is this fair?

[strongchick]

Since life expectancy varies between races, why are they being punished? Legal issues like this confuse me. It is clear that life expectancy varies by race, so then, are insurance companies discriminatory if they use race as a guideline? Will future insurance companies be bound to their stockholders to use genetics as a pricing guideline in general, or will legal problems like this prevent say, people with genetic propensity for Alzheimer's from being discriminated against?

http://news.findlaw.com/business/s/20011227/financiallibertylifedc.html

NEW YORK (Reuters) - South Carolina has moved to suspend the operating license of Liberty Life Insurance Co. for a year and fine the insurer $2 million for allegedly charging African-American customers higher premiums, a company spokesman said on Thursday.

 

[spentagn]

tough question

 

[frorider6]

I don't think it's fair at all. Blacks shouldn't even get life insurance. They should still be slaves. The only insurance they should have taken out on them is property insurance.

 

[MommaKin]

Now you've really outdone yourself, Fro....

I don't think it's fair at all. Blacks shouldn't even get life insurance. They should still be slaves. The only insurance they should have taken out on them is property insurance.

 

[strongchick]

I don't think it's fair at all. Blacks shouldn't even get life insurance. They should still be slaves. The only insurance they should have taken out on them is property insurance.

Witty.

 

[frorider6]

You have admitted you like to argue and will take a controversial position just to spark debate. I have done nothing less.

 

[BuggyWhips]

i think hes kidding

 

[strongchick]

You have admitted you like to argue and will take a controversial position just to spark debate. I have done nothing less.

I'm not attacking you. Argue away.

 

[Warik]

This is an interesting post coming from you.

Are you posting this neutrally for purposes of stimulating intelligent conversation, or are you taking the side of the insurance companies?

Now that the formalities are taken care of, I will state my opinion.

I believe the insurance companies have every right to charge higher premiums as long as they are justified. It would be unfair for them to charge twice or three times as much for life insurance because the differences in life expectancy are hardly THAT significant. We must, however, analyze whether the differences in life expectancies are due to genetic differences or social differences, but then we run into more problems.

If "African-Americans" have a genetic distinction from other races that causes them to have a shorter life expectancy, which is something that cannot be changed, then it is perfectly fair for them to be required to pay higher premiums.

However, what if the reason "African-Americans" have a smaller life expectancy is due to the environment in whiich most typically live i.e. "if you're white, don't go out past sunset" areas? This can be argued as a "controllable" environment that can be changed. Successful "African-Americans" who live in safe areas would rightfully complain about how it would be unfair that they have to pay higher insurance premiums because of this.

But then, what would stop smokers from complaining about higher insurance premiums?" Oh, just because the typical smoker has a shorter life expectancy doesn't mean that I do!"

It's a difficult dilemna.

But, as part of my free-enterprise capitalist philosophy, and my belief in the fact that all factors in any situation are relevant, I must side with the insurance companies.

-Warik

 

[strongchick]

tough question

Agreed. I wonder what folks who are in the 'legal know' have to say.

This problem also goes to other thoughts I've had about capitalism and the need for measured controls. This is one of those cases where regulations will be necessary, or at least court precedent so that insurance companies don't abuse their power.

I have the feeling though, that our system will end up contradicting itself, in the case of insurance companies, where race can't be used, but genetic predispositions toward debilitating illnesses will.

 

[strongchick]

This is an interesting post coming from you.

Are you posting this neutrally for purposes of stimulating intelligent conversation, or are you taking the side of the insurance companies?

yes. I'm not taking sides, and I haven't chosen a side. Seriously.

 

[Warik]

yes. I'm not taking sides, and I haven't chosen a side. Seriously.

Then I certainly hope I've swayed you to one side or the other.

At least you aren't blindly jumping out and saying "OH NO, SOMETHING BAD HAPPENED TO A BLACK MAN! DIE WHITEY!" like someone I know. =)

-Warik

 

[strongchick]

But, as part of my free-enterprise capitalist philosophy, and my belief in the fact that all factors in any situation are relevant, I must side with the insurance companies.

-Warik

Folks are having a hard time paying insurance as it is. I think the burden will go onto the taxpayer for those who can't afford insurance, because hospitals will end up taking care of them anyway, won't they? I mean, who pays for people who show up in emergency rooms without insurance, and get treated anyway?

 

[strongchick]

Then I certainly hope I've swayed you to one side or the other.

At least you aren't blindly jumping out and saying "OH NO, SOMETHING BAD HAPPENED TO A BLACK MAN! DIE WHITEY!" like someone I know. =)

-Warik

_I've_ never taken this position. It is perhaps my bias, which everyone has, believe it or not, that leads people to believe that, before analyzing or even reading what I have to say.

If anyone wants to discuss the above issue, please start another thread. I really am interested in keeping this conversation to the topic we started with.

 

[Warik]

Folks are having a hard time paying insurance as it is. I think the burden will go onto the taxpayer for those who can't afford insurance, because hospitals will end up taking care of them anyway, won't they? I mean, who pays for people who show up in emergency rooms without insurance, and get treated anyway?

This is kind of a different issue in itself. First we must decide whether it is right to charge different premiums based on life expectancy of race, then we must dedicate another thread to deciding who should end up taking care of those who can't afford to pay insurance.

But since only you and I for the past few posts seem interested, we might as well talk about this too.

First, it's a fact that no one has the "right" to health care. Neither the U.S. Constitution nor any legislature to date says "you have the right to health care no matter what." I agree - to a point. No one has the right to obtain a service from someone else for free unless that person volunteers it. When someone walks into a hospital with a broken arm and says "help," but can't pay for it, the doctors aren't going to provide their services for free. Someone has to pay for it. Who? The taxpayers, i.e. you and I. Did I volunteer my money to help someone I don't know repair his broken arm? How did he break that arm anyway? Maybe he was engaged in senseless violence and got his arm broken with a baseball bat... or maybe he ran a red light while under the influence of alcohol and managed to walk away from the crash with only a broken arm.

The amusing part is that the people who can't afford to pay for their own insurance are taxpayers too! Why is it so hard for Mr. Johnson to pay for his health insurance? Because the government is raping him in taxes so that he can help pay for people who can't afford health insurance. Nothing can describe this more accurately than "duh."

Besides, are there people who truly CANNOT afford health insurance? Note: There is a difference between CANNOT and CHOOSE NOT TO. Who CANNOT afford health insurance? The disabled person who cannot work and has no one to provide for him. Who CHOOSES NOT TO afford health insurance? Uneducated head of household working only 40 hours a week for meager wages who just purchased a new TV, DVD player, and week's supply of beer & smokes. This man should be in another job on weekends and at night, and should be spending that TV/DVD/beer/cigarette money on health insurance, investments, and education.

I think it should be people's duty (note: MORAL duty, NOT LEGAL duty) to help those who CANNOT help themselves. Those who choose not to help themselves? It should be people's moral duty to encourage them to fuck off and die.

-Warik

 

[Warik]

_I've_ never taken this position. It is perhaps my bias, which everyone has, believe it or not, that leads people to believe that, before analyzing or even reading what I have to say.

If anyone wants to discuss the above issue, please start another thread. I really am interested in keeping this conversation to the topic we started with.

That's why I said "someone" and not strongchick. I wasn't talking about you. =)

I agree. Let's continue this conversation. I will NOT let this intelligent conversation turn into a roadhouse side-show!!!!

-Warik

 

[str8manwithadickinhisass]

It's all fair. Teenage girls pay less for car insurance than boys of the same age. Men pay more than women for life insurance but women pay more than men for health insurance. If the insurance industry can make these distinctions based on gender why can't they use race as well.
They base everything on statistics. If blacks die sooner then their insurance should cost more.

 

[FyreWomanGoddess]

Nothing is fair anymore. That's just the way it is now.

 

[manny78]

Since life expectancy varies between races, why are they being punished? Legal issues like this confuse me. It is clear that life expectancy varies by race, so then, are insurance companies discriminatory if they use race as a guideline? Will future insurance companies be bound to their stockholders to use genetics as a pricing guideline in general, or will legal problems like this prevent say, people with genetic propensity for Alzheimer's from being discriminated against?

http://news.findlaw.com/business/s/20011227/financiallibertylifedc.html

NEW YORK (Reuters) - South Carolina has moved to suspend the operating license of Liberty Life Insurance Co. for a year and fine the insurer $2 million for allegedly charging African-American customers higher premiums, a company spokesman said on Thursday.

blablablabla........not tired of always posting racial shit ? little wannabe black.........lol

 

[strongchick]

It's all fair. Teenage girls pay less for car insurance than boys of the same age. Men pay more than women for life insurance but women pay more than men for health insurance. If the insurance industry can make these distinctions based on gender why can't they use race as well.
They base everything on statistics. If blacks die sooner then their insurance should cost more.

At first i was really ticked by this logic, but then, it occurred to me that people SHOULD be penalized for living a fucked up lifestyle, not eating right, smoking, etc.

Then, I realized that the above isn't a genetic issue...sigh.

Wouldn't there be a situation like Gattaca, then?

I mean, I work in the benefits administration industry, and I see some SURREAL discrimination...I mean, my company chooses clients based on the risk, and all this entails....so health insurance costs are meaningfully impacted by these statistics.

So if our WORK is impacted by the cost of benefits, I foresee a genetic hierarchy based on the cost per hire...people with bad genes won't get good jobs.

Scary thought. I have the sickle cell trait. I almost didn't get into the military because of it, but I have just the TRAIT...an ever so slight genetic defect that effects my life expectancy.

Which brings me around to this issue: if you take care of yourself, you can overcome genetic 'deficiencies'. Can health care account for this? My head is swimming.


I see vast implications...

 

[strongchick]

First, it's a fact that no one has the "right" to health care.



That is kind of brutal. That's like saying 'let the fuckers die'.


No one has the right to obtain a service from someone else for free unless that person volunteers it. When someone walks into a hospital with a broken arm and says "help," but can't pay for it, the doctors aren't going to provide their services for free.
Someone has to pay for it. Who? The taxpayers, i.e. you and I.

...

The amusing part is that the people who can't afford to pay for their own insurance are taxpayers too! Why is it so hard for Mr. Johnson to pay for his health insurance? Because the government is raping him in taxes so that he can help pay for people who can't afford health insurance. Nothing can describe this more accurately than "duh."


So you are saying then that lower taxes = ability to pay for healthcare.

Besides, are there people who truly CANNOT afford health insurance? Note: There is a difference between CANNOT and CHOOSE NOT TO. Who CANNOT afford health insurance? The disabled person who cannot work and has no one to provide for him. Who CHOOSES NOT TO afford health insurance? Uneducated head of household working only 40 hours a week for meager wages who just purchased a new TV, DVD player, and week's supply of beer & smokes. This man should be in another job on weekends and at night, and should be spending that TV/DVD/beer/cigarette money on health insurance, investments, and education.


Here's where our life experience differs. I know people who live on two jobs at barely above minimum wage who barely make ends meet, let alone buy DVD players. This is a reality that I SEE, not conjure up for the sake of argument.

Assuming I'm telling the truth, the basis for your argument goes away...


I think it should be people's duty (note: MORAL duty, NOT LEGAL duty) to help those who CANNOT help themselves. Those who choose not to help themselves? It should be people's moral duty to encourage them to fuck off and die.

-Warik

There's that Darwinistic thinking that I haven't quite gotten a grip on. It isn't that I'm a bleeding heart...its that I know many old people who got screwed out of pensions (layoffs like Enron) or vets with mental ailments and no insurance who may have medical bills and/or prescription costs that are extreme relative to their meager income.

Lets say the survival of the fittest is acceptable - then what about the old? At some point in time, you simply aren't the 'fittest'.

Now I see why we differ so much. We really see the world differently. That's okay - its just life experience. Mine vs. yours isn't better or worse, just different. I don't know many poor people that just screw Uncle Sam.

I visited Kentucky once - beautiful place, beautiful people - two industries - coal and WalMart! It frightened me, but enlightened me as to why my 'posh' upbringing simply shielded me from reality.

 

[strongchick]

.

 

[Test boy]

I am opposed to government regulation because it does not work. People should pay based on their risk.

The five most screwed up jobs I ever had were the five times I worked for the government.

I like Thomas Jefferson..."the government who governs least, governs best."

 

[Sushi X]

amen test boy.

SC, as for getting old and not being the fittest anymore, let's just hope we don't pull a nazi technique and commit genocide on the elderly. i agree with warik, help those who you feel can't help themselves. i don't think the government should tell me who i should help, how much money i should give to help them and then tell me i can't get the same benefits for myself as i am paying for them, health insurance for example. i say lower taxes, give a tax relief to inurance companies who make up affordable policies(they don't have to be extravagant just a basic plan that will aid you in the time of need or make several policies one being better than the other and a little more expensive) so people like myself can be insured a little which is better than nought. well, that's my take on it.

 

[TxArmyGuy]

interesting subject, but going back to the 1st page where I think Warik mentioned those who can not affoard insurance due to handicaps and such

those who live off disability I thought were eligable for medicare and medicade to cover those bills...

 

[Warik]

That is kind of brutal. That's like saying 'let the fuckers die'.

No, not at all. No one has a legal right to healthcare, but that doesn't mean "let them die." Do you have the LEGAL right to drive? No, but obviously, judging by the number of cars on the road, no one is saying "let the fuckers walk."

Healthcare is a privilege that is granted to those who can pay for it, just like driving is a privilege granted to those who can do so in accordance to the law.

So you are saying then that lower taxes = ability to pay for healthcare.

Not universally. Lower taxes != EVERYONE having the ability to pay for healthcare. I, however, guarantee (yes, guarantee, a statement of fact) that more people will be able to afford healthcare if they have to pay less taxes. Think about it. Say someone is working full time for 8 bucks an hour. $1,280. Minus $X for rent, $Y for groceries, $Z for gas, $A for utilities, blah blah blah etc. 15% tax on that is $192, while 10% tax is only $128. That's an extra $64 a month. Don't tell me an extra $64 for someone like that isn't going to help pay for something - if not healthcare.

Here's where our life experience differs. I know people who live on two jobs at barely above minimum wage who barely make ends meet, let alone buy DVD players. This is a reality that I SEE, not conjure up for the sake of argument.

Assuming I'm telling the truth, the basis for your argument goes away...

I know someone who has a kid with one woman he's no longer with, and therefore is paying child support, got another woman pregnant, lost his job, and bought a 400 dollar fucking DVD player. Some people are dumb shits and those are the people who pass the tax burdens on middle-upper class society AND on the people on two jobs at-barely above minimum wage.

There's that Darwinistic thinking that I haven't quite gotten a grip on. It isn't that I'm a bleeding heart...its that I know many old people who got screwed out of pensions (layoffs like Enron) or vets with mental ailments and no insurance who may have medical bills and/or prescription costs that are extreme relative to their meager income.

Lets say the survival of the fittest is acceptable - then what about the old? At some point in time, you simply aren't the 'fittest'.

I don't see it as survival of the fittest - I see it as "survival of those who can survive." When my father retires, he'll definitely be able to survive because he can a) afford healthcare and b) is going to be prepared for his retirement. Take, on the other hand, someone slaving for minimum wage until age 65 pissing away his money on cigs and beer and never investing anything only to receive a $2 a month check from social security. Why should society have to pay for his mistakes? Sorry, but fuck him. Go back to work, chief.

-Warik