Insurance Discrimination against males to end next month

Dannyboy83

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12608777
Insurers will no longer be able to charge different premiums to men and women because of their gender following a ruling by the European Court of Justice (ECJ).

However, this will not come into effect until 21 December, 2012, to give the industry time to prepare for the change.

Will Irish males see these savings passed on?
What kind of a difference would one expect it to make in terms of pricing - percentage wise?

eviltwin

I don't think its going to make any difference to men's premiums. My husband got his renewal quote and its actually gone up, mine isn't due to be renewed for a while but I got a quote anyway and its gone up 150 euros.

As we are paying for both policies out of the same pot so to speak the ruling makes no difference to him, he will still be out of pocket even if he gets a better quote elsewhere just by virtue of the fact mine has gone up.

Head The Wall

I was reading that they are just going to charge women more.

Next thing we need is risk equalisation for the motor industry. They seem to think young people should subsidise old peoples health insurance but there's no mention of old people subsidising young peoples motor insurance. We get screwed both ways

Chris_5339762

Does anyone seriously expect insurance costs to go down for men? Not a hope. It'll go up for women.

_Kaiser_

Exactly.. all this will mean is more money for the insurers - no one really thinks the prices will actually go DOWN do they when they're already hiking everyone's insurance as it is this year.

They may not be able to get you on sex any more, but you'll still be paying for some shop that was flooded in the West while driving your car in Dublin :mad:

Farmer Pudsey

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

Will Irish males see these savings passed on?
What kind of a difference would one expect it to make in terms of pricing - percentage wise?

This is not just against males this will have other side effects life assurance compamies can no longer take a person sex into account when selling life assurance and annunities so men will find that while life assurance is cheaper the converse when they try to but an annunity with there pension lump sum the will get a lower pension. Another reason not to save for aprivate pension if you are a man.

ednwireland

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

Will Irish males see these savings passed on?
What kind of a difference would one expect it to make in terms of pricing - percentage wise?

No - increases across the board, i expect (probably claiming sandy as the cause)

jay-me

What will the ruling mean for the insurance industry?

In the short-term it could mean a lot more paperwork for the companies and their customers.

The ABI says that, during the transition period, insurers will need to change their policy documents, contact their customers, and update their computer systems.

They must also ensure brokers are giving out the correct price information and marketing is correct.

In the longer-term, they will have one less variable to consider when setting prices, but it remains to be seen if this will cut the industry's workload at all.

Cut their workload?? Who gives a flying pig ****! The greedy bastards are rubbing their palms together at the prospect of having to extract loads of extra money from their customers. And by law if you don't mind. Paperwork is right.. Their paper work will consist of counting all the extra 50 notes!

shedweller

And we'll do nothing about it. We never do.

sock puppet

jay-me wrote: »

Cut their workload?? Who gives a flying pig ****! The greedy bastards are rubbing their palms together at the prospect of having to extract loads of extra money from their customers.

Really? What's the average margin of an insurance company in Ireland? What do you think it should be? And by how much will their margins increase when these changes come into force?

I have no doubt you'll wow us all with your expert analysis of the situation.

turbobaby

Dont blame the insurance companies, blame the european court of justice for getting in the way of the free market.

Just like when the ESB were forced to increase their prices to allow competitors to join the market.

ezra_pound

turbobaby wrote: »

Dont blame the insurance companies, blame the european court of justice for getting in the way of the free market.

Just like when the ESB were forced to increase their prices to allow competitors to join the market.

Yeah because non-regulation and minimal-regulation has always worked in the past. Markets need regulation - end of! We've given you fundamentalists enough airspace.

turbobaby

ezra_pound wrote: »

Yeah because non-regulation and minimal-regulation has always worked in the past. Markets need regulation - end of! We've given you fundamentalists enough airspace.

Yes, non regulation has worked for hundreds of years. If you want extra regulation dont complain about higher prices.

ezra_pound

turbobaby wrote: »

Yes, non regulation has worked for hundreds of years. If you want extra regulation dont complain about higher prices.

I'm not complaining about higher prices.

I'm just pointing out that you're wrong to suggest that our financial system is overly regulated and that we need to lwt the 'perfect' market run itself because that is just wrong.

Should Quinn have been allowed gamble with his insurance company in the name of the free open market? No

Have we not just learnt what happens when nuts with your extremist liberal economic philosophy get their way with deregulation. Look what its done to thee financial system, and to this country?

thebman

I notice the insurance companies advertising now before this comes in trying to seem cheaper than they will be next month for women.

It is a joke that they will just put up prices. They should be forced to put their figures to people getting policies for exactly how the premiums are calculated.

turbobaby

ezra_pound wrote: »

Have we not just learnt what happens when nuts with your extremist liberal economic philosophy get their way with deregulation. Look what its done to thee financial system, and to this country?

The problem is that there was nothing close to a free market. They key component of failure was not allowed to occur.

At the moment we regulate and bail out. I would much rather the market regulate without any govt intervention as when failure is actually possible, the men at the top will make better decisions.

SeanW

shedweller wrote: »

And we'll do nothing about it. We never do.

There is nothing we can do. This is a diktat handed down to us from on high in Brussels. Because of the way the Brussels government subjugates nation-state democracy, the only way to get out of this would be to leave the E.U. and reassert the sole right of our national parliament (Dail Eireann) to make laws for Ireland and her people.

SeanW

ezra_pound wrote: »

I'm not complaining about higher prices.

I'm just pointing out that you're wrong to suggest that our financial system is overly regulated and that we need to lwt the 'perfect' market run itself because that is just wrong.

Should Quinn have been allowed gamble with his insurance company in the name of the free open market? No

Have we not just learnt what happens when nuts with your extremist liberal economic philosophy get their way with deregulation. Look what its done to thee financial system, and to this country?

This is off-topic but I don't care, I couldn't let this go, is not a free market system.

You seem to be under the impression that financial freedom caused this mess. A banking (or insurance for that matter) sector where the government is always willing to step in and throw the people under the bus to save the precious banks, such as Anglo.

Part of freedom includes the freedom to fail.

BTW Ron Paul voted against the repeal of banking regulations like Glass-Stegall.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rDt6bmRqLc

p1akuw47h5r3it

I think this decision is a bit ridiculous. If statistically men and "young male drivers" crash more than we should pay more. It's not unfair at all. it's unfair that woman's premiums are needlessly going to go up as a result of this decision.

Cookie_Monster

DanDan6592 wrote: »

I think this decision is a bit ridiculous. If statistically men and "young male drivers" crash more than we should pay more.

But I never crashed as a young male driver or got points etc but still got labelled with the ridiculous stereotype and paid through the roof for it.. Of course it's unfair, the new system is no fairer though. Any blanket statistical method of judging risk is inherently unfair to the individual customer.

View

turbobaby wrote: »

Dont blame the insurance companies, blame the european court of justice for getting in the way of the free market.

The ECJ were interpreting the laws - as written by the legislators - not "getting in the way of the free market".

Not everything is left to the free market because some issues - e.g. slavery - are not resolved when the free market is left to its own devices.

Farmer Pudsey

DanDan6592 wrote: »

I think this decision is a bit ridiculous. If statistically men and "young male drivers" crash more than we should pay more. It's not unfair at all. it's unfair that woman's premiums are needlessly going to go up as a result of this decision.

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

But I never crashed as a young male driver or got points etc but still got labelled with the ridiculous stereotype and paid through the roof for it.. Of course it's unfair, the new system is no fairer though. Any blanket statistical method of judging risk is inherently unfair to the individual customer.

Prior to now Insurance companies valued risk. Even though you as a young male did not drive recklessly some did. All insurance companies did was put a price on it. We had a serious issue in Ireland 5 years ago and more with the rate of acciodents bby young male drivers. When an insurance companies insure you the had to price that risk.

My own opinion is that this is a retrograde step by the ECJ, will the next thing be that insurance Companies cannot use other factors to cost risk such as size of car Engine, if a house has fire alarms or not, area that a house id build in Urban/rural. Maybe the will also do away withno claims bonus.

There is also the fact that it may no longer be viable for male workers to save for a pension as when they go to buy an anunity with there pension lump sum then they will be recieving very poor value.

Legislators should have steped back the legistlation in my opinion.

View wrote: »

The ECJ were interpreting the laws - as written by the legislators - not "getting in the way of the free market".

Not everything is left to the free market because some issues - e.g. slavery - are not resolved when the free market is left to its own devices.

View

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

Legislators should have steped back the legistlation in my opinion.

Legislators are free to alter the legislation if they so choose.

Then again, there are other insurance related areas where risk is not priced accurately due to political decisions so I'd guess they may choose not to do so (e.g. Health insurance would get prohibitively expensive as you age).

p1akuw47h5r3it

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

But I never crashed as a young male driver or got points etc but still got labelled with the ridiculous stereotype and paid through the roof for it.. Of course it's unfair, the new system is no fairer though. Any blanket statistical method of judging risk is inherently unfair to the individual customer.

Well thats true but it would be very hard for insurance companies give out quotes on a purely individual basis. As the previous system was the fairer of the two, thats the one that should be kept.

turbobaby

If the EU really wants to help the consumer, why don't they let us buy our insurance from insurance companies based throughout the EU.

yermanoffthetv

They should just do what they have here in Australia and make insurance optional. When you buy a car here you get your road worthiness cert and register it and that gives you (almost) 3rd party cover. If buying insurance is not mandatory the prices will drop like a brick.Of course if you have a half decent car (and common sense) youll insure it but its much cheaper than back in Ireland. I dont care what anyone says insurance companies in Ireland are creaming the system and are legislated to do so. The cartel needs to end.

ezra_pound

SeanW wrote: »

This is off-topic but I don't care, I couldn't let this go, is not a free market system.

You seem to be under the impression that financial freedom caused this mess. A banking (or insurance for that matter) sector where the government is always willing to step in and throw the people under the bus to save the precious banks, such as Anglo.

Part of freedom includes the freedom to fail.

Yes, I am under the impression that financial freedom caused this mess.

Anglo Irish Bank should have been allowed to fail. But are you suggesting that AIB should have been allowed to fail? How about the entire Irish banking system? Because if it were left to fail, then that is what would happen. Where does one draw the line? How about RBS, Northern Rock, or even a big player like Merril Lynch? Surely AIG, goldman Sachs and JP Morgan couldn't have been allowed to fail all in the name of your laissez faire fundamentalism?

You see the fact is that these institutions are simply too big to fail. We all know this. The financial sector had to be bailed out. There was no choice.

The reason that the financial sector needed a bailout was that it was left unregulated and free.

There is no such thing as a financial system that can be left unregulated and yet live in fear of being left to fail in a crisis event. It just is not feasible. It is like saying we should have a lawless and stateless society while still ensuring that we have a social harmony. Yes it would suit the perfect market model which you advocate but it doesn't fit reality.

Anyway would you have allowed the entire western financial system to collapse in the name of freedom?

Dannyboy83

Unfortunately, yes.

Either unregulated with no bailouts,
or totally regulated with bailouts.

Unregulated with bailouts is the worst of both worlds and very high risk.

jackofalltrades

DanDan6592 wrote: »

I think this decision is a bit ridiculous. If statistically men and "young male drivers" crash more than we should pay more. It's not unfair at all. it's unfair that woman's premiums are needlessly going to go up as a result of this decision.

By the same reasoning it's unfair that men continue to subsidise the health insurance premiums of women. Would you be happy to see that subsidy go?

Cookie_Monster

jackofalltrades wrote: »

By the same reasoning it's unfair that men continue to subsidise the health insurance premiums of women. Would you be happy to see that subsidy go?

and the young subsidising the old...

SeanW

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

Unfortunately, yes.

Either unregulated with no bailouts,
or totally regulated with bailouts.

Unregulated with bailouts is the worst of both worlds and very high risk.

Precisely, remember Ron Paul, the greatest advocate of libertarianism in recent history, opposed the repeal of the Glass-Stegall act.

There was a very good reason for that (obviously ezra hasn't bothered to look it up) the FDIC and other federal interventions were only ever supposed to apply to commercial/retail banks NOT investment/speculation banks. Glass-Stegall ensured a firewall between the two - commercial bank? You're covered by the Federal Reserve, FDIC etc. Investment bank? You can do what you like but you're on your own.

jackofalltrades wrote: »

By the same reasoning it's unfair that men continue to subsidise the health insurance premiums of women. Would you be happy to see that subsidy go?

Yes, why not? I never asked for a woman to subsidise my car insurance ... it works both ways surely?

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

and the young subsidising the old...

How many ways can the EU gov't find ways of getting one group to cross-subsidise another?

Cookie_Monster

SeanW wrote: »

How many ways can the EU gov't find ways of getting one group to cross-subsidise another?

lots I'm sure. They already don't allow racial and religious profiling and I'm sure there'd be some anomalies in there, maybe whites are a higher skin cancer risk then blacks or Jehovah witnesses being a higher medical risk as they won't allow transfusions etc.

ezra_pound

SeanW wrote: »

Precisely, remember Ron Paul, the greatest advocate of libertarianism in recent history, opposed the repeal of the Glass-Stegall act.

There was a very good reason for that (obviously ezra hasn't bothered to look it up) the FDIC and other federal interventions were only ever supposed to apply to commercial/retail banks NOT investment/speculation banks. Glass-Stegall ensured a firewall between the two - commercial bank? You're covered by the Federal Reserve, FDIC etc. Investment bank? You can do what you like but you're on your own.

Yes, why not? I never asked for a woman to subsidise my car insurance ... it works both ways surely?

How many ways can the EU gov't find ways of getting one group to cross-subsidise another?

What part of too big to fail do you not get? Answer my question which banks would you actually not let fail in order to preserve the financial system?

The significance of which way voted over repealing glass stegall act is beside the point. Are you suggesting that had it not been reverted, investment banks would not have been bailed out? Because that is just so wrong.

ezra_pound

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

Unfortunately, yes.

Either unregulated with no bailouts,
or totally regulated with bailouts.

Unregulated with bailouts is the worst of both worlds and very high risk.

Yes. Unregulated with no bailouts is great! Until you need to bailout the entire financial system. Then you need bailouts. Your logic applies well to businesses in general but not to Goldman Sachs or wall street.

p1akuw47h5r3it

jackofalltrades wrote: »

By the same reasoning it's unfair that men continue to subsidise the health insurance premiums of women. Would you be happy to see that subsidy go?

Yes I would. Men statistically live shorter lives so should have cheaper premiums.

p1akuw47h5r3it

ezra_pound wrote: »

What part of too big to fail do you not get? Answer my question which banks would you actually not let fail in order to preserve the financial system?

The significance of which way voted over repealing glass stegall act is beside the point. Are you suggesting that had it not been reverted, investment banks would not have been bailed out? Because that is just so wrong.

I think the point is had investment banks not been covered by this they would not have taken such big risks as they would have failed. However as a result of knowing they could be bailed out they took bigger risks.

SeanW

Precisely. You take a stupid bet and it's "Heads I win, tails you lose" of course they were going to act irresonsibly.

As a result of the TARP bailouts, Too Big To Fail is now Even Bigger!

@Ezra we get the idea of too big to fail. Libertarians like Ron Paul accept that if a bank or other organisation is to be protected by the government, THEN it should be regulated. That's why he voted against the repeal of Glass-Stegall in the U.S.

You cannot just deregulate in a vaccum and noone (not libertarians anyway) have ever said that it should.

[Jackass]

Predictably, they'll just bring womens insurance up to the level of male penalised insurance rather than bringing male rates down.

This is an issue I've questioned for years, being discriminated against due to gender, but with insurance being a requirement for most peoples daily lives (to drive a car for example) and really poor regulation, insurance companies here, and in fairness all over the world, make obscene profits for virtually doing nothing, and when a legitimate claim comes in, they try their damndest to find a way not to pay out...

A real souless scam if there was one. I wish industries like this were heavily regulated with strict price controls by the Government, to make a fair profit but not charge whatever they want. The only real rule enforced has been an anti-competetive one, compensating one firm by being more competetive than the other. Madness really.

jester77

jackofalltrades wrote: »

By the same reasoning it's unfair that men continue to subsidise the health insurance premiums of women. Would you be happy to see that subsidy go?

They are here in Germany, is it not the same in Ireland when it comes to health premiums? According to my financial consultant men can expect their insurance premiums to increase by as much as 25% after Dec. 21st with women's premiums staying the same.

jackofalltrades

jester77 wrote: »

They are here in Germany, is it not the same in Ireland when it comes to health premiums? According to my financial consultant men can expect their insurance premiums to increase by as much as 25% after Dec. 21st with women's premiums staying the same.

No a community rating system is in effect, so everyone pays the same. Which means that men subsidise women.

The ECJ ruling means that this subsidy now works both ways, which is fairer.

ezra_pound

DanDan6592 wrote: »

I think the point is had investment banks not been covered by this they would not have taken such big risks as they would have failed. However as a result of knowing they could be bailed out they took bigger risks.

Yes I understand that point. I just don't agree with it.

Let's see what other more influential people think of this matter. In fact let's stick to Nobel Laureates in economics, rather than rely on the Ron Paul's of this world. After all, we can all read Adam Smith and proclaim ourselves libertarians, but a noble prize brings gravitas to one's opinions.

In The Return of Depression Economics...Paul Krugman plays down the role of the repeal of Glass-Steagall as having as much of a role in the crisis as most left commentators would give it. (Krugman, 2009, pp 163) He goes on to explain that so much of the risk assumed by financial institutions was not done so necessarily by 'deregulated' institutions but by institutions which were never regulated in the first place. (Ibid.)
..."And that, I'd argue, is the core of what happened. As the shadow
banking system expanded to rival or even surpass conventional
banking in importance, politicians and government officials should
have realized that we were re-creating the kind of financial vulnerability
that made the Great Depression possible—and they should
have responded by extending regulation and the financial safety
net to cover these new institutions. Influential figures should have
proclaimed a simple rule: anything that does what a bank does,
anything that has to be rescued in crises the way banks are, should
be regulated like a bank." (Ibid.)

So Krugman plays down the issue of Glass-Steagal but states that the core issue is that regulation was not expanded to the shadow banking system.

What must be done now according to Krugman : "Now that we've seen a wide range of non-bank
institutions create what amounts to a banking crisis, comparable
regulation has to be extended to a much larger part of the system." (2009, pp190)

Noble Laureate no.2 Joseph Stiglitz:

Stiglitz refers to Glass-Stegal in Freefall:

"The repeal in 1999 of the
Glass-Steagall Act, which had separated investment and commercial banks, created ever larger banks that were too big to be allowed to fail. Knowing
that they were too big to fail provided incentives for excessive risk-taking." (2010, pp 29)

He doesn't say anything about the FDIC... I presume because he presumed it was really not that significant in comparison with the whole, created banks that were too big to fail thing which I went on about earlier in this tread.

He makes a further point against your Ron Paul argument later when he states :
"Especially after the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act in 1999, which had separated commercial and investment banking, the biggest banks had become
bigger and bigger—too big to fail, and they knew it. They knew that if they got into trouble, the government would rescue them. This was true even of the
banks that did not have deposit insurance, like the investment banks" (2010, pp 54)

Ah yes, say that again Mr. Stiglitz, the bit at the end, the last sentence ... This was true even of the
banks that did not have deposit insurance, like the investment banks. Thanks

Furthermore Stiglitz finds it hard to square the circle of the mind of the Ron Paul disciple:

"Those who argued for deregulation—and continue to do so in spite of the evident consequences—contend that the costs of regulation exceed the
benefits. With the global budgetary and real costs of this crisis mounting into the trillions of dollars, it’s hard to see how its advocates can still maintain that
position." (2010, pp27)

Really? Really Mr. Stiglitz? Surely with all those noble prizewinning economic brains you have you can at least understand how a someone could believe this.

Wait a minute. Isn't Ron Paul known as the godfather of the Tea-party movement? Ah yes, they're those guys who denounce evoultion because of the whole Adam and Eve story. yes, that's right.

I wonder if any noble prizewinners can comprehend how Ron's followers don't get the whole evoultion thing?

Now that would be off topic!

p1akuw47h5r3it

ezra_pound wrote: »

Wait a minute. Isn't Ron Paul known as the godfather of the Tea-party movement? Ah yes, they're those guys who denounce evoultion because of the whole Adam and Eve story. yes, that's right.

I wonder if any noble prizewinners can comprehend how Ron's followers don't get the whole evoultion thing?

Now that would be off topic!

I'll let SeanW reply to the rest of your point as he brought up that Glass-Steigal act not me. However what has the tea-party and some of their members' beliefs about evolution got to do with anything?

ezra_pound

ezra_pound wrote: »

What part of too big to fail do you not get? Answer my question which banks would you actually not let fail in order to preserve the financial system?

DanDan6592 wrote: »

I think the point is had investment banks not been covered by this they would not have taken such big risks as they would have failed. However as a result of knowing they could be bailed out they took bigger risks.

OK if you want to debate this issue respond to my last post.

In the meantime maybe you could answer my question about which banks you'd bail out?

Let's even stick to the Irish banks*. Which of them would you have saved? None of them?


I know you Ron Paul folk are into the whole Adam and Eve creationist tea-party picnic thing but letting the whole Irish banking system go under is more Book of Revelations than Book of Genesis. It's apocolypse now, man.

*Just as a reminder, the Irish banks were covered by a deposit guarantee of a (whole whopping) sarcastic €20,000 per account, and not by the FDIC. They were however of too much systemic importance to be allowed fail.

p1akuw47h5r3it

ezra_pound wrote: »

ezra_pound wrote: »

What part of too big to fail do you not get? Answer my question which banks would you actually not let fail in order to preserve the financial system?





OK if you want to debate this issue respond to my last post.

In the meantime maybe you could answer my question about which banks you'd bail out?

Let's even stick to the Irish banks*. Which of them would you have saved? None of them?


I know you Ron Paul folk are into the whole Adam and Eve creationist tea-party picnic thing but letting the whole Irish banking system go under is more Book of Revelations than Book of Genesis. It's apocolypse now, man.

*Just as a reminder, the Irish banks were covered by a deposit guarantee of a (whole whopping) sarcastic €20,000 per account, and not by the FDIC. They were however of too much systemic importance to be allowed fail.

No I'm not bothered. SeanW brought up the Glass-Steigal not me. The thread is about Insurance Discrimination anyway, so has been heavily sidetracked. If SeanW wants to reply then he can.

ezra_pound

DanDan6592 wrote: »

I'll let SeanW reply to the rest of your point as he brought up that Glass-Steigal act not me. However what has the tea-party and some of their members' beliefs about evolution got to do with anything?

OK I'll put it more simply.

Even smart noble-prize winning folk find it hard to understand how anyone could still believe that banks should not be regulated. But that's ok Ron Paul is free to his belief as are you guys for agreeing with him.

the whole tea party movement is part of the conservative-right born- again Christian soldier evangelical movement.

If you believe in creationism, that's ok too but I'm never going to agree with you. Furthermore I don't believe that there's much point in trying to convince someone with such beliefs that we are actually descended from apes. Anyone who believes the whole literal bible thing is not going to turn just because you make a good argument and provide some facts.

Trying to convince George Dubalya Bush that regulation is good is a bit like trying to convince him that man does actually descend from fish, I mean monkeys sorry.

p1akuw47h5r3it

ezra_pound wrote: »

OK I'll put it more simply.

Even smart noble-prize winning folk find it hard to understand how anyone could still believe that banks should not be regulated. But that's ok Ron Paul is free to his belief as are you guys for agreeing with him.

the whole tea party movement is part of the conservative-right born- again Christian soldier evangelical movement.

If you believe in creationism, that's ok too but I'm never going to agree with you. Furthermore I don't believe that there's much point in trying to convince someone with such beliefs that we are actually descended from apes. Anyone who believes the whole literal bible thing is not going to turn just because you make a good argument and provide some facts.

Trying to convince George Dubalya Bush that regulation is good is a bit like trying to convince him that man does actually descend from fish, I mean monkeys sorry.

What in the name of God are you talking about? SeanW brought up the Glass-Steigal act. I thought you didn't understand the point he was making so explained it.

Turns out you did however. You then quoted me as if I had brought up the act and started talking about creationism. I'm not debating anything with you!

ezra_pound

DanDan6592 wrote: »

What in the name of God are you talking about? SeanW brought up the Glass-Steigal act. I thought you didn't understand the point he was making so explained it.

Turns out you did however. You then quoted me as if I had brought up the act and started talking about creationism. I'm not debating anything with you!

OK sorry. I DID mix you up with Dannyboy83. I thought it was you who said this:

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

Unfortunately, yes.

Either unregulated with no bailouts,
or totally regulated with bailouts.

Unregulated with bailouts is the worst of both worlds and very high risk.

So I thought you were taking a clear side on the regulation debate.

Apologies

otto_26

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

Will Irish males see these savings passed on?
What kind of a difference would one expect it to make in terms of pricing - percentage wise?

Are you serious? Discrimination against males!!!!

The only thing the insurance companies will do is increase male insurance prices and increase women's prices to match them just to make extra money..

But tell people like you its so men are not discriminated against just another rip off.

Dannyboy83

Update:
Received my new quote: €450 fully comp, down from €600 +
25% decrease

That's with Liberty Insurance. Extremely pleased with that.

That would have offset the cost in the increase of health insurance (Laya Healthcare) for myself and the Mrs., but I downgraded both policies to the most basic back in January anyway.