Equality and insurance

Re-posting as the original post seems to have been hacked.

Women young and old are being unfairly penalised in two recent examples of "gender equality". Apparently, European Union rules mean that insurance companies cannot discriminate by gender when setting premiums. This affects female drivers, especially young women, who have significantly lower risk than their male counterparts, and it affects life insurance premiums for women, who have longer life expectancy than men. In both cases, the insurance companies are no longer allowed to take these gender-based risk factors into account, which means that women effectively have to subsidise men. This is unfair, although it is being done in the name of gender equality.
I believe the EU are mistaken in this ruling because they misunderstand the raison d'être of insurance. Insurance spreads the cost of an event, be it a car accident or a premature death, so that the random few who suffer - accident victims or the families of people who die before their time - will be able to bear the cost. But it is reasonable that premiums should reflect the degree of risk and the expected payout, which is why we readily accept that we pay different car insurance premiums depending on our age, where we live and what type of car we drive. Why should gender not be on that list of factors, when there is a clearly demonstrable difference in risk between men and women? Because of a misguided notion of "equality" which simply does not apply to insurance. It does apply to other businesses, so hotels should not be allowed to discriminate against gay people, or pubs against soldiers, or shops against children (even if in some cases businesses can demonsrate increased risk of trouble, and therefore increased costs, from certain groups). The difference with insurance is that the calculation of risk is the basis of the whole business, and at the point of setting premiums, risk is risk regardless of its source.
In fact, I believe insurance companies should be allowed to go in the other direction and take into account anything which they consider to be a significant factor. Yes, anything, including race, religion, hair colour or shoe size. If governments wish to intervene, for example to subsidise a particular group which is more susceptible to certain diseases, then let them do so. That is the basis of the National Health Service, and it is a wonderful thing. And indeed, insurance companies too may wish to operate their own balancing mechanisms. But they should not be obliged to do so. They are making a business deal based on their best understanding of risk. Of course, it would be in everyone's interests for insurance companies and governments alike to do what they can to equalize risks downwards, for example by targeting safe driving and healthy living campaigns towards men. But they should not be forced to make women subsidise men!