Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site denelvx.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!hao!denelcor!denelvx!neal From: neal@denelvx.UUCP (Neal Weidenhofer) Newsgroups: net.women Subject: Re: Male curfews (insurance actually) Message-ID: <39@denelvx.UUCP> Date: Mon, 27-May-85 21:13:23 EDT Article-I.D.: denelvx.39 Posted: Mon May 27 21:13:23 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 31-May-85 02:08:57 EDT References: <360@boulder.UUCP>, <593@mnetor.UUCP> <1238@pyuxa.UUCP> Organization: Denelcor, Aurora, Colorados Lines: 17 > I'm amazed at the insurance companies logic in general, but I too have often > wondered about reduced coverage for women because they live longer. Why not > give women increased benefits, since they live longer and thus pay more > in premiums over their lifetimes then men. Or am I missing something? In this case, yes you are. The policies under discussion are the kind where you pay in for a fixed number of years (until 65 or so, usually) and then draw out so much a month for the rest of your life. By living longer, women (statistically) draw out more benefits after having paid the same in premiums as men in similar circumstances. The insurance companies wanted to reduce the monthly benefits to women so that women and men would get the same total benefits (statistically again). Regards, Neal Weidenhofer "Nothin' ain't worth nothin' Denelcor, Inc. but it's free" !denelcor!neal