|
Why do women pay more? (pg. 15)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Jayx1 |
id love to see what would happen if gender based risk assessment were reversed. I dont think it would last long. Imagine race based assessment? Or requiring disabled people to pay more?
Overcharging men is the societal path of least resistance. |
|
|
| bass drive |
best solution
not allow women to drive like in Saudi Arabia (I think?) :wtf:
:D ;) |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
id love to see what would happen if gender based risk assessment were reversed. I dont think it would last long. Imagine race based assessment? Or requiring disabled people to pay more?
Overcharging men is the societal path of least resistance. |
If gender based assessment were reversed and women were charged more then men then it would have zero validity as it would not be based on risk.
Indirectly, racially based rate assessment is alive and well in Ontario. Part of what determines your risk rating is the territory in which you live. Certain territories have higher risk ratings then others because more losses of one type or another happen within that territory. The highest risk rating in Ontario for territory belongs to areas such as Brampton, jane/finch, malvern, malton, etc. The lowest belong to areas such as Milton, Kanata, Kenora, Elora, etc. While this is not based on race per say, certain races tend to live in certain areas and that area is given a risk rating.
If you live in Brampton and want cheaper insurance.... move to Halton Hills (second lowest rated area in Ontario). |
|
|
| ChemEnhanced |
| Remember, insurance companies also look at the moral hazards involved in insuring someone.....if you live in Bramladesh then you lack all morals |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
|
Dear lord man, learn to use paragraphs.
| quote: | | Women are more likely to be in low speed collisions and parking lot accidents. |
Yeah - because they drive slow. Sorry, but it's true. And that in and of itself is a road hazard when they're in the left lane on the 401 doing 80, or when they try to merge into traffic going 60. Usually the slow drivers aren't the ones who actually get into accidents but they cause OTHER people to get into accidents when those other people swerve out of the way to avoid rear-ending them. That makes them at fault for an accident they weren't even directly involved in, and I'm quite certain that insurance companies don't take this into account - so it doesn't get factored into the future rates of ridiculously slow drivers, only the rates of the people who were "speeding".
By no means am I trying to say that all women drive too slow, but you said yourself that men drive faster, and I'm just making the point that slower driving <> safer driving. It's all about road conditions and control over the vehicle, not about the numbers. If you don't "go with the flow", then you are an unsafe driver - we just don't have a good system in place for picking out the people on the slow side of the issue.
As for the rest of your post, all you're looking at is the "risk factors" that insurance adjustors use to calculate premiums. What you're missing is that those risk factors are just probabilities, and the actual DOLLAR AMOUNT that they correspond to is based on claim statistics from the last year (or years).
It makes no difference that insurance doesn't cover racing, or that commercial premiums are calculated differently from personal premiums. They all get factored into the same statistics pool at the end of the year and are used to determine the new rates. You say premiums are charged at "an amount" per $1000 coverage - well that AMOUNT is calculated based on the same skewed statistics I was talking about originally!
| quote: | | Your suggestion that insurance companies should be forced by legislation to change how they calculate premium is ill-informed. First, the Government of Ontario calculates the rate that each insurance company can charge for each class of driver/territory/vehicle value (list price new)/claims experience, etc. The end premium is a a total of the rate the government allows for each of these factors multiplied by the amount of coverage being purchased. The differences you see from one insurance company to another is due to the fact that the government gives different rates to different insurers.... for instance, while Pilot insurance may be allowed to charge me $.34/$1000 Co-operators may be allowed to charge me $.38/$1000, thus my yearly premium would be higher through co-operators (*** NOTE THIS IS ONLY AN EXAMPLE... I DO NOT KNOW THE RATES FOR THESE COMPANIES ***). |
Great, thanks for that incredibly long-winded explanation of how rates are calculated, but what is your point? You seem to have missed mine, which is that insurance companies look at every single statistic individually when calculating their premiums, when they should be looking at GROUPS of statistics. Those statistics should be lumped together BEFORE calculating the risks, not AFTER. That way, the burden will be more on the drivers who are actually high-risk and not the drivers who just happen to have something in common with the high-risk drivers.
AFAIK, every auto insurance company here operates on the assumption that all these risk factors are statistically independent, which is an absolutely ridiculous assumption and results in perfect stupidity like the gap in rates between genders.
| quote: | | Additionally, the legislation is set up to protect the policy holder not the insurance industry. |
Good luck backing that one up, especially if your only evidence is the following point:
| quote: | | Until 2003 there was only one insurance company in Ontario that made a profit from automobile insurance premiums since the early eighties (that company was Markel Insurance.... they only write transport truck insurance and aren't governed by the FSCO regulations regarding rates). Today, it is normal that an insurance company will make $0.00-$0.10 profit per $1 premium you pay. When you read about billion dollar profits by the insurance industry that's all "property/casualty" (everything other then life and health insurance) insurance and it is largely a function of the insurance companies investments not their premiums. You'll recall that there was no outcry over insurance company profits following the bust of the dot.com economy.... that's because the insurance companies lost billions of dollars for several years in a row. |
You hit the nail on the head and don't even realize it. The outcry is not over PROFITS, it's over PREMIUMS. And why have the premiums gone steadily up? Because their profits are low! And why were their profits low before 2003? BECAUSE THEY MADE BAD INVESTMENTS AND GOT LOW RETURNS. So the insurance companies took WAY more money than they needed in premiums, invested it poorly, lost a load, and passed their losses onto us, the policy holders. Couple that with the fact that insurance here is mandatory, that is about as corrupt and exploitative a system as you can get.
Once again, the legislation on insurance is in dire need of complete rewriting. |
|
|
| b4k-oz |
I can't believe I'm about to say this...
DigiNut has made some valid points
(there...I've said it...now don't make too much out of it) :p
Moral Hazard....your rebuttal please? |
|
|
| voodoochild |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
ive always said that canada needs a natural disaster or economic collapse so that we can get back to reality and reset our priorities. |
you never cease to amaze me with your intellectual banter....
signed,
feminist sympathizer.:mad: |
|
|
| ChemEnhanced |
| What blows my mind is that we are all complaining about a company making money....go figure a company wanting to make a dollar. I don't see anybody yelling and screaming at Home Depot every time they increase the cost of lumber or another product. I don't hear people screaming at the banks because they charge us a fee to use their ATMs. Face it.....we are going to pay for insurance whether we like it or not. I know many people will argue that we have to buy car insurance so it is not fair that we should have to pay through the teeth for it. Well, I am willing to pay for the comfort of knowing that if I, knock on wood, kill someone or even worse turn them into a veggie that I will not be paying the million dollars myself. I think the couple hundred dollars a month is well worth that relief. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
As for the rest of your post, all you're looking at is the "risk factors" that insurance adjustors use to calculate premiums. What you're missing is that those risk factors are just probabilities, and the actual DOLLAR AMOUNT that they correspond to is based on claim statistics from the last year (or years).
It makes no difference that insurance doesn't cover racing, or that commercial premiums are calculated differently from personal premiums. They all get factored into the same statistics pool at the end of the year and are used to determine the new rates. You say premiums are charged at "an amount" per $1000 coverage - well that AMOUNT is calculated based on the same skewed statistics I was talking about originally!
Great, thanks for that incredibly long-winded explanation of how rates are calculated, but what is your point? You seem to have missed mine, which is that insurance companies look at every single statistic individually when calculating their premiums, when they should be looking at GROUPS of statistics. Those statistics should be lumped together BEFORE calculating the risks, not AFTER. That way, the burden will be more on the drivers who are actually high-risk and not the drivers who just happen to have something in common with the high-risk drivers.
AFAIK, every auto insurance company here operates on the assumption that all these risk factors are statistically independent, which is an absolutely ridiculous assumption and results in perfect stupidity like the gap in rates between genders.
Good luck backing that one up, especially if your only evidence is the following point:
You hit the nail on the head and don't even realize it. The outcry is not over PROFITS, it's over PREMIUMS. And why have the premiums gone steadily up? Because their profits are low! And why were their profits low before 2003? BECAUSE THEY MADE BAD INVESTMENTS AND GOT LOW RETURNS. So the insurance companies took WAY more money than they needed in premiums, invested it poorly, lost a load, and passed their losses onto us, the policy holders. Couple that with the fact that insurance here is mandatory, that is about as corrupt and exploitative a system as you can get.
Once again, the legislation on insurance is in dire need of complete rewriting. |
Number one - insurance premiums are calculated by underwriters not adjusters. Adjusters investigate, quantify, and settle claims.
Two, of course it matters that certain activities are excluded. See, the risk rating is based on what has been historically PAID in claims made by a certain demographic. This means that if the peril is not covered (ie. racing) then it is not considered in the risk rating because loses would not have been paid. NOTE, WE'RE TALKING LOSES PAID NOT DAMAGE CAUSED. If Bob causes $250,000 dollars worth of damage by crashing his riced up Civic into a building and killing his passenger while involved in a race, I as the adjuster will deny his claim and protection under the liability section of his policy. I will then make a note to the underwriter telling them what happened. They will likely cancel Bob's policy and make a note in his personal history about this incident.... that note will follow Bob for six years. So, Bob's rates will skyrocket. Sucks for Bob, however, not for the rest of us. See, because I didn't write any cheques because of this loss the net incurred (amount paid or will be paid at some point) will equal zero. That $0 paid gets registered in the Insurance Bureau of Canada database, which is used by the actuaries when developing the risk tables that the underwriter's will then use to determine rates. Because a zero is entered into the actuarial tables this accident will not affect risk ratings for Bob's demographic group, just Bob himself.
Risk is presently calculated by taking a number of individual factors and combining them to get a risk rating. This is the most accurate way to calculate risk. I know that it sucks now because we're young and get screwed by the system but it is the only way to go. Let's face it, young male driver's do pose the biggest risk to insurance companies therefore they should have to pay more... end of story.
Additionally, you missed my point with regard to rate calculation. The insurance companies have no choice in how they calculate rates. The government of Ontario calculates the rate and the insurance companies are told what they can charge. Your insurance company cannot just go and up your rate... if your premiums go up it is because the government (FSCO) has approved a rate increase or you are now in a higher risk catagory (due to an accident or conviction normally).
Premiums have not gone up because profits were low, they have gone up because insurance was underpriced. How can you expect the insurance company to keep writing policies when they lose ten cents for every dollar they take in. Why am I going to sell you a product for $1,000 when it costs me $1,100 to give you that product. That makes no sense at all! Do you expect Sears to sell you a shirt for $10 less then they bought it from the wholesaler for? The only reason we now have a premium increase is because we were paying less then we should have for the past 20 years. I know it's hard to believe but it is true. |
|
|
| MarkT |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
Great! So i will be expecting that as a man, I will be getting lower insurance rates, free dating services, free cover for certain clubs, and discounts on valentines day gifts?
Not bloody likely i bet!!
Chalk one up for inequality in the name of equality. |
I'm not even reading the rest of this thread. This MP is an idiot, assuming things to be "equal" when they perhaps are not.
Equality is such a stupid concept to throw around. The average man's haircut is generally far less intensive and time consuming than the average woman's cut. If anything, charge an hourly rate.
As for the Armani suit example...couldn't simple volume be a factor here? How many female Armani suits are sold vs. men's? If they make and sell 1000 of a particular men's suit, and 100-200 of the eqivalent woman's suit...there ya go.
If they want to implement this...then I agree with you...I'd expect equalization on those other points as well. I feel that most of these "discriminatory" differences are reasonable.
The REAL solution here is for women and men to DEMAND more equal pricing on goods and services where they feel that they are being unreasonably overcharged because of their sex...but that's asking too much for people to put their money where their mouth is.
ie. as a guy, if you don't like the "free cover for ladies", THEN DON'T SUPPORT THAT CLUB by going there (but many still will go, because one head rules the other, lol).
for women...don't pay extra for that Armani dress or settle for that $100 hair cut...demand a discount...they say no, don't buy it (but many will anyway).
Insurance is a more complex issue...rates are already based upon a myriad of personal factors (age, location, regular distance travelled, car type, etc), but also on past claims as a group (age, sex, etc). It's that 2nd section that is perhaps discriminatory.
I have no problems paying higher insurance living in the DT core, due to more traffic, for example...ie. I'm theoretically at a higher risk for an accident than someone who lives in a quiet rural community with very little traffic. That's fine. What's NOT fine is that because other people in my age/sex/whatever group result in more claims...that's ENTIRELY out of my control and completely unfair. THAT should be legislated against being legal, IMHO. |
|
|
| Spam |
*Puts on his hard-hat and waits for Armegeddon*
MarkT and JayX1 agree on something. I'm getting the fux outa here! |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Spam
*Puts on his hard-hat and waits for Armegeddon*
MarkT and JayX1 agree on something. I'm getting the fux outa here! |
yeah im shocked too! :eek: |
|
|
|
|
