What sensible action can be taken to overrule discriminate car insurance rates based on age and gender?

[ear]

It is and should be well known that all, or almost all, car insurance companies have outrageously higher rates for male drivers and elderly drivers. Naturally these are based upon statistics that are likely agreeable enough, but it is still highly unjust to charge more simply because a driver is a certain gender or age. Alone this is not inherently a problem, however, the government now mandates the acquirement of insurance, which changes (or should change) the business's status from that of being privately owned. Point being, if you MUST have it, then the rate must be based on the sole individual owenership of the insurance, e.g. driving experience, amount of accidents, car safety rating, etc. The same bias would be exacted in saying that African American people are more likely to have an accident than Caucasion people, but that would have a 0% chance of standing in any public eye or court of law. This action might be legal, but it is inarguably injust and should not be legal under any circumstance. Discrimination is rampant enough throughout society, and certainly should not be introduced into the corporate or political world. Unfortunately this question is leaning on the brink of a rant, which is prohibited by the guidelines, so it shall be continued only for a short while. The basic question is simple. When will something be done about it, who will do it, and how will they do it. I would undoubtedly challenge its legality myself, and still might in days to come, but unfortunately my age does not coexist well with my ambition, aptitude, or will. So it would be preferable for some other courageous folk to challenge it themselves, which raises the obvious question: How?

[chavivi]

Since there is quantitative and indisputable data showing that males/elderly are a higher risk for an insurance claim, they are basing their pricing on fact....and not some subjective bias. Most forms of discrimination are 100% PERFECTLY legal. When discrimination is based on facts, trends, and history....it's not really discrimination anymore in the negative sense. Should someone who is 80 have the same life insurance rates as someone who is 21? Isn't it logical that a "discrimination" based on age be made there since it is a statistical FACT that the 21 year old will out live the 80 year old? Its the same logic.

[tanishia]

Nice try but it IS legal and rightfully so. There ARE differences.

[caffar]

Quite simple - all auto insurance policies need to be issued at a flat rate. $4,000 per person per car, no matter what kind of car you have, what your driving record is, how old you are, what your gender is, what coverages you have. FLAT RATE COVERAGE. If $4,000 isn't enough to cover all the claims, we'll have to increase it.

Discrimination is NOT inherently wrong. When you walk into a restaurant, and order a burger instead of liver, you are discriminating. When you order a coke instead of a glass of curdled milk, you are discriminating. If you want to pay less for a ten year old Ford Focus, than for a brand new Lamborghini, then YOU, TOO, want to discriminate.

You're only whining about it, because right now, at this point in your life, you're at the HIGH end of the price tag. When you're 70 and want to buy life insurance, and at the high end of that price tag, you'll be whining then, too.

You're deliberately distorting things, and your racist believe that people of certain ethnic background have more ACCIDENTS, has absolutely no bearing in fact.

WHEN will something be done, to make people buying a $1000 car pay the same as a $100,000 car? Probably never, because it DOESN'T MAKE SENSE. As long as an auto insurance company offers more than ONE price, for every person, every policy, every coverage, every car, every state . . . SOMEONE is going to be on the higher end of that see-saw.

Now cowboy up, and get over it.

[bernd]

The law can be changed that same way as most laws are changed: By having the legislature vote to change the law, without "challenging" anything.