Socialism's war on the real world, part 402 -- Insurance

Adam Freedman at Richochet reports:

The Advocate General of the European Union's highest court has declared that insurance companies shouldn't be able to charge men and women different rates for products.

The suit was brought by plaintiffs complaining about men having to pay more for insurance. Advocate General Juliane Kokott didn't deny that insurers charge different rates based on actuarial facts -- women live longer, drive more safely, etc. -- but nonetheless insists that such differential pricing violates the EU's anti discrimination codes. The Advocate General's opinion isn't binding on the court, but it's likely the court will follow her.

Here's a link to the Wall Street Journal article cited by Freedman (subscription required).

This is just another chapter in the Left's long war on real life. The Left's insistence that any unequal outcome (such as higher insurance rates for men than for woman) is evidence of discrimination leads to nonsense such as Kokott's report. Kokott admits that the insurers charge different rates due to actuarial facts, not discrimination. And yet, she finds that the insurers are in fact committing illegal discrimination. The maddening thing is that, as a matter of statutory interpretation, she may be correct -- the EU anti-discrimination codes may be so over broad as to outlaw decisions that are rational, well-intended, and probably essential to a well-functioning, non-discriminatory insurance regime.

What do the EUrocrats think is the alternative to insurers' setting rates according to actuarial statistics derived from real life differences in the way men and woman live? Do they imagine that banning the actuarial tables will result in lower rates for men? It seems to me that tailoring insurance rates according to how people actually live is a protection against racial or gender bias, in that they provide a way for insurers to base their rates on real life rather than assumptions.
It's not a perfect system (some men are very safe drivers, some women are very risky ones), but it allows for a degree of tailoring a system that ignores gender differences would not.

One hopes that the supergeniuses devising the Obamacare regs do not draw inspiration from Ms. Kokott.