Report, edit, etc...Posted by (DI)Yulla on 2006-03-16 at 22:06:43
Pardon my stupid topic name, but at least I tried.
Recently, I have acquired and argued the idea of discrimination in insurance policies. For people who don't know what this means, read the following paragraph.
The insurance companies provide a safety net for the heavy losses people suffer. For example, car insurances give money to the people who had accidents to cover the losses. But, they are also humans; they are very greedy. They check for people's medical records and such to cover their own losses. If the person had 15 car crashes and 2 thefts, then the insurance company wouldn't wanna allow this guy to join in the agreement.
The problem is as follows. Recent discoveries led to believing that people can sometimes have genetic relationship to how a person can be more affected to one deficientcy than the other person. For example, you can have higher chance of getting breast cancer if it runs through the family. If so, insurance companies, in order to protect their incomes, do not accept these people into their agreements because of this. Just because the gene runs in the family, they won't allow them.
Is this right for insurance company to protect their money, or is it violation of privacy for victims?
Recently, I have acquired and argued the idea of discrimination in insurance policies. For people who don't know what this means, read the following paragraph.
The insurance companies provide a safety net for the heavy losses people suffer. For example, car insurances give money to the people who had accidents to cover the losses. But, they are also humans; they are very greedy. They check for people's medical records and such to cover their own losses. If the person had 15 car crashes and 2 thefts, then the insurance company wouldn't wanna allow this guy to join in the agreement.
The problem is as follows. Recent discoveries led to believing that people can sometimes have genetic relationship to how a person can be more affected to one deficientcy than the other person. For example, you can have higher chance of getting breast cancer if it runs through the family. If so, insurance companies, in order to protect their incomes, do not accept these people into their agreements because of this. Just because the gene runs in the family, they won't allow them.
Is this right for insurance company to protect their money, or is it violation of privacy for victims?
Report, edit, etc...Posted by (SEN)Dante50 on 2006-03-17 at 00:53:20
It depends on how badly the person f:censored:ed up in the crime or the bad thing that they did. Personally, I think that if you just had your spine severed in a car crash, and you brand new 2006 Toyota was totaled, yes, you should get your insurence money. You have a right, and they can't invade your personal rights like that. 
Report, edit, etc...Posted by MapUnprotector on 2006-03-17 at 02:06:22
That's one of the ethical questions when learning about genetics. Should your genetic information be given to life insurance companies. Insurance companies already give you certain tests and ask certain questions. They would do the same with the genetic information. People can get a blood test and have their DNA analyzed to see if they have any risk factors for certain diseases and cancers.
However, I think that they shouldn't discriminate based on a person's genetic information because they have no control over it.
However, I think that they shouldn't discriminate based on a person's genetic information because they have no control over it.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Mini Moose 2707 on 2006-03-17 at 11:04:29
Insurance is like any other company, they're in business to make money. If they're not going to be allowed to choose their customers to enable themselves to make money... there's not going to be much profit, which, in turn, means there's not going to be much insurance.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Snipe on 2006-03-17 at 11:07:17
QUOTE(DeadlyInnocence @ Mar 16 2006, 09:06 PM)
Pardon my stupid topic name, but at least I tried.
Recently, I have acquired and argued the idea of discrimination in insurance policies. For people who don't know what this means, read the following paragraph.
The insurance companies provide a safety net for the heavy losses people suffer. For example, car insurances give money to the people who had accidents to cover the losses. But, they are also humans; they are very greedy. They check for people's medical records and such to cover their own losses. If the person had 15 car crashes and 2 thefts, then the insurance company wouldn't wanna allow this guy to join in the agreement.
The problem is as follows. Recent discoveries led to believing that people can sometimes have genetic relationship to how a person can be more affected to one deficientcy than the other person. For example, you can have higher chance of getting breast cancer if it runs through the family. If so, insurance companies, in order to protect their incomes, do not accept these people into their agreements because of this. Just because the gene runs in the family, they won't allow them.
Is this right for insurance company to protect their money, or is it violation of privacy for victims?
[right][snapback]447219[/snapback][/right]
Recently, I have acquired and argued the idea of discrimination in insurance policies. For people who don't know what this means, read the following paragraph.
The insurance companies provide a safety net for the heavy losses people suffer. For example, car insurances give money to the people who had accidents to cover the losses. But, they are also humans; they are very greedy. They check for people's medical records and such to cover their own losses. If the person had 15 car crashes and 2 thefts, then the insurance company wouldn't wanna allow this guy to join in the agreement.
The problem is as follows. Recent discoveries led to believing that people can sometimes have genetic relationship to how a person can be more affected to one deficientcy than the other person. For example, you can have higher chance of getting breast cancer if it runs through the family. If so, insurance companies, in order to protect their incomes, do not accept these people into their agreements because of this. Just because the gene runs in the family, they won't allow them.
Is this right for insurance company to protect their money, or is it violation of privacy for victims?
[right][snapback]447219[/snapback][/right]
that is a big factor among society today. Another big one is scamming people. It constantly happends and most people can't do anything about it. You just have ot be super careful of who you got to.. For instance geicko. they rule because they have that cool commercial... i'm joking but still becareful.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by JaFF on 2006-03-20 at 08:56:54
I think, (i'm not an economist) that it's possible to make an ensurance company that is owned by the goverment. then it will have more financial opportunities & reserves.
but this requires low level of corruption allso...
or maybe i'm just dreaming
but this requires low level of corruption allso...
or maybe i'm just dreaming
Report, edit, etc...Posted by BeeR_KeG on 2006-03-20 at 14:52:44
The Insurance Company is a private company, therefore it can do whatever they want. There is no law stating that an Insurance Company cannot reject any furutre client.
If you cause a whole lot of accidents, it's only obvious that you'll cause another one and cause thousands of dollars in car insuranse.
I'll put it in very simple everyday terms in which most of you are familiar with:
This guy from your schools asks you to lend him $20 tommorow and he says he'll pay up 1 week after. You go home and ask 5 friends of yours if the guy keeps his word and pays. 4 out of 5 people say that he doesn't pay back. Would you give him the $20 the next day?
If you cause a whole lot of accidents, it's only obvious that you'll cause another one and cause thousands of dollars in car insuranse.
I'll put it in very simple everyday terms in which most of you are familiar with:
This guy from your schools asks you to lend him $20 tommorow and he says he'll pay up 1 week after. You go home and ask 5 friends of yours if the guy keeps his word and pays. 4 out of 5 people say that he doesn't pay back. Would you give him the $20 the next day?
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Kyuubi. on 2006-03-20 at 15:08:04
the topic name made me think about the social security thing for the elderly.
you know when you work they take money out of your social security, but the money for it is supposed to be for you when you retire.
well thse insurance companies are partly about political interest groups. theres nothing against making political interest groups like AARP...which they provide benefits for older people...
sorry if this gets off topic
but i do agree with beer though....
you know when you work they take money out of your social security, but the money for it is supposed to be for you when you retire.
well thse insurance companies are partly about political interest groups. theres nothing against making political interest groups like AARP...which they provide benefits for older people...
sorry if this gets off topic
but i do agree with beer though....
Report, edit, etc...Posted by (DI)Yulla on 2006-03-21 at 05:42:12
But should the insurance company be able to invade other people's health profiles? I am not sure if this is rather violation or privacy or rights protected to the insurance company.
But, think, beer. Suppose colorblindness runs in your family. Statistically, you are more likely to get a car crash than non-colorblind people. As you grow up, you figure that you need insurance to drive. When you go to the insurance company, they notice that a reliable source online states you are colorblind. They don't accept you and now you are pretty much screwed.
Is this right?
But, think, beer. Suppose colorblindness runs in your family. Statistically, you are more likely to get a car crash than non-colorblind people. As you grow up, you figure that you need insurance to drive. When you go to the insurance company, they notice that a reliable source online states you are colorblind. They don't accept you and now you are pretty much screwed.
Is this right?
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Whisper_Blade on 2006-03-23 at 09:15:04
I really couldn't care.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by dumbducky on 2006-03-24 at 18:13:30
A driver who has little experience gets charged higher for insurance than a driver who has never been in a wreck. Shouldn't the newer driver get charged higher because they are more likely to get an accident, thus forcing the insurance to pay more?
Anyway, you can't do a single thing about prices. Insurance companies set them, you can only lower them by being healthy.
Anyway, you can't do a single thing about prices. Insurance companies set them, you can only lower them by being healthy.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by (DI)Yulla on 2006-03-24 at 18:20:08
I agree that insurance companies are private companies. But, the question is that is this discrimination based on cheating off stuff fair to the customers.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Kellodood on 2006-03-25 at 12:23:05
QUOTE(Mini Moose 2707 @ Mar 17 2006, 09:04 AM)
Insurance is like any other company, they're in business to make money. If they're not going to be allowed to choose their customers to enable themselves to make money... there's not going to be much profit, which, in turn, means there's not going to be much insurance.
[right][snapback]447468[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]447468[/snapback][/right]
QUOTE(BeeR_KeG @ Mar 20 2006, 12:52 PM)
The Insurance Company is a private company, therefore it can do whatever they want. There is no law stating that an Insurance Company cannot reject any furutre client.
If you cause a whole lot of accidents, it's only obvious that you'll cause another one and cause thousands of dollars in car insuranse.
I'll put it in very simple everyday terms in which most of you are familiar with:
This guy from your schools asks you to lend him $20 tommorow and he says he'll pay up 1 week after. You go home and ask 5 friends of yours if the guy keeps his word and pays. 4 out of 5 people say that he doesn't pay back. Would you give him the $20 the next day?
[right][snapback]449234[/snapback][/right]
If you cause a whole lot of accidents, it's only obvious that you'll cause another one and cause thousands of dollars in car insuranse.
I'll put it in very simple everyday terms in which most of you are familiar with:
This guy from your schools asks you to lend him $20 tommorow and he says he'll pay up 1 week after. You go home and ask 5 friends of yours if the guy keeps his word and pays. 4 out of 5 people say that he doesn't pay back. Would you give him the $20 the next day?
[right][snapback]449234[/snapback][/right]
What they said.
But I think it's BS how women get a lesser bill than men do (At least where i'm from) And how if you're a straight A student, you have to pay less, too. (It's total bs in my opinion)
Report, edit, etc...Posted by JaFF on 2006-03-25 at 13:30:20
QUOTE(DeadlyInnocence @ Mar 21 2006, 01:41 PM)
But should the insurance company be able to invade other people's health profiles? I am not sure if this is rather violation or privacy or rights protected to the insurance company.
But, think, beer. Suppose colorblindness runs in your family. Statistically, you are more likely to get a car crash than non-colorblind people. As you grow up, you figure that you need insurance to drive. When you go to the insurance company, they notice that a reliable source online states you are colorblind. They don't accept you and now you are pretty much screwed.
Is this right?
[right][snapback]449757[/snapback][/right]
But, think, beer. Suppose colorblindness runs in your family. Statistically, you are more likely to get a car crash than non-colorblind people. As you grow up, you figure that you need insurance to drive. When you go to the insurance company, they notice that a reliable source online states you are colorblind. They don't accept you and now you are pretty much screwed.
Is this right?
[right][snapback]449757[/snapback][/right]
i don't think that's right looking from the side of the customer (i think we're all "customers" here). it's invading private life.
some guy, that is well-dressed, has a good job, has no illnes, has 3 kids & a wife crashes into somebody, allthow a colourblind person has a bigger chance to cawse a car accident. you have more chance of dieing when you're walking down the road, then when you're sitting at home. so what? you still walk in the street.
btw...
i'm surprised, that noone has told about some situations when people who couldn't get insurance sued the insurance companies & got big damages. i suppose that some people would try to do that, allthow i haven't heard of any cases like that.