Score one for the european court of Justice.

[ECA]

Insurers cannot charge different premiums to men and women because of their gender, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has ruled.

The decision means that women can no longer be charged lower car insurance premiums than men, and the cost of buying a pensions annuity will change.

BBC News - Insurance and pension costs hit by ECJ gender ruling


W000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000t

dont have to subsidise girls car insurance anymore <3 europe.

 

[throdgrain]

That's bollocks though.

 

[Ch3tan]

No ECA, now everyone will have to pay more and the insurance companies benefit, no one else.

 

[Chilly]

why everyone chet?

Worst case the companies just put womens up. What they ought to do is take the average and charge that (ie girls more boys less)

 

[SilverHood]

What companies are going to do is pull out of insuring young drivers all together. Less competition means higher prices.

 

[Tom]

I love it when equality turns around and slaps those that demand it right in the face.

 

[Raven]

In this case, I don't. Means my wife will end up paying more, thus I will pay more.

They won't drop men's insurance, they will just put women's up and thus make even more money.

A win for insurers.

The Daily Mash - Women's car insurance to cost same as a drunk, blindfolded monkey's

Anyway, insurance is about risk, statistically young women drivers crash less and claim less. They are less of a risk therefore pay less. The same way some idiot boy racer pays more.

Retarded ruling.

 

[Chilly]

Anyway, insurance is about risk, statistically young women drivers crash less and claim less. They are less of a risk therefore pay less. The same way some idiot boy racer pays more.

Retarded ruling.

Is it retarded to force health insurance companies to insure you at a fair rate regardless of your history and genetic makeup that may well significantly predispose you to needing expensive treatment later in life?

It's exactly the same situation, except it's the other way around. And because an "evil corporate" is losing money it's fine. Even though when companies make money we all make money.

Equality is equality.

 

[Lollie]

you are aware men will recieve lower pensions because of this?

 

[ECA]

Men are safer drivers per mile driven than women, just men drive much more.

If insurance companies charged you per mile rather than anything else a lot of us would be paying a lot less.

 

[Will]

Insurance premiums should end up somewhere in the middle if I understand correctly.

Companies have a book of risks. They expect to pay out X a year. X does not change due to this ruling, only how the company collects enough money to pay for X. If the market is functioning correctly, competition should ensure that the premiums collected stay balanced overall.

How it will affect pensions, I'm not so sure. I expect it will mean companies make more profit on men. The gap is slowly narrowing between the genders in life expectancy as far as I know but it'll be a long time before they are the same.

 

[Tom]

Anyway, insurance is about risk, statistically young women drivers crash less and claim less. They are less of a risk therefore pay less. The same way some idiot boy racer pays more.

Retarded ruling.

Statistically men are less likely than women to have babies, less likely to demand time off work to look after babies, and are as a result more likely to get a job in the first place, and with higher pay too.

Everyone knows it, especially employers, but few would agree that allowing sexual discrimination into personnel departments would be a good idea. So why do we legislate against such discrimination while allowing insurance companies to get away with it?

 

[Raven]

Because, like I said. Insurance is based on risk. Not whether they like you or not. An insurer will judge an application based on the risk and charge as per that risk. A women driver is less likely to stack her car into the central reservation because they think they can drive properly as soon as they leave the test centre, therefore the insurers risk of having to pay out is less for young women drivers.

I actually think women can be better drivers, how many dickheads driving right up your arse are women? How many stupid ***** in their rep mobiles who somehow lose the ability to indicate on roundabouts are women?

Sure, they can't park for shit but they are generally less likely to cause accidents.

The whole concept of there being discrimination in insurance is laughable, if the insurers thought women were as likely (and I think they know a little more about it than most) to make a claim then they would charge them the same as men.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Didnt' even know there was a different premium for men and women, thought it'd be too stupid to actually happen

 

[Chilly]

The whole concept of there being discrimination in insurance is laughable, if the insurers thought women were as likely (and I think they know a little more about it than most) to make a claim then they would charge them the same as men.

It stems from the one simple principle when considering equality:

you should not be punished for something you cannot control.

This extends to racism, sexism (arguably religion if you get zombied early enough) and disabilities.

If you advocate for any one of those, it is laughable, in fact, to not apply it to insurance.

 

[MYstIC G]

*comparison examples*

Just as many. Oh and the rep thing is just because it's not their car. Any **** who's in a car that isn't theirs drives like a tosser in my experience.