Gender Discrimination - How Insurance is robbing Males.
32 replies, posted
The Problem
Insurance companies have been doubling the prices and rates for male drivers for years. They do this because of the rule that males are greater risk takers then females. Males may ultimately be the greater risk taker but a study conducted and published by the University of Michigan shows that female drivers are more likely to cause an accident over the males. “…crashes involving two female drivers were overrepresented in five of the six crash scenarios, including two by at least 50 percent more and two others by more than 25 percent greater than what was expected. On the other hand, crashes involving two male drivers were underrepresented in four of the six scenarios, including two by more than 20 percent and another by just less than 20 percent...” So why are males paying twice as much for the same coverage.
The False Image
Males are the main income of families, the stronger, and the wilder then the female counterparts showed by society. Males drive sixty percent of the annual miles driven while the females drive the other forty percent. This would have you thinking that males would be the gender behind all the accidents. The insurance companies have research of their own that will show that males are risk takers in predictable scenarios. Neither males nor females are intellectually deficient then the other except when someone starts comparing gender specifics to the other gender.
[U]A study released by the University of Michigan shows that girls are more accident prone then males[/U] [url=http://ns.umich.edu/htdocs/releases/story.php?id=8432] The report[/url]
This topic really makes me made since I hate paying more for my auto without an accident then my sister who has 3 accidents.
Insurance providers in Canada charge no more for girls than guys. They don't discriminate on car colour either.
Yeah, and the insurance rates for males only go down once you turn 25
Hmm yes, the five bucks or so off a month women get is truly the greatest bit of sexism in medical insurance
Nevermind the common use of yeast infections as "pre-existing conditions" to get women kicked off insurance when they get cancer, areolop knows what's really up.
this topic really makes me made
Also OP that article doesn't say what you say it does
This is definitely the biggest problem with gender discrimination.
Definitely.
It's unfortunate that males have to pay more, I hate having to pay a higher premium for my car just because other males.
Insurance companies should note (if they don't already) what sort of car you drive, especially if it's high powered. Do background checks to see if you're at risk of driving erratically and also take into account the score you got for your license test.
While it would take longer to process every person on a case by case basis, in the end it saves the people who legitimately drive well from paying high premiums and makes for happy customers too.
[QUOTE=Glitch360;32386967]Yeah, and the insurance rates for males only go down once you turn 25[/QUOTE]
Basically. The older you get the less you pay for insurance, due to the fact statistically the old farts everyone yells at in traffic are the least likely to get in an accident.
Insurance companies are just plain dumb, the older you are, as in senior years.
The more impaired your judgement is. And then again, some older drivers are a lot worse than we are.
So even age discrimination is wrong, it should be based solely on how many accidents and tickets you hold accountable for.
[QUOTE=Siminov;32387161]Insurance companies are just plain dumb, the older you are, as in senior years.
The more impaired your judgement is. And then again, some older drivers are a lot worse than we are.
So even age discrimination is wrong, it should be based solely on how many accidents and tickets you hold accountable for.[/QUOTE]
It's based on how likely the insurance company thinks you are to be in an accident given accident rates for your demographic. Then, when most of the people DON'T wreck their cars, they use the money paid into insurance to help out the people who do. If they did it the way you're suggesting they'd either have to charge people who have accidents so much that there's no point in having insurance, or go bankrupt.
Eh, women get the short end of the stick on so many other things, they can have this one.
[QUOTE=TH89;32387256]It's based on how likely the insurance company thinks you are to be in an accident given accident rates for your demographic. Then, when most of the people DON'T wreck their cars, they use the money paid into insurance to help out the people who do. If they did it the way you're suggesting they'd either have to charge people who have accidents so much that there's no point in having insurance, or go bankrupt.[/QUOTE]
Good point.
[QUOTE=OogalaBoogal;32386895]Insurance providers in Canada charge no more for girls than guys. They don't discriminate on car colour either.[/QUOTE]
They do.
[QUOTE=fenwick;32387257]Eh, women get the short end of the stick on so many other things, they can have this one.[/QUOTE]
But this is our only chance to complain about something legitimately as a white male!
I ran out of sunscreen with the window open! AGGHH
As a female driver I am against the fact that males are greater risk takers.
Most of the bad drivers that I see [b]are[/b] females.
I think that they need to look at the person who is driving and then change the amount compared to how often they claim. But make males and females start out evenly. Then change it accordingly.
[QUOTE=Hana-San;32387432]I think that they need to look at the person who is driving and then change the amount compared to how often they claim. But make males and females start out evenly. Then change it accordingly.[/QUOTE]
Siminov already kind of suggested that. It won't work, because if you are an insurance company, and you only ever charge people a lot of money AFTER they crash, then in order to turn a profit you have to either charge them more money than you pay out for the claim (in which case they have no reason to buy insurance in the first place) or just wait until you go bankrupt. That's not a sustainable business model.
[QUOTE=TH89;32387876]Siminov already kind of suggested that. It won't work, because if you are an insurance company, and you only ever charge people a lot of money AFTER they crash, then in order to turn a profit you have to either charge them more money than you pay out for the claim (in which case they have no reason to buy insurance in the first place) or just wait until you go bankrupt. That's not a sustainable business model.[/QUOTE]
We have a company in Australia called youi. They look at how you use your car.
Say if you only drive to the train station and then take a train to work or uni then it will be cheaper for you than if you drive in the city.
[url]youi.com.au[/url]
[QUOTE=Hana-San;32387898]We have a company in Australia called youi. They look at how you use your car.
Say if you only drive to the train station and then take a train to work or uni then it will be cheaper for you than if you drive in the city.
[url]youi.com.au[/url][/QUOTE]
They've existed for less than 3 years and they've already got a pretty appalling service record:
[url]http://www.productreview.com.au/p/youi-car-insurance.html[/url]
Lots of dot-com startups in the 90s lasted more than 3 years before crashing and burning--that's not enough time to prove you have a sustainable business model, just that you haven't run through your investors' money yet.
The important point is also what kind of accidents happen inside of the demographic. If I recall correctly most accidents which were caused by women tended to be relatively low damage wise, where men were more often the cause of of high damage accidents.
And if anyone has the statistics to back these up, it's the insurance companies themselves since they usually have direct feedback. So I would be surprised if they didn't make at least some of their prices based on reality as long as it's based purely on objective means - aka the likelyhood of causing an aciddent and the likehood of causing a high damage accident.
In a sense insurance is a pyramid game that must legally work :P Same goes for NHS and other specifics. The thing is, in countries with NHS discimination against people more likely to get sick would never ever fly. As everyone has to have the same treatment and access to it. This isn't the case in US medical insurance.
[QUOTE=wraithcat;32392752]The important point is also what kind of accidents happen inside of the demographic. If I recall correctly most accidents which were caused by women tended to be relatively low damage wise, where men were more often the cause of of high damage accidents.
And if anyone has the statistics to back these up, it's the insurance companies themselves since they usually have direct feedback. So I would be surprised if they didn't make at least some of their prices based on reality as long as it's based purely on objective means - aka the likelyhood of causing an aciddent and the likehood of causing a high damage accident.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, claiming insurance companies (which are almost certainly run predominately by men) are working against their own interests just to be sexist against men seems pretty unlikely. This looks more like a case of the OP skewing some statistics.
[QUOTE=areolop;32386838]The Problem
Insurance companies have been doubling the prices and rates for male drivers for years. They do this because of the rule that males are greater risk takers then females. Males may ultimately be the greater risk taker but a [B]study[/B] conducted and published by the [B]University[/B] of [B]Michigan[/B] shows that [B]female drivers[/B] are more likely to cause an accident over the males. “…crashes involving two female drivers were overrepresented in five of the six crash scenarios, including two by at least 50 percent more and two others by more than 25 percent greater than what was expected. On the other hand, crashes involving two male drivers were underrepresented in four of the six scenarios, including two by more than 20 percent and another by just less than 20 percent...” So why are males paying twice as much for the same coverage.
The False Image
Males are the main income of families, the stronger, and the wilder then the female counterparts showed by society. Males drive sixty percent of the annual miles driven while the females drive the other forty percent. This would have you thinking that males would be the gender behind all the accidents. [B]The insurance companies[/B] have [B]research[/B] of their own that will show that males are risk takers in predictable scenarios. Neither males nor females are intellectually deficient then the other except when someone starts comparing gender specifics to the other gender.
[U]A study released by the University of Michigan shows that girls are more accident prone then males[/U] [url=http://ns.umich.edu/htdocs/releases/story.php?id=8432] The report[/url]
This topic really makes me made since I hate paying more for my auto without an accident then my sister who has 3 accidents.[/QUOTE]
Now read the bold stuff and use brains. You will find out alot of answers.
Did you know that because of 1 single chromosome pair, about half the whole population of the world is more than 800% likely to commit crime, have a car crash [I]et al [/I]
That is the XY chromosome pair
Well, here in Germany, we have (or plan to implant) a female quote for most companies, e.g. they have to employ worse qualified woman, if they have to few, instead of men with better qualifications, simply because she's a woman.
Same in the Army here, women have to score lower in the sport tests then man, which pisses several soldiers I know majorly off.
Edit: Uh..I thought this was about sexism in total, not just insurence companies. Sorry
[QUOTE=TH89;32387876]Siminov already kind of suggested that. It won't work, because if you are an insurance company, and you only ever charge people a lot of money AFTER they crash, then in order to turn a profit you have to either charge them more money than you pay out for the claim (in which case they have no reason to buy insurance in the first place) or just wait until you go bankrupt. That's not a sustainable business model.[/QUOTE]
What happens here is that for every year that you don't claim from your insurance company you get an extra discount, so people that cause many accidents pay the normal fee and people that never cause accidents (or rather never claim) get discounted more and more. As soon as you do claim the discount gets reset and you have to build up your discount again.
Definitely agree that this isn't right, however Insurance companies being the bastards they are will just raise women's insurance prices, it's seems a bit pointless for this to happen.
[QUOTE=Scar;32396322]Well, here in Germany, we have (or plan to implant) a female quote for most companies, e.g. they have to employ worse qualified woman, if they have to few, instead of men with better qualifications, simply because she's a woman.
Same in the Army here, women have to score lower in the sport tests then man, which pisses several soldiers I know majorly off.
Edit: Uh..I thought this was about sexism in total, not just insurence companies. Sorry[/QUOTE]
That actually depends on the position. And the quotas don't actually apply in all cases and are very often internally set by the companies themselves. For instance you won't be asking a construction company to hire more females. And in the same vein there are state sanctioned campaigns to bring more men into some fields - like teaching.
As to leading positions. Those have been pretty good externaly quotaless (not internal for public image) since many of them include uh not sure on the english term - public entrance competition? Which is reviewed and one applicant is chosen.
As to the german army - don't they only have different phys requirements for the BFMP - considering they have conscripts I wouldn't be surprised. I know the US military does have different standards but they don't allow women in direct infantry combat roles. The germans had role restrictions for females until pretty recently.
And I do know for certainty that our military makes no difference as gender is concerned either in physical tests or allowed roles. The only thing they have to enforce is the max lifting and carrying limits which are by law.
Which exist in a number of nations and protect both women and younger people. Which is due to different physical abilities of the average.
If we are talking about gender discrimination I would say there is quite a bit in British legal affairs.
[QUOTE=mobrockers2;32396417]What happens here is that for every year that you don't claim from your insurance company you get an extra discount, so people that cause many accidents pay the normal fee and people that never cause accidents (or rather never claim) get discounted more and more. As soon as you do claim the discount gets reset and you have to build up your discount again.[/QUOTE]
Sure, and that's a good incentive. But it's not quite the same as just charging super-low premiums for anyone who hasn't been in an accident yet--it's just heading that direction in small, manageable increments.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.