If women get low car insurance rates, because they are rated as a ...

by admin

Women get low car rates b/c they, as a group, are less likely to have accidents. Feminists quote this fact all the time.

Yet women live 8+ yrs. longer than men, and spend the last years of their lives using numerous and costly medical resources. Women use ~50% more medical resources than men.

Why, then, aren’t women required to pay higher medical premiums?

Why aren’t feminists marching on Washington demanding that women pay more? Oh, sorry … I forgot. Feminists say they want equality, but their actions show different.

In short, feminists are highly selective in what they push for and just how hard.

Actuaries will vouch for the FACT that women are involved in more MVAs than men, yet the degree of damage sustained is less, hence that’s why their premiums are lower.

Indeed, you’re absolutely correct, females in the US utilize much more medicare entitlement resources by virtue of longevity, however socialized programs like medicare and medicaid don’t rate consumers by actuarial measures, thus socialism ensures "equality."

There’s your answer in a nutshell.

This is a difficult subject; it could apply to a lot of things.

I think its perfectly fair to make people pay for services based on relevant grouping.

It would be unfair to treat people as individuals E.G: An unlucky person born with cancer would have to pay a massive amount for medical treatment.

It would also be unfair to treat everyone equally because some groups of people will end up costing much more than others: E.G Smokers will cost more for medical treatment, (if its their own fault, why should healthy people pay for their decisions?)

To conclude: It is not fair that men should pay more for motor insurance, yet pay the same amount as women for medical treatment. This happens because car insurance is based on men and women as two different groups, and medical insurance is...

Read more...

Not your mother's recovery

04.09.11

By Steve Matthews and Joshua Zumbrun

This is not your mother’s recovery.

Women and baby boomers entering the American workforce after 1950 helped to supercharge expansions in 1975 and 1983 by filling an increasing number of jobs and purchasing more goods and services. Now as the share of women with jobs falls and older Americans age into retirement, the shrinking — or, at best, slowly growing — workforce will weaken economic activity for the next two decades.

The demographic changes may be the biggest and least- appreciated reason why the two-year recovery has slowed, because the rate of growth for labor and capital is “the most important determinant” of economic expansion, said James Paulsen, chief investment strategist for Wells Capital Management in Minneapolis.

More retirees mean slower household formation, reduced consumer spending and downward pressure on equity prices as retirement cuts people’s purchasing power, according to John Lonski, chief economist at Moody’s Capital Markets Group in New York, and Gus Faucher, director of macroeconomics at Moody’s Analytics Inc. in West Chester, Pennsylvania.

Source: Financial Post

Short Term Car Insurance For 18 Year Olds- News