Government Dollars At Work

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » February 19, 2004, 5:30 pm

private business is not prohibited from using race as a factor in determining their customers unlike the government.

that is where your law enforcement analogy to an insurer does not apply.

If i own a restaurant, i can prohibit black people from eating there. It will probably hurt me financially, but market forces are the only thing prohibiting it.

Read up on actuarial science if you want to understand how and why insurers determine their rates.

Truant · Post by **Truant** » February 19, 2004, 5:42 pm

There are few things about driving, transit, commute, etc that piss me off more than uninsured drivers.

DUI, seatbelts, helmet laws...yeah, those are issues. But if some fuck hits me without insurance, he better hit me hard enough to knock me out so he can get away.

iirc the statistic correctly, 1 of 5 drivers on the road in Texas is illegally driving uninsured. In Florida, as part of BASE coverage, you have to pay uninsured motorist insurance. Because the risk of being hit by a driver without insurance is so high, that YOU have to pay for it.

If that's not fucked up, then I'm not a spanish speaking panda bear.

masteen · Post by **masteen** » February 19, 2004, 5:46 pm

Hey, why should Inbred Jed have to insure his $400 pickup?!?!? That's just not fair!

Kriista · Post by **Kriista** » February 19, 2004, 9:22 pm

private business is not prohibited from using race as a factor in determining their customers unlike the government.

that is where your law enforcement analogy to an insurer does not apply.

If i own a restaurant, i can prohibit black people from eating there. It will probably hurt me financially, but market forces are the only thing prohibiting it.

exactly, but its illegal to drive without insurance, so its in a gray area imo
since the gov has a hand in the insurance bag

So you're saying that since statistics sometimes give negative information, that the government or any entity affiliated with the govermnent shouldn't use them? What a fucking crackpot you are.

if the statistics are based on race/age/sex any other thing thats illegal to discriminate against, then yes
just imagine if we were to apply statistics to our justice system
hispanic male on trial for grand theft auto has to prove beyong a 80% reasonable doubt, whereas a white female has only 10% reasonable doubt etc...is that a can of worms youd like to open?

homosexuals paying more for life insurance is fucked up

Kguku · Post by **Kguku** » February 19, 2004, 9:46 pm

Voronwë wrote:private business is not prohibited from using race as a factor in determining their customers unlike the government.

Private business, such as a restaurant, is not allowed to discriminate on serving someone due to race, I'm not sure about age. A classic example was a Denny's on the west coast a few years ago that got sued for not allowing a black woman to eat there. They claimed it was something regarding her atire, she said it was race. In the end she won.

Now changing your rates for demographics is probably an entirely other story when it comes to insurance, and I'm not sure what their governing procedures are, and am too lazy to look it up.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » February 19, 2004, 10:53 pm

Kriista wrote:homosexuals paying more for life insurance is fucked up

why? homosexual males are astronomically more likely to die at a younger age than heterosexual males. insurance rates reflect this.

there is nothing prejudicial about it; it's a pure statistic. it an on/off type of situation. you are comparing it with taking a statistic and applying a prejudicial twist to it.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » February 20, 2004, 11:55 am

Voronwë wrote:private business is not prohibited from using race as a factor in determining their customers unlike the government.

If i own a restaurant, i can prohibit black people from eating there. It will probably hurt me financially, but market forces are the only thing prohibiting it.

This is not true in today's world. Wasn't it in this very forum about 2 months ago where the small business owner that was a Christian was sued for refusing to print signs for a gay/lesbian organization?

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » February 20, 2004, 11:58 am

just because somebody gets sued doesnt mean they were doing something illegal.

many lawsuits are brought to court to generate publicity for a cause. Do you know who WON the lawsuit?

that would be what refuted my statement, not the fact that a lawsuit was filed.

in any event, i've never heard of the situation you are talking about. I am sure there are many situations that certain types of businesses have to abide by certain standards with regards to race/discrimination. But often it is because those businesses are recipients of government grants/incentive programs.

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » February 20, 2004, 12:38 pm

Kriista wrote:
It's called statistics. Certain age/gender ranges are involved in more accidents, and receive more violations, than others. Therefore their rates are adjusted to take that into account. It's not sexist/agist, it's simple economics.
more prejudices are based off statistics
like over %50 of jail population are black males between the age of whatever it is and whatever it is
so if your a cop should you just pull a black person over cuz they might be doing something?

statistically asian girls who dont watch tv ace the sat, should they automatically get full scholarships without any individual testing?

statistically aids was originally most rampant among homosexual males, and iv drug users
so if your gay you should pay more for life insurance?

just saying, most/all biases/prejudices have some sort of 'statistical' backround to them, its not alright to use that info anywhere else, except insurance(which is ok since its private business most of the time), but auto insurance is mandatory, hence theres a gov hand in there, so there shoudlnt be any age/sex/race considerations, only consideration should be location and prior traffic record

Holy crap, you really don't have a clue as to how insurance works and rates are drawn up. As Voro stated, read up a little on actuarial science sometime. As someone w/ a degree in actuarial science (albeit way back in '92) and three years on the job as one, I can tell you that there is NOTHING left to chance when it comes to insurance. Demographics change and the Society of Actuaries (just think of 2,000 people who are far smarter than you) meet regularly and continue to refine the accepted principles behind rates charged to the masses. For instance, life insurance for females is broken down into many class rates between the ages of 16 and 29 where males may be in only one. Car insurance rates are designed with the same priciples, certain categories of individuals are riskier than others.

By your reasoning, why would you even discern between people living in different locations or having a past driving record, it's all just, "statistics" isn't it? "Statistics" don't actually mean anything do they? They're never used to predict potential outcomes w/ a certain level of confidence are they? I thought they just used a dartboard when figuring the stuff out

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » February 20, 2004, 2:42 pm

The bill (original topic of the thread) died in the state senate.

http://kobtv.com/index.cfm?viewer=story ... 5&cat=HOME

Atokal · Post by **Atokal** » February 20, 2004, 2:47 pm

Siji · Post by **Siji** » February 20, 2004, 3:37 pm

Aslanna wrote:It's called statistics. Certain age/gender ranges are involved in more accidents, and receive more violations, than others. Therefore their rates are adjusted to take that into account. It's not sexist/agist, it's simple economics.

It could be said that various minority groups do more shoplifting and/or get arrested for such than others.. should they be forced to pay more at a store for something?

Siji · Post by **Siji** » February 20, 2004, 3:41 pm

Voronwë wrote:If i own a restaurant, i can prohibit black people from eating there.

I would have to disagree with that comment. Private clubs are being forced to accept women after only accepting men for example. Hooters was sued by a guy who wanted to be a waiter and won for another example.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » February 20, 2004, 3:46 pm

Siji wrote:It could be said that various minority groups do more shoplifting and/or get arrested for such than others.. should they be forced to pay more at a store for something?

How is that relevant to insurance rates?

masteen · Post by **masteen** » February 20, 2004, 6:43 pm

Siji wrote:
Voronwë wrote:If i own a restaurant, i can prohibit black people from eating there.
I would have to disagree with that comment. Private clubs are being forced to accept women after only accepting men for example. Hooters was sued by a guy who wanted to be a waiter and won for another example.

No, they're not. Augusta National is still men-only, despite the lobbying of some woman's group. Just an example, but a high profile one.

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » February 20, 2004, 8:28 pm

Siji wrote:
Aslanna wrote:It's called statistics. Certain age/gender ranges are involved in more accidents, and receive more violations, than others. Therefore their rates are adjusted to take that into account. It's not sexist/agist, it's simple economics.
It could be said that various minority groups do more shoplifting and/or get arrested for such than others.. should they be forced to pay more at a store for something?

Yeah, what kyoukan said. A flawed analogy not relevant to the discussion.

Siji wrote:
Voronwë wrote:If i own a restaurant, i can prohibit black people from eating there.
I would have to disagree with that comment. Private clubs are being forced to accept women after only accepting men for example. Hooters was sued by a guy who wanted to be a waiter and won for another example.

These are also two different issues. Employment is protected by the equal opportunity employment thing. Employing someone is different than allowing them in your club. One has certain legal protections while the other has little. If any.

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » February 20, 2004, 9:02 pm

kyoukan wrote:
Siji wrote:It could be said that various minority groups do more shoplifting and/or get arrested for such than others.. should they be forced to pay more at a store for something?
How is that relevant to insurance rates?

Exactly, it has nothing to do with it. If you were to say that the store owner has to pay more in theft insurance or property insurance because the area it's located in puts it at a higher risk, you can damn well be sure that they will. Then again, it coincides w/ property and merchandise value as well.

Seriously, there is no reasonable argument on insurance unless the company isn't keeping the reserves necessary to cover total losses. That's well beyond this "argument" though

CalandraWindrose · Post by **CalandraWindrose** » March 5, 2004, 12:01 am

Kriista wrote:you misunderstood

if i hit someone, and its my fault, and i have no insurance

i will get sued, and all the bills will be paid, it was my stupidity not having INSURANCE

like if i get sick, and have to have major surgery, with no INSURANCE, im fucked,

again, optional
smart(usually), but optional

and like i said, it woundt be so bad if it werent sexist/agist/locational data that they used to determine insurance prices

you may think it is your choice - but when you and I get in an accident and you are hurt cause you didn't wear the damn belt - I'm going to pay - your insurance is going to sue mine or other morons will sue me because they got hurt and now need compensation - no fault doesn't help - you will just raise everyone's rates as the "costs" associated with your injuries are now passed on to us all

wear the damn belt - even pregnacy isn't an excuse - if you are wearing the belt right it shouldn't bother your abdomen - if your belt doesn't fit right get an extension or an adjustment so it does

I don't see the breath deal in every car going far

you guys seem to forget - driving isn't some kind of basic right at all - if states want to pass all sorts of laws regarding driving there is zip you can do about it except vote out your legislators