pc@hplabsb.UUCP (07/07/83)
For those of you who missed the news: the Supreme Court has ruled that discrimination on the basis of sex in pension payments is unconstitutional. As pointed out by the media, this may be the impetus for an overhaul in the insurance industry's actuarial practices. For those who've never been sure what the broohaha has been about: Women have been charged higher rates for insurance and have received lower monthly payments for pension plans based on the statistic that women (on the average) live longer than men. We have laws which guarantee that there will not be discrimination on the basis of sex, race, religion, age or national origin in such matters. For those who still think it would be fair to charge a woman more or give her less because STATISTICALLY she is likely to outlive her male counterpart: This amounts to discriminating against an individual based on some generalization about members of the group. If in the above paragraph you substitute another group classification (Black, Jew, Hispanic), it seems to make the point clearer to some folk. Remember: Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. Patricia Collins hplabs
pn@amd70.UUCP (07/08/83)
Oh, good. I think I'll sue my insurance company for charging me more for auto insurance than they charge women.
3723edm@houxq.UUCP (07/10/83)
Patrician Collins stated, on the subject of pension plans and life insurance: For those who think it would be fair to charge a woman more or give her less because STATISTICALLY she is likely to outlive her male counterpart: This amounts to discriminating against an individual based on some generalization about members of the group. I agree that this is a powerful argument for non-discrimination, but NOT just on the basis of sex. It applies equally to people in hazardous occupations, where the chance of death is largely dependent on the skill of the individual. Instead of generalizing about all skydivers, mortality tables should be completely personalized. Or at the opposite extreme, people in hazardous occupations should pay the same rates as anybody else. Non-discrimination should also apply in selecting job candidates. Why should a computer science graduate have a better chance for a job than a high-school dropout? Why not give the two candidates an equal chance to prove their skills at coding and systems design, instead of generalizing that computer science graduates make better programmers than dropouts? If you agree with my arguments, then you're my kind of person. But if you think the above arguments are absurd, I put forth this argument: the issue of determining what are relevant risk factors or job selection criteria are not philosophical, but political, and the arguments are strictly emotional. Therefore, the only rational determination of what criteria are suitable for determining insurance rates or selecting job candidates are experience and empirical evidence.
dr_who@umcp-cs.UUCP (07/10/83)
Darn! pn@amd70.UUCP beat me to it! It deserves repeating, though, that a consistent application of the Court's opinion would make it unconstitutional for auto insurers to discriminate against men. But perhaps that doesn't bother pc@hplabsb.UUCP (Patricia Collins). She says: For those who still think it would be fair to charge a woman more or give her less because STATISTICALLY she is likely to outlive her male counterpart: This amounts to discriminating against an individual based on some generalization about members of the group. True, but so what? Discrimination is only wrong when it is based on sex (race, etc.) alone, or on the basis of a false generalization. Insurance companies don't discriminate against women *qua* women, they discriminate between the sexes *qua* the expected cost to the company of insuring them. And that, to me, is exactly the way they should be making decisions about what rates to charge to whom. It would be unfair to charge women as much as men for auto insurance when it is known that men are responsible for more accidents. The statistical difference can be swept under the rug in the name of equality, but not in the name of justice. -- Paul Torek, U of MD College Park (no mail please: it won't get here)
larry@grkermit.UUCP (Larry Kolodney) (07/11/83)
From: pn@amd70.UUCP Oh, good. I think I'll sue my insurance company for charging me more for auto insurance than they charge women. ***************************************************** Sorry, the decision only applied to employee insurance programs, which are covered under the civil rights act. Insurance bought on the open market is not covered by it. Also, the court specifically said that plaintiffs cannot collect for past damages, only that the companies must change their methods in the future. -- Larry Kolodney #13 (I try harder) (USENET) decvax!genrad!grkermit!larry allegra!linus!genrad!grkermit!larry harpo!eagle!mit-vax!grkermit!larry (ARPA) rms.g.lkk@mit-ai
djn@uwvax.UUCP (07/12/83)
I, for one, would like to see a discussion of this issue; it will also be a welcome break from that other issue which is discussed and discussed... Patricia Collins mentions that women have had to pay higher insurance rates and receive lower pension benefits as a result of longer life expectancy. Surely life insurance premiums for women are lower due to the same factor so that the discrimination is not always against women but sometimes in their favor. Since the court decision was an interpretation of the Civil Rights Act, can the non-discrimination by sex be generalized to non-discrimination by age? Where does one draw the line? This issue is perplexing; I find myself on the minority side of the Supreme Court vote (which was 5-4 I believe). I would welcome well-constructed arguments supporting the majority side. -Dennis Nichols uwvax!djn
rh@mit-eddie.UUCP (Randy Haskins) (07/12/83)
If it turned out that men lived longer than women (and therefore
pension benefits for men had been less), would the Supreme Court
have declared that action un-Constitutional? Are women made to
register for the draft now?
{signal "flame-on"}
Anybody who tries to deny that there exist some wide-spread
(read 'true about almost everyone') differences between the
sexes... well, let's just say that this is a family newsgroup,
so I won't finish the thought. To expect a woman to lift as
much weight as a man is usually (NOT ALWAYS) silly. To
expect a man to be able to swim as far as a woman is also
usually silly. WE ARE BUILT DIFFERENTLY. WE (generally) HAVE
DIFFERENT ROLES IN LIFE. STOP TRYING TO EQUATE APPLES AND
ORANGES. MEN AND WOMEN ARE NOT TOTALLY THE SAME. PERIOD.
--sorry, but jeeezus....
--
Randwulf (Randy Haskins)
genrad!mit-eddie!rh
or...
rh@mit-ee (via mit-mc)garret@uw-june (Garret Swart) (07/14/83)
It is my feeling that there is a big difference between having different insurance rates for people because of something they *cannot* control (their sex, race, or ethnicity) and charging extra because of conditions that can be controlled by the individual (weight, bad habits like smoking and drinking, or poor driving record). Once one agrees that it is okay to differentiate on the basis of sex, using the rationalle that one is not *discrimenating* because statistics rather than feelings are guiding the decissions, where does one draw the line? Different ethnic groups in the U. S. have differences in life expectancy comparable to that between men and women, should that be a factor in insurance premiums? One way around the decission is for employers to merely give the employees money instead of a pension on retirement (or pay it to the employee's IRA account throughout their career). The employee would then purchase their own anuity from a private company. This is done already by many employers for employees who terminate before becoming eligable for retirement. In conclusion, I feel that the decission is a step in the right direction as far is elimenating more subtle forms of discrimenation but that it is unlikely to have far reaching consequences. Garret Swart garret@washington arpa garret@uw-june uucp
rs55611@ihuxk.UUCP (07/15/83)
Here's an interesting note on the Supreme Court pension benefits case, based on my recollection of a column in the Chicago Tribune (Jane Bryant Quinn (spelling?), I think): The company that was being sued in the case has since modified their pension plan to be legal. Instead of making the lifetime benefits payments equal for both sexes, they converted the plans to have a fixed-year payout. In this type of plan, benefits are payed out for a fixed number of years to the pensionee. If the person dies before payments have been completed, the remainder goes to the estate, either in continued payments, or a lump-sum distribution. This type of plan does not discriminate, and also doesn't try to "overcome" the statistical life expectancy charts. This is a good solution for pension benefits, but of course does not directly apply to related areas like life insurance or car insurance rates. Bob Schleicher ihuxk!rs55611
gcsherwood@watcgl.UUCP (Geoffrey C. Sherwood) (07/20/83)
It is an interesting point. Should women be charged more for life insurance because they tend to live longer? If not, then insurance companies do need to revamp their entire attitudes. After all, the obvious parallel for men is car insurance. In most states, young unmarried males really get nailed. I am 24 and have no accidents or tickets. I still paid about twice as much for insurance -- both in Canada and in the US. This is discrimination based on sex and age. Is it wrong? I think not. While I am not thrilled to pay the extra rate (to say the least), I know why they exist. The average unmarried male under 25 has a high accident rate. Discrimination is a fact of life. Some people I like, some I don't. I discriminiate on that basis. I would hire someone who is skilled for a job rather than someone unskilled. I would discriminate on that basis, too. Charging women extra for insurance is not an act against the sex, it is just that on the average women live longer. Finally, the quote in the article this is a follow-up to, that neither the US nor any state shall discriminate ... (I don't have it handy, so the exact wording is probably off), has no bearing whatsoever on this case. The insurance companies are neither the US government nor any state. flame away (I calls 'em like I sees 'em), - geoff sherwood - - U. of Waterloo -
filed01@abnjh.UUCP (07/21/83)
Underwriters and statisticians coul probably find other groups with longer or shorter life expectations based on physical features. Red hair, blue eyes, black skin etc. Yet they were not singled out for different rates. So why should women be singled out for different rates and/or benefits.
annej@tekecs.UUCP (Anne Jacko) (07/27/83)
I'm a member of NOW, and I generally support what they're trying to do. But I was having trouble swallowing the idea that insurance companies are discriminating on the basis of sex by varying their rates for different risk groups. Yesterday I received a letter from NOW about the Non-Discrimination in Insurance Act. The letter flames a bit, since it's intended to motivate the reader to send money, but I thought it contained some interesting information. It's a least a change from what the insurance companies are saying. ...the [insurance] industry has been spending millions of dollars to dupe the public. Most outrageous of all, one of the major messages they're sending is that the supporters of this legislation...while "well-intentioned," are not terribly bright. They insist that we are supporting the bill for "the principle of the thing," that we think equality for equality's sake is worth it, even though passage of the bill would cost women money. ...It is a lie that women benefit from the insurance industry's sex-based pricing system. Our groundbreaking research on that system has demonstrated *conclusively* that sex discrimination in insurance cheats women and yields inflated profits for insurers....Women pay *up to twice as much as men* for disability and health insurance, a difference that is completely unjustified by the statistical data!...Only about 15% of women actually do live longer -- yet *all women* are penalized for something they cannot change.... While some women may pay lower prices than men their age for auto insurance up to the age of 25, the industry's own figures show that *women have lower accident rates throughout their entire driving lives* -- one-third lower! Therefore, the real news is not that young women pay less than young men, it's that *women are cheated by paying the same as men from age 25 on.* ...Over a lifetime, a woman who has auto, health, disability, and life insurance, and an annuity, will pay $15,732 *more* than a man will pay for the same coverage... ...[there is] compelling evidence that the insurance industry played a significat role in blocking passage of the Equal Rights Amendment. -- Anne Jacko, Tektronix ...decvax!tektronix!tekecs!annej