Equality insurance – The Anna Raccoon Archives

by SadButMadLad on March 1, 2011

The European Court of Justice has just announced their decision on the case of whether insurers are allowed to take into account sex as one of the many risk factors they use in calculating premiums.

The court decided that insurers will be committing an illegal act (from 2013) if they do use sex as a risk factor. In future insurers will not be allowed to use sex to calculate premiums. So the unique selling point for Shelia’s Wheels will disappear overnight.

I suppose that feminists are celebrating the world over that they are now seen as equal with men. They will be happy that their pensions will rise as the fact that they tend to live longer will have to be ignored. However come Jan 1st, 2013, I suspect that they will be demanding that their premiums be lowered back down to 2012 levels as they realise that their premiums will have been raised to the same level as men’s. Well you can’t have your cake and eat it at the same time.

Some commentators are saying that this is unlikely to happen and that what will actually occur is that men’s premiums will be lowered a bit whilst women’s raised a bit and they meet in the middle. But this is insurance companies you are talking about. Insurance companies whose whole purpose is to avoid paying out on any claim. Insurance companies who go to the ends of the earth to deny a claim using torturous machinations such as claiming that you had a piece of grit in your eye when you claimed to be in good health.

The BBC has been reporting on the situation using the case of a pair of twins, brother and sister. The boy’s premium is over £3000, whilst the girl’s is half that. The two were claiming that they were both very good drivers but the boy was being penalised just because he was a boy and it just wasn’t fair [fx: stamps feet]. But they miss the point that insurers don’t know your personal details until you have proven via your claim record to be a good insurance risk. That’s why you can get discounts of up to 70% by being a very good driver and not crashing. Until then they will lump you with all others in your risk category.

So what’s next on the progressive road to complete and utter equality. Ageism to be ignored as well? So all boy racers will get cheaper premiums whilst 60yr old Sunday drivers get their premiums raised? Will insurance companies have to go through weird risk factors to get the same rates that they currently use for boy racers, such as using blue fluorescent lights, huge speakers, spoilers, go faster stripes, and blacked out windows. Will pink fluffy dice hanging from the rear view mirror lead to lower premiums. Will insurance companies find out that gays are safer drivers.

I’m sure you can think of better loopholes.

SBML

{ 19 comments }

David C March 2, 2011 at 22:16

The annuity impacts are just as bonkers. Men can’t get fair value out of an
annuity, women get better than fair value. What will the result be? Simple.
Even fewer men will pay into a pension scheme.
Does anybody know if it will
be legal to buy an annuity off a non-EU company which doesn’t have to operate
within these ludicrous guidelines?

Cascadian March 1, 2011 at 23:15

Don’t worry, be happy.

By then petrol will be 15 quid per gallon and you won’t be able to afford
any, problem solved.

Enjoy the new Caliphate!

JohnRS March 1, 2011 at 21:16

By extending this astonishingly bonkers ECJ reasoning (which is now bound
to happen) surely any classification of individuals into separate groups is
now illegal? No matter what criteria you use some people are being treated
less “fairly” than others when you look at the differences between them.

So discriminating for disabled people in building access or against them in
health insurance premiums can no longer happen.

Positive discrimination in the jobs market on the grounds of race
(currently rampant all over the public sector) to get “fair representation”
can no longer happen.

What about that most vilified of groups, smokers? Is it now illegal to
charge higher medical insurance premiums for those that do versus those that
don’t? What about male smokers vs female smokers? Same premium or different
compared to non-smoker equivalents?

and so on and so on.

Even more reasons, should you need them, to take back control of our legal
and political system from these barking mad, Euro-buffoons.

Ian R Thorpe March 1, 2011 at 20:16

The insurance companies are adept enough at stealing from us without the EU
helping them

Anna Raccoon March 1, 2011 at 19:25

Correct me if I’m wrong – but surely if they just raise the women’s
premiums, it would be discriminatory.
If they just drop the men’s premiums
that would also be discriminatory.
‘Tis a quandary to be sure.

Dave H March 1, 2011 at 18:54

So how many men do they have to take on at the low premium before it’s no
longer discrimination? Charge a few women, especially those with previous, the
higher rate for balance and they can carry on pretty much as before. Either
that or we’ll get a fairly low initial rate and then get really screwed with a
claim on record.

You can bet that the net take will go up – they’ll take more from the women
than they give back to the men.

As for the age thing, that’ll be next.

Anoraknophobia March 1, 2011 at 18:06

This is perhaps a more slippery issue than it first appears. Compare:

1) Premiums vary by gender, as analysis clearly shows us chaps are higher
risk – shortly to be disallowed on anti-discrimination basis

2) Premiums vary by age, as analysis shows that youngsters are lower risk
than duffers – to be allowed to continue despite strong legislation to counter
age discrimination

3) Premiums do not vary by sexuality, race or religion although I suspect
insurance risk will vary predictably between various groups – not allowed (as
far as I know insurers aren’t even allowed to ask)

As I said, slippery one.

Mark March 1, 2011 at 16:30

There seems to be no area that the courts feel is outside their competence
– who B&B owners must allow in their homes, who is allowed to foster
children and now insurance companies pricing policy.
I wish I were as all
knowing as m’lud.

Demetrius March 1, 2011 at 15:34

The basis of insurance is risk. I pay out for insurance because there is a
risk of something going wrong. The companies that sell insurance structure
their products on the basis of risk. If I keep pranging my car they will up
the premiums. To that end they have done a great deal of analysis in the real
risks of the business in all its fields. Now the Court is saying that risk is
nothing to do with insurance only considerations of abstract principles. They
have destroyed the basis of a key part of our financial structure and there is
neither redress nor are we able to legislate against this. Just who does
govern?

Livewire March 1, 2011 at 15:06

Sorry, bit ranty this one (been reading the legendary G.O.T).

More edicts arrived in the post today
Some bastard has given our country
away

A minibrained shite with garlicky breath
Was given the power to crush us
to death

They told him to stop Treblinkas again
The fucker then morphed and
caused Nazi pain

They’ve bought local rule, the shitbags won’t fight
Bend over, get
fucked, it’s called human rights

Livewire March 1, 2011 at 21:14: ECJ isn’t the ECHR but if you have to smell 2 rotting fish does it matter
if one’s a mackerel & the other’s a haddock. Bon nuit und guten
abend.

Tacitus March 1, 2011 at 14:50

Too late … my bin is full of meerkats!!!

JuliaM March 1, 2011 at 13:58

If it drives the stake through the heart of ‘equality quangos’, cuts off
Thais heads and stuffs their mouths with garlic, it’ll be worth it.

Next time they come out with some garbage, simply say to the man or woman
in the street ‘Remember the insurance debacle?’. That should be enough to get
their barmy idea kicked into touch…

Gildas theMonk March 1, 2011 at 13:32