guyser Posted May 20, 2011 Report Share Posted May 20, 2011 But here where it gets beautiful... The smart insurance companies will insure people like this, and simply make a note of the trait. They will collect premiums from her for 20 years, and then if she makes a claim THEN theyll deny it Nope If they knew the risk and issued a policy they cannot deny it later. For instance, if you claim you dont smoke and then die of smoking they can deny, but if they charge for smoking then they must pay up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted May 20, 2011 Report Share Posted May 20, 2011 I disagree with insurance companies being able to charge men more than woman for car insurance. Women get in more accidents than men, men are more likely to get themselves killed... but the insurance money ends up going to their surviving wives/ex-wives anyways! I sure would loike to see a link for that claim. Men drive more than women, drive more miles than woman,men have more costly claims than women. Getting killed is very cheap for an ins co, if you live, well that gets really expensive. So if you want to help out your insurance company, die in a an accident. [ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted May 20, 2011 Report Share Posted May 20, 2011 Even when ins co's are right they tend to lose, not always as we know.Well - then that needs to change if it is creating incentives which harm consumers in the long run. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MiddleClassCentrist Posted May 20, 2011 Report Share Posted May 20, 2011 I sure would loike to see a link for that claim. Men drive more than women, drive more miles than woman,men have more costly claims than women. Getting killed is very cheap for an ins co, if you live, well that gets really expensive. So if you want to help out your insurance company, die in a an accident. [ It doesn't take that long to verify. Just use google Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MiddleClassCentrist Posted May 20, 2011 Report Share Posted May 20, 2011 Yet this makes insurance cheaper for women. So you are saying you think women should pay more? I'm saying they should not be able to discriminate based on gender. You can warp it any way you want. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Remiel Posted May 20, 2011 Author Report Share Posted May 20, 2011 Sure it may be simply bad luck for some people but there are enough cases where there is an unknown underlying cause that your risk profile has gone up. "Unknown underlying cause" sounds a lot like, "does not understand risk" . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted May 20, 2011 Report Share Posted May 20, 2011 It doesn't take that long to verify. Just use google One cannot verify that which is not true. Young Men die almost three times more than women. Men get in more accidnts than women. You stated it, now back it up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted May 20, 2011 Report Share Posted May 20, 2011 "Unknown underlying cause" sounds a lot like, "does not understand risk" .No it does not. Risk is all about finding correlations that are associated with a higher risk of claim. There is no need for a causal explaination - the association is enough. People who make 2 claims tend to make more. That means they are higher risk. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Remiel Posted May 20, 2011 Author Report Share Posted May 20, 2011 (edited) No it does not. Risk is all about finding correlations that are associated with a higher risk of claim. There is no need for a causal explaination - the association is enough. People who make 2 claims tend to make more. That means they are higher risk. Suppose Bob has a 1 in 1,000 chance of being in a car accident on any given day. If he is fine on Monday, his insurance stays the same. If he then has an accident on Tuesday, the insurance goes up. And if he has an accident on Wednesday, then go up more. And yet more if he has another accident on Thursday. Yet the risk of him having an accident is exactly the same every day of the week. All that happened was that the string of events showed that on Tuesday he had bad luck, on Wednesday he had really bad luck, and on Thursday he had God-awful luck. If the insurance company cannot assess the chances of Bob being in an accident accurately, that by the end of the week they believe he is the worlds worst driver, then they really had no idea what the real risk of Bob being in an accident from the very beginning. Edited May 20, 2011 by Remiel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted May 21, 2011 Report Share Posted May 21, 2011 I am not aware of any jobs today where a company expects an employee to say with them for life. i.e. there is no need to 'protect your investment' since that investment is likely to walk out the door at any time for any reason. I've worked for a company and I know others that have worked for companies where they sign a contract agreeing not to walk for a period of time (1-3 years in my exeperience) after particular investments made by the organization or while working on particular projects. No, companies don't expect them to stay for life, but I'm talking about a hypothetical situation where genetic testing is the norm. Your argument could be used for disabled persons as well. They could just go work for a company that would hire them, as though that were some easy task. My point is what happens in a world where having a genetic "deficiency" becomes a disability in itself. You're not actually sick, but the chances for you to become sick are greater than others, so companies won't hire you. In other words, you would be a healthy disabled person. It's such a hard concept to understand because it conflicts with long-held notions of deserving and undeserving poor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted May 21, 2011 Report Share Posted May 21, 2011 No, companies don't expect them to stay for life, but I'm talking about a hypothetical situation where genetic testing is the norm.The chance of genetic testing showing something would be relevant for the 1-3 year time frames is tiny.You're not actually sick, but the chances for you to become sick are greater than others, so companies won't hire you.You are speculating on a highly implausible scenario. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted May 22, 2011 Report Share Posted May 22, 2011 Wouldnt genetic testing raise EVERYONES premiums? Insurance companies would probably have to raise rates across the board to pay for it. In any case this kind of "geneism" would be no better than "racism". If you chased enough stats around you could probably find that the risk being insured varied a bit from race to race as well. But Id wager an insurance company that charged black or jews more than whites or asians would get in all kinds of trouble. People like to think we live in a meritocracy... and this kind of descrimination would not be recieved well by the public. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted May 22, 2011 Report Share Posted May 22, 2011 The chance of genetic testing showing something would be relevant for the 1-3 year time frames is tiny. You are speculating on a highly implausible scenario. No really. This is the ultimate slippery slope, and you have no idea where it might go. Researchers will keep finding correlations between various different genes and certain desirable or undesirable traits. If its allowed its almost certain that the private sector will use that data eventually. Help WantedMust have a degree in business adminstration, at least 5 of the following genes. Theres genes that predispose people to things like addiction to drugs and alcohol too. Makes sense to be wary of hiring those folks, or charge more for insuring them. Imagine that... youve never drank a drop in your life or had a single puff of a joint, and your application is turned down because youre statistically more likely to start some day Maybe people with a genetic predisposition to using drugs or alcohol should pay more for car insurance! Because statistically theyre more likely to drink, which means their statistically more likely to drive drunk, which means theyre statistically more likely to have an accident. And it would probably work! I bet it WOULD increase the efficiency of the risk management model, but you have to fuck so many people over to do it that it wouldnt be recieved very well (or at least shouldnt). And lets not stop at genes. Theres all kinds of other things that factor into risk as well. Insurance companies could make a logical case for wanting to have your dna, your blood, your piss... a camera in your home would be usefull too, and would further enhance the risk management model. How much data can they get before the public considers it an invasion of privacy is the question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WIP Posted May 22, 2011 Report Share Posted May 22, 2011 (edited) [ Edited May 22, 2011 by WIP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted May 28, 2011 Report Share Posted May 28, 2011 (edited) Basically, my question is this: is it right to be able to discriminate against people, for purposes of insurance or employment, because they may be at risk for a debilitating and costly health condition through no substantial fault of their own?Remiel, you raise a fundamental question in your OP: To what extent are we our brother's keeper?In general, by the luck of genetics, some people are beautiful or smart and they have an easier life than the ugly or stupid. To some degree, the ugly can hide their ugliness and dress smartly (or undergo cosmetic surgery). The stupid can go to school and maybe educate themselves. But make no mistake, genetics plays a role in determining one's life already. The idea of testing DNA prior to offering employment or insurance is the same except the result is more accurate, using better technology. IOW, to what extent should the beautiful subsidize the ugly? Or should the healthy subsidize the sick? Personally I think it should be outlawed.Good luck with that. You might as well attempt to pass a law that only old, ugly men can marry beautiful, young women. Your law might work for awhile but it would be unsustainable.The truth is that as we advance a lot of us will be surprised to find we may have the genetic trait for many things, most of which will never manifest themselves.Sorry Guyser (and BM), you can't avoid the question this way. The technology exists to detect accurately future health problems. In practical terms, we are not all born equal and it is foolish to say that we are.Some of us are thin, quick-witted and blue-eyed. And some of us are not. Edited May 28, 2011 by August1991 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted May 28, 2011 Report Share Posted May 28, 2011 (edited) I disagree with insurance companies being able to charge men more than woman for car insurance. Women get in more accidents than men, men are more likely to get themselves killed... but the insurance money ends up going to their surviving wives/ex-wives anyways! Women get in more accidents than men... Huh? At 17, they certainly don't. Women drivers are generally a good risk.Charging insurance based on your genes predisposition to disease? That is capitalism for you. The disgusting side of capitalism. "why should I pay for someone who is more likely to get cancer based on genes" - Conservative Minded Individual Well, they didn't make a choice to get genes that are more likely to get cancer... Fair point. IOW, am I my brother's keeper? But to what extent?I would however, agree with being able to not hire smokers because they work less, take more days off and are less productive on the job. Because that is a choice you make.MCC, I like your idea of "choice" as a criteria because it involves the question of "incentive".For example, if a couple in their forties undergoes invitro-fertilization with the understanding that there may be complications, should we all assume collectively the cost of their children? Edited May 28, 2011 by August1991 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted August 30, 2011 Report Share Posted August 30, 2011 (edited) Bump, and let me explain one point in one of my posts above. Good luck with that. You might as well attempt to pass a law that only old, ugly men can marry beautiful, young women. Your law might work for awhile but it would be unsustainable.IMV, the way females and males choose one another is subject to change, and even individual men and women are quick to adapt. This summer, I have been reading Marlon Brando's autobiography (good) where he asserts that women are attracted to status, money, power. Maybe, for the moment, in this time - but women and men are too smart to not learn. Edited August 30, 2011 by August1991 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.