Tendonitis Affects Which System

The ordered atomic energy as a woman not against the triumph

Yesterday, March 1, the Court of Justice of the European Union issued an unprecedented ruling against the exemption in the law of equality, that insurers have benefited for many years. Proactive policies in the field of gender equality are intrinsic to the development of social Europe, and are based both in treaties and the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the acquis communautaire (Directive 2004/113) which prohibits sex discrimination in access to and supply of goods and services throughout the Union. The principle of equality always has been based on two premises: to treat comparable situations in the same way and not the equal treatment of different situations. However, the market has violated European law in some cases in which gender was considered a factor in pricing on statistical criteria. This has allowed insurers to apply discounts to female drivers, according to historical data showing an accident less feminine.

What is new is that the Court of Justice permanently repealing this discriminatory practice, which violates the equal treatment for both sexes. Commissioner Reding, promoting gender equality policies in the EU , And favorable to the establishment of quotas of women on boards of directors of companies and institutions were satisfied with the decision. To Reding is simply a sign of modernity.

The plaintiff was a consumer organization based in Belgium (Test-Achats), who went to a Belgian court, which in turn referred the case to the ECJ, which ruled that no price can be established according to criteria gender. The ruling will enter into force on December 21, 2012, for firms to adapt gradually to reform.

The news has not been well received among insurers. In the words of the director of the European Federation of Insurers (CEA) "the court decision does not recognize that gender is a legitimate factor in the pricing of premiums, which are based on a fair valuation process." Companies argue that it is bad news for consumers, in this case women, who must pay a premium in the future, and bear the costs of modifying the conditions of the product.

It is still remarkable that, in addition to inconvenience the insurance (which theoretically would benefit from a price increase in premiums), this sentence has bothered especially in the United Kingdom, where there are companies that have based their Business gender discrimination, and where a eurosceptic think-tank called Open Europe has published a report that says the EU decision to severely increase the costs of premiums since 2012.

In my view, insurers should stop to consider the statistical approach to price its premiums. In fact, I'm driving and I had four different cars in my life, all black, why I have always been applied a slight surcharge on premiums, regardless of my no claims. That pilgrim criteria penalize my interest to black has never seemed too reasonable.

In my opinion, is not fair use statistical arguments to calculate individual premiums, where every individual, whether male or female, young or old, can own driving habits more or less safe regardless of their status or age. Probably a woman addicted to alcohol is more dangerous than an abstemious man. However, personal habits are not reflected in the cost of policies. Once gone

statistical bias, pricing should be more fair, since it is virtually impossible for an insurance company to determine the lifestyle of an individual who hires a premium. The same is true of other similar products such as insurance of life, sustained on life expectancy statistics, a variable affected by so many unquantifiable elements ensure that it is unlikely that the statistical results in a fair premium.

seems clear that there is no need to distinguish between the sexes, even when the irregularity has encouraged women to date. De facto, it has been distorting the market, manipulating information by criteria that are beyond us as consumers.

The European decision is a clear derivative, and is possibly the statistical factor is not the appropriate criterion for calculating premiums. I hope that after this ruling, insurers have the vision to find other incentives to their customers, but not by gender but by increasing the subsidies (which were invented to adjust a posteriori the statistical errors) or rewards for no-claims, or rewarding loyalty to the company, regardless of the sex of the holder of the premium.

Somehow, this will also affect life insurance premiums, where the woman is being punished for having statistically longer life expectancy. It is obvious that the market will have to reinvent itself, and it would be reasonable to apply a decrease or increase subsidies on individual statistics, not by criteria subject to a dubious rigor, such as vehicle color, age groups or gender, as has been done so far. This is a business opportunity for those insurers who view this ruling as an opportunity to offer more personalized products and according to individual driver behavior, whether male or female. From now on, the personal history of every citizen to determine the price of your premium (and should be) and if any sex. In the future, I know that I benefit by being a good and responsible driver, and not as a woman.

By the way, I hasten to critical readers. Nobody interpreted to advocate a redistribution of risk criteria, but basically distrust of the statistical approach as a general rule. My proposal is in line with a charging premiums based on behavior calculated from the particular, and not by groups. In the final analysis so far has been treating women as a group, without considering the real risk in terms of other individual parameters. Non-discrimination imposed by this sentence is probably morally wrong, and opens the way for this economic sector is adapted to reality.