Let\’s turn the clock back to the 1960\’s, when insurers underwrote \”for the same reason they use any other piece of demographic information\”, such as neighborhood, ancestry, etc. This is the same story as credit scoring for insurance. Fancy substitutes for illegal, old time discrimination
Ratemaking is discriminatory; only unfair discrimination is prohibited. If insurers show a correlation of their rating factors, prohibiting their use just leads to cost shifting and subsidization. This restricts competition and is bad for consumers. Didn\’t NJ learn their lesson?
The Texas Department of Insurance (no particular friend to the industry) commissioned an independent study of credit scoring and found – surprise – that use of credit was objective, predictive and not discriminatory. The same has been found by a number of other independent studies.
So who is the racist – an insurer that collects credit scores, education and occupation information that indicate an actuarially sound basis for use of this information – or the critics who ASSUME that minorities have poor credit, poor jobs and no education?
Why is their only punishment for doing things the right way these days? For example, go to college, work hard get married first and then have kids, work to support those same kids, etc… and all you get is that your a bad, bad whitey who needs to be taxed to death because you stepped on the poor, poor innocent minority who would do well if only for you, BAD CRACKER! Do things the WRONG way, drop out of school, bear children out of wedlock, do or deal drugs, don\’t work or bother to advance yourself, and it\’s a free for all for entitlements that those of us who are doing right are being \”punished\” for and made to pay.
What a brilliant deduction: if you pay more for auto insurance than a professor at Rutgers because you dropped out of 9th grade to wash dishes for a living, it\’s RACISM!!! RACISM RACISM RACISM!!!!!!!!!
Hey Reagan, why do you assume the drug dealer or unemplyed and uneducated would pay more. They only said they want to base their rates on education and job, maybe an unemplyed uneducated will receive a lower rate?
Thats waht I would do, social justice, they need a break becasue they probably make less money. Im sure thats what most insurance companies have in mind.
I have to line up against using generalities in underwriting. I understand why a big company like Geico would want to. It is simple; you draw a little box around some generalities, and then anyone with a high school diploma can see if the underwriting fits in the box. I don\’t give one wit about discrimination, I just think it is bad underwriting. Look at clients as individuals, look at their track record, their loss history. Keep the generalities to a minimum.
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.
Let\’s turn the clock back to the 1960\’s, when insurers underwrote \”for the same reason they use any other piece of demographic information\”, such as neighborhood, ancestry, etc. This is the same story as credit scoring for insurance. Fancy substitutes for illegal, old time discrimination
Who is kidding who!
Ratemaking is discriminatory; only unfair discrimination is prohibited. If insurers show a correlation of their rating factors, prohibiting their use just leads to cost shifting and subsidization. This restricts competition and is bad for consumers. Didn\’t NJ learn their lesson?
The Texas Department of Insurance (no particular friend to the industry) commissioned an independent study of credit scoring and found – surprise – that use of credit was objective, predictive and not discriminatory. The same has been found by a number of other independent studies.
So who is the racist – an insurer that collects credit scores, education and occupation information that indicate an actuarially sound basis for use of this information – or the critics who ASSUME that minorities have poor credit, poor jobs and no education?
VOTE FOR ME!
I\’LL ELIMINATE ALL THINGS IN LIFE I PERCEIVE TO BE UNFAIR. IT\’S BETTER TO HAVE ALL PEOPLE MISERABLE RATHER THAN A FEW.
Hey, you\’re running on the democratic platform too?
Why is their only punishment for doing things the right way these days? For example, go to college, work hard get married first and then have kids, work to support those same kids, etc… and all you get is that your a bad, bad whitey who needs to be taxed to death because you stepped on the poor, poor innocent minority who would do well if only for you, BAD CRACKER! Do things the WRONG way, drop out of school, bear children out of wedlock, do or deal drugs, don\’t work or bother to advance yourself, and it\’s a free for all for entitlements that those of us who are doing right are being \”punished\” for and made to pay.
What a brilliant deduction: if you pay more for auto insurance than a professor at Rutgers because you dropped out of 9th grade to wash dishes for a living, it\’s RACISM!!! RACISM RACISM RACISM!!!!!!!!!
Hey Reagan, why do you assume the drug dealer or unemplyed and uneducated would pay more. They only said they want to base their rates on education and job, maybe an unemplyed uneducated will receive a lower rate?
Thats waht I would do, social justice, they need a break becasue they probably make less money. Im sure thats what most insurance companies have in mind.
Most insurance companies in most states dont use occupation and education for rating purposes, if people know about it many will be enraged.
Geico is one of the only companies in the nation currently using this, and its only in New Jresey.
Geico owns there politicians as well. In fact they just hired the former NJ insurance commisioner last year. This smells bad.
I have to line up against using generalities in underwriting. I understand why a big company like Geico would want to. It is simple; you draw a little box around some generalities, and then anyone with a high school diploma can see if the underwriting fits in the box. I don\’t give one wit about discrimination, I just think it is bad underwriting. Look at clients as individuals, look at their track record, their loss history. Keep the generalities to a minimum.