dr_who@umcp-cs.UUCP (07/24/83)
Egalitarian principles die hard. What would be so bad about insurance companies discriminating on the basis of race as well as sex? Of course, there is the fear that such discrimination will be based on hate, rather than statistics. Let me repeat myself: I suggest that discrimination based on feelings (biases) might be dealt with by requiring insurance companies to show, "by a preponderance of evidence" or some such rule, that their discriminations are based on statistics rather than prejudice. Perhaps I should point out that since whites live longer than blacks, blacks would get higher pension benefits if insurers could discriminate. Anyway, I come back to the point that statistic-based discriminations allow insurance companies to charge customers according to their cost to the company, which is generally a good thing economically. Case in point: the company that was sued in the original Supreme Court case has converted to a "fixed-year payout", according to Bob Schleicher (see his article). By being forced to change to this system, the company probably lowered "consumer surplus" (see your economics book), since it defeats the point of a pension plan: to give the retired person an income for the rest of his/her life. The reason why the company originally had a life-term plan rather than this fixed-year payout was -- presumably -- because people wanted such a plan; they wanted to be sure to have a certain income no matter how long they lived. --Paul Torek, U of MD College Park
bernie@watarts.UUCP (07/27/83)
In dicussing the behaviour of insurance companies, it's important to keep one thing in mind: Insurance companies are out to make money. Whether you approve of this or not is irrelevant; their stated aim is to be profitable. They do this by setting their rates (as far as possible) to be attractive to everyone. This includes men and women of all ages and races; the life insurance companies have nothing to gain through discrimination, and in fact have potential customers to lose. Assuming (as several netters have) that there is bias *on the part of the insurace company* is false; they're just out to turn a buck, and don't really give two hoots where it comes from. --Bernie Roehl ...decvax!watmath!watarts!bernie
hutch@dadla-b.UUCP (07/29/83)
Bernie Roehl mentions that the insurance companies try to set their rates to be attractive to as many as possible. What Bernie missed was the FACT that for many things (especially autos) insurance is required by law. The insurance companies need not set too attractive a rate, and many who DO, avoid paying off on their policies. Actually, the insurance companies only have to make sure that they are PERCEIVED as having attractive rates. They can and therefore do rip off anyone they can by making it SEEM that they are setting a good rate when they're actually cheating a large portion of thier clientele. Hutch