Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Lepista

Insurers Can No Longer Discriminate Against Your Sex

Recommended Posts

Does that mean all men can take the insurance companies to the small claims courts and claim their "overpayments" back?

Mods: I realise this is OT, but can it stay here for a few hours? Cheers :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does that mean all men can take the insurance companies to the small claims courts and claim their "overpayments" back?

Mods: I realise this is OT, but can it stay here for a few hours? Cheers :)

does it mean also then that Greek CDS should have the same cost as UK CDS?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does that mean all men can take the insurance companies to the small claims courts and claim their "overpayments" back?

Mods: I realise this is OT, but can it stay here for a few hours? Cheers :)

After several hours deliberation lord justice Cocklecarrot gave his verdict - All women drivers owe the insurance companies back payments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does that mean all men can take the insurance companies to the small claims courts and claim their "overpayments" back?

Mods: I realise this is OT, but can it stay here for a few hours? Cheers :)

Looks like Sheila's Wheels have come orf!

Listened to radio 2 this morning, mentioned this will apply to all insurance policies, including life insurance. It's VERY easy to prove that women live longer than men, making this 'law' look an ass!

Don't expect my premium to come down this year btw, just my better halfs to go up......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does that mean all men can take the insurance companies to the small claims courts and claim their "overpayments" back?

Mods: I realise this is OT, but can it stay here for a few hours? Cheers :)

No, it means you will pay a little less on your car insurance when you are young. Then at retirement, you can add up all theses savings and see whether, after inflation, they plug the shortfall in your pension thanks to your annuity being less than it used to be. ;)

By the way, looking at the big picture, this is the wrong headline. You should have written :

Lawyers win another victory against common sense, mathematicians, scientists and engineers lose again.

Nexy stop : lawyers mount age discrimination case.

yay, what a f@ckin brill world eh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After several hours deliberation lord justice Cocklecarrot gave his verdict - All women drivers owe the insurance companies back payments.

The "status quo" will, according to a bod on R4 this morning, be that women end up paying 25% more for their insurance, and men will end up paying 25% less.

Therefore I have overpaid by 25% for all the time I have had car insurance.

I haven't even started on age discrimination yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The additional sums men will have to pay into their pensions so that they can subsidize longer living women will far exceed what they save on auto insurance. The obvious move is to not buy a pension. This has always been the problem with insurance. If you start a health plan based on averages, it is very attractive to the sick but unattractive to the healthy. The healthy are not stupid and will not buy in. Thus your plan is populated by sick people only. The insurance company must raise rates to cover its expenses making it even less attractive to healthy people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The "status quo" will, according to a bod on R4 this morning, be that women end up paying 25% more for their insurance, and men will end up paying 25% less.

Therefore I have overpaid by 25% for all the time I have had car insurance.

I haven't even started on age discrimination yet.

See, this is what I was refering to yesterday wrt the train drivers strike.

Peopel simply aren't interested in improving the world for anyone but themselves. Maybe it's cos they've lost religion, or don't have any sense of national pride or never wonder what the aliens will think if they arrive, or simply don't give a toss about future generations.

What possible use is this ruling? Whoever brought the case should be ashamed. Yound men statistically cost insurers more. Insurerers do all they can other than predict the future to reflect this in premiums. What good does it do to be that diligent? What good does it do to pay for Oxbridge maths firsts to sit in actuarial depts? NONE.

And if this kind of stupid ruling continues even more bright minds will realise their intelligence is not wanted and simply opt for the parasitic careers in banking and the law, where all too often, prestige is 'earnt' by selling an irrational story to those less mentally equiped.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whoops!

I have a male friend who is retiring later this month, age 69. There goes his annuity!

No, wait, he's on final salary ... OK for some. There goes my annuity. Good thing compulsory annuities are gone :huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Erm...this is pretty jaw dropping, is it not? What about age discrimination?

Yeah, why can't a ten-year-old drive, shag, work up a chimney, etc?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's pretty sensible, actually - the same should be done with age.

Everybody should start out as an average person to be insured.

Your premiums should, however, change according to some factors, for example:

- The type of car that you are wanting insured;

- Your past claims history;

i.e. things where you have a choice about what you are wanting insured.

There is a slight discrepancy where someone who has not had insurance before is charged more for their insurance, until a history has been built up to prove that tehy are accident-free.

I have noo problem with people who have accidents being priced off the roads.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few months back on HPC we were debating about how young men were being discriminated against for auto insurance. Ridiculously high payments.

The premise is it seems wrong to charge someone three times another person, because they are in a demographic which is more likely to get in an accident. Yet the individual hasn't done anything wrong, in fact he might be a very careful driver.

With these private insurance companies they only have one thought.. how to make more profit. Which is why I question for basic insurance like auto and house insurance we even have private companies doing it. A state ran insurance company could handle it, and then we don't have to worry about profit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Erm...this is pretty jaw dropping, is it not? What about age discrimination?

Insurance is one of the few businesses where a company can say: "despite the fact that I have no evidence about you at all, I am going to charge you more/less than a woman/man/old person/young person".

OK, so big change, they won't be able to do this in the future. This is what will happen.

1) New drivers will get a standard policy, regardless of age or sex. It will be expensive because you have no evidence about the driver.

2) If you have no accidents, then the policy rate will go down

3) If you have accidents, then you are going to get raped even more than you do today.

So no difference really. The only change will be around the initial year of driving which is where they have no evidence base at all.

Insurance is all made up pricing anyway. You can get a renewal quote of £900, you shop around, get a quote for £400, go back to the original offer and they'll match it. Are there any other business out there that deliberately double the price in an attempt to get away with it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Insurance companies have been discriminating for years. A family friend who worked in the insurance industry for 40+years said that in the 1970's they used to automatically slap black people with an immediate 50% premium across the board.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does that mean all men can take the insurance companies to the small claims courts and claim their "overpayments" back?

Mods: I realise this is OT, but can it stay here for a few hours? Cheers :)

Old rates:

Male insurance £560

Female £360

New Rates:

Male insurance £560

Female £560

Sorted--equal treatment for all!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Are there any other business out there that deliberately double the price in an attempt to get away with it?

Most, I think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about age discrimination? Surely the next step is that it will be illegal to discriminate against policyholders on the grounds of age.

It's an established fact that women are better road drivers than men but there are some alarming exceptions!

I have a theory as to why young women tend to be safer drivers than young men. If we leave out the good young drivers of both genders, and look at the bad drivers, I think there's a difference. Young women who manage to pass their test but believe themselves to be poor drivers will tend to avoid driving or even give up driving. With young men the situation is different, since the worst young male drivers tend to be car enthusiasts - boy-racers, petrolheads - the group who is least likely of all to give up driving. Car enthusiasts are an unusual case. Usually someone who does something as a hobby - cooking, gardening or suchlike, does it better than the average person - and yet car enthusiasts are usually worse drivers than the average motorist.

I was never a boy racer. Apart from being more experienced, I drive the same now as I did when I was 17 - e.g. 'by the book', obeying speed limits. If more people did that insurance premiums would be a lot lower all round. Perhaps I have a 'female' driving brain!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's pretty sensible, actually - the same should be done with age.

Everybody should start out as an average person to be insured.

Even if statistics tell us that 17 year olds with fast cars have a 63% chance of crashing within the first 3 weeks of being on the road? (And a 24% chance of dying in a fatal accident if they drive at night with friends?)

This is the biggest load of blocks I've seen for a long time.

It's stupid.

Insurance should be done on risk. And if statistic show women have less accidents then they should have cheaper insurance.

The only way this would work is if everyone had to pay a huge sum and then as you had a year without a crash you had a genuine discount...

Insurance costs are going up and up - 1/3 in the last year alone.

This is STUPID.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems fair enough to me.

As a general principle, people should be judged on what they have done, not on what their genes suggest they might do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is in reality a very frightening move. If insurancer companies can no longer base their premiums on risk they might as well give up and let the state run an insurance scheme.

It is a fact that males are involved in more accidents than females. It is also a fact that females do not do well as fighter pilots but cope quite well in transport or commercial planes.

The courts are taking discrimination to extremes and the end result will be a 1984 scenario wheree any form of uniqueness or "deviance" from a suggested norm will be punished.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wanted to hate this idea, but the more I think about it, the more I think it's right.

If you think mens insurance will get cheaper, think again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about age discrimination? Surely the next step is that it will be illegal to discriminate against policyholders on the grounds of age.

And even making illegal to discriminate based on number of crashes someone's had because everyone deserves another chance.

If male premiums go down even more people will needlessly die. The market price is an attempt to discourage high risk which it will no longer do.

High premiums keep the ownership/mileage down of young males. This is going to increase it. Appropriate costs make them think and learn. Obviously it's far from perfect (we have a lot of deaths on the roads) but this certainly isn't going to help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few months back on HPC we were debating about how young men were being discriminated against for auto insurance. Ridiculously high payments.

The premise is it seems wrong to charge someone three times another person, because they are in a demographic which is more likely to get in an accident. Yet the individual hasn't done anything wrong, in fact he might be a very careful driver.

With these private insurance companies they only have one thought.. how to make more profit. Which is why I question for basic insurance like auto and house insurance we even have private companies doing it. A state ran insurance company could handle it, and then we don't have to worry about profit.

:lol:

We already have state insurance. It's called the criminal injuries compensation scheme. Here's my guess from experience: most criminal injury compensations are pretty worthless and will be inflated to worthless in approximately 10 years. So yes, your premiums are small, but you have zero protection. A bit like NICs really. Seem like great value now. In reality what will they really pay for?

Personally I can't understand how this case was won. What next? Squaddies to be granted the right to normal forms of life insurance and personal injury? Do you want that on your premium? Do you want smokers pushing up your healthcare premiums? Extreme sports enthusiasts pushing up your holiday insurance?

Is it right to expect those with more sedate existences to pay for the risks of those with death wishes? Can't you accept that the actuaries are trying to make your premiums fairer?

The premise is it seems wrong to charge someone three times another person, because they are in a demographic which is more likely to get in an accident. Yet the individual hasn't done anything wrong, in fact he might be a very careful driver.

So if somebody has a major accident that will make him a dangerous driver in the future? Maybe he's learnt his lesson? How can one generalise? After all, according to your reasoning we must all be treated as clean sheets. What does the past have to do with the future, other thans statistically?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 312 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.