Discrimination?

[Octavo]

Hi all!

I'm proud to be a South African and living in our new, reformed society. Unlike the dark days of the previous government, we now have a pretty liberal constitution and our own version of the bill of rights. In this new society it is illegal to discriminate based on race, age, creed, religion, sexual orientation etc.

However, we now have an insurance company called First for Women. Their business is selling motor insurance - but only to women (because they are statistically less likely to be in accidents than men).

My question is how can this be justified and why is no one screaming discrimination? You can bet the farm on the fact that if I had to start an insurance company that precluded black people from signing up, that I'd be in the constitutional court quick as a wink.

Is it simply a case of society only being sensitive to certain types of discriminations (race & sexual orientation are two that spring to mind) and not others? Do we just not care enough?

I really don't like the slippery slope argument, but it does seem pertinent here... your thoughts?

 

[Lonewulf]

My thoughts: I don't like being discriminated against because I'm a young driver that has an SUV.

But I am, because of statistics.

Oh, I'm not *kept* from buying insurance, but rates are so high that I might as well be.

Edit: Actually, I don't have an SUV anymore. But I'm still a young driver. Well, not any more there... I'm in Germany now. Need an international driver's license now. >.>

Regardless, in the U.S., I was discriminated against. Insurance companies do it to everyone, in order to make a profit.

 

[Flo]

Hi all!

I'm proud to be a South African and living in our new, reformed society. Unlike the dark days of the previous government, we now have a pretty liberal constitution and our own version of the bill of rights. In this new society it is illegal to discriminate based on race, age, creed, religion, sexual orientation etc.

However, we now have an insurance company called First for Women. Their business is selling motor insurance - but only to women (because they are statistically less likely to be in accidents than men).

My question is how can this be justified and why is no one screaming discrimination? You can bet the farm on the fact that if I had to start an insurance company that precluded black people from signing up, that I'd be in the constitutional court quick as a wink.

Is it simply a case of society only being sensitive to certain types of discriminations (race & sexual orientation are two that spring to mind) and not others? Do we just not care enough?

I really don't like the slippery slope argument, but it does seem pertinent here... your thoughts?

This "discrinimation" against men (and young drivers) in the form of them having to pay higher car insurance premiums is going on all over the World. It is based on the simple statistical fact that women (and more experienced drivers) cause less and less costly accidents than men (and new drivers). In addition, you'll find that many European countries will allow insurance companies to charge higher premiums for drivers from countries where road safety and the standard of driving instruction aren't up to their own's.

The company you mention is merely applying sound economics ...

 

[Octavo]

The company you mention is merely applying sound economics ...

Well, sure they are - they are however still discriminating against men, by refusing them policies.

Are you saying that it's ok to discriminate if it makes financial sense? Can I base my business on that fact that in this country white people are generally more skilled than black people (owing directly to our sordid past) and that's ok?

Can I start open a car dealership and only sell to white people because they still account for 70% - 80% of the wealth in this country?

 

[TragicMonkey]

I like how single men get charged more than married men, regardless of age. So if I went out and got married tomorrow, I'd suddenly become a safer driver? Yeah, that makes sense.

Insurance would discriminate based on race if they were allowed to. Any abuse of statistics that would make them a buck.

 

[Octavo]

Regardless, in the U.S., I was discriminated against. Insurance companies do it to everyone, in order to make a profit.

How does that make it acceptable though? Is it ok to discriminate if I can back it up with stats? Is it ok to discriminate because all the insurance companies do it?

To my mind, this company is *promoting* discrimination, even if it is a fairly harmless incarnation of discrimination.

 

[Octavo]

I like how single men get charged more than married men, regardless of age. So if I went out and got married tomorrow, I'd suddenly become a safer driver? Yeah, that makes sense.

Insurance would discriminate based on race if they were allowed to. Any abuse of statistics that would make them a buck.

Indeed. Sometimes I hate capitalism...

 

[TragicMonkey]

I used to work in auto insurance, and I'd get mad because some customer would call up complaining about their bill. A seventy-five year old retired doctor with five luxury vehicles and a string of tickets and accidents still paid less per month than I did on my single econobox with no tickets at all, just because I was in my twenties and single. A lot less. He was paying a third of what I paid.

If memory serves, I stuck him on hold saying I'd be back in one minute and then I went to lunch.

 

[Octavo]

I used to work in auto insurance, and I'd get mad because some customer would call up complaining about their bill. A seventy-five year old retired doctor with five luxury vehicles and a string of tickets and accidents still paid less per month than I did on my single econobox with no tickets at all, just because I was in my twenties and single. A lot less. He was paying a third of what I paid.

If memory serves, I stuck him on hold saying I'd be back in one minute and then I went to lunch.

lol! Yeah and then you see those ads for "budget" insurance schemes - the ad will invariably feature an expensive car with some dude proclaiming how LOW LOW his premiums are, with teeny fine print at the bottom detailing how the car is actually 6 years old, the owner lives in the middle of nowhere (no one to steal the car) and his excess is ridiculous.

 

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

This "discrinimation" against men (and young drivers) in the form of them having to pay higher car insurance premiums is going on all over the World. It is based on the simple statistical fact that women (and more experienced drivers) cause less and less costly accidents than men (and new drivers). In addition, you'll find that many European countries will allow insurance companies to charge higher premiums for drivers from countries where road safety and the standard of driving instruction aren't up to their own's.

The company you mention is merely applying sound economics ...

Isn't this the same rationale that can be used for racial profiling? African-Americans commit more crimes per capita than whites, therefore it is okay to single out African-Americans for more traffic stops and searches? Doesn't seem much different to me.

I have a perfect driving record. I obey the speed limit, and the law. Yet I have to pay more simply because other people who happen to be the same gender get into trouble? I'm not sure how that is not discrimination.

 

[Octavo]

Isn't this the same rationale that can be used for racial profiling? African-Americans commit more crimes per capita than whites, therefore it is okay to single out African-Americans for more traffic stops and searches? Doesn't seem much different to me.

I have a perfect driving record. I obey the speed limit, and the law. Yet I have to pay more simply because other people who happen to be the same gender get into trouble? I'm not sure how that is not discrimination.

That's exactly it! Can an airline refuse to fly arabs or muslims?

 

[Flo]

I like how single men get charged more than married men, regardless of age. So if I went out and got married tomorrow, I'd suddenly become a safer driver? Yeah, that makes sense.

Insurance would discriminate based on race if they were allowed to. Any abuse of statistics that would make them a buck.

Insurances, every single branch or them, are the only certain proof of the existence of Satan. They would discriminate indiscriminately based on anything and everything in order not to give back a single cent from the premiums they've sucked from us if they could only find a way of getting away with it.

 

[Flo]

First, I should have added the odd smiley to my message . ...

Well, sure they are - they are however still discriminating against men, by refusing them policies.

It could be argued that men still have the choice of a number of other companies where they can get good deals.

Are you saying that it's ok to discriminate if it makes financial sense? Can I base my business on that fact that in this country white people are generally more skilled than black people (owing directly to our sordid past) and that's ok?
Can I start open a car dealership and only sell to white people because they still account for 70% - 80% of the wealth in this country?

I wouldn't know about South Africa (although I figure it would be the same) but in France, the law states clearly that a company cannot discriminate on racial lines. It doesn't however prevent employers or businessmen to actually do it on the basis of skills (even though the difference in skills can be accounted in great part to the differences in the quality of life of various groups owing to a sordid past).

 

[Ziggurat]

I like how single men get charged more than married men, regardless of age. So if I went out and got married tomorrow, I'd suddenly become a safer driver? Yeah, that makes sense.

It does make sense, but you've got the reasoning wrong. It's not that your actual risk has changed instantly (you note correctly that it shouldn't), but information about your risk has changed instantly. And that is the basis on which the insurance company makes their decisions.

 

[Octavo]

First, I should have added the odd smiley to my message . ...

Me too

I wouldn't know about South Africa (although I figure it would be the same) but in France, the law states clearly that a company cannot discriminate on racial lines. It doesn't however prevent employers or businessmen to actually do it on the basis of skills (even though the difference in skills can be accounted in great part to the differences in the quality of life of various groups owing to a sordid past).

Well over here discrimination on just about any basis is unconstitutional and we have dedicated constitutional courts set up to deal with these issues. The only real exception to this is BEE (sometimes BBBEE -- broad based black economic empowerment) and affirmative action. Basically these policies state that a company's staff should be representative of the population in the area and that when awarding contracts, black owned businesses are always the preferred choice. Any company employing more than 50 people by law must have a plan in place to address any imbalances in staff and this applies to all levels (in other words, you can't cheat by having an all white board of directors while all of your blue-collar workers are black). Affimative action basically says people in the "previously disadvanted" category get automatic preference when hiring new staff.

Previously disadvantaged includes all non-whites (except those of asian descent), women and those with physical disabilities.

While I often rail at this policy because of its implications for me (I'm a white male), I understand the need for it in our particular context.

 

[strathmeyer]

What's up with the phrase "men have more automobile accidents than women"? Isn't it discriminatory to leave out the phrase "because they drive more than women"?

http://www.insurance.com/quotes/Article.aspx/artid/259

(I'm not accepting statistics that say otherwise until http://www.aaafoundation.org/trafficstats/ goes live.)

 

[Lonewulf]

How does that make it acceptable though?

I never claimed that it was. Personally, I don't like being judged as statistical data. However, I don't necessarily find it unacceptable either. If the insurance company didn't discriminate, then they could stand to lose money, and either premium rates for everyone hike up quite a bit, or no one gets insurance.

Is it ok to discriminate if I can back it up with stats?

It depends on the kind of discrimination. I don't honestly view insurance as the same as, say, segregation, or forcing blacks to sit at the back of the bus.

Is it ok to discriminate because all the insurance companies do it?

That's not any kind of reason that I would use, but I would say that it makes business sense in it's own way.

To my mind, this company is *promoting* discrimination, even if it is a fairly harmless incarnation of discrimination.

The thing is, there are certain kinds of discrimination that are acceptable. For instance, if I judge a black man to be a gangster right off the bat, that is unacceptable; if I judge a black man to be a criminal without ever having met him, then that is unacceptable. If I judge a black man to be a criminal without ever having met him because he has tattoos, that is still unacceptable...

However, if I meet a black man dressed up like a gangster, wearing gangster signs, in a bad part of town, suddenly I can draw an inductive conclusion that, most likely, he is a gangster (even while allowing for a small possibility that he isn't). I would then not wish to deal with him, or have him (and his buddies) follow me.

Further, legally, many businesses discriminate against those with a criminal record. They also discriminate against people that they feel are not skilled nor qualified. Some businesses do discriminate based on race and gender, but I feel that those businesses are in the wrong (as race and gender have little to do with the actual job more often than not).

There is a line to be drawn somewhere, and I'm not sure if insurance companies really cross over it. While they do use (and possibly abuse, as mentioned earlier) statistics, there isn't necessarily anything wrong with that; but I WILL say that being male, being black, or being young is a way general indicator. I could say that men are more likely to crash than women; or single men are more likely to crash than married men; or that cars kill more than guns; or any manner of things, but HOW much more likely? I don't think that it's that much a greater likelihood to warrant heavy changes in policy...

But I don't know. I'm not involved with these companies. However, I don't necessarily feel outrage against them, but at the same time, I still hate being judged as a statistic.

 

[Ziggurat]

What's up with the phrase "men have more automobile accidents than women"? Isn't it discriminatory to leave out the phrase "because they drive more than women"?

Not necessarily, because your car insurance isn't billed per mile but per month/year/other time period. It's indeed possible that women have the same per-mile accident rate that men do, but it's then also possible that they don't pay any less insurance on a per-mile basis either. In fact, if their lower accident rates are due solely to a mileage difference, you'd expect the per-mile coverage to cost the same and so the per-time coverage to be cheaper for women.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Isn't this the same rationale that can be used for racial profiling? African-Americans commit more crimes per capita than whites, therefore it is okay to single out African-Americans for more traffic stops and searches? Doesn't seem much different to me.

I have a perfect driving record. I obey the speed limit, and the law. Yet I have to pay more simply because other people who happen to be the same gender get into trouble? I'm not sure how that is not discrimination.

It is the whole point of insurance, classing people together based on their statistical likelihood of risks. Now there are laws preventing taking certain classifications into account when deciding on insurance costs, but so what?

This is the point of insurance collectivizing risk, and the groups that they can legally put you into are what determines your rates.

 

[Lonewulf]

It is the whole point of insurance, classing people together based on their statistical likelihood of risks. Now there are laws preventing taking certain classifications into account when deciding on insurance costs, but so what?

So apparently the law recognizes that there are wrong ways to discriminate.

This is the point of insurance collectivizing risk, and the groups that they can legally put you into are what determines your rates.

Are the ones that they can legally put you into any less questionable than the other methods of discrimination?

What methods of discirimation are illegal, and why it is any better to judge by sex?