Gay Man Says Aia Refused Him Insurance

[george]

Gay man says AIA refused him insurance

BANGKOK: -- A leading gay activist yesterday complained to the Constitution Drafting Council that American International Assurance (Thailand) had refused to give him life insurance because he was homosexual.

Natee Teerarojjanapongs, president of the Gay Political Group of Thailand, said he had tried to buy a policy from AIA sales agent Pachara Pipatwong on Sunday. However, after Pachara called to consult an AIA official who liaises with the company's agents, Natee was told he could not do so because he was gay.

"AIA is violating the 2007 Constitution, as it is restricting my rights. [Pachara] told me the official said AIA policy stated that it did not give homosexuals insurance," Natee said after speaking to the council, which met to monitor how the new Constitution was being implemented.

"I'm willing to let them give me a full health check if they think that I'm in a high-risk group. There's no reason to deny me and other gays or transvestites life insurance. We are educated like others in society. Not all of us engage in risky behaviour," he said.

Pachara said he felt personally that Natee should be able to buy a life-insurance policy and did not understand why he had been told to deny him one.

Natee said he already had life-insurance policies from Muang Thai Insurance and ING Insurance, for two and eight years respectively.

"All nine members of the council agreed with me that AIA is violating the Constitution. They also suggested I make a complaint to the Insurance Department on the issue, and I will certainly do so on Monday," Natee said, adding that he would file a case in the Administrative Court if the department did not help.

A senior AIA executive said yesterday that the company did not deny insurance to any group of people but considered each application individually.

"We consider [the application] by comparing the majority of people's risk with the individual's risk. We refuse life insurance only in cases such as when the person is over 65 or has a serious illness or a high-risk career," Sutti Rajitrangson, AIA senior vice president for administration, told The Nation.

High-risk applicants outside these categories are offered other options, like a higher premium, he said.

Wannapa Phetdee

-- The Nation 2007-11-03

[makescents]

It's a scientific fact that anal sex leads to a higher contraction rate than vaginal sex. Due mainly to the vast amount of white cells in the anus which HIV infects.

So purely in a business sense homosexuals are more likely to contract the disease, BUT they don't ask heterosexual couples if they engage in anal sex.

AIA have clearly put a foot wrong here by not allowing homosexuals to take out their policies. If after "lifestyle" questioning they found risks in certain groups of homosexuals then they have the right to refuse like they would any other.

Their press statements hardly justify this blatant discrimination...

[Ijustwannateach]

This is much more serious than that recent Novotel controversy- and it calls for some international attention if it doesn't get cleared up quickly. I can't imagine they have any kind of accurate actuarial tables for "gay vs. straight" considering how foggy it is who is gay and who is not.

"S"

[JacknDanny]

This is much more serious than that recent Novotel controversy- and it calls for some international attention if it doesn't get cleared up quickly. I can't imagine they have any kind of accurate actuarial tables for "gay vs. straight" considering how foggy it is who is gay and who is not.

"S"

Surely it is upto the Insurance Company who they insure?

It is a business after all!!

If somebody 'admits' they are gay, or it is 'obvious' that they are gay, then due to their sexual habits (unless they are abstaining) it is more likely that they will catch the virus HIV or other diseases. Therefore the Company knowing this, are trying to save themselves a massive potential payout.

The only way round this would be to either charge the gay person a higher premium, as they do with older people or persons who have already received treatment for a serious illness, OR make it known to the gay that the policy would not include Aids related diseases .

[Ijustwannateach]

I believe that legally they have to justify their statements based on actuarial tables. They can't just "suppose" the risk is higher based on medically inaccurate beliefs such as the one you have just stated (and you might be surprised to learn that due to better education on the matter, the biggest rise in NEW cases of HIV is among straights- enjoy!)

"S"

[JacknDanny]

I believe that legally they have to justify their statements based on actuarial tables. They can't just "suppose" the risk is higher based on medically inaccurate beliefs such as the one you have just stated (and you might be surprised to learn that due to better education on the matter, the biggest rise in NEW cases of HIV is among straights- enjoy!)

"S"

Kindly point me in the direction of this "new found stunning' evidence, backing up your statement

[Ijustwannateach]

Is the New York Times good enough for you?

In a development that reflects the changing demographic face of the AIDS epidemic in this country, heterosexual transmission accounted for the largest proportionate increase in AIDS cases reported last year, Federal health officials said yesterday.

Of course, that's in the States- in Africa, HIV has always been more a heterosexual thing.

To be fair, I can't prove that actuarial risk shouldn't be a little higher for a gay man based on HIV- but I doubt it's enough to be so significant statistically that you could justify simply refusing to insure someone because they were gay, no matter what country they lived in. And if the statistics are *that* strong, we should see insurance companies denying gay men coverage all over the planet- and we don't. This is prejudice/ignorance, pure and simple.

[JacknDanny]

Is the New York Times good enough for you?

In a development that reflects the changing demographic face of the AIDS epidemic in this country, heterosexual transmission accounted for the largest proportionate increase in AIDS cases reported last year, Federal health officials said yesterday.

Of course, that's in the States- in Africa, HIV has always been more a heterosexual thing.

To be fair, I can't prove that actuarial risk shouldn't be a little higher for a gay man based on HIV- but I doubt it's enough to be so significant statistically that you could justify simply refusing to insure someone because they were gay, no matter what country they lived in. And if the statistics are *that* strong, we should see insurance companies denying gay men coverage all over the planet- and we don't. This is prejudice/ignorance, pure and simple.

Steven, you are beginning to use arguements the same as Col Pyat (God bless his departure ), though to be fair to you at least you produce something in writing

The report you are showing though is from 1994!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And you have just took pieces out of it to help your arguement. Further in that report it also says that heterosexual people equate to 9% of Aids cases ONLY!!!

As I said in my original post, right now there are prejudices if you are above a certain age, if you have had illnesses etc etc. An Insurance Company is a business which intends to make money. Therefore they will refuse someone who is considered a higher risk, which Gay people obviously are.

I am not saying I agree with it, but I agree that Insurance Companies should be allowed to make the choice.

You stated that all Insurance Companies do not deny Gay men, so why does he not go to one of those companies and stop acting like a wuss?

[TAWP]

As a company they should have the right to deny anyone for whatever reason. he ofcourse has the right to make a big fuss about it and gain them negative PR.

What isn't alright is some rules or regulations telling companies what they cannot use as excuse to deny a insurance - where they of course will find another way to say the same thing but still be within the law.

[Ijustwannateach]

JnD^^

Well, your arguments are reasonable enough- I doubt either of us has enough information to prove the point either way- though I deeply resent the comparison to Colpyat!!!

Your last statement, though- when a really major corporation makes a decision on the basis of someone's sexuality, it's important to scrutinise that decision very carefully and challenge it if necessary. He's not being a wuss by speaking up, he's being very courageous and standing up publicly for all of us. It takes a brave, brave man to do that, even these days.

TAWP-

if they can find a legal way to say it, fine- let them see if they can "prove" someone's HIV risk level legally. Alternately, let them try to drop all HIV coverage for all people. That'll focus our minds on getting our governments to protect us.

[Plus]

The guy says he was refused to being gay but they probably thought that it was his particual lifestyle that made him not worth the extra risk. It was probably a judgement call that they backed with some other reason.

[astral]

This will be good news for all who have alternative sexual life styles,

like the Transvestites who will soon have new titles.

Then they can be discriminated against as well.

[lazeeboy]

This will be good news for all who have alternative sexual life styles,

like the Transvestites who will soon have new titles.

Then they can be discriminated against as well.

ladyboys are also refused insurance ,full stop .

[Jingthing]

Black people in the US have higher mortality rates from cancer. So the insurance companies are allowed to deny people insurance because they are black?

[ProThaiExpat]

Clearly, the HIV activist who did make the fuss has an agenda.

There are so many straights that feel that gays are not discriminated against, especially those who feel civil unions five gays equality, that publicity of this nature is good to point out the in-equality that does exist.

It would be so easy for AIA to publish the actuarial statistics that demonstrate that gays are a greater risk of death than the normal population and the issue would be dead in its tracks. It can't and so it won't.

[Jingthing]

Also consider, being gay does not mean you have anal sex or even any sex and doesn't say anything about your safe sex practices either way. A very large percentage of homosexuals do not enjoy anal sex, there are statistics to back this up. I know insurance people love statistics. It is a sexual orientation not a sex act.

Edited November 3, 2007 by Jingthing

[johna]

Natee said he already had life-insurance policies from Muang Thai Insurance and ING Insurance, for two and eight years respectively.

I guess Mr Natee has just seen Michael Moore's movie Sicko hence the need for a third insurance policie.

[benw10]

I believe that legally they have to justify their statements based on actuarial tables. They can't just "suppose" the risk is higher based on medically inaccurate beliefs such as the one you have just stated (and you might be surprised to learn that due to better education on the matter, the biggest rise in NEW cases of HIV is among straights- enjoy!)

"S"

Kindly point me in the direction of this "new found stunning' evidence, backing up your statement

hes right, greater spread is amongst heterosexuals, especially those using prostitutes,having numerous partners and not knowing how to wear a condom. many homosexuals dont even have penetrative sex.

[Kaojai]

Kindly point me in the direction of this "new found stunning' evidence, backing up your statement

leading gay activist yesterday complained to the Constitution Drafting Council

Surely it is upto the Insurance Company who they insure?

Whether or not a business can discriminate against an entire group of people is not entirely up to them, since they have to act in accordance with the laws of the land. Because the issue was brought before the Constitution Drafting Council, the person either felt that the insurance company was doing something unconstitutional or that (in his opinion) it should be unconstitutional.

Certainly not all gays engage in anal sex or unprotected anal sex or have sex with multiple partners. If an insurance company knew something about the level of promiscuity of the applicant it might be a measure of risk, but I can't imagine they would ask for details of how, how often and with whom.

Saying that the majority of people who have HIV/AIDS are gay (which would depend on the part of world you're looking at) is not the same thing as saying that the majority of gays have or are likely to get HIV/AIDS. The majority, 100% in fact, of people who have testicular cancer are men, but the majority of men will not have testicular cancer.

In any event, it seemed the complaint was in terms of the existing or proposed Constitution. The insurance company could not operate in Thailand free of the constraints the constitution may impose.

From a relatively recent UN report.

In Thailand, an estimated 580 000 adults and children were living with HIV at the end of

2005. The number of new annual HIV infections continues to drop—the estimated

18 000 new infections in 2005 were 10% less than in 2004. However, a large percentage

of new HIV infections are occurring in people considered to be at low-risk of infection.

Approximately one third of new infections in 2005 were in married women who were

probably infected by their spouses.

Men who have sex with men in Thailand remain at high risk of HIV infection. In

Bangkok, HIV prevalence has risen steeply among men who have sex with men—from

17% in 2003 to 28% in 2005. Among people aged 22 years or younger, prevalence rose

from 13% to 22% in the same period.

Injecting drug use also continues to be a risk factor for infection in Thailand’s epidemic.

An estimated 45% of people who inject drugs attending treatment clinics have been

found to be HIV-positive, and between 3%-10% of people who inject drugs in Thailand

are estimated to be newly infected with HIV each year. This is due chiefly to the large

proportion of people who inject drugs who use non-sterile injecting equipment (some

35%, according to one recent study).

http://data.unaids.org/pub/EpiReport/2006/...EPI_FS_A_en.pdf

[Dakhar]

Boo Hoo, it is a business. Lets say you are in the insurance business, would you want to insure a high risk individual? I don't care if the person is a rump ranger, alchoholic, smoker, obese, etc if your are a business owner would you want to insure such a person? I wouldn't.

That said, gay sex among women is like the safest type of sex out there.... bummer. So I wonder if it is just gay males that insurance companies have an issue with?

As for me, I am practically un-insurable, high risk because of some tests ran on me, that came up negative. But the insurance companies will not insure me, or will at a high premium. The same with my wife. She had a mamorgram done in the states, that was negative too.... but now she is called high risk! To insure me, my wife & son, I was paying 980 USD a month in the US.

[jeffreynathan]

Natee said he already had life-insurance policies from Muang Thai Insurance and ING Insurance, for two and eight years respectively.

I guess Mr Natee has just seen Michael Moore's movie Sicko hence the need for a third insurance policie.

[jeffreynathan]

Natee said he already had life-insurance policies from Muang Thai Insurance and ING Insurance, for two and eight years respectively.

I guess Mr Natee has just seen Michael Moore's movie Sicko hence the need for a third insurance policie.

If he requires further life Insurance,surely he should re-approach the 2 Life Offices he already possesses cover with as they have already accepted him,it is obvious he has an agenda to cause trouble with AIA.

[Jingthing]

So Jeffie, its not OK with you for Thai gay activists to fight for equal treatment under the law here in Thailand? I say bravo to this guy and hope there are many more like him willing to question authority.

I agree, he obviously has an agenda. Good for him.

I doubt this is the most important issue for Thai gays, but what they fight for is up to them.

Edited November 4, 2007 by Jingthing

[TAWP]

Would Mr Activist been less angry if they had insured him, to a premium of 50K per month?

[Jingthing]

Would Mr Activist been less angry if they had insured him, to a premium of 50K per month?

If this rate was based solely on sexual orientation and not his personal health history, I should think so.

[TAWP]

Risk isn't only validated on history, it's also validated on the average archetype of the personality type + medical type.

For instance: Not all overweight people will have a heart attack. But stats shows they are more likely to have one. Ergo...

[Jingthing]

Risk isn't only validated on history, it's also validated on the average archetype of the personality type + medical type.

For instance: Not all overweight people will have a heart attack. But stats shows they are more likely to have one. Ergo...

Methinks you are thinking too much about anal sex. Do you really think this insurance company made the decision based on scientific statistics about homosexuals in Thailand (I would be shocked if such statistics exist) rather than garden variety bigotry? I don't believe it.

That said, I think this issue is probably minor compared to bigger issues Thai gays face in their society. Insurance companies are kind of evil by definition.

Edited November 5, 2007 by Jingthing

[Scott]

As someone reported in an earlier post, and it was reported in the Bangkok Post as well, the largest increase in HIV+ cases is with married women. The presumption is they are getting infected by their husbands. As I recall, it is something like 40% of new cases are among married women (in Thailand). Now, that would mean that a large number of husbands are also positive. But these people don't seem to be denied insurance.

This appears to be term life insurance and given the current situation in Thailand, and with the compulsory licensing of AIDS medication, unless this guy was diagnosed with AIDS (not just HIV+), the insurance company has a good chance of beating the odds that he would die.

Sadly, this sounds like a clear case of discrimination, unless there is something that we aren't aware of. Where I work, we have accident/health/life insurance provided. Everyone gets accident insurance and life insurance. Health insurance is denied to some people based on pre-existing conditions.