Actuarial Outpost
 
Go Back   Actuarial Outpost > Cyberchat > Non-Actuarial Topics
FlashChat Actuarial Discussion Preliminary Exams CAS/SOA Exams Cyberchat Around the World Suggestions



Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #251  
Old 06-03-2015, 04:43 PM
Flying J Flying J is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Sunny
Posts: 8,745
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ito's Phlegm View Post
Aren't you just as privileged as any other person posting on an actuarial forum?
Yes, but I'm arguing the opposite side.
Reply With Quote
  #252  
Old 06-03-2015, 04:49 PM
MG's Avatar
MG MG is offline
Member
SOA AAA
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Midwest
Posts: 4,884
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Basso View Post
Note the strategic use of "individual." If the individual is not expected to experience the risk, they should not be charged for it. This is all I'm saying, and I'm saying either apply it all one way or apply it all the other.
So just curious, in your ideal scenario where men are not charged (in health insurance) for any costs associated with pregnancy and women bear the full brunt of this risk, so theoretically are paying significantly more for their health insurance, how does this play out? Women are like, "ok, no problem, we've got it covered, I guess it's going to cost me a bundle to have the 3 kids we wanted but hubby can afford new golf clubs"? and men can now breathe easy that they can create families but not personally have to subsidize any of the cost of that?

Should there be an appropriate discount for women who have been sterilized or are otherwise infertile?
Reply With Quote
  #253  
Old 06-03-2015, 04:51 PM
PeppermintPatty's Avatar
PeppermintPatty PeppermintPatty is offline
Member
CAS
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 38,497
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by campbell View Post
eh, I think it comes off more as sour grapes than misogynistic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ao fan View Post
yeah, probably.
I think you two have met him, and have more context for his posts. On-line, he sounds pretty misogynist.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. John Zoidberg View Post
I'm saying that the man has pretty much zero input on the decision to have a child once the woman is pregnant.
And the woman has pretty much zero input once the fetus is viable. So what. They both generally have free choice about the decision to have sex. And when that's not the case, it's generally the woman who was forced.
Reply With Quote
  #254  
Old 06-03-2015, 04:57 PM
nonlnear nonlnear is offline
Member
Non-Actuary
 
Join Date: May 2010
Favorite beer: Civil Society Fresh IPA
Posts: 29,848
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flying J View Post
Yes, but I'm arguing the opposite side.
How entitled of you to feel it is your place as a white male to speak for the unprivileged.
Reply With Quote
  #255  
Old 06-03-2015, 05:05 PM
Agadefe's Avatar
Agadefe Agadefe is offline
Member
SOA
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Philly
Posts: 27,027
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nonlnear View Post
How entitled of you to feel it is your place as a white male to speak for the unprivileged.
Yah, the only things white males should do is whine incessantly that other people are talking about privilege.
__________________
Hi.
Reply With Quote
  #256  
Old 06-03-2015, 05:18 PM
Dr. John Zoidberg's Avatar
Dr. John Zoidberg Dr. John Zoidberg is offline
Surprisingly Not a Troll, MD
Non-Actuary
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: CAMP GRENADA
Studying for fellating shellfish
College: Alma Madda, Alma Fadda
Favorite beer: Anything Tom tells me isn't total crap
Posts: 17,123
Blog Entries: 4
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PeppermintPatty View Post
I think you two have met him, and have more context for his posts. On-line, he sounds pretty misogynist.




And the woman has pretty much zero input once the fetus is viable. So what. They both generally have free choice about the decision to have sex. And when that's not the case, it's generally the woman who was forced.
You're the best.
Reply With Quote
  #257  
Old 06-03-2015, 05:19 PM
Dr. John Zoidberg's Avatar
Dr. John Zoidberg Dr. John Zoidberg is offline
Surprisingly Not a Troll, MD
Non-Actuary
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: CAMP GRENADA
Studying for fellating shellfish
College: Alma Madda, Alma Fadda
Favorite beer: Anything Tom tells me isn't total crap
Posts: 17,123
Blog Entries: 4
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MG View Post
Should there be an appropriate discount for women who have been sterilized or are otherwise infertile?
Absolutely.
Reply With Quote
  #258  
Old 06-03-2015, 05:24 PM
Neutral Omen's Avatar
Neutral Omen Neutral Omen is offline
Member
SOA
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Favorite beer: Kwak
Posts: 6,990
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nonlnear View Post
How entitled of you to feel it is your place as a white male to speak for the unprivileged.
How entitled of you to feel it is your place as a cisgender American to speak of white male privilege.
__________________
Spoiler:


Quote:
Originally Posted by mathmajor View Post
you are a visionary
Reply With Quote
  #259  
Old 06-03-2015, 05:39 PM
Basso's Avatar
Basso Basso is offline
Member
CAS AAA
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: The po'. Better cycling roads there
Posts: 3,719
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MG View Post
So just curious, in your ideal scenario where men are not charged (in health insurance) for any costs associated with pregnancy and women bear the full brunt of this risk, so theoretically are paying significantly more for their health insurance, how does this play out? Women are like, "ok, no problem, we've got it covered, I guess it's going to cost me a bundle to have the 3 kids we wanted but hubby can afford new golf clubs"? and men can now breathe easy that they can create families but not personally have to subsidize any of the cost of that?

Should there be an appropriate discount for women who have been sterilized or are otherwise infertile?
This is a classification problem. To the extent carriers can show differences in prices based upon risk criteria, they can do so while still adhering to the Principals of Ratemaking and the Actuarial SOPs. Your example above is disingenuous. A husband/wife are likely to come out neutrally here since health coverage is required for both of them both now and after the classification change. The wife's proportion of that premium is simply higher than it is now. There is no controversy in making men pay more for life insurance since they die earlier. Should they be like "ok no problem it's going to cost me a bundle to make sure the family is protected if I die but wifey can get a new $1500 purse?
Reply With Quote
  #260  
Old 06-03-2015, 06:29 PM
Flying J Flying J is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Sunny
Posts: 8,745
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nonlnear View Post
How entitled of you to feel it is your place as a white male to speak for the unprivileged.
Of course I advocate and argue for the under privileged. Because I'm a decent human being. A better question is why don't you?
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:05 AM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
*PLEASE NOTE: Posts are not checked for accuracy, and do not
represent the views of the Actuarial Outpost or its sponsors.
Page generated in 0.25407 seconds with 11 queries