Look Jim, I get what you are saying. Those that have worked hard deserve a break every now and then and people who are deadbeats need to understand they can\’t just sail through life depending on everyone else. I do not disagree with that.
What I am saying is that this should not apply to car insurance. Just cause someone (regardless of race) does not have a degree it does not mean that they will have more accidents. Period. But please, if you have evidence that proves otherwise I would like to see it. Geico has not been able to provide it, so I assume it does not exist. However, I do believe that there is evidence (I stress believe b/c I do not have it) that lawyers, doctors, etc actually have more accidents than other lower paying jobs. I think that you should look at facts instead of going on what you think is true.
Marital status is also a seemingly unrelated criteria for establishing premiums – until you think about it. Married guys, especially with kids, are less prone to doing things like drag racing, or closing bars on weeknights. Hence, lower rates for the henpecked.
Also, in using both education and employment, one might want to learn why the applicant works at Wal-Mart in sporting goods but has a law degree from Harvard. Hmmm… did he get fired from the firm for being drunk on the job? Embezzling?
I know someone who has a degree from Cornell. She recently decided that becoming a doctor was no longer what she wanted to do. Right now she works retail until she can figured out what she would like to do with herself. According to your logic, she should pay more for her car insurance b/c she decided not to be a doctor. It just doesn\’t make sense. You are making a generalization. Everyone has different reasons for why they are in their personal situations. For a company to charge significantly more without looking into those reasons is, I\’ll say it again, UNETHICAL. I noticed you didn\’t address my \”where is your proof\” question. You know as well as I that it does not exist. So yes, I agree, buying insurance is NOT like buying shoes. Everyone should have an equal opportunity to be eligible for the same rates, not placed in a separate company altogether (w/out being told) b/c of their edu/occ status. So are you saying that a man who decides to be a carpenter b/c he enjoys working hands on as opposed to sitting at a desk; then he deserves to pay more for auto insurance? That\’s ridiculous.
A. It\’s legal. Only liberal whiners and NJ Cure, a competitor, are agitating against it.
B. It\’s only one of 20+ criteria, many of which look odd standing alone.
C. Insurance companies are in business to make money. If this criteria indicated nothing, what could possibly be their motive for employing it?
D. Signing off!
A.I know it\’s legal. It is still unethical.
B. It alone will determine which of 4 Geico companies you are eligible for.
C. The motive, as explained before, is that wealthy people have more assets that need protecting therefore are more profitable to multi line insurance companies. (A poor person does not have the luxury of buying life insurance and they probably don\’t own a home)
D. You shouldn\’t sign off as soon as your argument starts to weaken. You were doing well for a while and I enjoyed the debate. But you shouldn\’t give in so easily just b/c your argument has no basis.
I am not signing off because I think I\’m weakening, but because I gave you the bases for my position and you returned opinions rather than facts. So AMF.
My opinions are based on factual information that you can access. You however, have not supplied facts nor factual information. Like I said, if you have facts, I would love to see them.
A. It\’s legal. Only liberal whiners and NJ Cure, a competitor, are agitating against it.
B. It\’s only one of 20+ criteria, many of which look odd standing alone.
C. Insurance companies are in business to make money. If this criteria indicated nothing, what could possibly be their motive for employing it?
D. These are all FACTS.
E. Now STFU.
OK I refuse to repeat myself by again addressing those same points. It is obvious that your limited intelligence is inhibiting your ability to debate this topic. Therefore I will no longer continue to make you look foolish to your colleagues who are reading these comments. I urge you to do some research on this so that you can comment on the big picture; this way next time you debate this you might come up with a stronger argument. As much as I would love to return the STFU comment, immature as it was, I think that it shows weakness more than anything else. So Mr. Jim, Jimbo or whatever–best of luck to you.
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
Look Jim, I get what you are saying. Those that have worked hard deserve a break every now and then and people who are deadbeats need to understand they can\’t just sail through life depending on everyone else. I do not disagree with that.
What I am saying is that this should not apply to car insurance. Just cause someone (regardless of race) does not have a degree it does not mean that they will have more accidents. Period. But please, if you have evidence that proves otherwise I would like to see it. Geico has not been able to provide it, so I assume it does not exist. However, I do believe that there is evidence (I stress believe b/c I do not have it) that lawyers, doctors, etc actually have more accidents than other lower paying jobs. I think that you should look at facts instead of going on what you think is true.
Marital status is also a seemingly unrelated criteria for establishing premiums – until you think about it. Married guys, especially with kids, are less prone to doing things like drag racing, or closing bars on weeknights. Hence, lower rates for the henpecked.
Also, in using both education and employment, one might want to learn why the applicant works at Wal-Mart in sporting goods but has a law degree from Harvard. Hmmm… did he get fired from the firm for being drunk on the job? Embezzling?
Buying insurance is not like buying shoes, ES.
I know someone who has a degree from Cornell. She recently decided that becoming a doctor was no longer what she wanted to do. Right now she works retail until she can figured out what she would like to do with herself. According to your logic, she should pay more for her car insurance b/c she decided not to be a doctor. It just doesn\’t make sense. You are making a generalization. Everyone has different reasons for why they are in their personal situations. For a company to charge significantly more without looking into those reasons is, I\’ll say it again, UNETHICAL. I noticed you didn\’t address my \”where is your proof\” question. You know as well as I that it does not exist. So yes, I agree, buying insurance is NOT like buying shoes. Everyone should have an equal opportunity to be eligible for the same rates, not placed in a separate company altogether (w/out being told) b/c of their edu/occ status. So are you saying that a man who decides to be a carpenter b/c he enjoys working hands on as opposed to sitting at a desk; then he deserves to pay more for auto insurance? That\’s ridiculous.
A. It\’s legal. Only liberal whiners and NJ Cure, a competitor, are agitating against it.
B. It\’s only one of 20+ criteria, many of which look odd standing alone.
C. Insurance companies are in business to make money. If this criteria indicated nothing, what could possibly be their motive for employing it?
D. Signing off!
A.I know it\’s legal. It is still unethical.
B. It alone will determine which of 4 Geico companies you are eligible for.
C. The motive, as explained before, is that wealthy people have more assets that need protecting therefore are more profitable to multi line insurance companies. (A poor person does not have the luxury of buying life insurance and they probably don\’t own a home)
D. You shouldn\’t sign off as soon as your argument starts to weaken. You were doing well for a while and I enjoyed the debate. But you shouldn\’t give in so easily just b/c your argument has no basis.
I am not signing off because I think I\’m weakening, but because I gave you the bases for my position and you returned opinions rather than facts. So AMF.
My opinions are based on factual information that you can access. You however, have not supplied facts nor factual information. Like I said, if you have facts, I would love to see them.
A. It\’s legal. Only liberal whiners and NJ Cure, a competitor, are agitating against it.
B. It\’s only one of 20+ criteria, many of which look odd standing alone.
C. Insurance companies are in business to make money. If this criteria indicated nothing, what could possibly be their motive for employing it?
D. These are all FACTS.
E. Now STFU.
OK I refuse to repeat myself by again addressing those same points. It is obvious that your limited intelligence is inhibiting your ability to debate this topic. Therefore I will no longer continue to make you look foolish to your colleagues who are reading these comments. I urge you to do some research on this so that you can comment on the big picture; this way next time you debate this you might come up with a stronger argument. As much as I would love to return the STFU comment, immature as it was, I think that it shows weakness more than anything else. So Mr. Jim, Jimbo or whatever–best of luck to you.
And now I am signing off!