-
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
Spacep0d
Active Member
You're accusing me of simple bias because you enjoy the perks of this discrimination, I presume? This is understandable. You're defending an unfair, private lifestyle choice because it benefits you. See how this works? This is not a charitable interpretation or framing of my argument. Let's see if I can make this more clear for the marriage-friendly majority. Read on, if you will.
Praytell, where would you end discrimination based on lifestyle choice vs. immutable characteristics? You've also missed my point prior. Marriage as a factor is a numeric sleight of hand, because marriage will naturally skew toward a higher median age, excluding both the very young drivers with the least experience and the most impetuous habits (and highest accidents), and very old drivers. I've explained this already. Marriage is not *why* they are statistically lower risk, but it's an age filter. Again, this is best determined by age and driving experience, and those cannot easily be separated where most people start driving (in the States) between 16 and 21. So, a 25 year old driver is objectively less experienced than the 46 year old driver, with rare exceptions that don't really matter to insurance companies.
But, age is an immutable and super relevant metric. LIFESTYLE choice (such as marriage) is not. Granted, other choices do factor in and are far more relevant; where one lives, yearly mileage driven, but age already covers the experience question without penalizing otherwise great drivers (clean records) who but for no fault of their own OR for personal reasons are not married. You're just behind the curve here, but marital status discrimination has no place in auto insurance. This is why MA and the Euro Union have banned this practice.
Now, I don't deny that there IS a different risk level that can be established between married people and unmarried, but I've already mentioned the way the numbers (of married people) naturally exclude the young and the elderly. This is a post hoc ergo propter hoc error of logic to think it's the marriage that makes people better drivers, especially with the divorce rate being >50% and rapacious Family Court ruining the lives of many.
You could also have a metric for income. If your income is over 100k, you're probably not a kid, and probably not really old because you're still working. That's not WHY you're in a lower risk category. It's the same principle and the same statistical sleight-of-hand. The income metric simply creates a natural group selection that filters out the highest-risk drivers. Same with the marriage question, but the marriage metric DOES actively discriminate against otherwise good drivers (on-balance) who but for no fault of their own aren't married or have made a choice not to marry. Penalizing someone on this choice should be unconstitutional when it comes to mandatory auto insurance.
We could easily establish real statistics for other private lifestyle choices that you'd probably take exception to, including but not limited to;
Your religion or lack thereof. Assume for the sake of argument that non-believers got the discount. Are you okay with that, assuming non-believers demonstrated a lower risk to actuaries? If not, why not? The question is not whether there is a risk difference, but whether this choice (though less of a choice than people think) should be used as a discriminatory metric for VEHICLE insurance. There's a slippery slope here too, of course. Where does it end, and where would you stop supporting discrimination based on lifestyle choices?
Having kids, having more than X number of kids, or having no kids at all (for any reason). Let's assume that child-free people got the discount, just so the majority here can understand the comparison a little more readily.
Whether you wear short pants on Fridays
Your diet and body mass index (for auto insurance, mind)
The color of the car you drive
Your political affiliation
The issue is not that there's a difference, but that your marital status is a personal choice and on balance those who are unmarried for any reason are being unfairly penalized. Of course you support this perk probably because you're probably married or are okay with this institution, just as you're framing my argument as one of simple bias (it's not). Hopefully your uncharitable framing of my argument is more clear when I flip the script against your argument.
One of the reasons I'm *not* married is because my gay friends could not always get married, but that's just one of the reasons. Others enjoy their marriage perks while some were discriminated against.
But you do understand that the laws have changed, and insurance companies have to conform to those laws. For instance, they can no longer ding you for a lapse in your coverage. They used to ding us hard for that were that the case. Regulation has to come from somewhere, and it sure won't come from the companies themselves.
Yes, but this is one state that no longer allows marital status discrimination for VEHICLE insurance. Same with the EU. Consider for a moment why that is.
Of course the market would handle this IF insurance companies are prohibited from discriminating based on marital status. There might be a company which doesn't, but can you name a single one? If there's a way to collect more money from some groups, they tend to do it until it's illegal. They're insurance companies after all. I think even Tesla discriminates based on marital status, but couldn't they refrain from doing this? If so, why don't they?
Similarly, there is no protection for opposite-sex cohabiting couples when it comes to partner coverage for health insurance, but some companies will cover your opposite sex cohabiting partner (not domestic partner) anyway. But, they CAN discriminate. Some or most forward-thinking companies choose not to. Ask me how I know this.
My point here would be that they *shouldn't* be allowed to discriminate on that metric in the first place. Why should a workplace be able to use healthcare sharing to pressure people in to a lifestyle choice (marriage) that is none of their business? Same with auto insurance. I understand why they collect the data they collect, BUT for the marital status exception that I take exception to.
Last edited:
I just went to check Tesla insurance again, compared to my Geico. Got a ticket my first day in NY (6 month temporary job coming from SoCal) driving a rental Nissan of all cars which screwed everything up. With Geico it's been $330/month for two cars and two drivers (Volvo v60 and Tesla). Previously Tesla was not very helpful or upfront about adding a second non Tesla car to the quote. I just checked and now you can put in all the additional car details, which is great! What's not great is Tesla quoting me $450/month compared to Geico.. I guess I will have to wait it out until this damn ticket falls off my record..
EnrgyNDpndnce
Member
You're accusing me of simple bias because you enjoy the perks of this discrimination, I presume? This is understandable. You're defending an unfair, private lifestyle choice because it benefits you. See how this works? This is not a charitable interpretation or framing of my argument. Let's see if I can make this more clear for the marriage-friendly majority. Read on, if you will.
Praytell, where would you end discrimination based on lifestyle choice vs. immutable characteristics? You've also missed my point prior. Marriage as a factor is a numeric sleight of hand, because marriage will naturally skew toward a higher median age, excluding both the very young drivers with the least experience and the most impetuous habits (and highest accidents), and very old drivers. I've explained this already. Marriage is not *why* they are statistically lower risk, but it's an age filter. Again, this is best determined by age and driving experience, and those cannot easily be separated where most people start driving (in the States) between 16 and 21. So, a 25 year old driver is objectively less experienced than the 46 year old driver, with rare exceptions that don't really matter to insurance companies.
But, age is an immutable and super relevant metric. LIFESTYLE choice (such as marriage) is not. Granted, other choices do factor in and are far more relevant; where one lives, yearly mileage driven, but age already covers the experience question without penalizing otherwise great drivers (clean records) who but for no fault of their own OR for personal reasons are not married. You're just behind the curve here, but marital status discrimination has no place in auto insurance. This is why MA and the Euro Union have banned this practice.
Now, I don't deny that there IS a different risk level that can be established between married people and unmarried, but I've already mentioned the way the numbers (of married people) naturally exclude the young and the elderly. This is a post hoc ergo propter hoc error of logic to think it's the marriage that makes people better drivers, especially with the divorce rate being >50% and rapacious Family Court ruining the lives of many.
You could also have a metric for income. If your income is over 100k, you're probably not a kid, and probably not really old because you're still working. That's not WHY you're in a lower risk category. It's the same principle and the same statistical sleight-of-hand. The income metric simply creates a natural group selection that filters out the highest-risk drivers. Same with the marriage question, but the marriage metric DOES actively discriminate against otherwise good drivers (on-balance) who but for no fault of their own aren't married or have made a choice not to marry. Penalizing someone on this choice should be unconstitutional when it comes to mandatory auto insurance.
We could easily establish real statistics for other private lifestyle choices that you'd probably take exception to, including but not limited to;
Your religion or lack thereof. Assume for the sake of argument that non-believers got the discount. Are you okay with that, assuming non-believers demonstrated a lower risk to actuaries? If not, why not? The question is not whether there is a risk difference, but whether this choice (though less of a choice than people think) should be used as a discriminatory metric for VEHICLE insurance. There's a slippery slope here too, of course. Where does it end, and where would you stop supporting discrimination based on lifestyle choices?
Having kids, having more than X number of kids, or having no kids at all (for any reason). Let's assume that child-free people got the discount, just so the majority here can understand the comparison a little more readily.
Whether you wear short pants on Fridays
Your diet and body mass index (for auto insurance, mind)
The color of the car you drive
Your political affiliation
The issue is not that there's a difference, but that your marital status is a personal choice and on balance those who are unmarried for any reason are being unfairly penalized. Of course you support this perk probably because you're probably married or are okay with this institution, just as you're framing my argument as one of simple bias (it's not). Hopefully your uncharitable framing of my argument is more clear when I flip the script against your argument.
One of the reasons I'm *not* married is because my gay friends could not always get married, but that's just one of the reasons. Others enjoy their marriage perks while some were discriminated against.
But you do understand that the laws have changed, and insurance companies have to conform to those laws. For instance, they can no longer ding you for a lapse in your coverage. They used to ding us hard for that were that the case. Regulation has to come from somewhere, and it sure won't come from the companies themselves.
Yes, but this is one state that no longer allows marital status discrimination for VEHICLE insurance. Same with the EU. Consider for a moment why that is.
Of course the market would handle this IF insurance companies are prohibited from discriminating based on marital status. There might be a company which doesn't, but can you name a single one? If there's a way to collect more money from some groups, they tend to do it until it's illegal. They're insurance companies after all. I think even Tesla discriminates based on marital status, but couldn't they refrain from doing this? If so, why don't they?
Similarly, there is no protection for opposite-sex cohabiting couples when it comes to partner coverage for health insurance, but some companies will cover your opposite sex cohabiting partner (not domestic partner) anyway. But, they CAN discriminate. Some or most forward-thinking companies choose not to. Ask me how I know this.
I understand why they collect the data they collect, BUT for the marital status exception that I take exception to.
You are clearly more passionate about this issue than I am, so uncle. As I said in my previous post, you’re entitled to your opinion, I simply disagree. And it’s ok if we disagree. Now, I don’t disagree with you Re the marriage penalty for auto insurance, I simply disagree on the need for the government to step in and regulate the industry’s use of that metric. Do I benefit from it? Of course I do, as I am married. And you don’t benefit from it because you have chosen not to get married. Ok? I also get hit with the marriage penalty re income taxes and you don’t. Something tells me you’re coming out ahead of me on that exchange.
Now some of your other comparisons are quite interesting. For instance you ask if they should be able to price insurance based on income level, and to that I say sure they should. If they have some data that shows one income group vs another present a higher risk to insure, then it makes sense. AFAIK they sort of do this already by factoring one’s credit score into pricing, and there is likely at least a loose correlation between credit score and income level. You ask about religion, to which I say no, no, definitely not. There’s this thing called the Constitution that specifically forbids discrimination based on religion (ANY religion, not just mine), and I support the law of the land (ie The Constitution). Although one could make the case that pricing practices are not discrimination, and I would hear that argument. But if insurance companies did price based on religion it would offend most Americans because the concept of freedom of religion is part of our culture. And all it would take is one company offering insurance without using that metric for a bunch of people (likely, me) to jump ship. So if enough people believe as you do and begin to seek out an alternative specifically because of the marriage penalty, the industry will be forced to change. Which brings us back to my main point, that we don’t need government to solve every problem or mild annoyance in our lives.
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
Pricing is based on profiling, and profiling is inherently discriminatory. That society has chosen to prevent discrimination of certain classes is a simple political decision, not a logical distinction.
I know that car insurance companies offer discounts to school kids with good grades. You can bet that the lawyers of the dumb but rich kids of society would make the same arguments that their clients are being treated unfairly, that being moderately dumb does not a risky driver make. To which the insurance company (in a rational environment) would simply show the risk differences. The reasons for the risk differences are irrelevant.
All I would ask of the practice is that it be a sound and rational business decision. If profile 'A' has 5% more costs to the company than profile 'B' then 5% more costly insurance for profile 'A' is reasonable. And for what it's worth, one solution to capricious profile choices is a more granular, multi-variate profile. More questions, unfortunately. It would seem obvious e.g. that an unmarried male with a long and safe driving record should be in the low risk driver pool. If he is not then the profiling is not working.
This is what actuarial science is all about. I understand @Spacep0d feels discriminated against, but somewhere in Washington, enshrined in some little folder, is a study in black and white of the statistical risk associated with unmarried and married individuals. None of us have to like it, but AAAA (Ask An Actual Actuary) about how all of these things factor into insurance pricing and they can explain it at length.
There are so many factors involved, all of which are discriminatory in some manner or another. For example, many moons ago, I moved from one county in NJ to another. My insurance dropped by half - HALF! - because I moved my residence 15 miles. It's all based on perceived risk to the insurance company - by moving counties, they assume the risk of loss is smaller.
I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but it's how the current process works. We all know the saying "prior performance does not guarantee future results" - actuarial science is the insurance industry's attempted hedge against that.
Circci
Member
Thats insane, I had a 2018 C63 AMG before I bought my 2020 M3 LR. When I had my AMG my premium was almost double what it is now, and my insurance on the tesla is the lowest of any car in the family. #LibertyMutual
Spacep0d
Active Member
Just for reference, emphasis is mine;
EEOC
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission website
"Civil Service Reform Act
The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (CSRA), as amended, also protects federal government applicants and employees from discrimination in personnel actions (see "Prohibited Personnel Practices" http://www.opm.gov/ovrsight/proidx.asp) based on race, color, sex, religion, national origin, age, disability, marital status, political affiliation, or on conduct which does not adversely affect the performance of the applicant or employee -- which can include sexual orientation or gender identity."
I'm showing that marital status is increasingly a protected lifestyle choice not subject to discrimination, starting with employment and eventually it will trickle down to auto insurance pricing (and other areas, such as healthcare sharing with another individual).
It doesn't have to be illegal for it to be wrong. Eventually marital status won't be considered in auto insurance rates. The prohibited use of this metric when determining individual auto insurance rates in Massachusetts and the EU are just shots across the bow.
EEOC
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission website
"Civil Service Reform Act
The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (CSRA), as amended, also protects federal government applicants and employees from discrimination in personnel actions (see "Prohibited Personnel Practices" http://www.opm.gov/ovrsight/proidx.asp) based on race, color, sex, religion, national origin, age, disability, marital status, political affiliation, or on conduct which does not adversely affect the performance of the applicant or employee -- which can include sexual orientation or gender identity."
I'm showing that marital status is increasingly a protected lifestyle choice not subject to discrimination, starting with employment and eventually it will trickle down to auto insurance pricing (and other areas, such as healthcare sharing with another individual).
It doesn't have to be illegal for it to be wrong.
Eventually marital status won't be considered in auto insurance rates. The prohibited use of this metric when determining individual auto insurance rates in Massachusetts and the EU are just shots across the bow.
Spacep0d
Active Member
Sure, and I appreciate our civil discourse here. Of course, we can disagree but all I can do is present my most cogent and well-supported argument in favor of my position.
Gotcha, well it looks like we mostly agree then. Where we disagree is perhaps how this reform should take place. I don't see an impetus for insurance companies to police themselves out of free money, just like health insurers tend to select for the healthy and wealthy. There has to be oversight from some external source and I believe it must carry the rule of law with it, or there should be limits that dovetail with existing protected classes. Marital status when it comes to employment (see end of post or my other post) is a protected class in Equal Opportunity Employment. It just hasn't trickled down to health insurance or car insurance yet, but things are changing as people get married later, and more people than ever are eschewing the institution entirely.
But, why should the government have ANY interest in penalizing or rewarding what should be a private commitment between you and another romantic interest? I don't think government should be recognizing marriage at all, but that's another conversation. It sure as heck shouldn't be penalizing me for my choice not to marry, especially with auto insurance or even health insurance.
Yes, but my point is that you can easily show risk differences between protected classes based on lifestyle choice which should be private. What if atheists got a discount for being lower risk? I think it would be very obvious how wrong this would be for theists, don't you think? This is the most obvious way I can show a parallel between a protected class (religion or lack thereof) and marital status. Also, the EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) for the U.S. already lists 'marital status' as a protected class that cannot be discriminated against, whether you're married or not (your status). It certainly should not be used to penalize unmarried people, who but for no fault of their own are charged roughly 5% more for having lost a spouse or have found themselves unable or unwilling to marry for any reason.
Yes but now you see, religion and marital status are BOTH protected classes for the EEOC. The auto insurance industry (and health insurance too) simply have not caught up yet, nor has the understanding on this topic from most people (where marriage is still a majority status, for now).
In other words, in employment you cannot discriminate based on marital status or religion. Likewise, nobody should support this discrimination in auto or health insurance either. Age as a factor for auto insurance? Of course, because age directly relates to experience assuming that one has been driving all of these years, which is why insurance companies don't just ask about age but driving experience too (in years).
Marital status is just not recognized by most people to be a protected class, but it should be and is in some areas (employment). It's still wrong even if people don't recognize it, and even if it's not yet illegal to discriminate (in some areas) on the basis of marital status. Lots of ideas were 'legal' before it was recognized that the implementation of those ideas was unethical, from the petty to the egregious.
Of course, one should not be penalized for one's religion or non-religion when it comes to auto insurance, but marital status is really no different and for many this is a religiously-motivated event anyway. For some, religion is why they refuse to marry, but there is a constellation of reasons and they don't matter. It's a private lifestyle choice and should be a protected class not just in equal employment opportunities (EEOC) but also with auto and health insurance.
Maybe Tesla doesn't discriminate based on this metric? I need to call them and just ask directly. I don't think there's a law forcing companies to use this metric, just that nearly all of them do. Believe me, I tried to find the one (before Tesla) that didn't. I was unsuccessful.
Yes, but you mentioned your support for the Constitution and presumably the Bill of Rights. Marital Status is a protected status with the EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) and should also be a protected class in auto and health insurance. You're relying on the free market for marital status discrimination reform, but like religion or lack thereof, I'm saying this should be a protected class that no company can legally discriminate against or penalize either way.
Good convo so far, and my apologies to everyone for the slight derail but it's an important tangential topic I suppose.
Reference items:
EEOC
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission website
Home | U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
"Civil Service Reform Act
The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (CSRA), as amended, also protects federal government applicants and employees from discrimination in personnel actions (see "Prohibited Personnel Practices" http://www.opm.gov/ovrsight/proidx.asp) based on race, color, sex, religion, national origin, age, disability, marital status, political affiliation, or on conduct which does not adversely affect the performance of the applicant or employee -- which can include sexual orientation or gender identity."
Last edited:
CyberGus
Not Just a Member
But is it another thread? lol
There is a significant legal difference between cohabitation and marriage, with the latter offering legal protection to people that have intertwined their lives, property, finances, and possibly children. I am also in a cohabitated relationship, and must take great care to ensure that the things we share in actuality are documented legally. (Which reminds me...I need a will)
Spacep0d
Active Member
UPDATE:
I called Tesla Auto Insurance. They use marital status as a factor, penalizing those who are unmarried for any reason. I thought they would be a leader in this regard. The rep explained that there is a risk difference, but again this is due to the natural age-filter that marital status creates and the rep agreed with this point. The very highest risk young people and the elderly will tend not to be married. The elderly lose their spouses (men usually dying earlier than women) or find themselves single for other reasons. The very young (especially in this day and age) are waiting longer to get married, if they get married at all....and this group seems to have the most affection for Teslas with the most buying years ahead.
Also, the Tesla rep mentioned that they can no longer discriminate by gender (sex) despite the risk factors being different between males and females. Men drive about 60% more than females, which is generally why we pay higher premiums. But, it's interesting that Tesla cannot discriminate by sex but can still discriminate by a lifestyle choice (marriage).
Anyway, this is why Constitutionally-protected classes with the full weight of law are needed, even for otherwise forward-thinking companies like Tesla.
I called Tesla Auto Insurance. They use marital status as a factor, penalizing those who are unmarried for any reason. I thought they would be a leader in this regard. The rep explained that there is a risk difference, but again this is due to the natural age-filter that marital status creates and the rep agreed with this point. The very highest risk young people and the elderly will tend not to be married. The elderly lose their spouses (men usually dying earlier than women) or find themselves single for other reasons. The very young (especially in this day and age) are waiting longer to get married, if they get married at all....and this group seems to have the most affection for Teslas with the most buying years ahead.
Also, the Tesla rep mentioned that they can no longer discriminate by gender (sex) despite the risk factors being different between males and females. Men drive about 60% more than females, which is generally why we pay higher premiums. But, it's interesting that Tesla cannot discriminate by sex but can still discriminate by a lifestyle choice (marriage).
Anyway, this is why Constitutionally-protected classes with the full weight of law are needed, even for otherwise forward-thinking companies like Tesla.
Spacep0d
Active Member
There shouldn't be a difference if the government shrinks and gets out of our sex lives. Government should stay out of my private romantic entanglements whether I'm cohabiting with my long-term girlfriend or calling it 'marriage'. Thankfully, no common law marriage in California. This asinine practice was eliminated in the 60s where I live, though I'm aware that it exists in various forms elsewhere.
True about the cohabiting thing and the need to create your own legal protection, will included. At least hospital visitation has been relaxed for unmarried partners, and we probably owe a debt to the gay community for that one.
You would not believe the battles we had with some large corporations trying to get partner coverage for or as an unmarried, cohabiting, opposite-sex partner. It was laughable. Thankfully, most forward-thinking companies are now opting to cover our live-in +1, even if they're allowed to discriminate against us as a non-protected class. This too will eventually resolve itself as more people are marrying later or not at all and I think auto insurance reform in this regard will be soon to follow.
Last edited:
some insurers are just very dense when it comes to Teslas... meaning the insurer somehow puts them into a very expensive category. Here in Texas Farmers Insurance couldn't get the premium down to anywhere near progressive... even after 2 calls and going back and forth with the agent.
Spacep0d
Active Member
My 2020 Tesla P3D- costs less to insurance with Tesla Insurance than my 2018 LEAF S did with State Farm!
It's about $30 less per month for the Tesla.
brucet999
Active Member
What are the ages of your household drivers?
My neighbor had the same experience as she is moving to Florida and found rates quoted on a 5-year old Model S 70 being more than twice what their Toyota pickup would cost and twice what other Tesla owners in Tampa were paying. Turns out that they have a 19-year old son living at home and even a Model S 70 was classified as too much of a performance car with a young male driver.
