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