Double standard in reporting gender based insurance costs

[4th law of robotics]

The EU recently passed a law banning sex based differences in premiums for car insurance. Men pay more on average so this means insurance rates for men will drop (or rise for women).

Recently the US passed a law banning the same thing for health insurance (not an issue in the EU). I was curious based on my on memories of the reporting, on how these two laws were received.

The top google hits on the US health insurance ruling were:


Gender Gap Persists in Cost of Health Insurance: Women still pay more than men for the same health insurance coverage, according to new research and data from online brokers.


Stop sex discrimination in health plan costs: Women face shocking disparities when buying health insurance on the individual market: In the vast majority of states, nearly all the best-selling plans charge women more than men for the same coverage, a discriminatory practice known as "gender rating."


Report: Health Insurance Gender Discrimination Costs Women $1 Billion a Year: According to a report from the non-profit National Women’s Law Center, the practice of health insurance companies charging women more than men for the same coverage is rampant, and costs women one billion dollars a year.


Gender Rating in the Individual Health Insurance Market: In most states, insurers are currently allowed to consider gender when setting premium rates in the individual health insurance market, where people buy coverage directly from insurance companies. As a result of “gender rating,” women are often charged more than men for the exact same coverage.


Health Insurance Prices For Women Set To Drop: Any woman who has bought health insurance on her own probably didn't find herself humming the old show tune, "I Enjoy Being a Girl." That's because more than 90 percent of individual plans charge women higher premiums than men for the same coverage, a practice known as gender rating.

. . . . and so on.

Now for the EU ruling:


Car insurance: why women face £300 rise in premiums: An EU ruling means insurance commpanies must end gender discrimination, and female drivers under 40 will be hit hardest


3 in 4 female drivers unaware of premium hikes: Many women are still unaware that their car insurance premiums are about to soar in the wake of new European legislation.

EU gender ruling means women face big car insurance increases: A new report shows that the difference in premiums between male and female drivers has now reached 41 per cent.


Diamond Reveals Young Women Unprepared for Change in Gender Law: In just over three months' time a new law comes into force which will prevent insurance companies from pricing premiums based on gender. This is likely to mean higher car insurance premiums for young women, but new research reveals the majority of those who will be most affected by the change are completely unaware of it.


Consumer group warns new EU law could spark 'gender price hike': A consumer organisation is advising motorists to "shop around" when new EU-wide insurance rules come into effect later this year. From 21 December, insurers will no longer be able to charge women lower car insurance premiums than men.

. . . and so on.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Not exactly subtle is it? Discrepancies that benefit men are discriminatory and harm women. They must be corrected at all costs and if that causes prices to rise for men well tough (actually do they? It was never mentioned in any of those first 5 articles, apparently the extra money just comes from no where).

Discrepancies that benefit women are just part of the natural order of things. Correcting them is a direct attack on women because it costs them more. If that means prices are lowered for men well who cares (actually are they? It was never mentioned in any of those last 5 articles, apparently the extra money just goes nowhere).

In every case the story is framed based on it's impact towards women (as a benefit or a harm) and any benefits or costs to men are barely (if at all) noted as perhaps a side issue.

It's interesting because that would indicate that women are the norm against which everything else is compared. Considering women as the norm and men as the other doesn't exactly smack of privilege to me. Well, not male privilege anyway.

If the situation were entirely reversed you can believe some people would be screaming about how unfair that characterization would be. As is they take their privilege in stride.

/if you don't believe me do your own google search. I typed in "health insurance premiums gender US" and "car insurance premiums gender EU". I didn't do anything to skew the results towards this outcome and I simply took the first 5 that came up on my feed. I would be curious how long it would take on a neutral search to find an article title claiming that men will suffer from the first or benefit from the second.