Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 beta 3/9/83; site sdcrdcf.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!akgua!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!barryg
From: barryg@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Barry Gold)
Newsgroups: net.followup
Subject: Re: Discrimination against women based on actuarial tables
Message-ID: <1108@sdcrdcf.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 26-May-84 12:42:37 EDT
Article-I.D.: sdcrdcf.1108
Posted: Sat May 26 12:42:37 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 1-Jun-84 21:15:17 EDT
References: <685@u1100a.UUCP>
Reply-To: barryg@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Barry Gold)
Organization: System Development Corporation, Santa Monica
Lines: 20

You ask why the insurance companies wish to distinguish actuarially on the
basis of sex rather than on that of "diet, constitution, smoking, or
drinking."  Maybe because most employers already know each employee's sex
but not hiser D,C,S, or D.  Maybe because employees are far less apt to
lie about which sex they are than about their D,C,S, or D.  Maybe because
you don't need to pay an insurance physician to certify an employee's sex
but might need to do this to certify details about the employee's D,C,S, or D.

Since most companies that offer employees annuities also carry health
insurance - and since people who live longer are quite likelier to be
healthier - couldn't we blame the companies and/or the insurance
industry for not working out a combined health insurance/annuity package
which would cover women and men at the same cost - and assume that women
would have more years of retirement but fewer heart attacks/etc.?

--Lee Gold
-- 
	Barry Gold/Lee Gold
	usenet:         {decvax!allegra|ihnp4}!sdcrdcf!ucla-s!lcc!barry
	Arpanet:        barry@BNL