Insurance?

[Eric W S]

You're probably right on the smoking, as it is a choice and all that. I still think the overweight people will try to make a stand based on genetics or something else (i.e. 'they were born with it'). Our company has no such smoking policies. However, smokers are given a monetary incentive to quit. This hurts me though, because I never did smoke, yet I get no such bonus check.

Insurance is a business, but I think it could be done much differently than it is. There is room for another insurance carrier that could offer some radical new policies, such as the 2 and 5 year plan. If you drive with a clean record for 2 years, you can opt to have a certain percentage of your cash back, or opt for lower premiums, or you can then opt to go on the 5 year plan (with increased bonuses)...

Now here's another one for ya: The teeen/parent driver program. If another insurance carrier offers insurance to your excellent driving teeen for $800 a month. We would offer it to him for half that rate, with the understanding that the parent will have to pay back all of the money saved if their teeen gets in an accident during the probationary period.

(Note: Teeen is blocked for some reason when spelled correctly...)

It's not the carriers. They are subject to each and every State's Department of Insurance (all 50 of them). All consumer retail auto is heavily regulated with legislation. I think it is illegal to offer a policy for more than one year. The premium you pay is very heavily influenced by the state in which you live. They approve the rate structure. They tell the carriers how much they must keep invested for losses. So on and so forth. All the way down to broker licensing. I also think there is a law that precludes carriers from asking for additional premiums in the event of a loss. That is why they charge high rates over term. The policy is basically a simple contract stating if you pay 500 a month they will cover losses up to the policy limit less deductible.

The legislation in place is meant to help the consumer. It is generally a good thing.

EwS

[SafeAirOne]

i us usaa. got the tow coverage and the money i save on tow trucks has almost covers the premiums. dailey driver/tower

I use my wife and her Nissan Pathfinder. Saved a ton of money on towing. Twice she's rescued the rover (broken fuel injector pipe and corroded electric lead) and twice the Nissan Sentra. Just this morning she towed me (and the Sentra) home.

BTW, Welcome home, Scott. I see they're easing you back into civilization, starting with the very remote 29 Palms...Such a lovely place...

[scott]

I use my wife ...

my wife rips me a new one every time i call for a tow. once, while test driving after refitting a clutch master cylinder that due to mal adjustment overpressurized and blew out the flex line leaving me stuck, all i heard was "why couldn't you have stayed in the neighborhood, why did you have to drive so far to let it break down?" (5 miles from the house at 11pm)

it's great to be back, beer, golf and soon my series!

[LaneRover]

once, while test driving after refitting a clutch master cylinder that due to mal adjustment overpressurized and blew out the flex line leaving me stuck

Why not just drive home without using the clutch?

[scott]

Why not just drive home without using the clutch?

that would have been easier than calling her. i had since practice that technique. but with everything new except for he rubber pad on the clutch pedal i think it'll be a while before i'll need to shift without a clutch

[jp-]

It's not the carriers. They are subject to each and every State's Department of Insurance (all 50 of them). All consumer retail auto is heavily regulated with legislation. I think it is illegal to offer a policy for more than one year. The premium you pay is very heavily influenced by the state in which you live. They approve the rate structure. They tell the carriers how much they must keep invested for losses. So on and so forth. All the way down to broker licensing. I also think there is a law that precludes carriers from asking for additional premiums in the event of a loss. That is why they charge high rates over term. The policy is basically a simple contract stating if you pay 500 a month they will cover losses up to the policy limit less deductible.

The legislation in place is meant to help the consumer. It is generally a good thing.

EwS

Eric I was thinking about this some more and just had one last question for you. If it was statistically determined that Asians had a much higher rate of auto accidents, would it be fair to charge all Asians higher insurance rates?

[Eric W S]

Eric I was thinking about this some more and just had one last question for you. If it was statistically determined that Asians had a much higher rate of auto accidents, would it be fair to charge all Asians higher insurance rates?

Yes it would be unfair. And it would be a catastrophic business decision. You ideally want to the highest population of safest drivers regardless of ethnicity. Nothing else matters to carriers except your losses and driving record.

In real terms, if your unsafe and a bad driver (whatever your ethnicity, political views and religious views), your unsafe driving habits come back to haunt you in a big way when you renew. And unsafe drivers have to continually pare off all but the minimal coverage to meet the law. So at one point in time they start to see the fruit of their poor habits when they get nothing in return for their bad habits and now have a loan on a peice of scrap.

[Rineheitzgabot]

[quote=Eric W S]Yes it would be unfair. And it would be a catastrophic business decision. You ideally want to the highest population of safest drivers regardless of ethnicity. Nothing else matters to carriers except your losses and driving record.

I think what Jp is asking (and now I am hooked) is if it were STATISTICALLY proven that Asians were unsafe drivers. You and I know that ethnicity doesn't matter, but if there were a specific "group" that beyond a reasonable doubt, had more personal and property damage, would it be unfair to charge them more?

[jp-]

Yes it would be unfair. And it would be a catastrophic business decision. You ideally want to the highest population of safest drivers regardless of ethnicity. Nothing else matters to carriers except your losses and driving record.

In real terms, if your unsafe and a bad driver (whatever your ethnicity, political views and religious views), your unsafe driving habits come back to haunt you in a big way when you renew. And unsafe drivers have to continually pare off all but the minimal coverage to meet the law. So at one point in time they start to see the fruit of their poor habits when they get nothing in return for their bad habits and now have a loan on a peice of scrap.

Ok. We have determined that discrimination based on race is unfair. Why do you make a distinction based on age?

Employers are prohibited from discriminating by race, gender, or age.

[jp-]

Alright, I think I have figured out my own problem.

It's not age per se, but driver experience. So the only thing they are discriminating against is the amount of your driver experience. It all makes sense now. I just never thought about it beyond the age part. I suppose it's the same idea that a pilot must have 3000+ hours to be a Medivac pilot. If you don't have that, you can be legally "discriminated" against.

And employers can discriminate based on work experience.

I have seen the light...

[Eric W S]

[quote=Rineheitzgabot]

Yes it would be unfair. And it would be a catastrophic business decision. You ideally want to the highest population of safest drivers regardless of ethnicity. Nothing else matters to carriers except your losses and driving record.

I think what Jp is asking (and now I am hooked) is if it were STATISTICALLY proven that Asians were unsafe drivers. You and I know that ethnicity doesn't matter, but if there were a specific "group" that beyond a reasonable doubt, had more personal and property damage, would it be unfair to charge them more?

I understood the question. Re-read the answer. Satistics are a predicitve discipline. Therefore there will never be "proven beyond a reasonable doubt" as you say. That is a legal term, not a mathematical one. Populations never follow the statistical norm in reality. Mutations, deviations, et al.

It is a moot/stupid point to argue anyway. If you are an unsafe dirver, with large losses, then the carrier charges you more. Period. In reality. Right now. Ergo, your ethnicity has nothing to do with it. And it is "unfair" (immoral) to bring that into the ****ysis of potential risk.

So why would you care what caucasians or asians or purple people eaters are being charged for premiums? Common sense says you wouldn't. You should be more concerned if bad drivers and people who wreck stuff are being charged more. Which they are.

[Rineheitzgabot]

[quote=Eric W S]

I understood the question. Re-read the answer. Satistics are a predicitve discipline. Therefore there will never be "proven beyond a reasonable doubt" as you say. That is a legal term, not a mathematical one. Populations never follow the statistical norm in reality. Mutations, deviations, et al.

It is a moot/stupid point to argue anyway. If you are an unsafe dirver, with large losses, then the carrier charges you more. Period. In reality. Right now. Ergo, your ethnicity has nothing to do with it. And it is "unfair" (immoral) to bring that into the ****ysis of potential risk.

So why would you care what caucasians or asians or purple people eaters are being charged for premiums? Common sense says you wouldn't. You should be more concerned if bad drivers and people who wreck stuff are being charged more. Which they are.

Good Lord, brother.

The tone of your response seemed as though I had touched a nerve. My intention was not to be annoying. Nor was I trying to corner you. You are correct, for business purposes, it is a moot/stupid point--philosophically, it is not.

Okay, I admit, I am fascinated with how life and law interact, and how inconsistencies rise to the surface. Law is filled with inconsistencies. This insrance thing is one of them. Example: If a pregnant woman is ******ed, it is considered "two counts", by the law; but abortion is legal. Please understand that I am not spouting politics, just pointing out an obvious inconsistency.

You are holding firm on some, anti-discrimination thing. No one is accusing you of discrmination. JP asks, why age, then? I do too. I have been dealing with employment law for 13 years. There is a fairly new movement in age discrimination for young employees, as well as old. That is taking a certain group, and treating them differently. This won't "fly" in any other realm of life; so why is the insurance industry allowed to do it?

Again, pointing out inconsistencies, not looking for an answer. I am not on a crusade against the insurance industry. I did, re-read your response, and it did not help. However, I am retracting the question, for God's sake, don't try to answer it. A reasonable response would have been, "Damn, I don't know why discrimination is sometimes legal and sometimes not. Oh well, life goes on." I realize this is not a forum where law and philosphy are discussed, so I am stopping now.

[jp-]

See my above post. I think I figured it out.

Rineheitzgabot, we're on the same page.

[Eric W S]

[quote=Rineheitzgabot]

Good Lord, brother.

The tone of your response seemed as though I had touched a nerve. My intention was not to be annoying. Nor was I trying to corner you. You are correct, for business purposes, it is a moot/stupid point--philosophically, it is not.

Okay, I admit, I am fascinated with how life and law interact, and how inconsistencies rise to the surface. Law is filled with inconsistencies. This insrance thing is one of them. Example: If a pregnant woman is ******ed, it is considered "two counts", by the law; but abortion is legal. Please understand that I am not spouting politics, just pointing out an obvious inconsistency.

You are holding firm on some, anti-discrimination thing. No one is accusing you of discrmination. JP asks, why age, then? I do too. I have been dealing with employment law for 13 years. There is a fairly new movement in age discrimination for young employees, as well as old. That is taking a certain group, and treating them differently. This won't "fly" in any other realm of life; so why is the insurance industry allowed to do it?

Again, pointing out inconsistencies, not looking for an answer. I am not on a crusade against the insurance industry. I did, re-read your response, and it did not help. However, I am retracting the question, for God's sake, don't try to answer it. A reasonable response would have been, "Damn, I don't know why discrimination is sometimes legal and sometimes not. Oh well, life goes on." I realize this is not a forum where law and philosphy are discussed, so I am stopping now.

That's funny.

It's doubtful you'll ever aggrevate me online. Nor did I respond in an aggrevated or hostile manner to your initial inane implication.

You are the only one speaking about discrimination. Not I. You seem to have some sort of weird fetish for it.

Not one of your recent examples points out an inconsistency with anything really. Social law and business laws are different. It is not something even worthy of pondering. Here you go. Pricing applied to each and every consumer equally isn't discriminatory. Charging higher prices to inexperienced drivers is just good business and isn't illegal or immoral (like true discrimination is).

If you like responding with chump-speak, so be it.

And for the record, I am still not aggrevated nor have you touched a nerve. I spent a boat load of money on educating myself and reserve the right to be well written and articulate.

[thixon]

....And all of the above has what to do with Rovers?

I have an idea. I've got about a bazillion frequent flyer miles from all the business travel I do. Why don't I arrange to fly the two of you to a neutral location, give both of you medievil weapons of destruction, and let you bash each other till you can't stand it anymore. I'll video the whole thing, and post it here for the rest of the members of this board to see. It'll be way more entertaining than reading these posts.


Somthing like this is what I had in mind.