Seguro uni-sexo? ridículo.

“ON TUESDAY the European Court for Human Rights ruled that insurers in the EU can no longer charge different premiums for men and women.”

Mais uma vez os burocratas europeus conseguem inventar um direito completamente desligado da realidade. Faço minhas as palavras do artigo do The Economist:

“The judgment is philosophically ignorant and practically almost pointless… As far as auto insurers are concerned, the genders are not equal, as there is overwhelming evidence that women are safer drivers than men (especially the young, high testosterone variety). They therefore charge them lower premiums. Unisex rates may abstractly be good for sexual equality, but they are unfair to the safer sex.

Life assurers can also scarcely fail to notice that women live longer. And health insurers will wonder how to calculate unisex rates for the risk of breast or prostate cancer. Men and women are different enough by nature that it seems fair to charge them different rates for life assurance and pensions (while discrimination on the basis of skin colour or religion would still plainly be unfair).”

Não é possível mais clareza que isto, tentam criar uma justiça inexistente criando uma injustiça clara e óbvia. Obviamente, sendo do sexo masculino, vou beneficiar. Ou se calhar não, o mais certo é começarmos todos a pagar mais. Vai na volta começam a dizer que é “injusto” pagar mais seguro por ter fumado, visto que a culpa é da sociedade, ou qualquer coisa do género.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/03/insurance_and_rights?fsrc=scn/tw/te/mc/samesexbathrooms