Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site uw-june
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!tektronix!uw-beaver!uw-june!garret
From: garret@uw-june (Garret Swart)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: Supreme Court decision
Message-ID: <502@uw-june>
Date: Wed, 13-Jul-83 18:10:12 EDT
Article-I.D.: uw-june.502
Posted: Wed Jul 13 18:10:12 1983
Date-Received: Thu, 14-Jul-83 19:41:39 EDT
References: <1721@hplabsb.UUCP> <2892@amd70.UUCP>, <495@grkermit.UUCP>
Organization: U. Washington, Computer Sci
Lines: 26

It is my feeling that there is a big difference between having
different insurance rates for people because of something they *cannot* 
control (their sex, race, or ethnicity) and
charging extra because of conditions that can be controlled by the individual
(weight, bad habits like smoking and drinking, or poor driving record).

Once one agrees that it is okay to differentiate on the basis of sex,
using the rationalle that one is not *discrimenating* because statistics rather 
than feelings are guiding the decissions, where does one draw the line?
Different ethnic groups in the U. S. have differences in life expectancy 
comparable to that between men and women, should that be a factor in
insurance premiums?  

One way around the decission is for employers to merely give the employees 
money instead of a pension on retirement (or pay it to the employee's IRA 
account throughout their career).  The employee would then purchase their
own anuity from a private company.  This is done already by many employers
for employees who terminate before becoming eligable for retirement.

In conclusion, I feel that the decission is a step in the right direction
as far is elimenating more subtle forms of discrimenation but that it is
unlikely to have far reaching consequences.

Garret Swart
garret@washington    arpa
garret@uw-june       uucp