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

[Lio]

You've probably seen article like this one in the last few days, talking about how women could find insurance premiums (particularly car insurance) going up if the EU rules it discriminatory to take gender into account when setting its premiums.

A friend has asked whether this is discrimination against men, or just sound business sense? I've always thought the latter, given that the stastistics show that women have fewer car accidents and less spectacular ones than men. But if someone is told that the reason their premium is higher because they're a man, isn't that sexist?

I know there are other issues involved, such as age, but what do you think about the gender one?

[Drizzela]

It's not stereotyping if it is based on statistical fact.

We don't accept stereotyping because it is not based on fact.

If it was sexism rather than business sense.. what is the movtive? Most heads of large organisations are men, that would include insurance companies, right?

They aren't offering women concessions out of the kindness of their hearts and victimising men through some kind of moral conscience or a want to address the current sexist imbalance. It's for money.

[im22]

"I disagree im22 But then, I have a feeling you knew I would!

Do women receive more from the state"

I think from simply the three examples i gave above easily show this (more NHS care due to longer life expectancy, less time spent in workforce - and therefore less time spent paying tax, longer reception of state pension). That said, I'm not advocating charging women more - I was pointing out the hypocrisy of those that have said it isn't sexist to charge a women less for car insurance since I have no doubt none of them would say the same in cases where being a woman would mean higher insurance rates - eg national insurance

[JeaninePattibone]

^TheFallenMadonna Tue 22-Feb-11 22:05:32
Well, we win on the car insurance but lose out on pension annuities, because on average we live longer.^

Not really a win on the annuity. They may cost more, but they usually pay out more over the course of a longer life. However, if this decision goes ahead, then men will pay more despite not being likely to live any longer

[VivaLeBeaver]

But the reason why their premium is higher isn't because they're a man - its because they're more likely to have an accident. The fact that they're more likely to have an accident is a fact that can't be argued against.

I have to pay more insurance because my job involves shift work and statisticlly I'm more likely to have an accident. Discrimination against shift workers? Maybe?

[trixymalixy]

Actually nobody will win because the insurance companies will charge higher margins because of greater uncertainty around the pricing of the products, therefore making insurance and pensions mote expensive for everyone.

[vesuvia]

im22 wrote - "Judging by the fact that two hours after this question has been posted and no feminist has yet tried to claim it isn't sexist shows that it is clearly sexist."

Response times are not a reliable indicator of the amount of sexism involved in a situation. Therefore, I think it is unreasonable of you to base your conclusion of sexism on response times.

[HerBeX]

Yes everyone knows the insurance industry is run by raging loony feminists who hate men and ramp up their premiums purely and simply because they want to punish them for their ownership of bollocks.

Insurance companies don't make decisions based on actuarial studies or business reasons. They make decisions based on sheer, unbridled, visceral hatred of men. Just look at the number of rabid feminists who run insurance companies.

Er...

[HerBeX]

Viz the claim that women receive more money from the state that's complete and utter bollocks. They save the state millions of pounds every year. If every woman decided she wasn't going to look after her children or socialise them, care for hte elderly in her community, enable many men to work in the cash economy by ensuring that he didn't have to think about his domestic arrangements and deal with them, help out in schools, volunteer as hospital friends, as breastfeeding counsellors, as brownie, cub and guide leaders, as mentors for young people, as counsellors, if they didn't ensure that their families ate healthily and were socialised properly, the costs to the state would be fucking enormous.

This narrative of women being a bunch of spongers who should be grateful the govt is charging them more NI, is just bollocks.

[HerBeX]

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.

[Grevling]

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.

[HerBeX]

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.

[Saltatrix]

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.

[Saltatrix]

The health insurance applies to UK as well

[Grevling]

"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.

[HerBeX]

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

[SardineQueen]

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

[ScramVonChubby]

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 ....

[MumInBeds]

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.

[SardineQueen]

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.

[JeaninePattibone]

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.

[Unrulysun]

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.

[SardineQueen]

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?

[SardineQueen]

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

Do you?

[HerBeX]

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

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