My post was more about how they're using the, "well, I now identify as a girl," angle.

FWIW, I agree that insurance companies can be a pain sometimes. However, the few times I've used it, it was well worth my premiums. That said, I'm guessing their rates are based on historical data. If a certain group/demographic as a whole have a greater rate of accidents/claims, then I can see why they require higher premiums.

But lets play out your scenario. Say the insurance companies do lose...do you think the everyones premiums will drop or will they be raised to compensate?

 

Not at all.

Auto insurers have been getting away with murder for decades. The idea of charging males more than females is crazy. It’s theft.

The most dangerous thing on the roads today is a teen girl with a cell phone. That kind of person shouldn’t be getting a huge discount.

Plus, there are some people who self-identify as a member of the opposite sex because they genuinely believe they are. The diagnostic manual psychiatrists use had deleted that from the list of problems and disorders.

So what leg do these insurance thieves have left to stand on?

I think auto insurers are being exposed for the crooks they are-and I love that!!

**** those thieves, and kudos to anyone who beats them at their own game!!

 

Probably true, although the frenzied soccer mom who's doing mascara, texting and drinking a quintuple frapacino while steering with her knee is probably a close second.

In my day it was the teenage boys. But now they don't even really care about the DL, to say nothing of hot-rodding a car.... had to cut mine off from rides to school and activities to get him to finish the thing, over year after he was eligible. I was standing at the DMV door at 0800 on my 16th birthday.

 

I read something about that years ago. True, becuase of historical/trend data, males have higher accident, claim, tickets, what have you.

What the data/statistic FAILS to take into account is, when people are together in a vehicle, who usually drives? The male....

Sure, we can all point to our own past and the stupid stuff we did behind the wheel. But I think we ALSO have enough awareness to grasp that stupidly behind the wheel knows NO GENDER.

Doesn’t matter how they indentify

 

That’s my point.

Things have changed, and the insurance companies are still getting away with punishing people who aren’t responsible.

The way it should work is this:

Everyone should start with a flat rate. If a person remains safe, that rate should remain the same. If they get a bunch of tickets or get into a bunch of wrecks, jack up that individual’s rates! Make them so high that they have to take an Uber. Get their stupid ass off the road.

I know of a few teen guys who did dumbass stuff blazing down the road real fast in a mustang daddy was dumb enough to give them, or in a 65k jacked diesel truck.

I also know of teen girls who keep texting after their 12th wreck.

Idiots are idiots. Gender shouldn’t matter. There’s no shortage of damned fools on the road, and it’s not right for safe drivers to subsidize their stupid asses. Make it expensive for the idiots. So expensive that after the first couple of screw ups, they can’t afford to drive.

I was a very careful driver. Still am. Never had a wreck or ticket as a teen, but I was still paying insane rates to cover the idiots who kept screwing up-and of course, the shareholders of these crooked insurance companies.

Auto insurance isn’t about coverage individual risks. It’s about maximizing profits-for the ins companies and the scumbag lawyers who game our tort system

 

13-15, up and down the driveway, up and down the driveway.

 

One reason for high rates is that many drivers just don’t buy insurance at all. Few assets, a junk car....so go ahead and sue!
Arrests do happen, but judges don’t want to jail scofflaws and leave a family with no income.

https://www.naic.org/cipr_topics/top..._motorists.htm

 

Should definitely work that way if it could, but I imagine many of them wouldn't use the uber if their insurance rates got too high. It would just raise the number of uninsured motorists (causing the good drivers' premiums to increase). There comes a point of diminishing return on the premiums to charge people, but there's also probably some benefit in getting the irresponsible people caught driving uninsured so they can have their driving privileges suspended, revoked... amping up their penalties until they get jailed, their car impounded, etc to truly get them off the road.

 

It's funny watching people arguing about insurance and making broad claims like "theft" etc, when they have ZERO knowledge or education about statistics, the insurance business, how actuarial tables work, and the legal precedents that permit the idea of open market insurance to exist in the first place.

The whole concept behind insurance is based on completely "pure" mathematical calculations about risk and probability of a claim. The criteria used to determine those risk factors have been used for decades because they are the most fair way to spread risk among insured groups of people without unfairly punishing people who are not in the higher risk categories.

If you don't like that, then come up with a better way and try to convince someone (anyone) to willingly buy into it. But that won't happen, because insurance doesn't work that way. Insurance rates for any particular person is based on a cold mathematical calculation of how likely an aggregate group of "people like you" are likely to have a claim, plain and simple. It really isn't any more complicated than that.

If you don't like that, then pile up some cash and self-insure or get enough people to join you to purchase your own group policy, (which will still be charged premiums based on the characteristics of the people in your group). If you can't self insure, then of course you buy insurance because that's what insurance is for (duh). If you are forced to buy insurance because the govt says you do, then that's what elections are for.

Whining about insurance "theft" and claiming that it's unfair for any particular group to get charged higher premiums than another group is simply showing ignorance about how insurance actually works. I know that making fools of ourselves is kind of a sport in here, but this is pretty blatant even for pilots who know everything

 

Depends on whether it's a publicly held company.

My insurance company is a co-op. So they don't have shareholders. Most are much more interested in maximizing shareholder returns than anything else.