To: HighFlier
I don't know all of the life insurance rating factors either so I can't comment further. I do think that family history does a pretty good job of capturing genetic propensity though.
As for Social Security I do think it's fair to counter those that believe that the current system works. It doesn't work well for blacks, it won't work well for younger workers, it doesn't work well for people in the lower socio-economic range, etc. The more people understand how it doesn't work the more they will be open to alternatives. The underlying theme is not what more the government can do but how better served these folks will be if they own their own retirement accounts.
30 posted on
01/26/2005 2:44:59 PM PST by
Dolphy
To: Dolphy
I've got some additional info.
I talked with an insurance broker. The main points are that although family history can be taken into account for life insurance, race and location cannot be used. Remember it is okay to take sex and smoking into account.
The race factor might partially be covered by family history, but if it is okay do say that for race, why can't family history do the same for sex? There is an inconsistency.
Another inconsistency is location. Auto insurance rates are partially based on location, but life insurance is not allowed to be based on location.
I live in the DC area. More people were murdered in the city than were killed by the snipers over the same period of time. So why does the government disallow companies to exercise freedom in setting rates on whatever basis they wish, including location or possibly race?
Point is, if race is to be ignored (forcibly) in some instances involving life insurance/medical insurance why is it allow in another (i.e. Bushes speech on SS). I promise you this action opens a can of worms.
The means does not justify the ends. In this case, Bush wants to drum up support for this SS reform plan (the ends) so he uses a racial disparity (blacks die sooner) as his means. This action is very Clintonesque and has the potential to draw lines racially as to who gets what. In short, I consider his means divisive.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson