Posted On: June 16, 2006, 3:28 pm CDT

Posted By: bubba

Two earlier comments make my point. One is a long defense of insurance companies without any specific discussion of the two things in the article, education and occupation. The other is short, but jumps right to race and class warfare.
I was just trying to injetc some analysis and come up with an example where using occupation would be valid. Obviously if an insurance company has a nefarious motive for using any factors, like wanting to discriminate against a particular race or income level, that would be wrong.
I guess though, discussion and analysis are antiquated. It seems we stand firmly on one side or the other and either rush to defend, or throw some card such as race or class. No real thought, analysis, discussion, open mindedness, etc. on either side.

Maybe I'm just lost. Flame away.