It depends on which 'facts' you choose to divide people
Why gender? Why not race, or religion?
( ,
Tue 1 Mar 2011, 14:40,
archived)
Muslim women should pay higher premiums because they can't see out their yashmaks.
Scientific fact.
( ,
Tue 1 Mar 2011, 14:42,
archived)
Statistics prove they have a greater risk of driving their cars into a lake or river.
( ,
Tue 1 Mar 2011, 15:32,
archived)
You are not privvy to OUR data files!
The way we weight our points system is beyond your Science and Understanding mere Mortal - DO NOT QUESTION OUR WAYS!
But we can assure you it's entirely fair and demographically, geographically and ottergraphically correct... in the loosest sense of the word correct.
( ,
Tue 1 Mar 2011, 15:49,
archived)
But we can assure you it's entirely fair and demographically, geographically and ottergraphically correct... in the loosest sense of the word correct.
Gender, age and postcode
are the main definers as to who makes a claim and for how much. If race or religion made a difference, you can be darned sure the insurance companies would take it into account.
( ,
Tue 1 Mar 2011, 14:46,
archived)
Why gender?
Why am I lumped in with a category of everyone else who happens to have similar genitals to me?
The only reason they don't take race or religion into account is because it's illegal thanks to anti-discrimination laws. Otherwise you know they would.
( ,
Tue 1 Mar 2011, 15:22,
archived)
The only reason they don't take race or religion into account is because it's illegal thanks to anti-discrimination laws. Otherwise you know they would.
It isn't my fault.
We are all lumped into catergories; it is how the world works. Our current government got about 30% of the vote, if that. So 70% were sold short. I don't like it any more than you do, but show me an alternative that works? Should insurance companies interview each applicant? How much extra would that cost?
( ,
Tue 1 Mar 2011, 15:30,
archived)
Well the ECJ has shown the way
By ruling that gender-based discrimination is not allowed, which I think is a step in the right direction.
( ,
Tue 1 Mar 2011, 15:45,
archived)
Sounds fair enough to me
If it's your first time being insured you get charged a flat rate that goes up or down depending on your experience, claims and no claims. Why your gender, age, colour, creed etc should be a factor is beyond me.
( ,
Tue 1 Mar 2011, 16:04,
archived)
Well.
If you are male you are more likely to make a claim. If you are under 25 you are more likely to make a claim. What business wouldn't take that into account? They would be stupid. Would you sell private health care to a rugby playing boxer with a 40 a day habit for the same price as a monk? You'd be mad!
edit: and skint in a week.
( ,
Tue 1 Mar 2011, 16:53,
archived)
edit: and skint in a week.