sr@u1100a.UUCP (Steven Radtke) (05/25/84)
The discussion about insurance companies has progressed to a discussion
of how insurance companies use statistics to ensure themselves a profit
by insuring a large, diverse population. The motivation for providing
different pension plans (either benfits levels or contributions required)
to men and women is the profit motive.
There is no problem with the actuarial techniques per se; women
as a group have a longer life expectancy than men at ever age and
numerous studies support this. Take that as a fact. Where the SEXISM
enters the policies is at an even earlier stage. Why should the
population of plan members be divided into two groups on the basis of
sex, rather than other distinguishing characteristics, e.g. life-prolonging
behaviors related to diet, constitution, exercise, smoking, and drinking.
If each person were evaluated and given a life expectancy by the insurance
company based on current scientific understanding, then each person
could contribute to or draw from the fund on this rational basis.
Those people with long life expected could contribute more and those
soon to depart less.
That really SOUNDS stupid to me, compared to just paying female retirees
less, which is to say the insurance companies have done an excellent
job at propagandizing me.
There is no reason why the diverse population should be catagorized by
gender in an a priori fashion to attempt to distinguish sub-populations of
greater and lesser life expectancy, except that it lowers the cost of
doing business for the insurers.
The most brilliant man I ever new said, "There's lies, damn lies,
and statistics." I never new if that was an original quote or one of
his own gems.
Steven Radtke
Bell Communications Research
Good old New Jersey
{ihnp4,houxm,pyux*}!u1100a!srjbf@ccieng5.UUCP (05/26/84)
I don't think I agree that dividing the population into separate male and female populations for actuarial purposes is unjust. Yes, factors such as smoking/non-smoking, drinking/non-drinking/heavy-drinking, etc. could be considered, but these are far more liable to change than the male-female distinction, and far harder for the insurance company to verify. Thus, the male/female distinction may be one of the few that is practical to make (racial distinctions would also seem reasonable, as far as liability to change goes, but the distinctions can be very fuzzy when the majority of the population is probably mixed!). Jens -- "Some people are eccentric, but I am just plain odd" Reachable as ....allegra![rayssd,rlgvax]!ccieng5!jbf
barryg@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Barry Gold) (05/26/84)
You ask why the insurance companies wish to distinguish actuarially on the
basis of sex rather than on that of "diet, constitution, smoking, or
drinking." Maybe because most employers already know each employee's sex
but not hiser D,C,S, or D. Maybe because employees are far less apt to
lie about which sex they are than about their D,C,S, or D. Maybe because
you don't need to pay an insurance physician to certify an employee's sex
but might need to do this to certify details about the employee's D,C,S, or D.
Since most companies that offer employees annuities also carry health
insurance - and since people who live longer are quite likelier to be
healthier - couldn't we blame the companies and/or the insurance
industry for not working out a combined health insurance/annuity package
which would cover women and men at the same cost - and assume that women
would have more years of retirement but fewer heart attacks/etc.?
--Lee Gold
--
Barry Gold/Lee Gold
usenet: {decvax!allegra|ihnp4}!sdcrdcf!ucla-s!lcc!barry
Arpanet: barry@BNL