In many ways, the insurance is a complex industry. In a way, however, is very easy: the insurance companies take money from insurance buyers must submit a set of sufficient funds to cover all insured losses, plus the cost to suppliers in the market, taxes and benefits.

Over time, insurance providers have developed a rational prediction of losses and setting premiums. On the basis of sound data on the factors that increase and reduce losses, the risk assessment system allows insurers to calculate a premium for each driver that presents the driver with a fair share price for the losses experience for the group whose risk profile is similar.

This system also generates a healthy competition among insurance providers with respect to premiums. This benefits the majority of drivers, which are not in high-risk categories, making insurance available at the lowest possible rates.

Insurers try to set premiums for each group will pay its fair share of the cost of insured losses, expenses and taxes. Most insurance companies are actively oppose efforts to force them to abandon the methods of pricing that are fair for insurance customers and insurance providers to help maintain its industry predictable, an important goal in any industry and an absolute survival issue of insurance.

One concern of insurers is that people understand the criteria relate to the loss of data and not to any prejudice. Unfortunately, in the social debate on these issues, my insurance providers sometimes seems to be the defense of social attitudes that others find offensive or objectionable. Insurers are not defending any kind of social attitude.

What we are advocating is the insurance mechanism itself, which is related to the cost of insurance for the insured risk. Cost-based pricing is based solely on actuarial data, which are completely blind to any form of social distinction.

Insurance companies are also concerned that prior support for social changes, people understand the implications of such changes. If gender has to be abandoned as a cost factor, for example, people have to accept that compensation is not between an unfair gender-related system and a fair system for both sexes. While it may be considered socially fair to charge the youth and women drivers the same rates for insurance hearing, is not actuarially fair.

Young ladies have to pay more in insurance fund premiums is justified by their losses. What is really at stake, then, is not a fair system against an unjust system, but how society chooses to define the term fair. Insurance companies believe that a system is truly just based on cost. Actuarial science, not social wisdom is the backbone of the insurance market.