U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-23-2009, 04:46 PM
 
Location: Seabrook, New Hampshire
257 posts, read 537,329 times
Reputation: 174

Advertisements

I think that insurance companies, renters, homeowners, consumers, etc, should be allowed to decide what issues they will make decisions on without regard to outside interference. Did you not come to my store because I'm a man, have auburn hair, my clothes, the look I gave you when you came in, the arrangement of my aisles, or the fact that my store is too far away? Did I not hire you because of your skin color, dialect, loud voice, use of profanity, or the fact that I'm looking for an attractive young woman to work at my business? You can never really know what's going on in someone's mind. Even if someone did know why you wouldn't buy/sell to them, do they have a right to sue you and make you do business with them?

If a middle aged man has a problem around kids (noise, abusive background, flashbacks, sexual about, sexual attraction, paranoia, etc), should he be prevented from living in an adults only neighborhood? Should parks be at a disadvantage because they can set the age of entrance no lower than 55? It's their park, and they should be allowed to run it how they want to.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-23-2009, 07:16 PM
 
3,651 posts, read 8,115,052 times
Reputation: 2747
Quote:
Originally Posted by BLAZER PROPHET View Post
Uh, we do have those studies. However, racial profiling is usually illegal.
I'm not talking about "racial profiling." I'm talking about valid and factual statistics showing one race being more of a risk or costlier to insure. I don't see why such a study would be so hard or be illegal. Yet either they aren't done or they are clearly ignored (if they were done and there was no diff shown among races, I think we'd hear about that too). That's my point. How is it that it's OK to "discriminate" against someone insurance-wise based on age or gender, but not race? I think that's an absurd double-standard. Either you should be able to charge more (or less) based on demographics or not across the board.

Quote:
However, we can charge higher rates in areas where there is more congestion and accudents and lower rates in rural areas where there are fewer accidents. I suppose, if minorities live in the urban areas and whites in the rural areas (predominately speaking), it could be construed by some socialists as a form of racial profiling.
Now THAT is profiling. FYI there are white people in "urban areas" and blacks in rural ones.

Quote:
As to charging more for life insurance based on race, never happen. Insurance companies, as well as all other companies (except government) can only trample on people's civil rights just so far...
And can you not see how completely ridiculous that last statement is? So it's OK to "trample on civil rights" in some ways, but not others.

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-23-2009, 10:55 PM
 
479 posts, read 674,594 times
Reputation: 432
I would support discrimination based on factors like intelligence, visual-spatial aptitude, vision and hearing. I'm pretty sure that people deficient in those areas cause more accidents.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-24-2009, 02:26 AM
 
Location: Florida
18,290 posts, read 18,545,587 times
Reputation: 20975
If companies were insuring against one specific type of health problem there probably would be higher premiums based on certain racial lines since there are higher tendencies of certain disorders within different races.
But since all health problems are covered the actuaries must have averaged them out enough to not need to
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-24-2009, 11:32 AM
 
Location: Seabrook, New Hampshire
257 posts, read 537,329 times
Reputation: 174
Those who discriminate based on relevant matters would do well over time, while those who ask for too much info or less relevant information would get fewer customers and pay out more per customer. Insurance companies have to look at a lot of different factors, and there's a lot more that goes into figuring out rates than most people realize.

However, if you are renting out rooms in your own home or building, you should have to right to say yes or no to anyone for any reason--or no reason at all. You're the one losing business, and if it's something that you own, you should be the one who decides.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-31-2009, 10:14 PM
 
Location: Phoenix, AZ
2,470 posts, read 2,019,714 times
Reputation: 465
Quote:
Originally Posted by joey2000 View Post
I'm not talking about "racial profiling." I'm talking about valid and factual statistics showing one race being more of a risk or costlier to insure. I don't see why such a study would be so hard or be illegal. Yet either they aren't done or they are clearly ignored (if they were done and there was no diff shown among races, I think we'd hear about that too). That's my point. How is it that it's OK to "discriminate" against someone insurance-wise based on age or gender, but not race? I think that's an absurd double-standard. Either you should be able to charge more (or less) based on demographics or not across the board.

Now THAT is profiling. FYI there are white people in "urban areas" and blacks in rural ones.


And can you not see how completely ridiculous that last statement is? So it's OK to "trample on civil rights" in some ways, but not others.

Insurance underwriting is not based on race because a persons race has nothing to do with how much of a risk they are for a particular type of insurance....race does not play a part in determining risky an INDIVIDUAL is to insure. Just because a certain race happens to rank highest in auto claims, it doesn't mean every individual among that race is therefore the same (if you want to compile statistics by race, one will be at the top and another at the bottom, so what). There rates are based on their age (because it relates to there experience operating a motor vehicle), their driving record (because it reflects their past history in terms of accidents and how safe they drive), where they live (because the more densly populated an area is, the more likely they are to have accident or theft claims). Gender is a factor for health and life insurance because statistically, women live longer than men but, for health insurance women between the ages of 20-40 have much higher medical expenses (because of the female reproductive system) than men between 20-40.....after 40 the rates for men start to increase, while the rates for women stay about the same, until about age 55 when male rates become higher than female rates.

In general group health insurance is much more expensive than individual because a new employee with an ill family member can't be turned down or their family member either....and if they have prior group coverage for 6 months with a lapse of no more than 63 days at any time, then there's not even a pre-existing condition period.....so rates are higher to compensate for that. Since you can be declined on an indiviual policy, rates are lower because the insurance company gets to pick who they want to cover. The reason they can is because there would be no way of determining how much risk one company would get over another if they couldn't decline for any one seriously unhealthy. One company could end up with all the unhealthy people and the others none....if that happened their rates would skyrocket, anyone healthy would switch to another company (because they can) to get a better rate and only the unhealthy would be left and their rates would spiral out of control.....unaffordable to any one left on it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-31-2009, 10:51 PM
 
846 posts, read 1,115,669 times
Reputation: 274
One of the problems is people think that private industries and businesses dicriminate.

They do not. They cannot. Laws of economics will not allow a company to discriminate and stay in business. This not only includes who an insurance company chooses to insure it also includes pay.

We should elimate all discrimination, minimum wage and now maximum wage laws.

It is impossible for private businesses to discriminate at all under any circumstances and stay in business. Only government can discriminate.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-01-2009, 09:09 AM
 
Location: Somewhere in northern Alabama
16,851 posts, read 51,335,478 times
Reputation: 27726
All of the inequities and injustices in insurance can be summed up that insurance is a pure socialist concept, trying to make money in a largely capitalist society. It cannot please two masters. It used to be that insurance didn't effect people who could not afford it. Today, the billing procedures built as a response to insurance have grossly inflated health costs for the uninsured.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-01-2009, 09:55 AM
 
Location: Moon Over Palmettos
5,975 posts, read 17,147,909 times
Reputation: 4989
Quote:
Originally Posted by joey2000 View Post
So if they had studies which showed (hypothetically):

- that Hispanic drivers were less prone to accidents than Asians, they could hike up rates for Asians and/or lower them for Hispanics?

- that white people were on avg healthier and less medical risk than black people, they could hike up rates for black people?

Good luck w/that.
There is no correlation between race and accidents, not in any actuarial tables. Only correlations are age and gender.

There are studies on disease and race because certain races are statistically prone to certain conditions, for example: Tay Sachs disease for Ashkenazi Jews, Cajuns and French Canadians, Sickle Cell Anemia for Blacks, Osteoporosis for Asians, etc. etc. Insurance companies ask their members to self-identify so that they could be case managed to see if they are at risk of genetic conditions such as these.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-01-2009, 10:25 AM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,668 posts, read 71,574,557 times
Reputation: 35869
Because private sector insurance is the sweetheart of the orthodoxy, and can do whatever it wants---the US government and media will never turn against it, no matter what its selfish objectives. The only alternative is authoritarian, totalitarian communisic ideas of stealing all the wealth from a few hard-working libertarian American gun-nuts and turning it over entirely to the other 300,000,000 people, who have done absolutely nothing to deserve a helping hand, like they do in every other country in the planet, which proves how evil it is to infringe on the constitutional rights of the millionaires.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top