mom's company, they just fired a slew of skilled people-- guess what? They were all 50+ in age. Look at all their newest employees-- engineers fresh outta college. Glad to get meager earnings since they have nothing to measure it up against and they won't be cashing in on retirement money anytime soon.Mass Hysteria said:Yeah, imagine the adverts for that! especially if they were based around the themes used for women - wonder why they dont do it!!
I cant believe that big companies get away with this without a fuss. Could I use the same criteria if say employing someone? for example:
- sorry love, youre female you see, and therefore statistically youre going to drop a sprog at sometime in the near future and want loads of time off, so im going to give the job to a man instead. Dont take it personally, I dont know if he's good enough for the position, all I know is hes male and youre not.
Yay, a thread about me! Just me!katie ta achoo said:Me, too.
He's quite debonair.
That BS, I hope you're joking. The insurance companies knows their statistics. It's what they make a living on.Onizuka said:It really is ********, And I beg to differ that men are the worst drivers. I have never had a friend, or myself, that wasn't involved in an accident caused by a woman. All three of mine were caused by women. Every one I see on the road involves a women, whether they caused it or not, I don't know.
Chaszmyr said:I was talking to my mom one day when I was in high school, and I was like "I don't get why boys have more expensive insurance, all of the girls I know are horrible drivers." She responded something to the effect of: "Girls are more likely to do something like run over their mailbox, but boys have the whole testosterone thing so they're more likely go 120mph and get themselves killed."
Moof1904 said:To add fuel to this fire, I get really pissed off at insurance companies who charge higher rates for people with poor credit ratings, no matter the person's payment history with that insurance companies.
Some states have laws against it, but most do not, so it's completely legal.
I hate insurance companies.
gekko513 said:I think this very subject (not me, the car insurance thing) was debated here in Norway last year. It seems there is some kind of EU directive that forces Norway to make discrimination on insurance based on sex illegal by 2007.
raggedjimmi said:I hate all this. There should be an insurance company who give cheaper insurance to better drivers full-stop.
Yeah, that was probably it. It's a pity it didn't go through. I don't like discrimination in either direction.Loge said:If you mean the EU Gender directive, it looks like car insurance will remain an exception.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4142115.stm
gekko513 said:Yeah, that was probably it. It's a pity it didn't go through. I don't like discrimination in either direction.
No, but the individual differences within the groups male and female is for most purposes, including driving habits, bigger than the differences between the two groups.MarkCollette said:All this anecdotal evidence aside, are you saying that, if we have clear statistical data showing that two groups behave quite differently, that we should still treat them the same? Even when it's a matter of life and death. Because you don't like discrimination?
Measuring hormone levels as a way of determining insurance fees is probably neither practical or legal, but in my opinion it would be more fair.Testosterone correlates particularly with the disinhibitory types of sensation-seeking--those associated with drinking, drugs, sex and antisocial behavior. It is also associated with normal traits like dominance, sociability and activity. As testosterone levels drop, men's aggressive, antisocial tendencies begin to mellow. Sensation-seeking scores of men aged 50 to 59 are half those of males aged 16 to 19.
Women also have testosterone, but less of it. Still, the hormone is linked to behaviors in women similar to those in men, such as assertiveness, aggression and sexual arousal.
Another biological correlate of sensation-seeking is the enzyme monoamine oxidase (MAO), active in the brain. Monoamine oxidase functions as a regulator, keeping neurotransmitters in balance. It could also contribute to the gender and age differences in sensation-seeking and risk-taking.
A form of monoamine oxidase called type B is particularly related to sensation-seeking--and to regulation of dopamine. The link between MAO and dopamine is notable in light of the fact that the dopamine-4 receptor gene has been connected to sensation-seeking, and another dopamine receptor, D2, has been connected with substance abuse, a particular form of risk-taking behavior.
The enzyme monoamine oxidase is low in high-sensation-seekers, implying a lack of regulation. What is more, levels of MAO are known to be higher in women than in men, and MAO levels in brain and in the blood rise with age. Further evidence that MAO is involved in sensation-seeking is that low MAO levels are also found in forms of psychopathology characterized by impulsive tendencies to seek immediate rewards without regard for consequences.
kiwi-in-uk said:Sheila's Wheels is one example in the UK - lots of advertising aimed solely at women.
gekko513 said:No, but the individual differences within the groups male and female is for most purposes, including driving habits, bigger than the differences between the two groups.
A better statistical indicator than sex must exist, but if that's too hard to find, too hard to measure or illegal to measure, then I don't think discrimination based on sex should be legal.
Well, yes, that's what I said. If the only thing they can easily find to discriminate on is gender, then I don't think they should be allowed to discriminate on that.MarkCollette said:Well, it's actually both sex and age together that is the clear indicator. The alternative would be a personality test, which would be more intrusive and expensive. Saying that an alternative "must exist" is useless. Saying that if an alternative does not exist, then we should make it illegal to use the only thing that does work, is quite insane. I hope you just made a typo or I read you wrong.
Plus, businesses tend to require making money before paying expenses, to remain profitable. If they use statistics to determine your likelihood of being in an accident, then they can charge you that money before you get in the accident. If they go by track record, then they can only charge you that money after you've had the accident. And if you then change companies, or move elsewhere, then they never get that money back.
Plus, in effect, after a couple years you are charged by track record, since your record puts you into different statistical classes. If they legislated against sex and age discrimination after, say, a 5 year driving period, then maybe that would be fair.
EDIT: Adding in this about testosterone. I'd rather the impersonal discrimination against my age and sex than the invasive requirement of blood test. Who knows how that would eventually be abused. Witness how the Patriot Act allows the government to access all that information about you, and whoever they get it from are not allowed to tell you? Do you want whoever to have access to your genetic information? Or if hackers get that info off of the FBI's computers, and any criminal has that info?