When I was younger, I should have claimed to have been a woman trapped in a man's body. Maybe I could have had cheaper auto insurance.

Also...

First, the judge pointed to the lack of a biological definition of “race”, and concluded that race is a social construct rather than a biological trait. From this assertion, the judge concludes that race-based tables are inadequate not only as a matter of law, but as a matter of science.

And Alex adds:

The judge ruled in this case that, in essence, there’s no way to scientifically define someone’s race, and therefore no race-based actuarial table could be accurate. That’s certainly a finding of fact within the judge’s purview on this matter.

Determining race for affirmative action purposes, however, is apparently quite possible.

Alex, aren't you assuming what is to be proved?

Joe,

For affirmative action purposes, race is a social construct, isn't it?

Dave,

I'm not agreeing with the judge, necessarily. I don't know if the actuarial tables work or not. I'm merely commenting that I think this decision is proper to make on a judicial level.

However, in the opinion of Judge Jack Weinstein, the use of race-specific actuarial tables was improper.

If the Judge had used the word "this" instead of "the" I could agree with him. Further, you seem to want to extend this into an argument towards eliminating all genetic differences from actuarial tables. So, you want to talk about the politicization of science?

It's not nice to fool with Mother Nature.

BRAVO! Finally a baby step in the right direction.
Governmental use of race for restraint or privilege is institutionalized racism.
It is that simple, and recognizing this is the only way forward.

Has equal protection under the law ever been construed to mean that everybody should pay the same insurance premium? It seems to me that's the logical conclusion of the judge's constitutional argument.

His other argument, the scientific one, requires one to assume all sorts of thing which it seems to me actually need to be proven.

is no such thing as "RACE"!!

Its one thing to be race blind when discussing the right to vote etc.

But let us hope that the medical establishment doesn't apply the same logic as our judge. Failing to acknowledge the morbidity and mortality differences of races wrt diabetes, heart disease, certain cancers etc etc (and therefore treating races differently) would be medical malpractice.

I wonder if this foolish judge's view would magically change if he was ruling in a tort claim brought by a black man against a doctor??

Drew;
Each patient would be better treated as an individual.
Treatment based on statistical an@lysis...
Now THAT'S malpractice!!

Floyd -

Wrong. If a 45 year old black male showed up in your office with mildly high "bad" cholesterol, 130/100 blood pressure and elevated C-reactive protien measure, elevated blood sugars and about 20 pounds overweight would you a) treat him the same as a white male with the same figures, b) treat him more aggressively than the white male.

Factor in the potential adverse effects of statins and blood pressure meds. Same meds? Same dosage??

Would you? I hope not.

If I were a doctor I would take every factor of my patients condition into consideration and treat him accordingly, which would be based on professional judgment.
If my next patient were black I would not treat him the same as the first because of it.
Of course taking all factors into consideration is good judgment, factors like gender, age,faith,sexual orientation,and race are factors.
But statistics is not even bad science, it's not science at all!
And treating each person as an individual instead of a statistic is not "wrong", it's good medicine.
Considering all factors in that treatment has no place in politics.