Should young male drivers have to pay more in car insurance than young female drivers? Statistically young male drivers have more accidents than young female drivers costing the insurance companies more money. So the insurance companies have two options, charge male drivers more than female drivers to maintain equal profit margin on each group or punish the statistically safer driver by increasing rates on female drivers to make up the loss of profit margin on the male policies. Which practice is best financially and which is morally correct?Texas_Blaze wrote:I am not ok w/ gun owners being singled out for insurance purposes just as much as someone being singled out because of genetic predisposition. what is ridiculous is to have different rules, if statistics are what insurance companies base premiums on.mojo84 wrote:Making everything about race is past ridiculous.
This quandary is no different than the question of health insurance. If one group of people statistically cost the insurance company more money than another group of people which is more morally correct, to price each policy so that the company maintains the same profit margin from each group or increase the amount you charge the group costing the insurance company less money to make up the difference?
The answer to the question would be very simple if the statistics were reversed. To charge a minority group a higher rate to make up for losses caused by the white man would be immediately denounced as racism, as it should be. But the catch 22 here is statistics fall the other way which of course causes you to cry racism. But logically only only one of the scenarios can be racism, please tell me which one it is.
Now let's talk about gun owners. If the insurance company can prove that a group of people engaged in a particular activity cost the insurance company more money to insure, should the insurance company charge just that group more money to maintain profits or should they charge everyone more money to maintain their profit margin? In the case of guns I don't believe the statistics prove a legal gun owner cost the insurance company anymore than the guy who owns a chain saw. Is it wrong to single out gun owners if they are not affecting the bottom line? Yes! Is it wrong to single out a group of people because they cost more than another group of people? You tell me.