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 -