Discrimination?

[ponderingturtle]

So apparently the law recognizes that there are wrong ways to discriminate.



Are the ones that they can legally put you into any less questionable than the other methods of discrimination?

What methods of discirimation are illegal, and why it is any better to judge by sex?

So how should the insurance industry work? You seem to want it to not collectivize risk, but establish it on an individual basis. There is an easy way to do this, don't get insurance or get as little as possible, then you will only be paying for your actual risk.

The whole concept of insurance requires to you classify people into groups and establish what the risk is with in that group. It requires classifying people and in that sense requires discrimination.

But it is limited to what is considered legally fair classifications, and these can vary from state to state.

 

[Lonewulf]

So how should the insurance industry work? You seem to want it to not collectivize risk, but establish it on an individual basis.

So you find it okay to discriminate in some ways, but not discriminate in others?

Double standards, anyone?

"So what" indeed.

But it is limited to what is considered legally fair classifications, and these can vary from state to state.

What is illegal? Go by any states you feel are relevant.

Is judging blacks as a high risk better than judging men? Why or why not? Is it vice versa? Do you oppose the laws as they stand and think that there is no such thing as "bad" discrimination? If you think that there is such thing as "bad" discrimination, then please explain what you consider as bad, and why, please.

 

[ponderingturtle]

So you find it okay to discriminate in some ways, but not discriminate in others?

Double standards, anyone?

"So what" indeed.

So you don't think there should be any classification of your risk taken into account for insurance purposes? Isn't think discrimination against good drivers because they are all being classed as a statistically average driver, while bad drivers get the benefit of this.

You have not said how you would collectivize risk with out classification of an individual and not simply charge everyone the same. IF you want to change people different amounts based on their risk this is the only way that it can be done.

What is illegal? Go by any states you feel are relevant.

Generally it is illegal to take race or religion into consideration when generating statistics

Is judging blacks as a high risk better than judging men? Why or why not? Is it vice versa?

Historically there have been cases of charging black not based on their real risk but extra because you can.

Theoretically it would be acceptable, but as a form of social justice it was determined not to permit such things. Just like how much previous medical problems can be taken into account when determining medical premiums is of varying legality so that you can get one individual charged several times more to insure in one state than in another because they can charge them based on their history. Is this acceptable? Or is it wrong to force the healthy people to pay for her higher usage by legally preventing such classification?

Do you oppose the laws as they stand and think that there is no such thing as "bad" discrimination? If you think that there is such thing as "bad" discrimination, then please explain what you consider as bad, and why, please.

Describe your system that would have no discrimination. All I have seen is bitching about bills, well if you think you can devise a better system please make suggestions.

For example is it fair to charge you based on where you live for home insurance, including things like risk of wild fire or hurricane or earthquake into account? It would be discrimination either way, you are forceing people to pay more than people in an identical house in a different location?

 

[Ziggurat]

So apparently the law recognizes that there are wrong ways to discriminate.

Correct. Note, though, that discrimination literally means making distinctions between categories.

Are the ones that they can legally put you into any less questionable than the other methods of discrimination?

Many of them, yes. For example, it's emminently reasonable to discriminate based upon vision: that's why blind people don't get drivers licenses. But that is discrimination.

What methods of discirimation are illegal, and why it is any better to judge by sex?

Depends on who's doing the discriminating, for one thing, and also what the justification for that discrimination is. Private individuals are essentially free to discriminate to any degree they choose to. As for sex, well, in regards to federal law the Supreme Court has taken the position that sex-based discrimination doesn't need to meet as high a standard for justification as race-based discrimination. Agree with it or not, that's the current law of the land.

 

[Lonewulf]

Generally it is illegal to take race or religion into consideration when generating statistics

Why is sex a good way to judge, then? Why judge men over women, or women over men, if you can't judge by ethnicity/skin tone?

Many of them, yes. For example, it's emminently reasonable to discriminate based upon vision: that's why blind people don't get drivers licenses. But that is discrimination.

Considering that I made a very similar point in this very thread, I think it's safe to say that I already know that. However, what I don't get, is why sex is automatically superior to race.

Depends on who's doing the discriminating, for one thing, and also what the justification for that discrimination is. Private individuals are essentially free to discriminate to any degree they choose to.

But not when hiring employees? Or choosing who can and can't eat at resteraunts/attend schools?

As for sex, well, in regards to federal law the Supreme Court has taken the position that sex-based discrimination doesn't need to meet as high a standard for justification as race-based discrimination. Agree with it or not, that's the current law of the land.

Intriguing.

So then, you and Pondering Turtle support sex-based discrimination? If so, would you then support race-based discrimination? If not, why the double standard? If so, then explain your position.

 

[Ziggurat]

Why is sex a good way to judge, then? Why judge men over women, or women over men, if you can't judge by ethnicity/skin tone?

Well, one obvious reason is because the differences between women and men really are much larger than the differences between races.

But not when hiring employees? Or choosing who can and can't eat at resteraunts/attend schools?

Small enough businesses are indeed legally able to discriminate in hiring issues. Admittedly one of the justifications for allowing that is that policing it isn't viable, but it's still legal. If you're part of a large company and you discriminate in hiring, well, you're acting on behalf of the company, and large companies are generally NOT legally permitted to discriminate in this manner. Similarly with attending schools (ESPECIALLY public schools, where any discrimination faces scrutiny under constitutional requirements for equal protection, and not just non-discrimination laws).

So then, you and Pondering Turtle support sex-based discrimination?

In what context? Chances are you probably don't give a second thought to a rather mundane example of sexual discrimination: public bathrooms. They discriminate based on sex. Is there anything wrong with that? If not, then the question isn't really about whether or not sex-based discrimination is OK, but rather what kinds of sex-based discrimination are acceptable.

If so, would you then support race-based discrimination?

I don't know of any cases where I do, because I can't think of any cases where racial differences are relevant enough. I don't categorically preclude any possible basis, but given that the standards are (and should be) quite high and the differences between races pretty low, chances are I'm not going to encounter any real cases where I would consider it acceptable.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Why is sex a good way to judge, then? Why judge men over women, or women over men, if you can't judge by ethnicity/skin tone?

Because there is not a history of using such a distinction for insurance purposes in a manor that is considered unjust by most people.

You still have not produced a supposed just insurance system, other than to lump everyone together regardless of grouping. That would discriminate against no one as there is no discrimination between individuals. It also means there is no way to lower your insurance rates as they are the same for everyone regardless of accidents and claims.

Most people would think that such a situation is so open to abuse and generally unjust that they would reject it out of hand.

 

[Lonewulf]

Most people would think that such a situation is so open to abuse and generally unjust...

Funny, that seems like what some people are proclaiming about the current system.

Well, one obvious reason is because the differences between women and men really are much larger than the differences between races.

Statistically? Or just physically? Are physical differences all that matter? What if statistics demonstrate that african americans are a higher risk? Is that not the core of your and PT's argument? That statistics = good, and should be used to give out insurance policies?

If men are more likely, then make a policy for all men. If women more likely, policy for all women. If blacks, then all blacks. If whites, then all whites. I am still not convinced that the double standard here -- that discriminating by sex, but not by race -- is entirely justified. I just don't see why the line is drawn there. Are all men violent brutes that are out of control? No. Yet they're all treated like they are. I don't quite see how that's fair.

Small enough businesses are indeed legally able to discriminate in hiring issues. Admittedly one of the justifications for allowing that is that policing it isn't viable, but it's still legal.

Considering the justification, I'm not sure how entirely relevant the point is. Large enough businesses -- like large enough insurance companies -- are not subject to those exceptions.

In what context? Chances are you probably don't give a second thought to a rather mundane example of sexual discrimination: public bathrooms. They discriminate based on sex. Is there anything wrong with that? If not, then the question isn't really about whether or not sex-based discrimination is OK, but rather what kinds of sex-based discrimination are acceptable.

I'm all for unisex bathrooms, but not necessarily enforced unisex bathrooms. At the same time, if the government proclaimed that unisex was illegal, I'd probably disagree that it's not unjust. Regardless, there is a difference between insurance policies and bathrooms; what about earlier, when women could not attend certain schools or universities? What if things developed so that men could not afford any kind of insurance rates, based on sex?

I don't know of any cases where I do, because I can't think of any cases where racial differences are relevant enough.

African Americans are more likely to commit crimes than caucasions within the united states.

http://www.amren.com/color.pdf

Therefore, should not blacks be subject to racial profiling, or at the least be investigated as far as insurance claims go? They're more prone to violence, it seems.

The figures seem pretty significant to me, though maybe not to you. Maybe men really do have a much higher rate than women, all around, altogether. I don't know. I don't have all the statistics at hand.

Or maybe there's another theory: That human beings aren't statistics. That they aren't numbers on a clipboard.

 

[Ziggurat]

Funny, that seems like what some people are proclaiming about the current system.

The current system is an alternative to a system where race is allowed as a discriminating factor, and many people consider it to be a preferable alternative. You have not outlined what you consider to be a preferable alternative to the current system, despite being asked to do so. Absent such an alternative, your complaints are irrelevant.

 

[Lonewulf]

The current system is an alternative to a system where race is allowed as a discriminating factor, and many people consider it to be a preferable alternative. You have not outlined what you consider to be a preferable alternative to the current system, despite being asked to do so. Absent such an alternative, your complaints are irrelevant.

Simple: Don't judge by gender. It's too broad a baseline.

That's just one solution.

If judging by race is not preferable, then there is no reason to judge by gender. Pretty simple to me.

If blacks are four to eight times more likely to commit a crime than whites, and racially profiling them is considered (somewhat arbitrarily, given your arguments) a "bad thing", then I don't see why gender profiling would be preferable in this case. Perhaps you have statistics to back up your point by demonstrating that men are nearly certain to be in an accident, and women are not?

But wait: If statistics are automatically preferable in this argument, then I don't see why I can't give an argument why we can't racially profile people. Apparently, there IS a statistical difference based on race and ethnicity, just like gender.

 

[Ziggurat]

If blacks are four to eight times more likely to commit a crime than whites, and racially profiling them is considered (somewhat arbitrarily, given your arguments) a "bad thing", then I don't see why gender profiling would be preferable in this case.

I already mentioned before, but racial profiling by police is a constitutional violation of equal protection. Racial discrimination in hiring by private firms, while illegal, is not a constitutional violation. So gender versus race isn't the only difference in the examples you're presenting. Furthermore your stance on bathrooms is nonsensical. You say you're for unisex bathrooms but not enforced unisex bathrooms. That's incoherent. The only possible enforcement is SEPARATE bathrooms. If you don't enforce separation, then all bathrooms ARE unisex bathrooms.

But wait: If statistics are automatically preferable in this argument, then I don't see why I can't give an argument why we can't racially profile people.

Well, in certain cases we probably can. I would expect, for example, that if government-funded health care started doing genetic screening for potential parents to warn them of possible inheritable birth defects, that screening for sickle-cell anemia might be done preferentially for blacks compared to whites. Would you have a problem with that? I wouldn't. But that's racial discrimination.

 

[Lonewulf]

Furthermore your stance on bathrooms is nonsensical. You say you're for unisex bathrooms but not enforced unisex bathrooms. That's incoherent. The only possible enforcement is SEPARATE bathrooms. If you don't enforce separation, then all bathrooms ARE unisex bathrooms.

Huh?

You're saying that businesses, resteraunts, and buildings in general HAVE TO HAVE UNISEX OR NON UNISEX BATHROOMS AS WRIT BY LAW?!

Yeah, that makes sense.

So you're saying that I can't like the idea of unisex bathrooms without them being forced on everyone? Uh huh. Nice world you live in.

Well, in certain cases we probably can. I would expect, for example, that if government-funded health care started doing genetic screening for potential parents to warn them of possible inheritable birth defects, that screening for sickle-cell anemia might be done preferentially for blacks compared to whites. Would you have a problem with that? I wouldn't. But that's racial discrimination.

It's also irrelevant to the discussion of choosing whether to make it difficult or not even possible for members of a certain gender to get insurance based on what a minority of that gender do. The majority suffer for the minority, and you call it fair. Yeah, okay.

Just not when it's blacks. Yeah, real sensical, just like everything else.

It's all arbitrary.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Do unisex bathrooms have urinals? And if so, do women feel obligated, because of principles of equality, to attempt to use them? "I must try, otherwise I'll be betraying Susan B. Anthony Dollar-Coin!"

 

[Ziggurat]

Huh?

You're saying that businesses, resteraunts, and buildings in general HAVE TO HAVE UNISEX OR NON UNISEX BATHROOMS AS WRIT BY LAW?!

I'm not terribly familiar with the laws in this regard, but seeing as how federal buildings have single-sex bathrooms, yes, the government quite clearly does discriminate based upon gender, and I've got no problem with that. You still haven't actually said that you have a problem with it, only that you wouldn't mind if that weren't the case. If you don't have a problem with it, then you don't have a categorical problem with any gender discrimination, but only with certain forms of gender discrimination (and that's true even if those certain forms are the majority of forms).

It's also irrelevant to the discussion of choosing whether to make it difficult or not even possible for members of a certain gender to get insurance based on what a minority of that gender do. The majority suffer for the minority, and you call it fair. Yeah, okay.

I don't recall refering to anything as being fair at any point in this thread, which makes this a strawman.

 

[Lonewulf]

I'm not terribly familiar with the laws in this regard, but seeing as how federal buildings have single-sex bathrooms, yes, the government quite clearly does discriminate based upon gender, and I've got no problem with that. You still haven't actually said that you have a problem with it, only that you wouldn't mind if that weren't the case.

Simply put: I don't care enough about the subject, and I see no reason why I should assume that single sex is superior to unisex. However, you stated that my position was nonsensical because I didn't want companies to be ENFORCED BY LAW to have unisex, or somesuch. I don't know, but your critique made absolutely no sense whatsoever.

If you don't have a problem with it, then you don't have a categorical problem with any gender discrimination, but only with certain forms of gender discrimination (and that's true even if those certain forms are the majority of forms).

A very minor form, yes. I never took an absolutist position. In fact, if you had bothered to actually read my original post into this thread, I stated clearly that there are some forms of discrimination that are acceptable. In this particular case, I see a double standard: It is not okay to racially profile someone, but it is okay to sexually profile them. That does not make sense to me, and no one has justified it sufficiently to my taste. If an insurance company can survive while not racially profiling, I have no reason to assume that it can't survive without sexually profiling someone.

I don't recall refering to anything as being fair at any point in this thread, which makes this a strawman.

Okay. Is it fair or is it not? If you think it's fair, then it's not a strawman. You seemed to think that there was no reason to question such a method, and have continually tried to explain to me that it was good, or albeit somehow better than racial profiling, though I'm unconvinced.

However, I thought the subject over, and I have a much better implementation of insurance policy:

Flat rate insurance policy, that's blind as to sex, gender, ethnicity, religion (or lack thereof), etc. Possibly age, up to a certain limit, though I'm more dubious there.

Then, based on individual concerns (I.E., illness, heart condition, previous history of accidents, etc.), up or down the rate.

Seems pretty simple to me. It's also more fair, and it doesn't judge a majority based on a minority.

Is my complaint still meaningless to you, Mr. Ziggurat?

 

[Ziggurat]

Okay. Is it fair or is it not?

It's not fair. But there's no way to make it fair, because the only way to do that is to figure out an individual's actual specific risk, and that simply isn't possible. Short of that, good drivers will always be paying more to cover bad drivers. Making men pay more than women makes men pay for bad male drivers, which is unfair. Making women pay the same as men makes women pay for bad men drivers, which is also unfair. There is no fair solution. You may have prefered solutions, and you may even have good reasons for that preference, but fairness isn't something you're going to achieve.

However, I thought the subject over, and I have a much better implementation of insurance policy:

Flat rate insurance policy, that's blind as to sex, gender, ethnicity, religion (or lack thereof), etc. Possibly age, up to a certain limit, though I'm more dubious there.

Then, based on individual concerns (I.E., illness, heart condition, previous history of accidents, etc.), up or down the rate.

That's an OK position, as far as it goes. But it has some challenges in terms of implementation. Since performing such discrimination offers a competitive advantage, companies will always do it as long as they legally can do it. What's the legal framework for outlawing such discrimination? Furthermore, if you outlaw only the particular criteria being currently used, what's going to happen is that they're going to just adopt new criteria or find proxies for those criteria. And chances are, those criteria are going to become more intrusive in terms of evaluating them.

 

[Lonewulf]

It's not fair. But there's no way to make it fair, because the only way to do that is to figure out an individual's actual specific risk, and that simply isn't possible.

If I get into an accident, it goes on record. The insurance company finds out about it.

They do actually look into these things, you know.

Short of that, good drivers will always be paying more to cover bad drivers.

Not necessarily. Policy could change eventually. "Always" is a long time, you should know that.

Making men pay more than women makes men pay for bad male drivers, which is unfair.

Once more, your "always" claim is questionable.

Making women pay the same as men makes women pay for bad men drivers, which is also unfair.

Wrong. The female pays for herself and her own policy. There is a difference between picking up the slack and actively targeting a group -- can you guess what it is, or do I need to spell it out?

There is no fair solution. You may have prefered solutions, and you may even have good reasons for that preference, but fairness isn't something you're going to achieve.

Going off of your definition of fairness, I guess so.

That's an OK position, as far as it goes. But it has some challenges in terms of implementation.

When did I ever proclaim myself an expert on the topic? Can one only have an opinion if they have all the answers, and know all of the data?

I offered a quick solution based on what I thought up of in a one-hour period while lying in bed. Of course it has problems.

Since performing such discrimination offers a competitive advantage, companies will always do it as long as they legally can do it. What's the legal framework for outlawing such discrimination?

I dunno. Maybe the same framework that states that basing policy based on skin color is illegal? Call me crazy, but I'm not sure why it's impossible.

Furthermore, if you outlaw only the particular criteria being currently used, what's going to happen is that they're going to just adopt new criteria or find proxies for those criteria.

Then deal with the situations as they come up, or attempt to implement a solution that knocks such ideas down before they occur. Surely you are not going to say that such things are impossible to accomplish.

And chances are, those criteria are going to become more intrusive in terms of evaluating them.

I say operate within the confines of the law, using information that is gathered with modern techniques. I do not think that there is any necessity to grow more intrusive.

As it is, my insurance company knows when I get in a wreck. For car insurance, that seems to be far more important to me than simply looking at my gender.

 

[Ziggurat]

If I get into an accident, it goes on record. The insurance company finds out about it.

They do actually look into these things, you know.

I'm well aware of that. And your accident record is one of the more significant indicators of personal risk. But it is not and will never be a perfect indicator of your risk. After all, dangerous drivers start out with clean records, and you can get into an accident with bad luck or avoid one with good luck.

Not necessarily. Policy could change eventually. "Always" is a long time, you should know that.

It's not a matter of policy, it's a matter of possibility. It's simply not possible to figure out everyone's individual risk, because that essentially involves getting to know everything about them.

Once more, your "always" claim is questionable.

That's because you didn't understand it.

Wrong. The female pays for herself and her own policy. There is a difference between picking up the slack and actively targeting a group -- can you guess what it is, or do I need to spell it out?

Not in terms of it being unfair there isn't. What you're objecting to is a certain kind of unfairness which you find less acceptable. And that's fine: not all unfairnesses need be the same. But it IS unfair for safe drivers to have to pay to cover dangerous drivers, and that's always (yes, always) going to be the case to some degree because insurance companies will never (yes, never) be able to perfectly evaluate your risk.

I dunno. Maybe the same framework that states that basing policy based on skin color is illegal? Call me crazy, but I'm not sure why it's impossible.

I already mentioned one possible issue: the supreme court has already ruled that there are different standards for evaluating racial and gender discrimination.

Then deal with the situations as they come up, or attempt to implement a solution that knocks such ideas down before they occur. Surely you are not going to say that such things are impossible to accomplish.

Impossible? Maybe not. Worth the effort? I'm not convinced.

I say operate within the confines of the law, using information that is gathered with modern techniques. I do not think that there is any necessity to grow more intrusive.

It's quite easy for them to get more intrusive, and the harder it is to discriminate with non-intrusive methods, the more likely they will be to resort to intrusive ones. Now, how would they do that within the confines of the law? Easy: everyone gets a lowsy rate, but you may qualify for a better rate if you fulfill certain criteria which you can voluntarily disclose if you should so choose.

As it is, my insurance company knows when I get in a wreck. For car insurance, that seems to be far more important to me than simply looking at my gender.

And isn't it a bigger factor already in determining your rates?

 

[Lonewulf]

I'm well aware of that. And your accident record is one of the more significant indicators of personal risk. But it is not and will never be a perfect indicator of your risk. After all, dangerous drivers start out with clean records, and you can get into an accident with bad luck or avoid one with good luck.

I'm sorry, but I fail to see how discrimination based on gender or race will clear up the issue.

If I'm black, it's automatically not an accident? If I'm male, it's automatically not an accident?

It's not a matter of policy, it's a matter of possibility. It's simply not possible to figure out everyone's individual risk, because that essentially involves getting to know everything about them.

You don't need to know everything. You just need key details.

That's because you didn't understand it.

Okay.

Not in terms of it being unfair there isn't. What you're objecting to is a certain kind of unfairness which you find less acceptable. And that's fine: not all unfairnesses need be the same. But it IS unfair for safe drivers to have to pay to cover dangerous drivers, and that's always (yes, always) going to be the case to some degree because insurance companies will never (yes, never) be able to perfectly evaluate your risk.

I just don't see it as that unfair, in comparison with judging what someone should pay based on their chromosones. Sorry.

I already mentioned one possible issue: the supreme court has already ruled that there are different standards for evaluating racial and gender discrimination.

Big deal. That doesn't automatically justify treating one insurance standard as different than the other.

Women don't have seperate schools, and blacks don't have seperate schools.

Alternatively, blacks don't have seperate insurance rates, and women don't have seperate insurance rates.

Wow. Wasn't that easy?

Impossible? Maybe not. Worth the effort? I'm not convinced.

And I'm not convinced that status quo is necessarily the only way to go. I'm also not convinced that the double standard in this case is sensical.

It's quite easy for them to get more intrusive, and the harder it is to discriminate with non-intrusive methods, the more likely they will be to resort to intrusive ones. Now, how would they do that within the confines of the law? Easy: everyone gets a lowsy rate, but you may qualify for a better rate if you fulfill certain criteria which you can voluntarily disclose if you should so choose.

Which is an option that is being offered currently, WITHOUT any changes in procedure. Considering that people would have to face this WITHOUT any changes, I do not consider it a pitfall of my recommended change.

And isn't it a bigger factor already in determining your rates?

I just fail to see why my race or gender has anything to do with it. One is a history of accidents, one is what I was born with. If previous crashes are already a bigger factor, then we can easily make it the only factor.

Quite frankly, as far as I see it, it's only moving some numbers around. I fail to see what is so crippling or impossible about my proposal.

 

[tkingdoll]

Okaaaay. And do we have any evidence that the company in the OP are actually doing what the OP claims?

There was a thread here a while ago in which we discussed a UK company, Sheila's Wheels, which offers insurance to women. They advertise as such and it's all very pink and girly.

They don't, however, claim to offer insurance only to women. That is the crucial difference. But they have made their branding so feminine, and their wording so vague, one might easily mistakenly think they refuse insurance to men. They are "an insurance company designed for women". In marketing speak that just means "aimed at".

The truth is men are just highly unlikely to use them, but they don't actually refuse to insure on grounds of gender.

It's a marketing ploy, also known as spin. I have a sneaky feeling the company mentioned in the OP is doing the same thing.

How does it work?

1) realise that you can get a lot of business from female drivers if you offer them cheaper policies based on accident rates
2) think of a way to attract women and put off men without breaking any laws or paying lawyers
3) create a bright pink, girly brand with ambigous descriptions
4) hope that men are too embarrassed to want to use it or too stupid to realise they can.

You can discuss discrimination all day if you like but until someone provides a link to the company in the OP we have no idea what they're actually claiming.

ETA: In the same thread I mentioned, Brodski brought up some interesting info about a case in Strasbourg which meant that insurance companies could, in theory, refuse to insure a particular gender, because of the accident stats. But Sheila's Wheels just pretend to. I suspect the OP company is like this rather than the bolder type which refuses men entirely. It's possible, but much less likely.

ETA: Example of company which is cheating: www.sheilaswheels.com
Example of company which only insures women: www.diamond.co.uk

Notice the huge differences in statements made on the sites.