Conference quark::human_relations-v1

                        -< Insurance for Non Drinkers >-

    
	re.-1  question:  How do you go about 'proving' you are a non
		drinker??    

    The same thought occured to me.  But insurance companies give breaks to
    non-smokers; how do you prove you're a non-smoker?
    
    					andrew

    Re proof of non-<insert bad habit here>: I suspect it may be proof by
    trial; that is, they'll take your word that you don't smoke or
    whatever, and then if you make an insurance claim on an illness that's
    smoking related, they'll take some action - a surcharge, or dropping
    you from coverage, and possibly not paying your claim at all. [I have
    no idea what the legalities are here. I'd suspect that the insurance
    contract would have to state clearly what happens if you're found to
    have fibbed on the form, or to acquire a habit shortly after signing
    on...]
    
    My experience has been with things like the seatbelt discount on my car
    insurance, so it's just a matter of differing cost. (In the case where
    the company won't cover a person at all if the person smokes or drinks
    or whatever, they _might_ go so far as to send an investigator to
    check; I should think it would only take a day or two of observing a
    habitual smoker/drinker to determine that fact. But I don't know if the
    cost of the surveillance is worth the trouble to the company.)

    re .1
    
    I was thinking of that myself, but .3 seems to have hit it.
    I believe that it would simply be a case of if you were involved in
    an accident and you had been drinking, then they could simply say
    NIX on the claim. Since that would leave you in a real bind and 
    liable to cough up lots of bucks, it wouldn't be wise to insure 
    yourself this way and take that risk. 
    
    I always did think that it is interesting how, being as drunk driving
    is the single biggest cost to insurance companies, why they would not
    kiss your feet to take your money if you were a non drinker.
    Can someone guess why you'd get a discount for non smoking?? Falling 
    asleep at the wheel with a lit cigarette and setting the car on
    fire??!! :-)

    re: .4

>    Can someone guess why you'd get a discount for non smoking?? Falling 
>    asleep at the wheel with a lit cigarette and setting the car on
>    fire??!! :-)

    Even under the best of conditions, drivers aren't paying attention to
    the road and don't have full control of their vehicle when they are
    fussing around with their smoking implements.  Add in the additional
    potential for distraction should a lit smoking implement come into
    contact with a person or object while driving.
    

    RE:4 non-smokers

    I had it explained to me by an insurance agent friend.   That if a
    person smokes they have a tendencies to take their eyes off the road,
    while looking for a cigarette, a lighter....dropping the LIT ciggie...
    So they give a break to non-smokers.... as *supposedly* they do
    pay attention.
    
    
Robbin
    

    RE-Proof of a non-smoker, I would think a copy of a chest x-ray would 
    supply pelnty of proof of a non-smoker.  
    
    Perhaps something along the lines of a physical would do the same thing 
    for a non-drinker?
    
    Skip

    Do you have their address/telephone #?

    
    
    I don't know.. I don't smoke or drink much these days, and I just find
    this to be some what discriminatory... I mean think about it, smoking
    and drinking is your own personal choice whether its right or wrong is
    another thing, who is to say its right or wrong?  I mean I'm sorry, but
    I just feel that this non-smoking thing has gone too far, and now they
    are pushing drinking down our throats... Pretty soon if your caught
    with either item in hand, you will be shot on site!  But Oh, that would
    get the right to lifers into this too :-) :-) :-) seriously, what ever
    happened to AMERICA, and FREEDOM of CHOICE??????? Now its more like
    It's ok to do it, just don't do it here, here or there.... and we are
    just going to make you pay, pay, pay..... 

    
    
    The company is called PREFERRED RISK GROUP.
    Phone number is:      719-630-1165
    Agents name is:       Dar Loftar (nice guy!)
    Address is:           105 E Moreno Ave.
                          COlorado Springs, Colorado
    
    
    re last.
    
    I agree with what you saying about what ever happened to America, Land
    of the Free, and aren't people responsible for their own actions,
    unfortunatly, if you think about the insurance racket as a whole, 
    they break every rule ever written about freedoms and equality and
    non discrimination.  But as long as I KNOW the rules of the game,
    I'll do everything I can to play it to my advantage!
    
    

    Wait a minute here.  
    
    I'm a smoker... I know the disadvantages of smoking and driving.  
    For example that little bright red cherry at the end of the cigarette
    can and DOES effect your night vision, although you may not notice it.
    It's proven that it's safer to drive with BOTH hands on the wheel then 
    taking one off consistently to puff on that cigarette, the smoke causes 
    the eyes to water at times which causes you to blink to clear them...
    these are all distractiosn which can lead up to an accident.  
    
    As for drinking.  The idea behind the break is most likely an added
    incentive to STOP DRINKING AND DRIVING.  Come on, whos the bigger risk
    here folks.  A drunk driver who smokes or a sobber driver who doesn't
    smoke?  WHo's more likely to lose control of an automobile, more likely
    to cause a wreck more likly to hit a pedistrian?   You still have your 
    choice to smoke or drink.  No one has taken that away... so long as it 
    doesn't effect someone else.  Next time you're in a store and
    considering a cigarette and how great it would be to be able to light
    one up while you're walking down the aisle,  Think about that gal you
    walked pass, she's young pretty nice figure and two weeks pregnant (Oh 
    right, you didn't know that huh?) Ever look at a books of what
    cigarette smoke does to a fetus?  It ain't pretty.  Then look down at 
    the 7 year old kid walking along the aisle holding his mother's hand
    and talking about being an astronaut when he grows up.  It's going to
    be real easy for him to do that breathing in and getting the full
    effects of second hand smoke because you and half the people in the
    store were smoking cigarettes.  If you can't control the urge anymore
    then that, then you should think about that problem seriously.  
    
    Think about the driver in California sometime who caused a *15* car
    pile up on the freeway one sunny afternoon about 8 months ago.  He
    dropped his cigarette in his lap while he was driving and in the
    excitment of trying to get it back before he burned himself or his car 
    seat didn't notice traffic slow down in front of him and rear ended a 
    semi-truck.  He was decapitated, he also caused 8 serious injuries and
    the death of 3 people.  WHo covered the expenses of all that? And I
    don't need to point out the numbers of accidents that are alcohol
    realted... those numbers are readily available.  ANd the Insurance
    companies foot the majority of those bills from medical expenses, law
    suits, loss of work, and so on.  Is it any wonder they want to give the 
    non-smoker, non drinker a break?  They are a lower risk.  I think that 
    it's a good idea and contrary to what you're saying, I think it fits in 
    quiet well with the land of the brave and home of the free you're
    yelling about.  Where's the freedom in my insurance rates being used to
    cover the expensses of a drunk driver who get's in a wreck.  Why should
    I have to pay that money out as an averaged fee when I'm not a drinker.
    I admit I used to bitch and moan about "smoker's rights" but once I
    started listening to the numbers and facts, I begain to realize that my 
    smoking anytime and anyplace I choose to IS infringing on someone elses 
    rights.  In a resturant... it's infringing on there right to have a 
    quiet and pleasent meal.  (how can you enjoy a meal when the smell of
    the smoke is always wafting across your table?  And face it folks
    accept to a smoker who is used to it, cigarette smoke STINKS.  If you 
    don't think so, quite for a week and then sit down in the smoking
    section of a resturant to eat.  
    
    I'm sorry, but I think it's a damn good idea to give a break to these
    people.  Just as I think the person with a perfect driving record
    deserves a break on his insurance.  If you want to get mad about
    insurance then get mad about the guy who's rates goe up because he's
    invovled in an accident that ISN'T his fault.  Get mad about how rates
    are determined not on your previous record, but on your geographical
    location.  If you leave in an area with a dense population, you pay
    more insurance.  Never mind that you use the car once a week, or you
    drive from a low poplulation area to downtown Boston for work every
    day.  Your driing habits don't count, nor does your record.  
    
    THose are things to get mad about.  Not any system that awards a
    benefit to someone who is in a lower risk group as a driver.  THAT'S
    the way it SHOULD work.  
    
    My 2 cents.
    
    Skip

    It seems wrong to discriminate on items beyond our control, e.g.
    gender. The insurance companies find that gender has tremendous
    predictive value, however. I have no problem with discrimination on the
    basis of behavior, e.g. smoking and drinking. This is not a matter of
    making the smokers/drinkers pay an unfair amount. They are incurring
    the costs, according to overwhelming evidence. The unfairness is that,
    presently, non-smokers and non-drinkers are subsidizing smokers/drinkers.
    
    If it's wrong to penalize drinkers, then isn't it wrong to penalize
    speeders? We Americans have the _freedom_ to speed. Give me a break.

It is unfair that some men have to subsidise the fact that in general men are
not as good an insurance risk as women.

but that's the statistics they use...


exactly the same as some people are better drivers drunk than others are sober..

but statistically it doesn't come out that way...


maybe if men put less peer pressure on each other to drive in a macho, go-faster
attitude then the statistics would even up and there's be no gender difference..

also, even in this day and age I think you'll still find that its men who drive
the faster, more powerful, more expensive cars... and that they drive more
miles and so are statistically more likely to have an accident...


maybe policies should take account of your expected mileage to work out the
potential risk?

take it further? If more accidents occur at night, and you only ever drive in 
the day (for example - I don't know if its true) then why not have a day-light
only policy?



Xtine

    re : .13
    
    I agree entirely Xtine. I recently read a report that said the main
    reason men are more likely to have an accident than women is that 
    men, on average, drive more miles than women.  I think insurance
    companies do offer cheaper policies for drivers who restrict their
    annual mileage to, say, 3000 miles. It should therefore follow that
    a sales rep that does 50,000 miles a year should pay more than a
    person who only does the average of around 10-12,000 a year.
    
    
    Jerome.       

    We use all these proxies which _cannot_ be easily changed (e.g. gender)
    because they are _observable_, i.e. we cannot lie about them. What is
    your gender? Where do you live? What is your age? All these things are
    only indirectly related to your insurance risk, but they are used
    because the model of "economic man" (economic person) holds that we
    will all lie to reduce our insurance fees.
    
    Imagine a world in which an effective lie-detector exists: with 100%
    accuracy it can distinguish truth from untruth. NOW we don't need these
    proxies. "During the last month, exactly how many times did you drive
    after drinking, and how many drinks had you consumed during what
    period, on each of those occasions?" For many people, this would be
    anathema, an unacceptable invasion of privacy. I would welcome it,
    since I can truthfully say that I _never_ drive after drinking, and it
    would end my subsidizing those who do.
    
    Short of the perfect lie-detector, the accuracy of the "I don't drink"
    allegation could be checked by having an in-car breathalizer which the
    driver blows into everytime the car is started. It would probably cost
    several hundred dollars, and would have to be routinely inspected to
    prevent tampering, and would be an inconvenience and unhygienic
    besides... but it would probably save insurance costs in the long run.
    It would probably save some lives, too, esp. when the teenager borrows
    the car.

    When I moved to MA a couple years ago, I found out that in this state
    (are there others as well?) the insurance companies cannot charge
    different rates for auto insurance based on the gender of the insured. 
    This, in spite of the statistically proven fact that drivers of the
    female persuasion drive more safely and are involved in fewer claims
    than their opposites.
    
    Given this, I assume this state would also outlaw a price break for
    non-smokers or non-drinkers as discriminatory.
    
    
    tony