Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site watcgl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!watcgl!gcsherwood
From: gcsherwood@watcgl.UUCP (Geoffrey C. Sherwood)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: Supreme Court decision
Message-ID: <598@watcgl.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 20-Jul-83 12:00:12 EDT
Article-I.D.: watcgl.598
Posted: Wed Jul 20 12:00:12 1983
Date-Received: Thu, 21-Jul-83 00:26:27 EDT
References: <1721@hplabsb.UUCP>
Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 28

It is an interesting point.  Should women be charged more for
life insurance because they tend to live longer?  If not, then
insurance companies do need to revamp their entire attitudes.
After all, the obvious parallel for men is car insurance.  In most
states, young unmarried males really get nailed.  I am 24 and have
no accidents or tickets.  I still paid about twice as much for
insurance -- both in Canada and in the US.  This is discrimination
based on sex and age.  Is it wrong?  I think not.  While I am not
thrilled to pay the extra rate (to say the least), I know why they
exist.  The average unmarried male under 25 has a high accident rate.

Discrimination is a fact of life.  Some people I like, some I don't.
I discriminiate on that basis.  I would hire someone who is skilled
for a job rather than someone unskilled.  I would discriminate on
that basis, too.  Charging women extra for insurance is not an act
against the sex, it is just that on the average women live longer.

Finally, the quote in the article this is a follow-up to, that neither
the US nor any state shall discriminate ... (I don't have it handy, so
the exact wording is probably off), has no bearing whatsoever on this
case.  The insurance companies are neither the US government nor any
state.

	flame away (I calls 'em like I sees 'em),

		- geoff sherwood -
		- U. of Waterloo -