outlawing age discrimination

[oxford_fan]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7473568.stm

what a load of utter crap.

age is one thing that it is perfectly acceptable to discriminate based on!

there was a man on the news yesterday who's story was "I've been using the same travel insurance for the past thirty years, yet when i turned 70 they would no longer insure me".

So what! It's a private business, if they don't want your custom then that's at their discression, find another firm.

There was another bit in the news report which said "discounts on bus passes, free travel, etc. etc. will remain unaffected" - do they want to be discriminated against or not??

The BBC say:

"Travel, health and motor insurance is also expected to be included, where cover is simply withdrawn beyond a certain age or is prohibitively expensive."

Will they also be prohibiting discrimination against young drivers then? Surely.

Is this PC gone bananas? I can obviously understand that nobody should, for example, be witheld or delayed from receiving medical treatment on the NHS because of their age, but some of this seems a step too far.

[Samdy Gray]

From a health/life insurance point of view it'll be a nightmare.

[flammableBen]

Logan's run.

[genf_stfc]

i would have thought that, the older you are the more likely you are to get sick, injured whatever, seems perfectly reasonable to me.  I suppose the insurance people will just make you cough up for a medical instead now.

Its the wierd thing about insurance,  only the people that don't need it are the ones you really want to pay for it.  Same with trying to get credit, its a lot easier if you are loaded.

[genf_stfc]

Logan's run.

soylent green

[Batch]

"Travel, health and motor insurance is also expected to be included, where cover is simply withdrawn beyond a certain age or is prohibitively expensive."

Will they also be prohibiting discrimination against young drivers then? Surely.

And presumably all us men will have the right to get a bonza deal at Sheila's Wheels.

Ridiculous, though it's not fair on some individuals, surely motor insurance is based on statistics. Which seems correct - more risk, higher premium.

[Colin Todd]

Under plans to make workplaces more diverse, Ms Harman wants to allow employers to appoint people specifically because of their race or gender.

The proposals would only apply when choosing between candidates equally qualified for the job.

But it means, for example, women or people from minorities could be hired ahead of others in order to create a more balanced workforce.

Of course it is wrong to be discriminated against.

Unless you are white or male -or god forbid- both

I fucking hate this government

[flammableBen]

Logan's run.

soylent green

Touché

[Batch]

Logan's run.

soylent green

Touché

 Deloitte

[Samdy Gray]

Tohmatsu

[fatbury]

on one hand she is saying people should be selected as individuals and on the other hand in the act  Harman suggests that Women and Ethnic minorities should be picked over white men ... and has made it legal for firms to do so ... okay this is an imbalance but this is a pretty artificial way to rectify the problem ... and smacks of positive discrimination to me

[ron dodgers]

the point the old chap is trying to make OF is that the increase in premiums (in his case travel) was not based upon actuarial risk but on an arbitrary cutoff date (in this case above 75). Everything else is based upon the true statistics why shouldn't this? By the way, I am below 75 so I am not biased in this case.

[oxford_fan]

the point the old chap is trying to make OF is that the increase in premiums (in his case travel) was not based upon actuarial risk but on an arbitrary cutoff date (in this case above 75). Everything else is based upon the true statistics why shouldn't this? By the way, I am below 75 so I am not biased in this case.

There's got to be a cut off point somewhere, where the firm decides those above age X are too risky to insure whilst travelling. 70 seems fine to me.

Isn't it an arbitary cut-off date based on stats?

[Samdy Gray]

Cut-off ages are based on risk though. The problem is companies say "no, we don't insure people above 75" whereas in truth it's more like "no, we don't insure people above 75 because the pose too high a risk to the company and we don't want to have to pay out loads of claims", but a company would never actually come out and say that because of the bad press they'd get.

[oxford_fan]

it's pretty obvious that's their reason though.