Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site umcp-cs.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!seismo!rlgvax!cvl!umcp-cs!dr_who From: dr_who@umcp-cs.UUCP Newsgroups: net.women Subject: pension discrimination revisited Message-ID: <1106@umcp-cs.UUCP> Date: Sun, 24-Jul-83 02:59:14 EDT Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.1106 Posted: Sun Jul 24 02:59:14 1983 Date-Received: Sun, 24-Jul-83 07:10:53 EDT Organization: Univ. of Maryland, Computer Science Dept. Lines: 26 Egalitarian principles die hard. What would be so bad about insurance companies discriminating on the basis of race as well as sex? Of course, there is the fear that such discrimination will be based on hate, rather than statistics. Let me repeat myself: I suggest that discrimination based on feelings (biases) might be dealt with by requiring insurance companies to show, "by a preponderance of evidence" or some such rule, that their discriminations are based on statistics rather than prejudice. Perhaps I should point out that since whites live longer than blacks, blacks would get higher pension benefits if insurers could discriminate. Anyway, I come back to the point that statistic-based discriminations allow insurance companies to charge customers according to their cost to the company, which is generally a good thing economically. Case in point: the company that was sued in the original Supreme Court case has converted to a "fixed-year payout", according to Bob Schleicher (see his article). By being forced to change to this system, the company probably lowered "consumer surplus" (see your economics book), since it defeats the point of a pension plan: to give the retired person an income for the rest of his/her life. The reason why the company originally had a life-term plan rather than this fixed-year payout was -- presumably -- because people wanted such a plan; they wanted to be sure to have a certain income no matter how long they lived. --Paul Torek, U of MD College Park