Double standard in reporting gender based insurance costs

[4th law of robotics]

4. In both cases people are charged more due to their gender

based on actuarial tables.

Women live longer (most health care costs appear late in life), get pregnant, receive more regular care, and are more likely to die slowly of a treatable (but expensive) ailment. From a purely cost effective basis (from the insurance companies) men are great: men are more likely to ignore some condition until it becomes untreatable then die quickly. Or to die of violence (again, quickly). So men are cheaper and thus are charged less.

The reverse holds true for auto-insurance: women are less likely to get in wrecks and when they do they tend to be low-speed and thus less costly.

In both cases the 'ideal' from the insurers point of view is someone who pays in regularly and rarely uses his/her insurance (and when they do in small amounts).

In both cases there is a gendered basis to the use of the insurance (it just flips between health and car).

Insurance companies don't hate men or women. They just love money. They're going by some very well collected data sets that have been dispassionately analyzed for decades. For them it really is "nothing personal". So they aren't out to get anyone really.

And I wasn't trying to compare the two (I debated adding that to the OP). Obviously they are different. However the reporting on them was interesting: both were simply comparing costs. And in that they are the same. The difference was in who was paying more. And the reporters dutifully pointed out when women were benefiting, or when women were suffering. One would think women were the entire population based on these reports,rather than half.