Actuarial Outpost
 
Go Back   Actuarial Outpost > Actuarial Discussion Forum > Property - Casualty / General Insurance
FlashChat Actuarial Discussion Preliminary Exams CAS/SOA Exams Cyberchat Around the World Suggestions

Salary Surveys
Property & Casualty, Life, Health & Pension

Health Actuary Jobs
Insurance & Consulting jobs for Students, Associates & Fellows

Actuarial Recruitment
Visit DW Simpson's website for more info.
www.dwsimpson.com/about

Casualty Jobs
Property & Casualty jobs for Students, Associates & Fellows


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #41  
Old 01-09-2019, 04:21 PM
CuriousGeorge CuriousGeorge is offline
Member
CAS SOA
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,301
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thelonesomewolf227 View Post
Does it make sense to prohibit though?

You can't control your age, you can't control family health history. Yet those are accepted rating variables or risk factors. To play the devil's advocate, I'll even suggest that a 16 year old can't control where they live since they are considered to be a minor and live with parents.

I'd argue this is all silly stuff. Don't ban anything, but require transparency and disclosure of what factors were taken into consideration when calculating premium. Allow consumers to then make informed decisions by educating them, while allowing companies to operate freely.
It's a spectrum, and I don't think there's a single right answer. People want to be treated fairly, but it's hard to agree on what "fair" means. Is it "fair" to charge higher health insurance rates to people with pre-existing conditions, or is it "fair" to allow them to pay affordable rates for what is a critical coverage by eliminating that as a factor?
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 01-09-2019, 04:27 PM
PeppermintPatty's Avatar
PeppermintPatty PeppermintPatty is offline
Member
CAS
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 39,759
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcie View Post
I'm struggling a little with the bold, Sir. How is someone "visibly intersex" besides genitalia, and why would that be visible at school?
I didn't mean to imply that kids would be looking at each other that closely, just that schools will have to decide how they will handle intersex kids. A lot of schools will probably have to recognize the existence of the non-binary.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 01-09-2019, 04:30 PM
PeppermintPatty's Avatar
PeppermintPatty PeppermintPatty is offline
Member
CAS
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 39,759
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nonactuarialactuary View Post
...By prohibitive gender as a rating variable, you introduce a cross subsidy: rates go up for women, but go down for men. With that in mind, do feminist groups generally support the law change for removing gender-based discrimination, or oppose it because it results in women paying higher rates?
Feminist groups are generally okay removing gender as a rating variable so long as it gets removed in places that benefit women, and not just in places that benefit men. So, for instance, if you sex-rate annuities, (and probably health care, if I had to guess) women will pay more.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 01-09-2019, 04:58 PM
hostess's Avatar
hostess hostess is online now
Member
CAS
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Posts: 396
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShundayBloodyShunday View Post


Households with youthful inexperienced female drivers will likely shop just because their rates went up, so one company's lapse in this demographic will more likely be made up by attracting the same demographic from a competitor.

However, the impact will not be as significant as a simple comparison of rates between the genders. Take gender out of the model and the remaining variables will adjust accordingly.
why just inexperienced? Wouldn't all females experience rate increase? Do you say this cause experiences females already have enough history to establish a risk profile?
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 01-09-2019, 04:59 PM
hostess's Avatar
hostess hostess is online now
Member
CAS
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Posts: 396
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nonactuarialactuary View Post
Even if sex/gender has predictive power, it makes sense to prohibit it as a rating variable for the same reason that it makes sense to prohibit race as a rating variable: excluding the relatively small population of transgender folks, you generally canít control your gender. If you canít control it, you shouldnít be charged extra for it, especially for something like personal auto thatís required by law. If I recall correctly, men generally have higher loss costs than women. By prohibitive gender as a rating variable, you introduce a cross subsidy: rates go up for women, but go down for men. With that in mind, do feminist groups generally support the law change for removing gender-based discrimination, or oppose it because it results in women paying higher rates?
good point... i doubt feminist groups even care about stuff like this, but they can probably just bring up the argument that men cause more losses than females and they gotta pay up... not sure though
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 01-09-2019, 05:09 PM
ShundayBloodyShunday's Avatar
ShundayBloodyShunday ShundayBloodyShunday is offline
Member
CAS
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 2,151
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hostess View Post
why just inexperienced? Wouldn't all females experience rate increase? Do you say this cause experiences females already have enough history to establish a risk profile?
Most of my studies (done some time ago, it is possible that they've changed) has shown a decrease in the gap between genders after age 30 to the point that you don't gain much from rating them differently.

In addition, many non-youthful individual will have shared households (married, co-habitating, etc.) where multiple genders have access to the same set of vehicles, so again, gender-differentiation becomes less valuable.


However, in California, age isn't an allowed variable, but experience (or inexperience) can be a rating variable. Hence the post made the way that it was.
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 08:27 PM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, 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 0.17695 seconds with 9 queries