The Straight Dope

Go Back   Straight Dope Message Board > Main > Great Debates

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 08-29-2002, 12:13 AM
Blalron Blalron is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2001
The fairness of insurance companies discriminating

In another thread, a teenage male laments about the ludicrously high insurance rates that must be payed if he wants to drive.

It seems acceptable for insurance companies to discriminate based upon age and gender. The argument, it is raised, is that certain groups (teenagers) and genders (males) are more dangerous than others, and have been proven more dangerous by statistics. And statistics, it is said, don't lie. Therefore, it is alright to discriminate against certain groups of people and charge them more.

BUT, what would happen if an insurance company charged blacks more for insurance? What if they presented ironclad, incontrovertable evidence that blacks have a significantly higher number of traffic accidents?

If it's NOT alright to discriminate based upon ethnicity, how is one form of discrimination based not upon individual behavior but upon membership in a group, different from another?
Reply With Quote
Advertisements  
  #2  
Old 08-29-2002, 02:26 AM
grimpixie grimpixie is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Re: The fairness of insurance companies discriminating

Quote:
Originally posted by Blalron
BUT, what would happen if an insurance company charged blacks more for insurance? What if they presented ironclad, incontrovertable evidence that blacks have a significantly higher number of traffic accidents?
When they do, start the thread again...

Grim
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 08-29-2002, 02:44 AM
Blalron Blalron is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2001
Quote:
When they do, start the thread again...
Hey, you're not getting away that easy!

This is a hypothetical scenerio we are talking about. I'm not asking about whether there is proof of this, I'm just asking "What if?"
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 08-29-2002, 04:18 AM
sailor sailor is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
This has been discussed before and I doubt there is anything substantially new to add to what has already been said.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/...hreadid=104769
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/...threadid=77659
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 08-29-2002, 04:30 AM
lucwarm lucwarm is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 2,789
Re: The fairness of insurance companies discriminating

Quote:
Originally posted by Blalron


If it's NOT alright to discriminate based upon ethnicity, how is one form of discrimination based not upon individual behavior but upon membership in a group, different from another?
Perhaps it's because racial/ethnic discrimination is seen as more serious and invidious than age and gender discrimination.

Consider that most people get to be different ages at different times. (Not true for race/ethnicity.) Further, people of different ages and genders as a rule live together in the same households and neighborhoods. (Not necessarily true for race/ethnicity)

So basically, not all discrimination should be treated equally. (har har).
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 08-29-2002, 09:16 AM
David Simmons David Simmons is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 12,684
Re: The fairness of insurance companies discriminating

Quote:
Originally posted by Blalron
In another thread, a teenage male laments about the ludicrously high insurance rates that must be payed if he wants to drive.

It seems acceptable for insurance companies to discriminate based upon age and gender. The argument, it is raised, is that certain groups (teenagers) and genders (males) are more dangerous than others, and have been proven more dangerous by statistics. And statistics, it is said, don't lie. Therefore, it is alright to discriminate against certain groups of people and charge them more.

The beginning, teenage driver doesn't have a record of several years of established, safe driving to point to. In his case the only thing the company has to go on is the statistic respecting teenage, male drivers.

This is not unwarrented discrimination.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 08-29-2002, 05:47 PM
ultrafilter ultrafilter is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2001
Also, how do you go about proving that somebody is black? Skin color can be deceiving, and there are no generally agreed-upon genetic determinants of race?
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 08-29-2002, 07:18 PM
ElJeffe ElJeffe is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
I think ultrafilter makes a good point. Even if such "ironclad" proof existed, there is so much cross-breeding between races, that it's difficult to refer to many people as "black" or "chinese" or whatnot.

Aside from that (and here I take some liberty with the premises of the OP), how could you tell whether the statistical likelyhood of lower driving safety was due to genetics, upbringing, geography, or whatnot? If it's cultural, then a black child raised by a white family would be no more likely to drive dangerously than a white child raised by a white family. There would be far too many uncertainties, practically speaking, to ever implement this in a fair fashion.

That being said, *if* it was proven that, based solely on genetics, having more than x% of a certain race in your blood meant that you were more at risk than other races, then I think it would be fair to discriminate, given the precedent of charging more for males. (Contrary to what lucwarm says, the justification for age-based discrimination and that for gender-based discrimination are not at all related. One is saying, "You have no experience yet, and we don't know what kind of driver you are, thus we will assume the worst and charge you more." The other is saying, "We don't care what kind of driver you are, or how much experience you have, we are going to charge you more for circumstances beyond your control, based on statistical findings.")


Jeff
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 08-29-2002, 07:31 PM
lucwarm lucwarm is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 2,789
Quote:
Originally posted by ElJeffe
I think ultrafilter makes a good point. Even if such "ironclad" proof existed, there is so much cross-breeding between races, that it's difficult to refer to many people as "black" or "chinese" or whatnot.
This has actually been discussed in previous threads. The reality is that in the past, insurance companies did engage in racial discrimination. The way they did it was to avoid writing policies and/or charge higher premiums for residents of certain neighborhoods.

This technique was known as "redlining." Of course it was much rougher than age and sex discrimination, but it was practiced, and the effect was to discriminate against certain racial groups.

AFAIK, "redlining" is now illegal everywhere in the U.S. And I'm pretty confident that many insurance companies would engage in "redlining" if it weren't so prohibited.

Quote:
(Contrary to what lucwarm says, the justification for age-based discrimination and that for gender-based discrimination are not at all related. One is saying, "You have no experience yet, and we don't know what kind of driver you are, thus we will assume the worst and charge you more." The other is saying, "We don't care what kind of driver you are, or how much experience you have, we are going to charge you more for circumstances beyond your control, based on statistical findings.")


Jeff
Please re-read what I said. I was explaining why racial/ethnic discrimination is seen as more deserving of legislative prohibition than other forms.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 08-29-2002, 08:22 PM
partly_warmer partly_warmer is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2001
As someone who's had few health problems, and accidents that did no great damage, it won't be surprising that I resent the $1,000s paid because insurance companies can't figure out that: I don't drive intoxicated, don't have a cell phone, rarely eat or drink in the car, and quite a few other etceteras.

So I would immediately switch to any insurance company that showed evidence of being able to take all the factors of my habits into account. It's a simple business proposition.

Which brings up the reason for posting. In the future, say 20 years from now, I'd like a computer program that advises me *before* getting into a risky situation, and then gives me the choice to take the risk. If I take the risk, I agree to pay an extra insurance premium for that one event. So, if I decide to ride my bicycle without a helmet (which I've been doing for years), I would be willing to pay extra health insurance for it. If I decide to ride my bicycle in the dark, on a rainy day without a helmet, the computer program should tell me that my risk has gone up by about 20 times. This way I don't get into unintentionally dangerous situations, and nobody else has to pay for my risk-taking.

Of course, even with a superb computer program, most factors aren't going to be dealt with directly, but indirectly. But major risks such as driving a car or bicycle under the influence of just about anything should be easy to catch.

And for those who don't want to be monitored? Switch it off, and take the very high default insurance premiums. Or be uninsured.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 08-29-2002, 09:14 PM
Mr2001 Mr2001 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Re: Re: The fairness of insurance companies discriminating

Quote:
Originally posted by lucwarm
Consider that most people get to be different ages at different times. (Not true for race/ethnicity.)
How do you explain Michael Jackson?

Frankly, I think this makes age discrimination worse than racism. Both forms of discrimination oppress a certain class of people, but since age discrimination oppresses different individuals each year, there isn't enough momentum to build up a real opposition.

How much success would the civil rights movement have had if individual blacks only had to wait a few years to vote and attend white schools? How many would-be protesters would have grudgingly accepted their temporary oppression, and ignore the fact that after 'a few years' passed, someone else would be oppressed in their place?
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 08-29-2002, 09:56 PM
Mr2001 Mr2001 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Devil's advocate

Quote:
Originally posted by ElJeffe
I think ultrafilter makes a good point. Even if such "ironclad" proof existed, there is so much cross-breeding between races, that it's difficult to refer to many people as "black" or "chinese" or whatnot.
Race is a vague term, but skin color isn't.

You know the scale they have on toothpaste commercials to measure how white your teeth are? We could have a similar scale for skin color. If your skin is between shades 4 and 7 on the Rembrandt scale you pay $xxx, between shades 8 and 10 you pay $yyy, etc.

Quote:
If it's cultural, then a black child raised by a white family would be no more likely to drive dangerously than a white child raised by a white family. There would be far too many uncertainties, practically speaking, to ever implement this in a fair fashion.
Sure, some individuals would get screwed. Some 18-year-olds are better drivers than some 30-year-olds, but that doesn't seem to stop age discrimination. Insurance is about statistics.

If statistics were to show a correlation between skin color and driving habits, would it be acceptable to charge drivers more for insurance based on the color of their skin?
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 08-29-2002, 10:21 PM
Monster104 Monster104 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
You know, this is a problem I've been facing. I've had my license for about a year and a half, in addition to the teaching I got with my permit. I have not had an accident, no tickets, I've never even been pulled over. I drive safely, I don't speed...I drive carefully and safely.

But, you know what? I'm probably required to pay twice that of 30 year old dumbass drivers who have at least one accident and multiple tickets, SIMPLY because I'm 19.

Why should insurance companies be allowed to discriminate against me? I bet I drive better than half of their employees and am still required to pay more than them.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 08-29-2002, 11:36 PM
Duckster Duckster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 14,250
You are mixing the generic word "discrimination" for the more narrowly defined phrases "lawful discrimination" and "unlawful discrimination." For example, it is unlawful to discriminate with respect to race and ethnic origin because the discrimination is without merit, and we have laws prohibiting it.

In the case of charging teenage males higher vehicle insurance premiums than other "groups" is because:

1) The practice is lawful. It does not fall into any of the legally recognized areas of what constitute unlawful discrimination.

2) The practice has merit. There is empirical evidence that male teenage drivers, lacking skill and experience, suffer a disproportionate amount of insurance claims. Their risk factor is disproportionately higher than other segments of the driving population.

In the case of the former statement, there are many things that people might consider unlawful discrimination, if there was a law against it in the first case. This thread illustrates just one of the better known ones.

In the case of the latter statement, the evidence exists. It can be measured, all other things being equal. Just as those people attempting to establish credit for the first time have many more hoops to jump through than someone with an extensive and prudent credit history, the lender is taking a bigger risk with a new client. Hence, they are more wary and adjust their risk factors accordingly.

Is all of this fair? Depends upon who you ask. Should vehicle insurance be a flat rate for everyone? Teenage males would love it, but it would not change the fact that teenage males will still cost the insurance providers more in payouts. In this case, everyone else pays for a select group's immaturity and undeveloped skill set when it comes to driving. In addition, there is no incentive for teenage male drivers to drive better and thus reduce their risk factors.

There will always be case by case anecdotal stories where teen age male drivers are safe, do not get into accidents and remain so. OTOH, there will alays be 30-year-old, 40-year-old, 50-year-old, etc., drivers who seem to draw accidents to them. All the stories are true. Yet, when looking at the larger picture, which is what insurance companies do to spread the risk and reduce overall costs to themselves and their insured, teenage males still fall into the riskiest group.

(Don't forget that driving is a privilege and not a right. Driving a vehicle is a learned experience and not acquired by birth. In time, many teenage male drivers develop enough skills and experience that their driving risk factors substantially decrease, along with a correspondingly lower risk to insurance companies.

This is a far cry from other aspects of unlawful discrimnation factors which cannot be acquired by knowledge, experience or payment of $19.95. You are born of a specific gender, ethnic background, potential disabilities, etc., which you cannot change, notwithstanding Michael Jackson. Yes, religion is an exception to this but that's because it apparently carries the same weighting factor in society as gender, ethnic background, etc. )

Now, to charge black drivers higher premiums just because they are black is unlawful discrimination. Period. But what if the empirical evidence showed black drivers had a much higher risk factor when it comes to driving? The evidence would provide the basis that higher premiums are justified when taking into account the statistical risk factors.

However, two problems with this.

1) The risk factors are based upon learned behavior. This means an individual can change their behavior to reduce their risk. There is no evidence that blacks, or any other ethnic/racial group, as individuals, cannot change their behaviors, become better drivers and lower their insurance risks.

2) Charging black drivers higher premiums just because they are black is unlawful discrimination. Period.

Now, do I support the contention I just illustrated:

But what if the empirical evidence showed black drivers had a much higher risk factor when it comes to driving? The evidence would provide the basis that higher premiums are justified when taking into account the statistical risk factors.?

No, because I am merely offering the opinion as a basis for debate.

In the end, what constitutes lawful vs unlawful discrimination is what society chooses to create for itself through their laws. Is it possible for some of these laws to fly in the face of what may be called "common sense," a "gut feeling," practicality, basic human rights, etc.? Yes. But that's why we have a process through the courts to rule on the constitutionality of such laws. We have a system of checks and balances which should overturn legally constituted laws which should never have been passed in the first place.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 08-30-2002, 12:13 AM
Monster104 Monster104 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
So why should I have to pay more insurance costs, even though I have NO accidents and NO tickets on my record, than someone who has PROVEN him/herself to be more of a liability by getting into an accident or by getting multiple tickets? Because I'm younger?

I ask you, why is it legal to discriminate based on age simply because statistics show I am more of a liability because I'm under 25? If I were to find legitimate statistics showing that people of certain race/background were far more likely to be involved in shootouts with cops, by this logic it should be OK for cops to punish them without question, simply because they're more of a liability? I can come up with other comparisons for just about anything.

Also, why is it ok for the government to accept and promote age discrimination by requiring people to be insured by those who would discriminate against them?
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 08-30-2002, 12:21 AM
ultrafilter ultrafilter is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2001
Quote:
Originally posted by Monster104
So why should I have to pay more insurance costs, even though I have NO accidents and NO tickets on my record, than someone who has PROVEN him/herself to be more of a liability by getting into an accident or by getting multiple tickets? Because I'm younger?
Yes. Statistically speaking, you're a more significant risk to the insurance company. If your rate hasn't gone down as you've gone longer without accidents/tickets, you should find a different company who will offer that sort of discount.

Quote:
I ask you, why is it legal to discriminate based on age simply because statistics show I am more of a liability because I'm under 25? If I were to find legitimate statistics showing that people of certain race/background were far more likely to be involved in shootouts with cops, by this logic it should be OK for cops to punish them without question, simply because they're more of a liability? I can come up with other comparisons for just about anything.
As was mentioned previously, age and race are apples and oranges. People change ages, but they don't change races.

Just cause you can come up with a comparison doesn't make it a good one.

Quote:
Also, why is it ok for the government to accept and promote age discrimination by requiring people to be insured by those who would discriminate against them?
Because in the right kind of accident, you can cause $500,000 worth of property damage (not to mention medical expenses), and someone has to pay for that. If it doesn't come from the insurance company, you'll have to pay it all out of your pocket. And that would take too long for you to pay it off--in essence, the people whose property you destroyed would be shouldering the cost while you amassed the funds to pay for it.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 08-30-2002, 05:57 AM
lucwarm lucwarm is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 2,789
Re: Re: Re: The fairness of insurance companies discriminating

Quote:
Originally posted by Mr2001

How do you explain Michael Jackson?
touche


Quote:
Frankly, I think this makes age discrimination worse than racism. Both forms of discrimination oppress a certain class of people, but since age discrimination oppresses different individuals each year, there isn't enough momentum to build up a real opposition.
You're certainly entitled to your opinion. And I agree that in its worst forms, age (and sex) discrimination is a pretty lousy thing. For example, conscription, where young men are uniquely forced to serve and risk death and serious injury.


Quote:
How much success would the civil rights movement have had if individual blacks only had to wait a few years to vote and attend white schools? How many would-be protesters would have grudgingly accepted their temporary oppression, and ignore the fact that after 'a few years' passed, someone else would be oppressed in their place?
Yeah, the movement would have been less successful. But arguably, if everyone were "black" for a few years, and then non-black afterwards, race discrimination wouldn't be as bad a thing.
But it's a question of values.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 08-30-2002, 06:32 AM
sailor sailor is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
>> So why should I have to pay more insurance costs. . .

There is no way to explain it to you now that you would understand but just wait 25 years and it will become obvious. That's what age does to you.

By the time you are old enough to realise your father was right you have a son telling you you are all wrong. Such is life.

Still, I recommend the threads I mentioned because the insurance business was discussed quite in depth and it was proved that charging everyone the same would lead to a spiral which would make it worse for *everybody*.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 08-30-2002, 11:13 AM
sydney sydney is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Not to change the subject (although this is related), but how do you feel about insurance companies "discriminating" based on credit score?

Many insurance companies (both auto and home) use your credit scores as another factor in assessing risk. According to the insurance companies, they do this becasue people with lower credit scores are more likely to commit insurance fraud (at least this is what they have found).

Therefore, two persons of the same age, with the same driving records, in the same local, may have different rates because one has a better credit report than the other.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 08-30-2002, 11:24 PM
Duckster Duckster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 14,250
Quote:
Originally posted by sydney
Not to change the subject (although this is related), but how do you feel about insurance companies "discriminating" based on credit score?

Many insurance companies (both auto and home) use your credit scores as another factor in assessing risk. According to the insurance companies, they do this becasue people with lower credit scores are more likely to commit insurance fraud (at least this is what they have found).

Therefore, two persons of the same age, with the same driving records, in the same local, may have different rates because one has a better credit report than the other.
If you want to borrow money, the lender must assess their risk that you will meet your obligations to pay it back on time and the full amount. For someone with no credit history, the risk to the lender is higher because you are an unknown.

As you become more involved in borrowing money, say for a car, credit cards, etc., the more you meet, or exceed your legal obligations to pay it back, the lower the risk to the lender. You build up a credit history.

Hence, the concept of a credit score. It is your financial reputation scorecard.

Is this "discrimination?" Yes. It is legal? Yes. Is this on par with gender discrimination, racial discrimination, etc.? It does not even come close.

Credit risk is based upon behavior. It can be measured. It is legal. It meets the merit factor standard.

Gender and racial discrimination are a whole different ballgame.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 08-31-2002, 12:17 AM
Mr2001 Mr2001 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Credit discrimination seems fair enough. After all, the insurance company sends you bills, and they're taking more of a risk if you have a history of not paying your bills.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 08-31-2002, 02:42 AM
sailor sailor is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
I would think someone with a good credit history is someone who tends to be responsible while someone with a bad credit history has a better chance of being irresponsible and getting into accidents. Someone who is careful in one area can be expected to be careful in other areas.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 09-01-2002, 09:44 AM
MrPeabody MrPeabody is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
One thing to consider, an insurance company just wants the correct premium for the correct risk. You still have to group people to together to set rates because using past information you can predict what will happen in a large group, but you cannot predict what will happen to one person.

You canít only base rates only on frequency of accidents, you must also consider the severity of the claim. I own an insurance agency and I see what money comes in and what is paid out in claims

When you compare a sixteen year old female and a sixteen year old male, my agency statistics show accident frequency is similar, but the amount paid out in the maleís behalf is almost five times greater.
Using an lame but true example, when a sixteen year old girl has an accident she is more likely to be alone in the car backing out of a parking spot or hitting a curb. But it only takes one sixteen year old boy traveling at 94 miles an hour with four people in the car, hitting another car killing four people, to skew the rates for the entire age group.

Most young males drive just as well as most young females but the few huge losses they suffer skew the rate upward for the entire group.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 09-07-2002, 01:25 PM
SAustinTx SAustinTx is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Re: The fairness of insurance companies discriminating

Quote:
Originally posted by Blalron
In another thread, a teenage male laments about the ludicrously high insurance rates that must be payed if he wants to drive.

It seems acceptable for insurance companies to discriminate based upon age and gender. The argument, it is raised, is that certain groups (teenagers) and genders (males) are more dangerous than others, and have been proven more dangerous by statistics. And statistics, it is said, don't lie. Therefore, it is alright to discriminate against certain groups of people and charge them more.

BUT, what would happen if an insurance company charged blacks more for insurance? What if they presented ironclad, incontrovertable evidence that blacks have a significantly higher number of traffic accidents?

If it's NOT alright to discriminate based upon ethnicity, how is one form of discrimination based not upon individual behavior but upon membership in a group, different from another?
Speaking as someone who recently jumped ship from the insurance industry after three years (and three insurance companies), I can tell you that discriminating against a driver based on their age is actually one of the more respectable underwriting guidelines in the insurance industry. As another poster mentioned, the reasoning behind youthful drivers being charged higher rates is that they have much less driving experience behind them, and experience can be a HUGE issue if it's your first time driving in heavy traffic on the freeway or on icy roads. To be honest, I've never delved into the statistics for teenagers having accidents proportionally with older age groups, but the numbers must be ungodly. Another consideration is that teenagers and young adults have a greater tendency to take risks with their vehicles for a variety of reasons (ie. their parents pay for the car so it's no loss to them). Of course this doesn't apply to all teenagers, but it simply isn't feasible for insurance companies to base their rates on anything other than statistics for large groups.

NOW, that being said, don't get the impression I'm an apologist for the insurance industry: there are tons of underwriting criteria that I'm totally against, things that I'm amazed insurance companies are legally allowed to do, and at the top of that list is "credit scoring". That's right. You may not realize your credit score plays a part in your premium, but the fact is that over 90% of insurance carriers in the US use credit scoring in some aspect of the quoting process. For some "preferred" carriers (ie. the really picky ones) this is just a qualification criteria and doesn't affect the rate itself. But for many, such as Farmers, it plays a definite part in how you are rated.

I'll stick with Farmers as an example since it's the most eye opening and detailed account I can give of the three companies I've worked for. When a Farmers agent runs your credit score, your social security number and date of birth are run through proprietary software engineered by an independent company known as FairIsaac. FairIsaac looks over the credit report and assigns a letter score from A (good) to Z (bad) based on a series of around 600 questions, which the credit report is used to answer. Roughly speaking (other factors are involved), a Z credit score can easily raise the base premium by 200% or more. The kicker is that not only are the questions used for rating a trade secret (even the Farmers agent isn't given them), but even if you can prove you have good credit and your FairIsaac score comes back a Z, there isn't ANY customer service representation at FairIsaac that either you or your Farmers agent can access to see if a mistake was made. The agent's only course of action (as recommended by FairIsaac, who holds all the cards) is to point you to Equifax or one of the credit agencies to check your report for errors. Nice, huh?

The reasoning behind the use of credit scoring is that independent companies have been supposedly doing research for over 30 years which has confirmed that people with bad credit continually report more claims and are thus a higher risk. The problem I have with this is that it's a completely random statistic in my book. If you divided up the number of reported claims for 2001 by the ethnicity of the claimant, it stands to reason that some group would have to have reported more claims than the rest; the only alternative is that every single ethnic group reported the exact same number of claims, which is pretty much mathematically impossible. However, just because, say, Asians report more claims in a given year than Hispanics, that doesn't mean Asians are worse drivers than Hispanics, it's merely pure chance that they had bad luck that year. You could make the case that if, on the other hand, Asians continually have more claims year after year, maybe they should be discriminated against. But I'd argue that other factors should be taken into consideration, such as the number of Asian drivers comparable to other ethnic groups, and I don't know of any such consideration being taken for people with bad credit (finally, I'm just using Asians as a theoretical scapegoat; nothing in my experience indicates that Asians are inferior drivers, and in fact I'd probably have to argue in the other direction).

Anyway, I've rambled enough, but before I go, a few other underwriting criteria for the rest of you to debate over (almost all - if not all- insurance companies use these criteria for rating purposes):
[list][*]Make and Model of vehicle[*]Prior claims in the last three years[*]Marital status[*]Good grades (discount for younger drivers)[*]County or zip code where you live

SAustinTx
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 09-07-2002, 01:35 PM
SAustinTx SAustinTx is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
PS: Sorry for rehashing some of the credit info. I didn't realize I had unread posts before replying.

SAustinTx
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 09-07-2002, 07:20 PM
MrPeabody MrPeabody is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Just a minor correction, Farmers Insurance does not use credit scores to increase a base rate. The credit scores are used to discount base rates from 5% to 39%.

I am against the credit based rating, but the insurance companies have provided statistics that show how the score relates to claim frequency.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 09-09-2002, 08:24 AM
sydney sydney is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
<quote><b>If you want to borrow money, the lender must assess their risk that you will meet your obligations to pay it back on time and the full amount. For someone with no credit history, the risk to the lender is higher because you are an unknown.

As you become more involved in borrowing money, say for a car, credit cards, etc., the more you meet, or exceed your legal obligations to pay it back, the lower the risk to the lender. You build up a credit history.

Hence, the concept of a credit score. It is your financial reputation scorecard.

Is this "discrimination?" Yes. It is legal? Yes. Is this on par with gender discrimination, racial discrimination, etc.? It does not even come close.

Credit risk is based upon behavior. It can be measured. It is legal. It meets the merit factor standard.

Gender and racial discrimination are a whole different ballgame.</b><quote>

You are right, however, we are not talking about borrowing money. We are talking about Credit Scores being used to determine your risk as a *driver*. I have no problem with scores being used for home loans, etc. But, I fail to see how a low credit score means that you are more likely to be a poor driver.

MrPeabody said,<quote><b>I am against the credit based rating, but the insurance companies have provided statistics that show how the score relates to claim frequency.</b></quote>

You're right, the insurance companies have come up with this evidence. The problem is, the insurance companies, in conjunction with the CRAs, have done this research themselves. As far as I know, no one else has taken their "evidence" and verified it independantly.

Look who stands to gain from this: The insurance companies now have another way to justify raising rates (You've been a good driver for 10 years, then have to file a BK when you lose your job. Suddenly your rates go up! Sounds fair right?). The CRAs now have another revenue source: the Insurance companies, the same companies they provided statistics to! It makes me wonder how impartial these statistics were...
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 09-09-2002, 10:26 AM
aahala aahala is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
As the predictive powers of science increase, we may reach the point that the need for particular insurance will drop sharply but the cost will rise dramatically.

If one could determine a future event or its timing on an individual level with a great deal of certainty, who would freely buy life or car insurance? Only those who would soon have such a claim.

The comments of the unfairness of having to pay a higher premium than consistent with one's own risk is understandable.
But imagine the cost of insurance if outcomes were predictable on an individual, rather than a group, basis.

Is it "fair" for some to pay much more so future claimants pay much less? Your attitude on this will be greatly affected by whether you are in the non-claimant or claimant group.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 09-09-2002, 11:44 AM
ultrafilter ultrafilter is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2001
Re: Re: The fairness of insurance companies discriminating

Quote:
Originally posted by SAustinTx
If you divided up the number of reported claims for 2001 by the ethnicity of the claimant, it stands to reason that some group would have to have reported more claims than the rest; the only alternative is that every single ethnic group reported the exact same number of claims, which is pretty much mathematically impossible.
True, but it's about as unlikely that there would be a significant difference unless there's a reason. That's the whole point of statistics.

I'm no apologist for the insurance industry either, but I can think of good reasons for all of the following risk factors. Note that these are all guesses, and I can't provide cites for any of them.

Quote:
Make and Model of vehicle
Some cars are more likely to be involved in an accident due to manufacturing defects, and other cars cost more when they do need repairs. Additionally, people who drive nicer cars tend to be more careful, as they have a greater investment in their vehicle.

Quote:
Prior claims in the last three years
Past behavior is as good a predictor of future behavior as any. People who've had a claim in the past three years are probably more likely to have a claim in the immediate future.

Quote:
Marital status
Again, people who have strong family ties probably take fewer risks than those without.

Quote:
Good grades (discount for younger drivers)
People who are responsible in one area are responsible in another. That's the same reason that credit scoring doesn't bother me, as long as it's done properly. The Farmers example you gave is not the proper way to do it--the company should review the rating at a customer's request.

Quote:
County or zip code where you live
Some locations have higher crime rates. Also, some locations have higher accident rates due to badly designed roads.
Reply With Quote
Reply



Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:55 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright © 2017 Sun-Times Media, LLC.