Well? | PurplePillDebate

[–]PPD-AngelIncel Ban Count: 9[M] [score hidden] 7 years ago stickied comment (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Civil_Seaworthiness 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]abaxeron✴️Indian Programmer1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]crackrocksteady7Jason tell me what you're chasing1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]crackrocksteady7Jason tell me what you're chasing0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Civil_Seaworthiness -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]abaxeron✴️Indian Programmer0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

'a cheap car for every man'

LITERALLY NO-ONE (except you) said anything about 'cheap cars for every man'. If you want emotional straw fight instead of staying on topic (which is acceptability of discrimination in insurance), I'll just start screaming about evil baby-killing pills covered by female health insurance. And I bet 20 bucks it'll fly right over your head, and you'll mock me by pretending that you thought I was serious.

But on a side note, you won't be happy in your public transportation utopia, with a bunch of builders, electricians, plumbers, and painters all now travelling next to you and carrying their tools, uniforms, and sometimes materials with them. They won't be happy about it either, because it'll kill their backs in a couple years.

Men don't need assistance. Men need freedom. And to get this freedom, men need women to become self-reliant; at least single women.

[–]Civil_Seaworthiness 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

You sound really upset about this. I think public transportation is very important, and I'd be proud to ride the subway next to anyone else trying to get to work. I think society works best when everyone has a right to live and everyone has access to a way to get to work.

OP asked 'why is the situation like this'? I said 'because lawmakers are beginning to value the right to life over insurance companies' right to maximize profits, but at the moment the 'equal-opportunity right to drive' does not take precedence over insurance companies' right to maximize profits'. Lawmakers are acting to preserve equal access to healthcare, and if someone thinks they should take the same action to preserve equal access to car insurance, that's a question of personal values.

You made a variety of statements in response to my comment that didn't make a lot of sense. Driving is a means of sustenance? So is walking, but there are no sidewalks in my neighborhood because the HOA successfully convinced local lawmakers that 'the right to maximize property values' supersedes my right to safely access my means of sustenance (walking to the bus stop). These trade-offs happen all the time. If you want to make a great case for 'higher insurance rates as barrier to the right to the means of life', you're going to have to do a better job of proving that cars are the only way to access sustenance, because otherwise people like me will suggest alternatives, like public transportation, as other ways to access sustenance, and then you'll feel upset.

Ignoring chronic pain is lethal, and men shouldn't be forced by societal conditions and expectations to do it. They should be able to take a bus or subway to the nearest hospital and see a doctor without fear of bankruptcy if they learn the cause of the pain is lung cancer, as women currently can and do much more frequently.

You are the only person here who is upset.

[–]abaxeron✴️Indian Programmer0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

the HOA successfully convinced local lawmakers that 'the right to maximize property values' supersedes my right to safely access my means of sustenance (walking to the bus stop) ... If you want to make a great case for 'higher insurance rates as barrier to the right to the means of life', you're going to have to do a better job of proving that cars are the only way to access sustenance, because otherwise people like me will suggest alternatives, like public transportation, as other ways to access sustenance, and then you'll feel upset.

Some jobs require carrying a bunch of stuff with you - often not as much to require a full-sized truck, but just enough to require a car. Nearly every single one of them is male-dominated. I provided 4 examples of such jobs. You ignored them all, essentially ignoring my argument, and went on essentially saying "lol u triggerd".

lawmakers are beginning to value the right to life over insurance companies' right to maximize profits, but at the moment the 'equal-opportunity right to drive' does not take precedence over insurance companies' right to maximize profits'

"Not forcing men to subsidize your healthcare" isn't equal to "no right to life".

Ignoring chronic pain is lethal

Don't ignore it. "Not forcing men to subsidize your healthcare" isn't equal to "ignoring chronic pain".

I did a brief Googling that pointed out that in the US, insurance companies are free to charge extra off of smokers (mostly men) but not obese people (mostly women). I'm sure it's just a coincidence as well. Also, federally-mandated Medicaid benefits include assistance in tobacco cessation.................... for pregnant women.

By the way, I'm not the US citizen; so I have absolutely no reason to be upset about whatever happens half a continent and one ocean away from me.

[–]Civil_Seaworthiness -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Wait, so you don't think we should subsidize the risk posed by insuring each others' healthcare but do think we should subsidize the risk imposed by insuring each others' cars? They're fundamentally different things, so that's not impossible, but reflects some values I can't say I share. I think the right to transportation is worth defending; I also think that cars aren't a viable option for long-term transportation and that you're picking an irrational hill to die on, here, as insurance pricing differential is far from the only factor contributing to the financial inaccessibility of car-specific transportation.

People deserve to be alive at the expense of insurance companies' profit margins, and lawmakers currently agree with me. If you believe that people deserve to own cars at the expense of insurance companies' profit margins, we agree on that, as well, though I think that lawmakers could do more to increase access to transportation by improving public transportation infrastructure.

If you don't have a reason to be upset, chill. If you want to post scary-italics-ellipses gynocentricity conspiracy theories about why it's a health and economic benefit, on sum, to men and women, to reduce smoking in pregnant women, that's fine, but I'm not interested in arguing with someone who has no interest in discussing the fundamental philosophical question at work here: what can we convince insurance companies/the public to value more than insurance companies' profits?

Life? ...sort of. Independent car ownership? Not so far.

[–]abaxeron✴️Indian Programmer0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Wait, so you don't think we should subsidize the risk posed by insuring each others' healthcare but do think we should subsidize the risk imposed by insuring each others' cars?

No; my concerns are with methods and consistency.

Even if I agree for the sake of the argument that we (well; you, Americans) need more government to have more justice in one and only one type of insurance which just oh so randomly happened to be virtually the only type of insurance predominantly affecting women - we're still left with this justice applied inconsistently - such as charging smokers more than non-smokers (despite smoking being both an addiction and a self-destructive behavior), but not charging obese people more than people of normal weight (despite obesity being an indicator of both bad food intake patterns and lack of excercise - i.e. two bad patterns of behavior).

But of course, pointing out that all those inconsistencies result in a money flow in one and the same direction - is just a conspiracy theory.

Since the American government already subsidizes medical insurance, it theoretically could subsidize it with taxes on inheritance. Instead, it subsidizes it with taxes on income (even if they're technically listed as payroll taxation). But I'm also sure that it's just a conspiracy that inheritance predominantly benefits women, while incomes are earned predominantly by men.

And something tells me that insuring proper healthcare for women could be sufficiently achieved just by raising women's retirement age in accordance with their longer lifespan and lower workplace participation rates.

Don't get me wrong; I'm not some right-wing nutjob who faps on the fantasy of seeing poor people dying on the streets. I've got two relatives dependent on medical assistance for the rest of their days (and by "dependent" I mean "lack of assistance would cut their lifespan to 3 months"); and I'm really fond of them and want the rest of their days to be long, happy, and painless. What I am worried about - is how much freedom I must be stripped of to provide long, happy, and painless days to people who either don't care about my freedom, or openly hate me, and want me profiled, in prison, dead, or even castrated.

insurance pricing differential is far from the only factor contributing to the financial inaccessibility of car-specific transportation.

Absolutely; I was about to say that expensive insurance probably makes cars cheaper, so, your equation of 'cheaper insurance' with 'cheaper cars' made no sense; I ommitted it to make the comment shorter.

People deserve to be alive at the expense of insurance companies' profit margins

Then the law that forced insurance companies to charge men and women equally despite women consuming astonishingly more healthcare goods and services - should have instead forced the companies to discolse and limit their profit margins, no? I must admit that I'm not familiar with the regulation itself; has it actually resulted in lower profit margins for insurance companies, or has it functionally resulted in those profit margins simply landing on the shoulders of men?

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.8 points9 points10 points 7 years ago (26 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alth12Purple Pill Man6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Zanajin 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Salty-Bastardjust an excitable boy1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SkookumTreeWe are DONE with "cope"2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]kim-possible1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]kim-possible1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]kim-possible3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

If that was true then rates would've went down after Obamacare mandated routine tests instead of going up.

I think you're missing the part where a) Obamacare is a conservative and patchwork approach to healthcare, b) rates are not the measure of cost, c) you've only had most of the program for four years, d) rates are partly going up in response to uncertainty about ACA continuing due to Trump and Republican efforts to repeal and d) the US is not the only place where healthcare exists for comparison. Your one little data point doesn't actually reflect the larger picture.

Fuck other people who take from me to find their personal life choices.

Ah yes. I too hate that my taxes go to roads I don't drive on and schools for children I don't have and subsidies for companies I don't work for and a military for a country that is unlikely to be attacked in my lifetime, etc. etc. We are all living together on this planet. I'm not sure why you consider it such a radical idea that we should (in the most broad sense) care about other people.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]kim-possible0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]kim-possible2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]0 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]kim-possible2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]0 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]poppy_bluAARP sent me a birthday card0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]poppy_bluAARP sent me a birthday card-1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.-1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]UnconfidenceSocial Anarchist - BP9 points10 points11 points 7 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]Eastuss༼ つ ▀̿_▀̿ ༽つ2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]UnconfidenceSocial Anarchist - BP0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Eastuss༼ つ ▀̿_▀̿ ༽つ-1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]CanadianAsshole1[S] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]UnconfidenceSocial Anarchist - BP2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

By your logic, discrimination would be ok in any case that does not involve someone's physical health or safety.

Provided that a noticeable difference in cost or type of service along those divisions is proven, then yes. I'm in sort of a tricky predicament with this though, because while I agree that some people should be able to make such assessments when statistically proven, I also think that specifically insurance should be prohibited from charging anything but a flat rate for any given policy, regardless of who is getting it, same as loans and other financial dealings. So while I think it's okay for, say, a barber shop to generally exclude women on the basis that the normal demands of women and men with regard to hair styling is entirely different and requires a different skillset, I'd actually agree with you that insurance companies shouldn't be allowed to discriminate by gender. Of course, the men's barber shop shouldn't turn down a woman who wants a crew cut, but in general targeting a specific gender or excluding a specific gender from your targeting isn't necessarily wrong when there's a valid criterion for doing so.

[–]crackrocksteady7Jason tell me what you're chasing1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Mr_SmoogsThe 2nd most obnoxious poster here-1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]chloapsoap2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]kim-possible1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]chloapsoap0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]goatismycopilotPurple Pill Woman3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]goatismycopilotPurple Pill Woman1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]goatismycopilotPurple Pill Woman3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]goatismycopilotPurple Pill Woman-1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]goatismycopilotPurple Pill Woman0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ElonMuskForPrison5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (37 children) | Copy Link

[–]crackrocksteady7Jason tell me what you're chasing2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (32 children) | Copy Link

[–]ElonMuskForPrison4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (31 children) | Copy Link

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin🔪Yeetus that Feetus🔪6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (25 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheBookOfSeilCuckleberry Finn1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]poppy_bluAARP sent me a birthday card1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheBookOfSeilCuckleberry Finn0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]poppy_bluAARP sent me a birthday card0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheBookOfSeilCuckleberry Finn0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

The cost to get antibiotics at your PCP's office, even at an urgent care walk in, pales in comparison to the cost to use the ER to get them

Okay? Sooooo again, universal health care mostly benefits the people that can’t really afford healthcare anyway. I don’t see that as a problem with healthcare, per se, but more of a problem with being able to exploit the system, which ends up screwing everyone else because someone has to pay for it. Maybe hold those people accountable for their own debts so they’re not encouraged to keep going back?

When an insured patient doesn't pay the bill from an visit, a hospital by law can recoup the cost from the state -- meaning you.

Do you mean an uninsured patient? If so, that’s a simple fix. Hold them accountable for their debt or deny service until they’ve paid.

Insurance also rewards you for preventive care and encourages better management of chronic conditions (which drasically reduces those ER visits).

Sounds like everyone should just be paying for their own healthcare then because they’re encouraged to be responsible for their lifestyles.

[–]poppy_bluAARP sent me a birthday card0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheBookOfSeil1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

It benefits the taxpayers by reducing the cost of unnecessary emergency care reimbursed by tax dollars,

It doesn’t benefit “the taxpayers.” It benefits those who go the ER for unnecessary reasons. The taxpayers are the ones supporting these people, for the third time.

reducing the cost of lost productivity by workers from sick days,

Are you trying to say that people won’t be sick or miss work if everyone has universal healthcare?... because that is just wrong.

eliminates the burden on businesses to carry the insurance system, etc

Ignoring the fact that people getting injured on the job will probably end up costing the taxpayers more in the long run due to having to adjust taxes to reflect these incidences, the costs would be astronomical and that would end up burdening the lower working class who likely can’t afford healthcare anyway. Sure, they got healthcare, but now they don’t have car insurance/electricity/running water/food/etc.

Healthier people are better for society and cost the system far less.

Yeah, and personal health is the individual’s responsibility, not everyone else’s. I’m not going to support other people’s unhealthy lifestyles, and I don’t see how anyone who supports universal healthcare rationalizes that it will fix something.

To understand this you have to be able to view it from a system perspective rather than an individual perpsectve and I realize conservatives are incacpable of doing that -- but just try.

The irony in liberalism is that it claims to do things for “the good of society,” when all liberals are crying for is free stuff and less personal responsibility. Liberal views don’t often line up with reality.

[–]poppy_blu1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Stop being a literalist and listen to me.

You’re paying for it either way.

You pay for maintenance of roads, whether or not you drive on them. If I told you contractor A cost $10 million a year and contractor only cost $2 million, would you say, let’s go with contractor B? Or say fuck it we don’t need roads?

Are you trying to say that people won’t be sick or miss work if everyone has universal healthcare?

I’m saying sick days costs the economy billions and healthy people take fewer sick days. People who have insurance are more likely to get preventive care and manage their chronic conditions. They’re healthier.

’m not going to support other people’s unhealthy lifestyles

You do, whether you like it or not. But we’re not talking about unhealthy lifestyles. We’re talking about not being able to afford to go to the doctor. The purpose of going to get regular check ups is for your doctor to screen you for problems you might not know you have. To help you manage your conditions so you don’t get sicker. To give you a flu shot so you don’t get the flu in the first place. To give you a mammogram so you catch the cancer in stage 1 when it’s far easier and less expensive to treat. Are you following me?

Getting regular health care is actually the definition of personal responsibility. But you can’t cure or treat everything with willpower. That’s where health care comes in. And when people don’t have access to it, they’re not as healthy.

You don’t want people to have access to what will get and keep them healthier because you think they don’t deserve the same access as you?

What if your employer decided to drop your health insurance? You’d be in the same boat.

[–]TheBookOfSeil1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You’re paying for it either way.

You pay for maintenance of roads, whether or not you drive on them.

Paying for what either way? Paying for roads doesn’t equal paying for universal healthcare for everyone in the US.

If I told you contractor A cost $10 million a year and contractor only cost $2 million, would you say, let’s go with contractor B? Or say fuck it we don’t need roads?

What does this have to do with..... anything?....

I’m saying sick days costs the economy billions and healthy people take fewer sick days. People who have insurance are more likely to get preventive care and manage their chronic conditions. They’re healthier.

This is like saying “Smoking weed is healthier than smoking cigarettes,” or “Vaping is healthier than smoking.” Just because someone is “healthier” when they have insurance doesn’t translate to them being “healthy” at all. “Preventative care” begins way before getting in the car to go to your doctor’s appointment.

You do, whether you like it or not. But we’re not talking about unhealthy lifestyles. We’re talking about not being able to afford to go to the doctor. The purpose of going to get regular check ups is for your doctor to screen you for problems you might not know you have.

Regular checkups once or twice a year for preventative care shouldn’t be breaking the bank for anyone.

To help you manage your conditions so you don’t get sicker. To give you a flu shot so you don’t get the flu in the first place. To give you a mammogram so you catch the cancer in stage 1 when it’s far easier and less expensive to treat. Are you following me?

Yes, and this mostly applies when you’re not really that healthy, right? I haven’t had a flu shot in almost 8 years. Guess what? No flu. I must be one lucky person.

Getting regular health care is actually the definition of personal responsibility. But you can’t cure or treat everything with willpower. That’s where health care comes in. And when people don’t have access to it, they’re not as healthy.

Wrong. Knowing what is good for your body and adopting a “healthy” lifestyle for you is the definition of personal responsibility. It is not the doctor’s responsibility to make you healthy with magic pills. It’s your responsibility to choose the right foods for you and to not continually put unhealthy foods and substances in your body until problems develop from ignorance and poor choices.

That’s why I’ll never vote for universal healthcare. It will enable people to be ignorant and unhealthy.

You don’t want people to have access to what will get and keep them healthier because you think they don’t deserve the same access as you?

I pay for my access. That’s how it works. We pay for goods and services to be provided to us. Why should I pay for everyone else to be able to have something when it would likely cost me less throughout the course of my life if I just paid for myself? They get what they pay for, and so do I.

What if your employer decided to drop your health insurance? You’d be in the same boat.

Yes, I would. Luckily, I eat and spend my money responsibly so in the event that I do have a health issue, I won’t have a problem paying for it. Plus, if my employer were to drop my health insurance, there are plenty of other insurance companies I could speak with to get coverage.

[–]poppy_blu1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Paying for what either way? Paying for roads doesn’t equal paying for universal healthcare for everyone in the US.

Went right over your head. You don't do analogies, huh?

This is like saying “Smoking weed is healthier than smoking cigarettes,” or “Vaping is healthier than smoking.” Just because someone is “healthier” when they have insurance doesn’t translate to them being “healthy” at all.

I have literally no idea how this is at all relevant to the point you quoted. Do you even know what preventive means?

Regular checkups once or twice a year for preventative care shouldn’t be breaking the bank for anyone.

LOL. Has no idea how much doctor's charge per hour. But then you also have no idea how the human body works. Just eat healthy to get rid of that brain tumor or that spinal injury or that broken leg.

Knowing what is good for your body and adopting a “healthy” lifestyle for you is the definition of personal responsibility.

Why do believe it's an either or choice? WHo the fuck is saying you shouldn't make healty choices. GTFOH with your strawman.

But NO ONE, even the healthiest of people, will get through this life never needing medical care. You will too.

I pay for my access. That’s how it works.

Because you have a job. What if you lost that job or your employer decided to drop your health plan? You'd be in the same boat, woudn't you?

Why should I pay for everyone else to be able to have something

Do you own a home? Do you take the mortgage interest deduction on your taxes every year?

Did you go to public school for 12 years?

Did you attend a public university or take out loans?

Ever take public transit? Fly on a plane (your tax dollars pay for air safety and traffic control).

I could go on, but instead I'll just wait for that refund to me and all the other taxpayers who paid for you to have those things.

Plus, if my employer were to drop my health insurance, there are plenty of other insurance companies I could speak with to get coverage

Can't wait to see the sticker shock when you ask for a quote for an individual plan. Even with the ACA, a comparable plan would cost you FAR more.

But then you won't. Cause you eat healthy and no one who ever ate healthy got cancer or was injured in an accident ever in the history of the world.

[–]ElonMuskForPrison1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]crackrocksteady7Jason tell me what you're chasing4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]ElonMuskForPrison1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]highspergymeinvoluntary fuckboy2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago* (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]ElonMuskForPrison-1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]highspergymeinvoluntary fuckboy4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ElonMuskForPrison1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]crackrocksteady7Jason tell me what you're chasing1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]ElonMuskForPrison1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]crackrocksteady71 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ElonMuskForPrison1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]blackedoutfastRed Pill Man0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]crackrocksteady7Jason tell me what you're chasing0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin🔪Yeetus that Feetus🔪0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]crackrocksteady7Jason tell me what you're chasing2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]ElonMuskForPrison0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]crackrocksteady7Jason tell me what you're chasing0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ElonMuskForPrison0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]CanadianAsshole1[S] -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]ElonMuskForPrison5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]CanadianAsshole1[S] 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ElonMuskForPrison1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]legaladvicequest1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]wekacuckstupid buggy bot0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]CanadianAsshole1[S] -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]chloapsoap2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]yaseedog will hunt1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Wandos7naproxen sodium0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]yaseedog will hunt0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AutoModeratorBiased against humans[M] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]jax006 1 points1 points1 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]PPD-AngelIncel Ban Count: 90 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Eartherry0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

The price is determined by an algorithm used to calculate risk. The higher the risk, the higher the price.

Statistically, men tend to drive faster than women, making them more of a risk. Except if he's married or has children as having someone to live for makes a person more careful. In that scenario he'd be paying less than a single woman with no children.

Red/orange cars also mean higher prices as they make people aggressive and tend to get hit more often. People who drive sports cars also automatically have to pay more.

This isn't considered discrimination because gender isn't a protected class. Ages aren't protected either. That's why only seniors qualify for senior discounts. But why are there women's fitness centers?? They applied for club status, making them able to exclude anyone they want, the same as like a country club.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]CanadianAsshole1 1 points1 points1 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Eartherry2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]TheBookOfSeilCuckleberry Finn1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DesignerDebates3 small children in a trench coat[M] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Title	Well?
Author	CanadianAsshole1
Upvotes	5
Comments	113
Date	December 5, 2018 3:09 AM UTC (7 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/a385ed/well/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/well.258721 https://theredarchive.com/post/258721

Comments