Is it sexist for the insurance industry to take gender into account when setting its premiums?

But as I said before there are other characteristoics that might not change over time that influence it all- eg health status.

There's also another flip side: who suffers is this 'loophole' (we'd have to disagree about whether it is, but...) was closed? The poorest. Carers who have tohave a car (often women), the disabled (shared), people in the sort of low paid jobs that still need a car (oh women again...... care assistantts, cleaners, etc). Funny that. Men on the other hand would win tremendously by having their premiums cut.

I still don't believe it is down to sexism though. Women as a gener have less accidents. typically ahve smaller cars (the classic school run car), cover less mileage....

After all, why would 'one woman owner' be the staple of the small time car sales lot otherwise?

Bugger, loads of typos in that. Sorry - typed on phone keypad.

Age is not the same as sex in this context because it changes over time. Over the course of an individuals life the effect of age on insurance pricing may be both positive and negative.

Just because I agree that sex should not be used t discriminate in insurance pricing it does no that I want to outlaw discrimination on any grounds. Because insurance companies currently use sex, should the able to use race or ethnic origin if they can show a statistical correlation?

Should the police stop and search more young back men and should we target airport screening at young Muslim men if the stats suggest this would be effective?

If you accept that is such a thing as a protected characteristic in relation to equality law, then you need to apply the principle consistently.

In terms of public medical policy there may be biological factors that determine the differences between sexes. Even if there is only statistical correlation, the effect of initiatives to 'target' a specific sex still seem to me to be justifiable as long as you are not directly discriminating against one sex by making it more difficult for them to access services.

I really am surprised at the hostility to this on here. The opinion before the court is a progressive one that is entirely consistent with existing equality law. This was one of few places I expected to see some support for it.

I know that there will be a few winners and losers and that ultimately consumers will pay the price of change, but sometimes we have to pay the price of doing the right thing.

I suppose I can understand the hostility toward gleeful misogynists who think its a case of feminism being hoist by it's own petard, but I most people recognise it isn't that simple.

Of corse, there's no guarantee that the court will accept the opinion and given recent form, I wouldn't be surprised if the UK gov decided to ignore it anyway.

'Gender is a characteristic that you have no control over and it does not change over time like age.

So are many otehr factors incolved in insurance, such as health history.

'In taking this view you are aligning yourself with the "PC gone mad" brigade and I wouldn't be surprised if you find yourselves on the receiving end of the same flawed reasoning.

I won;t make a decision or not make one based on whether someone assigns me to that category. That would be incredibly stupid.

Logic says that if females have a statistically smaller chance of costing the company money they will be charged less. It's not a parallel to NI as chidlbirth, caring etc are roles that postively impact on society.

Insurance is pretty much comparable to placing a bet.

You bet that you will have an accident. You put money in, and if you have an accident then you 'win' a larger amount of money.

The insurance companies are the bookmakers, they hope that you won't have an accident, because then they get to keep your money.

It is not unreasonable for them to change the 'odds' of your bet based on how likely they believe it is that you will have an accident. They actually spend a lot of time and effort figuring out exactly how likely it is that you will have an accident, so that they can strike a balance between competitive pricing and profit-making.

On the single mothers point perhaps they assume single mothers statistically do more driving than those with a partner and will statistically be more tired than those with a partner, both of which are increased risk factors.

But I didn't see on my car insurance quote a box asking whether I had children....

Don't HerBeX - there's good stuff in your head that needs preserving for the nation :)

SQ can I congratulate you on your patience and forbearance please?

Because I just want to bang my head against the wall.

Feminists do not for eg believe it is sexist to target campaigns about testicular cancer at men.

Do you?

You mean sex rather than gender. Gender is socially constructed and can be changed. You are talking about sex when you say "a characteristic that you have no control over and it does not change over time like age".

Also I think you will notice that people have no control over what age they are at any given moment.

What do you want to do with insurance then Jeanine? Do you want to stop all "discriminatory" practices (medical underwriting, loading for living in a certain area, different premiums for different average risk factors) - leading to a fixed premium irrespective of risk characteristics and thus to the end of insurance?

Or would you rather see each person's individual characteristics taken into full account for each insurance - which would be exhorbitantly expensive and again lead to the end of insurance?

I am also confused by your main point. If someone says "on average men are physically stronger than women" then I have no problem with that. If someone says "on average women are more likely to develop breast cancer than men" then I have no problem with that either. I also have no problem with the fact that women on average live longer than men, or that men on average are more likely to smoke. If we're not allowed to notice these things then how on earth are the NHS supposed to target their inititives, how can at risk groups be identified?

Ahhh. I see this news regarding insurance. I'm a little ambivalent about it. I think I'll pop over to the feminist board and see what those chaps think...

Oh no! Only a few posts in and I have suddenly discovered that I am rabidly anti-feminist! Who knew? How embarrassing for me. Still, may as well stay for the debate anyway. You can't have it both ways lafeez, think of the menz, why are you all attacking women's choices? That's not very feminist is it? I think lap dancing is empowering, who's exploiting who, I ask? Think of the menz, think of the menz, think of the menz.

The point here is that gender does not determine your insurance risk - it only indicates it. That there is a statistical correlation between gender and risk does not prove that there are biological differences that will determine different outcomes.

Gender is a characteristic that you have no control over and it does not change over time like age.

It frankly amazes me that those who profess to be feminists are so quick to defend gender discrimination on the basis that it is backed by statistics.

In taking this view you are aligning yourself with the "PC gone mad" brigade and I wouldn't be surprised if you find yourselves on the receiving end of the same flawed reasoning.

Interesting. Should the government run teh country in the same way as an insurance company?

This would mean that people who were high risk (elderly, underlying health conditions) would not be allowed to access the NHS.

That people who lived in areas with high crime rates would not be allowed access to the police service.

That people who lived in areas at risk of flooding would not be able to access any services for assistance in the event of a flood.

And so on.

I think that would be a poor way to run society.

This potential legislation impacts annuities as well as car insurance as the income it currently gives is lower per month for women to account for the longer female life expectancy so it is 'swings and roundabouts' in terms of costing either gender more or less.

Um, we bear the abbies and we are often carers but- are men not part of that deal then? I thought DH and I sahred the chidlren? I presume if I pay extra NI only I get to benefit from the tax the boys go on to pay, yes?

The point about men having more of certian illnesses was potentially valid as well: I know two men in the 50 80 year old bracket who have died behind the wheel, no women. Luckily neither time saw anyone else injured, but both men got in the car complaining they felt ill and drove anyway.

Single motehrs- where did that come from? What about absent fathers? maybe we could piece togetehr an argument that they are the ones who show a little less responsibility so when on the road......

(am not a single mother, btw. but don;t get the point. )

Agree about Sheila's Wheels but they did offer us £300 cheaper than our Virgin renewal so ....

Worked in insurance for years. Insurance companies at the mo are allowed to set different rates for men/women, different ages and so on if they can show that they are for statistically verifiable reasons.

The only way of removing all things that could be seen as discriminatory would be to charge everyone a flat rate which would fall somewhere in the middle. Leaving motor insurance to one side as it is compulsory if you own a car. Take health insurance.

So you charge everyone the same, in the middle. Problem is that the "cheaper" people - in health insurance the young ones with no underlying conditions - would stop buying the insurance as they would not see it as value for money. This would push the price up for the remaining people. In turn the next tranche of people would stop buying it as too expensive. That pushes the price up for the remaining people. And so it goes on until the only poeple you are left with are the very high risk ones and they are having to pay premiums of about a million quid each. So teh product is withdrawn.

And that's the problem with not allowing insurers to use valid statistical risk factors when setting their rates. The whole thing doesn't work any more.

Incidentally - I pay higher life insurance premiums than my DH, he pays higher car insurance. Swings and roundabouts. I have not problem with actuaries setting rates according to genuine statistical differences.

Will read thread now

But why are you saying that single mothers are more of a risk than any other subset? Why choose single mothers?

"Oh and BTW who teh fuck took a 35 year old single mother as an example vs a driving instructor? Why teh fuck would you assume a single mother is less able to drive a car than a married one? Does not having a husband impede the use of an indicator? hmm Someone needs to sort their prejudices out."

You mean you? I took that as an example - I'm not prejudice against single mothers. All I was trying to prove is that within the male vs female debate on insurance there will be some subsets of "male" drivers that are less of a risk than "female" drivers but they still could be charged more based of "statistics".

I can't help but think if this was the other way round and women were charged more we'd all see this differently and as a con.

The health insurance applies to UK as well

I suppose then since many do not consider it sexist because it is based on statistical fact that you also don't mind that women in US pay higher premiums than men because they cost insurance companies more based on statistical fact.

Why are all the people arguing against insurance companies, pretending that the state should have the same principles as a profit making company?

NI is something we pay the state for our own health and welfare and we have no choice about. Motor insurance OTOH, is a service we buy from a profit making company and no-one has to buy it if they don't want it (they can simply not drive a car).

If you applied the principle that the state should act like businesses, then smokers would be charged more NI, fat people would be charged more NI, people from lower income families would be charged more NI, etc. etc.

Also, are you all arguing that life insurance companies should not be allowed to discriminate on the basis of statistical correlations with age, sex, smoking etc.? And home insurance too?

Oh and BTW who teh fuck took a 35 year old single mother as an example vs a driving instructor? Why teh fuck would you assume a single mother is less able to drive a car than a married one? Does not having a husband impede the use of an indicator? Someone needs to sort their prejudices out.

One of the problems I've got is where does this stop?

If I could prove that more men than women use local libraries would it be ok to charge them more on their council tax to fund it?

What about looking at who recycles more men vs women. I'm pretty sure there are some interesting statistics that could make one sex having to end up paying more.

Even if I could prove it with "statistical fact" (a phrase best taken with a pinch of salt at the best of times!) would it make it ok?

Are we going to get to a world where every service can charge based on statistical fact even if that means we lose out?

Unfortunately in my simplistic view of the world if people campaign for equality it means that have to take the good with the bad. You can't choose to use men vs woman debate about some things and not others. Its either a all or nothing policy, might not be what people agree with but its the way I think about it.

isn't charging them more NI that should say

Oh and we bear the babies who will grow up to be the consumers and carers of tomorrow. That's got to be worth a bit of NI.