但是限制投保人去思考设置险金的风险能力会引发很多问题。保险公司说剔除性别这一相关因素，实际等于给每个人的保单加上了一笔不确定的保险金。个人特征的细节越多，所费越高。比如保险金金额的提高会让更少的人节约钱来买养老险，法院的裁决将以无益于任何人而告终。 from the print edition | Finance and Economics
THERE were howls of protest from the insurance industry when the European Court of Justice ruled on March 1st that a person’s sex should not be used to set insurance policies. It will be expensive for some, argued insurers: no more cheap premiums for careful female drivers, and lower annuities for shorter-lived men.
The ruling has unleashed a lively debate on whether actuarial science, which assesses factors such as life expectancy and the propensity to smash cars, could not just as easily use other data besides sex to calculate likely outcomes: eating and driving habits, say, or location and wealth. Actuaries already factor in some of these things, but sex is a simpler proxy—and for things like longevity, a very well-established one.
The court’s advocate-general has argued that, given social changes, risk models can no longer clearly be linked to a person’s sex. This was a “kind of substitute criterion” for other features and was incompatible with the principle of equal treatment for men and women, she said.
The case was brought by Test-Achats, a Belgian consumer group, arguing that a 2004 European Union directive on equal treatment in goods and services was flawed: a pesky proviso, Article 5(2), had unreasonably given states the option to allow the continued use of sex-based actuarial data to set risk premiums. The judges agreed with Test-Achats and abolished Article 5(2). From December 21st 2012 all new insurance contracts will have to comply with the directive.
Actuaries say that using other factors in their calculations besides sex is perfectly possible. There may be a shock to motor premiums for young women in Britain, but in continental Europe many insurers base their premiums on the car and not the driver. Belgium has had unisex car insurance since 2007 without suffering an underwriting pile-up. Test-Achats says that young people’s initial premiums in Belgium converged, but that the no-claims-bonus system means that good drivers of either sex enjoy reductions in later years.
Soothing words from Belgium are not likely to calm the mood in Britain. The big issue is pensions: annuities are far more common in Britain than elsewhere in Europe. A supplementary pension-savings scheme in Germany, the Riester-Rente, has been sex-neutral since 2006. Insiders say that demand by men for Riester pensions has not slackened but they wonder whether that would be true in the absence of state subsidies.
Pricing policies on the basis of characteristics that cannot be altered, like sex, seems unfair to many. A line has already been drawn in the case of genetic testing. Insurance companies in Britain agreed in 2005 that the predictive results of genetic tests should not be used to set certain insurance premiums. That is in keeping with the mutual nature of insurance, whereby many buyers put in more than they get out.
But restricting the ability of insurers to reflect risks in setting premiums causes problems. Insurance firms argue that removing sex as a rating factor will add an uncertainty premium to everyone’s bill. Using more detail on individuals’ characteristics will also add to costs. If higher premiums discourage people from saving up for an annuity, for example, the court’s judgment will end up helping no one.
但是限制投保人去思考设置险金的风险能力会引发很多问题。保险公司说剔除性别这一相关因素，实际等于给每个人的保单加上了一笔不确定的保险金。个人特征的细节越多，所费越高。比如保险金额的提高会让更少的人节约钱来买养老险，法院的裁决将以无益于任何人而告终。
no more cheap premiums for careful female drivers, and lower annuities for shorter-lived men.
行驶小心的女性再也没有便宜的保费，寿命相对较短的男性领到的养老金也会降低。
===
意思一样
寿命较短的男性＝＝本意是男性和女性作比，但这样表达会不会有男性vs男性的歧义（有的男性寿命长，有的短）？
女性谨慎驾驶，保费也勿想少缴（女性无法再享受因为驾驶谨慎而享受的保费优待，和男人缴纳一样的保费）；男性寿命较短，领到的养老金将会减少
The ruling has unleashed a lively debate on whether actuarial science, which assesses factors such as life expectancy and the propensity to smash cars, could not just as easily use other data besides sex to calculate likely outcomes: eating and driving habits, say, or location and wealth
精算学是一门评估各个因素定量风险问题的科学，比如预期寿命和撞车倾向。此裁决出后，立马激起了一场激烈的辩论：除了性别，精算学能不能像利用其他资料一样来轻而易举地计算可能结果：譬如饮食和开车习惯，或者所处的位置和拥有的财产。
这项裁决激起了一场轩然大波。精算学可以评估如预期寿命和出车祸的概率等要素，但人们对于精算学是否能够利用除性别之外的其它数据而同样简便地计算出可能的结果这个问题展开了激烈地辩论。其它数据指的是如饮食和开车习惯或居住地及拥有财产的多寡等等
＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝
数据：科学实验、检验、统计等所获得的和用于科学研究、技术设计、查证、决策等的数值。显然，饮食习惯和驾驶习惯……这些都不是“数值”＝＝建议统用“资料”
propensity＝＝The propensity theory of probability is one interpretation of the concept of probability. Theorists who adopt this interpretation think of probability as a physical propensity, or disposition, or tendency of a given type of physical situation to yield an outcome of a certain kind, or to yield a long run relative frequency of such an outcomePropensities are invoked to explain why repeating a certain kind of experiment will generate a given outcome type at a persistent rate（可能男女撞车的倾向/几率不一样；所以这里凸显的是sex范畴的东西＝＝life expectancy and the propensity to smash cars,下文随继提到sex之外的因素）
The ruling has unleashed a lively debate on whether actuarial science, 【which assesses factors such as life expectancy and the propensity to smash cars, 】could not just as easily use other data besides sex to calculate likely outcomes
这项裁定掀起了一场关于精算学的轩然大波。人们关注的是，精算学可评估诸如寿命和撞车倾向/几率这些要素，它是否可以像使用性别那样利用其他资料（诸如，饮食和驾驶习惯或居住地或财产数额）简易地计算出可能性结果的概率
Actuaries already factor in some of these things, but sex is a simpler proxy—and for things like longevity, a very well-established one.
精算师已经在其计算中将这些数据乘以一定的系数而考虑进去了，但对于计算如预期寿命这类要素，人们习惯将性别作为一个简单的替代值来考虑。
＝＝＝＝＝＝＝
factor in＝＝把xx作为因素考虑进入；take into account
精算师已将这些因素纳入到计算中，但是对于评估寿命这类要素，人们习惯/普遍把性别看作一个更为简单的替代衡量标准
The court’s advocate-general has argued that, given social changes, risk models can no longer clearly be linked to a person’s sex.
法院的法律总顾问争论说考虑到社会变化，保险的风险模型再也不能和一个人的性别明显的挂钩。
位欧洲法院护法顾问提出的观点是，考虑到社会变化，不能允许风险模型继续与一个人的性别建立明确的联系。
＝＝＝＝＝
clearly“没有限制的，无条件的；绝对的，不折不扣的，完全的，整整的”
不可继续/仍然将性别和风险模型直接挂钩
The case was brought by Test-Achats, a Belgian consumer group, arguing that a 2004 European Union directive on equal treatment in goods and services was flawed: a pesky proviso, Article 5(2), had unreasonably given states the option to allow the continued use of sex-based actuarial data to set risk premiums
此诉讼由比利时的消费者权益组织Test-Achats提出，他们争辩道一个2004年欧盟针对商品与服务发布的指令是错误的：让人心生恼怒的条文—-第5（2）条不合理地同意政府允许保险行业继续使用以性别为基础的精算资料来设定风险差额
这起诉讼案件的原告方是比利时的消费者权益组织Test-Achats，控告的是欧盟2004年发布的一项关于平等对待商品与服务的指令，这项指令带有附加条款5（2），这项条款给予欧盟各国政府选择权，由各国自行决定是否允许继续使用基于性别而得出的精算数据来设定保险费差价，原告认为这项指令由于这个附加条款而存在缺陷，会因此产生令人棘手的后果
＝＝＝＝＝＝＝
风险溢价(Risk premium)，是一个人在面对不同风险的高低、且清楚高风险高报酬、低风险低报酬的情况下，会如何因个人对风险的承受度影响其是否要冒风险获得较高的报酬，或是只接受已经确定的收入，放弃冒风险可能得到的较低报酬。 确定的收入与较高的报酬之间的差，即为风险溢价。
案件的原告方系比利时的消费者权益组织Test-Achats，该组织认为，欧盟2004年出台的一项关于在提供商品和服务时男女平等（平等对待男女）的指令存在缺陷/瑕疵：即条款5（2），该条款的不合理之处在于它规定欧盟各国有权选择继续根据基于性别而得出的精算数据来设定风险溢价
Actuaries say that using other factors in their calculations besides sex is perfectly possible
精算师说使用除性别以外的其他计算因素是完全可能的
精算师们认为，计算中使用除性别以外的其他数据完全可行。
＝＝＝＝＝＝
这样会不会像说在计算中本来已经使用性别作为一个因素，同时可使用其他因素？原意是不是比较偏向表达，撇开性别而使用其他数据
A supplementary pension-savings scheme in Germany, the Riester-Rente, has been sex-neutral since 2006.
德国的附加私人养老保险计划-- Riester-Rente，从2006年起对男女都是一视同仁。
德国实行的补充养老金制度叫“里斯特-养老金制”，从2006年起这种养老金与购买者的性别无关
＝＝
这项保险从2006开始便已实施男女投保人费率相同政策
|小黑屋|手机版|网站地图|关于我们|ECO中文网
( 京ICP备06039041号 ) 
