“If you don’t take risks, why should you pay for someone else’s?” That’s the catchy headline on a series of advertisements now running in national magazines.
The ads show pictures of men taking risks such as high-speed motorcycle racing and construction work on high, dangerous scaffolds. The text explains that insurance premiums are based on grouping people with life patterns of similar risks.
Another ad, showing a father and son on a fishing trip, explains that the son pays less for similar life insurance than the father. It should be self-evident that the father at age 60 has a higher risk of dying than the son at age 30.
If insurance companies didn’t put people into risk groups, it would mean that low-risk people would be paying the same premiums—in effect, subsidizing—the high-risk people. That’s why insurance companies identify various risk factors such as age, health, dangerous hobbies—and sex.
The purpose of these ads is to educate the public about what insurance is so that the public won’t fall for the feminist folly called unisex insurance. Some feminist groups are so tunnel-visioned that they put ideology ahead of common sense—and ahead of dollars and cents—and demand that legislatures pass a law prohibiting insurance companies from using the factor of sex in setting their rates.
Effective October 1, 1985, Montana prohibited “discrimination on the basis of sex or marital status in the issuance or operation of insurance policies.” Several other states have legislated likewise for some kinds of insurance, but Montana is the only state to enact such a totally arbitrary unisex insurance law.
The insurance companies predicted the bad results of this law, but the legislature closed its eyes and caved in to feminist demands. The changes in insurance rates have been spectacular, and the real losers have been the people with the best claim records, namely young women and married couples.
The day after unisex insurance went into effect, an 18-year-old single Montana woman began to pay an average of $248 more per year for her automobile insurance than she did two days earlier. The premium hikes for women in this age group average 49 percent, and range from four percent all the way up to 91 percent.
Since unisex insurance started, the parents of a 16-year-old girl pay an average of 33 percent more to enable her to drive. Anyone who thinks that young men’s insurance costs will go down by a comparable amount is dreaming; the reduction on 16-year-old sons is only eight percent.
The day after unisex insurance went into effect, a 23-year-old married woman started paying an average of $235 more a year for her automobile insurance. Don’t be under any illusions that her husband gets a comparable reduction. A 23-year-old married man now pays an average of $139 more a year for his automobile insurance.
It is fair and cost-efficient for everyone when insurance companies use sex and marital status as factors in selling auto accident insurance rates. Figures from the National Safety Council in 1985 show that male drivers are involved in almost twice as many accidents, and four times as many fatal accidents, as females.
When all other factors are used, including the number of miles driven, the gender difference is still dramatic. Why should low-risk female drivers be forced by law to subsidize high-risk male drivers?
The Montana unisex insurance law, which changed rates overnight, also saddled new costs on women who buy life insurance. Women had been paying less than men because of the actuarial fact that women live seven years longer than men on the average.
Now a 30-year-old Montana woman pays an average of ten percent more for term life insurance and 15 percent more for whole life coverage than she did before unisex insurance. Equality is no noticeable advantage to men: a 30-year-old man now pays an average of four percent more for term life insurance and three percent less for whole life insurance.
Unisex insurance has also reduced the options available. An industry survey showed that the types of life insurance policies available in Montana decreased 37 percent after the unisex law went into effect.
Unisex insurance has slightly lowered health insurance premiums for women, but that is of little benefit to the average woman. The vast majority of health coverage is paid for or subsidized by employers, not individually purchased.
When the costs of unisex insurance became apparent, the Montana Legislature did a flip-flop and this year repealed the unisex law. However, the repeal legislation was vetoed by Montana’s Governor who seems determined to force women to pay a high price for equality.
Unisex insurance continues to be promoted by a small group of “equality” doctrinaire feminists who demand that this foolishness surfaces in your state, tell your legislators to study the Montana experience.
