Mine went up with Geico so I went to Progressive not even a month called Geico back and they gave me a better price so I went back. With Geico now you have to shop around, I cant get Tesla Insurance in my state yet when it arrives I will jump to it just waiting for the day. My policy includes 2 cars my M3 and a Kia Rio which was my last my grandson is driving that now. So shop around for the best price Good Luck
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Insurance Tripled after adding Tesla
- Thread starter Mrbattery123
- Start date
This is funny. OK, is it OK to take age into account for life insurance rates? Surely, if older people have to pay more for life insurance that's age discrimination isn't it?
Spacep0d
Active Member
Yeah, and let's make it illegal to discriminate by driving record too eh? I'm kidding, because obviously some metrics don't violate civil liberties and are very relevant to vehicle insurance rates. Marital status is not relevant and I've explained the statistical shell game being played (read back if you must).
Age is relevant because it's related to maturity, which is the same specious argument some people used for those who are married (despite those >50% divorce rates). I guess married people are mature enough to 'drive better' but not keep their marriages intact.
Funny how that works. How well do people drive during a contentious divorce? Probably not all that great.Tesla Insurance can no longer use sex as a factor when establishing rates for vehicle insurance, per Tesla Insurance and one of their own agents. Sex is pretty relevant since men drive about 60% more than women. Men take more risks and are front-loaded with risk when they're around 25 and younger, but get in fewer accidents per mile (that higher incidence risk-taking has a benefit too). Yet, Tesla is ostensibly not allowed to consider sex anymore. Looks like actuaries can't make the laws, no matter what kind of data is on offer.
You don't have to believe me. Just wait a few years and remember this conversation when marital status discrimination is prohibited with vehicle insurance, just as it's currently prohibited as a factor by the EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunities Commission), something I've already explained many times in this thread. The law just hasn't caught up yet because a whole lotta drivers still think marriage is a good idea, so the pool of activists who care about this is still pretty small. Still doesn't make this discrimination ethical.
I'm trying not to continue this tangent. Don't pull me back in!
I think we've beaten this topic enough, don't you?
Last edited:
Just stop, really.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex and national origin. “Marital Status Discrimination” is not prohibited by federal discrimination law. You'd need a new law (I'd support it, but that's not the point here) since we're talking about AUTO INSURANCE not employment. The Civil Rights Act does not grant anything with respect to AUTO INSURANCE because you're not being employed by your auto insurer (well, most people aren't).
We have bigger issues with continued discrimination based on existing protected classes, whether for employment (ref above) or many other things in life. Frankly, married people can still pay more in taxes than you'd ever be "overcharged" for your AUTO INSURANCE... see this: What are marriage penalties and bonuses?
Since I assume you own a Tesla, you're probably in an income situation that is similar to, or exceeds, the above simulation... Enjoy the savings on your taxes, knowing that many married people get hit for THOUSANDS... and chip in another $5 on your auto policy ok?
Spacep0d
Active Member
Maybe you should stop.
Funny how you keep making this terrible argument. So, it's okay for the Federal Government to disallow marital status discrimination, but it's perfectly fine with auto insurance rates? You're willing to sell out the rights of the unmarried for your measly 5% discount?
So, if Jim Crow laws were legal or still the law of the land, you'd probably support this too even if it's illegal to discriminate by race with respect to employment? You're not being consistent. I am being consistent.
You keep misunderstanding the point, probably intentionally. The point here is that the writing is on the wall. Marital status is a PROTECTED CLASS when it comes to the EEOC. It will at some point have this protection in other areas. As I've written before, the law simply hasn't caught up. I know you cannot work out the ethics of this, but there's no reason marital status should weigh in with AUTO INSURANCE. My lawyer friend also agrees with me, and others do as well even if they're not voicing their agreement in this forum. I guess that 5% discount is worth sullying the rights of the unmarried, but the law will absolutely catch up, probably way before your ethical standards do.
This is not really an argument, but a hand wave. The fact is, government should not be penalizing or encouraging marriage, period. I don't see any reason why government should be SO BIG that they need to recognize and reward your sexual relationships, but penalize others for not getting married (even if they're in some kind of relationship). Think about it honestly for a second. How weird is this? Do you love HUGE and invasive government?
This is an interesting topic, but I'm talking specifically here about marital status discrimination with respect to auto insurance. I brought up the protected group of 'marital status' with respect to FEDERAL LAW (the EEOC) to show that this specific discrimination is already illegal when it comes to equal opportunity employment, PER FEDERAL LAW. You're kidding yourself if you think it's not going to (eventually) be the case with auto insurance policy pricing too. I'm just surprised you can't understand the ethical problem now. Did Jim Crow laws need to be banned before people understood that they were wrong? Not for some. Legal doesn't mean ethical.
Remember when marijuana was illegal and could get people years or decades of jail time for simple possession? I was against that too, and I don't smoke at all. I'm also against the illegalization or criminalization of cigarettes, though I detest cigarette smoke. I do think it needs to be controlled around people whose right to breathe (and avoid cancer) should take precedent and especially if they are a captive audience (such as eating at restaurants, in their own apartments, are children under the care of a smoker, etc.). Certainly there must be laws you think are wrong, even if you're in the minority. They might actually be unethical, even if many disagree with you.
Something you've never addressed is that Tesla Insurance can no longer discriminate by sex (that is what most people erroneously call 'gender'). Why do you think this is? Sex is far more relevant a metric with respect to actuarial data for insurance pricing and claims risks than 'marital status'. Again, if an insurance company knows your AGE and DRIVING EXPERIENCE, then it's redundant, irrelevant, and yes, discriminatory to penalize someone based on the 'wrong' marital status which is perfectly legal, especially with divorce rates at >50% in the States. This is NO difference than penalizing someone for being a Baptist or an atheist, or penalizing someone who has kids over someone who's child-free by choice. See if you can work out why these are perfect corollaries relating to lifestyle choice and the civil liberties that should not be PENALIZED by auto insurance companies.
Age relates to maturity and decision-making, which is why the very young pay the most (and the elderly are up there too). Marriage by itself is a statistical shell game, because in the modern epoch people are getting married later than ever in the history of humankind, if at all. Naturally, the self-selected group among married people will not generally be super young or super old (with outliers) for obvious reasons that I've explained time and again (and which you conveniently ignore).
I'm ready to stop when you are, but we've been over all of this already.
Last edited:
pl8dlikafiddle
Member
...and you’re willing to sellout your married friends to the tune of thousands a year in taxes? Who’s the sellout, eh? Where’s your outrage considering that gap probably amounts to more than the extra you pay in auto insurance? Or maybe you’re calling and writing your representatives in Congress daily about it...?
Oh that’s a bridge too far, deciding I’d be a supporter of Jim Crow. Seriously, way over the line. I’ve been consistently clear in my beliefs, which are not and never have been in support of discrimination..but that’s just a low and classless attempt there.
No offense to your friend, since I do respect the work it takes to become an attorney...but you can find an attorney to agree with any position. Just look at all the talking heads that are on these days. Good for you that you have a lawyer friend, though. I have a quite few too.
...but, to top it off, you’ve decided to cast aspersions about my ethics. Neither of us knows the other, and we’re talking about the economic fairness of auto insurance (and a few other large costs as examples) for married vs unmarried...and because I don’t agree super strongly with you that life’s totally tilted in the most unfair way towards married folk because we might get a measly $50-100 off our auto insurance vs you, you’ve declared me ethically bankrupt and practically a racist. Wow.
Have a nice day.
$875/yr
500/500/100 coverage
$500 deductible
Bundled home and auto (one other), educational / affinity discount as well
CSAA Mid Atlantic
40+ yo married male, no accidents in over a decade...so clean record there now?
Last edited:
My three car insurance - 2018 Model 3 LR, 2014 Honda Accord and 2006 LX RX 350 with 3 drivers, with one of them in their mid 20s - with Geico was $3300 / year. That dropped to $2300/year with State Farm when I got a quote from them this month. Will be switching my home and auto insurance to State Farm.
Spacep0d
Active Member
We're not talking about taxes, we're talking about AUTO INSURANCE. Again, it's unfair to the unmarried to penalize them for not being married, which is a legal and valid lifestyle choice PROTECTED BY THE EEOC. I emphasize this because the ethics still seem lost on you. Like I said, I don't think government should be recognizing marriage at all, nor should they be penalizing or incentivizing marriage over non-marriage or vice-versa. Again, I'm being consistent. You are not.
It's not over any line. Your blatant support for discrimination seems unending, so I had to make a more obvious comparison. Be offended all you want, but I find your 'logic' offensive because it's intellectually dishonest. It could be that you genuinely don't understand the issue, but I'm trying to be charitable in assuming you're not that ignorant. So, my guess is that you understand the issue but simply don't care because you benefit from it. Thus, you're willing to allow discrimination as long as there's some tiny benefit to you, principles be damned. Yet, you seem to understand why segregation is wrong even if it were to benefit you in some minor way. This is the whole point of civil liberties and the Bill of Rights—protecting the minority from the tyranny of the majority.
True. but he's one attorney who is married and sides with me. Remember too, Tesla Insurance can no longer use SEX as a metric with car insurance rates. Why do you keep ignoring this? Why do you think that is? Do you think Sex (as in male or female) is less relevant than marital status? You would make a fool of yourself trying to defend this disparity, which is why you continually ignore this point. You can't win on that point, and you will not win this debate on any ethical grounds.
Yes of course. I think you have it wrong and I don't think your arguments are honest, OR, you're just genuinely incorrect and cannot work out why. Clearly, we disagree.
Again, this is an ethical question, not just about whether some group is penalized or incentivized for AUTO INSURANCE as it relates to marital status. Just think, HONESTLY, how absurd this is. You keep ignoring the comparison, but penalizing unmarried people is like penalizing someone for being religious or having kids. I chose the majority status here to make it OBVIOUS. The only reason I brought up Jim Crow laws was to demonstrate that 'legality' doesn't equal 'ethical'. It seems that you've understood this in grand fashion. Apply this to marital status discrimination now, with auto insurance rates.
Think about someone who has for no fault of their own found themselves unmarried, or has made the choice not to marry because they are too young, too old, or simply don't agree with it. YOU support penalizing these people with auto insurance rates, a practice now banned in Massachusetts and the European Union. I do not, because this is a private lifestyle choice (and not always a choice) which has NO PLACE in auto insurance rates, just as it currently is a federally-protected status with respect to equal employment opportunity.
If it is your right as an American to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and the freedom to live your conscience without impinging upon the rights of others, and it is legal to be married OR unmarried, then how is it not an impingement of my civil liberties for an auto insurance company to impose a monetary penalty because I'm unmarried with an otherwise perfect driving record? Again, think about why the EEOC has protected marital status. Marital status is slower to become a protected status because a lot of American adults (though perhaps not a clear majority) are married. and why would they think about what's happening to unmarried people? When we being it up, we get responses like yours and others defending this discrimination as if it's perfectly natural and ethical. It's not.
Think about all of the anti-gay politicians out there, often on the right, who don't think for a second about 'gay rights' until they're personally finding themselves the parent or relative of a gay loved one. Why do you think this is? It's the same reason that marital status has taken longer to become a protected status. The EEOC position (a federal protection mind) is just the first shot across the bow. Insurance penalties based on this status are legacy discrimination....and they're in place in 49 states in our Democratic Republic...for now.
You have no argument that is ethical or consistent for your side, and you must pointedly ignore major points from my argument in order to avoid cognitive dissonance and massive logical inconsistency and questionable ethics on your part.
Really. Just think about this honestly instead of kneejerking another super facile response that I will destroy in minutes. See if you can work out why marital status shouldn't be a metric for auto insurance, but it's illegal to raise someone's rates because they're religious or have kids and now with Tesla Insurance, a person's SEX cannot be used as a factor. THINK about it, and see if you can find any ethical consistency in the law or your position.
If you can understand why sex is far more relevant a metric for insurance actuarial tables than marital status, and you now know that Tesla Insurance cannot use sex as a metric any longer....well how do you defend using marital-status as a factor? I think the law goes too far in ruling out sex as a factor, simply because men drive about 60% more than women. The law is inconsistent here and so are those who think marital status discrimination is just fine.
Remember, just because it's 'legal' doesn't make it ethical. I am sure you hold some view on something that comports with this, and surely you understand the mistakes of the past that were once legal but are undeniably understood to be wildly unethical. You must also understand that people 'in their time' didn't always recognize clear discrimination where those in the future often see it clearly. That future starts with a few, and it takes time to trickle down to the many. At first my argument may seem alien, but if you thought about it honestly you'd be hard pressed to find fault with it. Certainly, your 'case' here hasn't made a dent on the consistency or ethical side, and you're forced to ignore my major points to avoid cognitive dissonance and perhaps some untenable logical conundrums.
Speaking of marriage, remember in the old days when a man and a woman had to prove they were married (or claim as much) to get a room together? How dumb was that? Yet, this was the norm back in our parents' and grandparents' generations. This seems to old-fashioned and prosaic now to modern sensibilities, in about 5-10 years when our TSLA stocks have blown up, I think we'll think the same think about marital status as a factor in both vehicular and health insurance.
Have a nice day yourself.
Last edited:
@Spacep0d - again, I’m completely anti-discrimination, but I see a lot more issues in this world related to discrimination that are bigger, more consequential than auto insurance pricing. I simply prioritize where I direct my ire at discrimination differently. I cannot correct for all the wrongs past/present/future, I have to live my day-to-day life with the fact that I will pay a few bucks less here or there because I’m married, and I will pay more here or there because of the same life choice. I can only work to ensure I do not personally perpetuate these wrongs on others, and stop others when I see them doing it. I prefer to make sure I stop acts of discrimination when I see them IRL, since that has a bigger impact on those people than $50-100.
I never told Tesla to consider marital status or gender in pricing. I have not quoted you auto insurance rates that penalize you for your marital status. Can’t help ya there. Try underpaying your premium by your estimated “marital status discrimination penalty” and suing your insurance company when you cause an at-fault accident. That’ll bring the issue up quickly.
Look, you are not the first person to call out discrimination based on unrelated factors, marital status or other. You will not be the last. I also think this is wrong, but I will not refuse to buy auto insurance to protest this situation, I will still sleep well at night, and no I do not consider the $100/yr that this costs you to be remotely equivalent to the costs of racial discrimination and prejudice that I see every day...or the added costs I bear from “marital status discrimination” on other matters, which again far outweigh your $100/yr.
If your IRL last name is ROBERTS, please do something about it - because you can. If not, please understand that the world is not fair but it is getting better every day, and know that no one else on the TMC forums can alleviate your marital status penalty for auto insurance any faster. Just don’t accuse people of having no ethics or being flaming racists because we are not on your crusade.
I never told Tesla to consider marital status or gender in pricing. I have not quoted you auto insurance rates that penalize you for your marital status. Can’t help ya there. Try underpaying your premium by your estimated “marital status discrimination penalty” and suing your insurance company when you cause an at-fault accident. That’ll bring the issue up quickly.
Look, you are not the first person to call out discrimination based on unrelated factors, marital status or other. You will not be the last. I also think this is wrong, but I will not refuse to buy auto insurance to protest this situation, I will still sleep well at night, and no I do not consider the $100/yr that this costs you to be remotely equivalent to the costs of racial discrimination and prejudice that I see every day...or the added costs I bear from “marital status discrimination” on other matters, which again far outweigh your $100/yr.
If your IRL last name is ROBERTS, please do something about it - because you can. If not, please understand that the world is not fair but it is getting better every day, and know that no one else on the TMC forums can alleviate your marital status penalty for auto insurance any faster. Just don’t accuse people of having no ethics or being flaming racists because we are not on your crusade.
Last edited:
Spacep0d
Active Member
Agreed, but that's not an argument. It's the principle. If I were married and you had raised this issue, I would hope to understand your complaint and agree with you.
Sure, but all I'm asking from you and other observers is to understand where I'm coming from and consider the ethics of the situation if it's not already clear. This whole time we've been debating this we could have been agreeing. I don't blame anyone for being married and getting the perks offered to them, even if I consider this discrimination. I just want people to understand that there is discrimination happening, and with unmarried people it's never been *just* about insurance penalties.
Hospital visitation (or being denied this for being unmarried) has historically been an issue, but thanks to the gay community (and some vocal unmarried couples) is less of an issue today. Not having the right to share health insurance with an unmarried cohabiting opposite-sex partner has been a huge battle. We unmarried opposite-sex cohabiting people have a debt of gratitude to the gay community for breaking up some of the very obvious discrimination, and we STILL face discrimination in other areas. Auto insurance penalties are just more relevant to this forum and thread but we've been fighting these battles in one form or another for decades.
Of course not, and I don't blame you. I'm just pointing out a relevant data point which shows a major change in how Tesla in California is compelled to ignore sex when it comes to auto insurance rates, something fairly relevant to the incidence of claims as men drive more than women by a fair amount. I think this is a step too far, but I also maintain that marital status is not relevant at all. I'm not saying there's no difference in claims, just that there's a natural group selection by imposing 'marriage' as a metric because it naturally selects against the very young and old (highest risk categories). But, we would know this information by simply having data about age and driving experience—in addition to driving history and other data that don't impinge upon private lifestyle choices, such as whether one has kids, plans to have more kids, is religious or not, etc.
There are a few ways I can deal with this, and the first was to simply ask Tesla Insurance if and why they do this. I made a good case (politely) and the rep actually agreed with my points, but they're not setting policy. Another will be a tweet to Elon which could easily get lost in the shuffle, or not. Another would be to insist that I not have to pay the penalty (something that sometimes works with other insurers). Either way, I shook one cage as I have with every single insurance company for decades. This will keep happening as the incidence of marriage continues to decline.
Understood, there are bigger fish to fry in the grand scheme, but I think small injustices are often symptoms of larger, and those so-motivated should address them on principle. It would help to have some overt support on this forum, as I can't be the only one who understands the issues here. I did get some 'LOVE' feedback on some posts and I appreciate that. I'm just looking for parity when it comes to myself as a 52 year old unmarried person (by choice) with a perfect driving record, and a girlfriend of 22+ years who is my loyal partner and with whom I own a home. We both have Teslas, but she's well aware of why I won't marry, and she's okay with it.
I would rather not be penalized for this choice by an auto insurance company, by health insurers, by a company I work for. In the U.S., companies can discriminate against us by prohibiting the addition of an unmarried cohabiting opposite-sex partner to our health plans. Companies are still free to be inclusive and allow insurance sharing with opposite-sex cohabiting partners, however.
My current employer does not discriminate on the basis of marital status and my girlfriend is on my health insurance policy, but HER former employer did so mightily. That is, a gay male HR assistant watched in horror as the HR manager denied my girlfriend's request to add me to her health insurance policy when I was a freelance artist, while he (the gay HR assistant) was able to share his healthcare with his boyfriend after 6 months.
This company was a major broadcasting company run by religious conservatives, hence their anti-unmarried views which trickled down to a major point of discrimination. Of course, this is wrong because it allows a company to put pressure on people to marry but for the withholding of healthcare-sharing benefits, and this is a type of extortion or at least, a severe invasion of lifestyle choice, privacy, and freedom of conscience. I don't see auto-insurance being much different except that the stakes are lower, but you can see now where my passion comes from having been through the healthcare-sharing battle as an unmarried person.
I understand the limits of a forum, but we've simply been carrying out a debate here from two angles. Much has changed in our society at the grass roots. I gave up my former religion simply through the power of argumentation, just as people change political stances or come around on equal rights or any issue one might deem important enough to discuss with the loyal opposition. I've changed minds too by the power of argument. This is how we change minds and improve our collective experience as part of the human enterprise. Sure, you may or may not have moved your position (and I hope you have), but sometimes the person you're talking to is just a locus of conversation for the unnamed observer whose position will move. Such is the power of debate and honest interlocution, and should not be underestimated.
Thanks for a stimulating discussion.
Last edited:
Both @Spacep0d and @valaeyron should pay for additional disk space to the site owners
Nevertheless enjoyed their discussion. Both had valid points.
Nevertheless enjoyed their discussion. Both had valid points.
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
I'm taking a big risk in causing pOd to start ranting again but I thought this link was interesting:
This data contradicts his assertion that he pays more (forget the discrimination nonsense) because he did not get married. He pays more because he is not currently married. The distinction is important since I get the impression that he thinks the insurance industry is targeting gays unfairly.
This data contradicts his assertion that he pays more (forget the discrimination nonsense) because he did not get married. He pays more because he is not currently married. The distinction is important since I get the impression that he thinks the insurance industry is targeting gays unfairly.
Last edited:
Spacep0d
Active Member
Your post doesn't comport with reality, and I love how you characterized my posts as 'ranting'. I think I've been as respectful as I could reasonably be given how much I had to repeat my talking points. This has been a conversation, and we ended on a good note. I encourage you to read back if there's anything you didn't understand.
That said, any adult on this forum can call up a U.S.-based insurance company and ask about marriage discounts, or get rates for married vs. unmarried policies with all else being equal. Massachusetts is the one exception where marital status is now a protected class with auto insurance, and it won't remain the only state in the union to see the light, so to speak.
Right now, unmarried households outnumber married households and family court isn't getting any more fun, so I see the trend changing. Soon.
Obviously, you have to get married to *be* married, but I'm not sure what point you think you're advancing here other than some pedantic semantics.
Can we leave this alone now or are you looking forward to more 100 WPM 'ranting'? Don't tempt me with a good time!
FOR THOSE WHO HAVE TESLA INSURANCE
I got tesla insurance 2-3 days ago. Signed up & paid online. Is there any additional things i need to do? Once i paid it said im covered & provided me with a policy number. Do i get a insurance card in the mail and thats it? Thanks
I got tesla insurance 2-3 days ago. Signed up & paid online. Is there any additional things i need to do? Once i paid it said im covered & provided me with a policy number. Do i get a insurance card in the mail and thats it? Thanks
When I got the final quote from SF, the quote was less than $2000 / year and what was interesting is that Model 3 was quoted less than 2007 LX RX 350 that has 150k miles in it.
Instead of looking at a premium reduction, I think you might want to review both the uninsured motorist and medical expense coverage. Those limits seem very low to me - make sure you have adequate coverage there.
If someone were to hit & run and total your car -- is the $50k coverage enough to replace it?
Same with medical coverage - ensure your healthcare will cover you for any medical costs above and beyond the initial $250.
