As our readers may be aware, it was recently reported that the popular online insurance portal Insure.com has posted disturbing and completely inaccurate information about the lifespan of gay people. Worse, the source for their claims is the discredited and largely avoided Dr. Paul Cameron and his Family Research Institute.
Insure.com CEO Robert Bland defended the use of Cameron’s data in the articles, the core claim of which is that “a gay lifestyle takes away 8-20 years from the average lifespan.” Further, insurance companies don’t charge higher premiums for gay clients (supposedly because of some sort of political correctness) so gays “save money on life insurance at the same rate they die young.”
This is compared to smokers, who do pay higher premiums. This entire argument comes directly from Cameron and his bizarre obituary studies, which have been discredited by numerous researchers for serious methodological flaws.
This is not the first time Bland has mixed a divisive personal platform with his openly traded corporation. He is also the chairman of the Illinois Right to Life Committee. As far back as 1999, financial forums contained chatter of concern over his poor judgment for combining that work with Insure.com.
As recently as two weeks ago, the resource page (cached, archived) of the Illinois Right to Life Committee listed Cameron’s Family Research Institute along with Peter Labarbera Americans for Truth About Homosexuality and similar groups. Today, the entry for FRI is missing. We have written Bland to ask if he had something to do with this — he is their chairman after all. His reply, should there be one, will be appended.
What do we make of this change? At least one of the original articles remains on Insure.com. Bland has used Cameron’s research while staunchly defending their claims about gay lifespan, yet Cameron’s group has been removed from the resource list of an organization for which Bland is chair.
Is this a slow retreat?
if he thinks he’s going to be able to back away from this screw up quietly, he’s sorely mistaken.
Dear David,
You are one of 17 people who’ve publicly commented on or written me since July 1 about an article on gay mortality that we published in November 2007. Thanks for discovering Insure.com.
Insure.com has no political agenda and the November 2007 article on gay mortality that you are referring to is one of over 3,000 insurance articles that we have written and posted at http://www.insure.com since 1995. And there were no factual mistakes in that article.
In that story, we repeatedly stated that the Cameron research was highly controversial, which is a fair and balance approach. We feel that the issue of gay mortality is of interest to life insurance shoppers and actuaries and we have no political ax to grind or side to take.
We also think it ashame that every U.S. life insurance company rejects any HIV-positive applicant even though many have lived healthy for decades and will continue to write on the subject regardless of how divisive you think it is.
My 15 years of volunteer work on the Illinois Right to Life Committee has nothing to do with the Insure.com or its November 2007 article on gay mortality nor do I personally read or approve our articles at Insure.com as that responsibility belongs to our editors and writers.
If you think you are overpaying for your insurance, please stop by Insure.com and have a look at our capabilities.
Sincerely,
Robert Bland
Founder and CEO
http://www.insure.com
Oh, great… another impersonal, boilerplate response from Mr. Bland.
Interesting use of the word “factual.” In other words, because the article quoted accurately from Dr. Cameron, the article is “factual,” even though what they were quoting is utterly discredited research. That’s like posting an article with quotes from a KKK position paper which claims that African-Americans are less intelligent than other races. Even though the claim itself is completely without basis, not to mention racist, the article is nevertheless “factual” because the position paper was quoted accurately.
Now, that’s hubris.
But the very fact you used discredited research means you have taken a side in this argument. The methodological flaws of his work are so profound, his “research” is essentially meaningless. That is not an opinion. That is a fact shared by many other researchers and professional organizations. This is not a secret. This information has been shared with you repeatedly.
If an insurance underwriter used actuarial data that was calculated inaccurately or taken from sources that the rest of the industry didn’t consider trustworthy, the actuarial data wouldn’t be “controversial,” it would be wrong. A person without an agenda can make this obvious logical connection. A person with an agenda will ignore logic and defend their actions despite all evidence to the contrary. Your actions show that you fall in the latter category.
May I ask why your company will accept HIV+ applicants? On what factual basis can you make the claim they live “healthy for decades”? I don’t disagree with that statement, but I’d like to know on what source you base that claim. The reason I ask is because other insurance companies feel strongly about rejecting HIV+ applicants, and they must have studies which support their position on this. Are you saying that the studies they use to make this determination are faulty? And if so, how do you know they are faulty? Have you examined the methodological underpinnings of said studies? And if you have–which you must have in order to take a position against the rest of the industry–why are you unwilling to take the same approach with Dr. Cameron’s “research,” which is far easier to examine and dismiss? Especially when the ability to do so has been handed to you?
Oh… so now you’re passing the buck. “It’s not my fault the article is a collection of unsupportable claims, it’s the fault of my editors and writers.” Well, if it’s their fault, why are you the one constantly defending their work in every place this story has been posted? Wouldn’t it make better use of your time to remove the articles in question while you ask your editors and writers to do additional research on Dr. Cameron and his discredited work before either reposting the article with corrections or eliminating it entirely because the basic premise is baseless?
Oh, wait. We’ve been asking you to do that that for months now. I guess it’s fallen on deaf ears.
Because of your unwillingness to be reasonable on this issue, I will never use Insure.com’s services. Ever. And I’m telling everyone I know to avoid using your services as well. And that includes a lot of heterosexuals.
Actions have consequences, Mr. Bland.
“…which is a fair and balance (sic) approach.”
I love seeing how this perverted concept of “fair and balanced” has started to permeate it’s way in to our society. There is nothing fair or balanced about citing discredited research.
A life insurance salesman, asking you to trust his word. Need I add more?
OK, I shall. Google for online quotes, and check the competitors. Don’t just take Robert Bland’s word for it. A check, last week, placed Insure.com off the pace as far as we were concerned. Not that I’ve ever wanted to be a woman in Portland, a married couple in Chicago, or a man in Birmingham — but one never knows where life can take you.
Stranger things have happened : one of which would be us ever handing money over to someone who defends Paul Cameron.
Why don’t you just correct, apologise and be done with it Mr Robert Bland?
Oh, that’s right… that’d be the “no agenda” thing.
———————-
Dear editor: could you please remove Bland’s direct links and redact those sections that are simply free advertising and unrelated to the post. It feels like sleezy advert central right about now… tks, G&D
Better yet, re-direct them to PFLAG 🙂
I understand your sentiment grantdale, but there is no real need. We linked to the same place in the OP, and Bland’s links are “no-follow” so they wont get any traffic from us unless someone actually reading here wants to go over, and as I said the links are already there.
I think it’s enough that Bland keeps posting these non-response responses in a most obvious manner. The Internet has a long memory 😉
Ok Robert–it is ok to use a source by stating it is controversial even if it is faulty, but then you say it is factual? What the hell! That is like saying quoting Hitler and his ideas is fine as long as you say it is highly controversial beforehand. Based on that idea, you could use anything as proof as long as the tag phrase says something about the problem with the proof.
In my academic classes, any student using faulty material as evidence will fail. I teach critical thinking in argument writing, and students must have accurate, effective sources throughout. Any inherent bias or problem with the source will mean that the source is not used. Let’s be clear–Cameron was kicked out of the APA–he is not a credible source to begin with.
“we repeatedly stated that the Cameron research was highly controversial, which is a fair and balance approach.”.
Controversial, as in he made it all up? Fair and balanced, as in your telling us that it is controversial?
An intent to deceive is as good as a lie, Mr. bland.
He really doesn’t expect anybody to believe that he’s not a homophobe. His statements and actions, at this point, are for the sole consumption of Insure.com’s board of directors and shareholders. In other words, to wit: “I think gays are gross, but I can do a good job of pretending I don’t for the sake of our bottom line and your dividends.”
Just Saying / Asking.
If Insure.com sells policies in the state of CA, couldn’t CA state government investigate such blantant discrimination policies that Inusure.com has? CA has equal / non-discrimination laws that cover residents irregardless of where the Business / Service Provider is headquartered. I recall that EHarmony is being sued by CA resident(s) because EHarmony discriminates Gays & Lesbians by providing dating / matchmaking services only to straight / hetrosexual clientele.
Thanks for uncovering Mr. Bland’s bias towards Gays and the organizations he has been involved in / with. It speaks volumes of where his head is and the direction he is taking his insurance company. Seems he also equates that being Gay is an automatic HIV condition, totally untrue.
Roger, I’m not sure what Insure.com is doing that could be prosecuted. The information they are posting is horribly inaccurate, and based on some really bigoted, messed up “research,” but I’m not aware of any laws that would prevent them from clinging to it, in CA or elsewhere. With eHarmony, I believe it’s a claim of discrimination for not matching gay applicants and there may or may not be a case for that in CA — time will tell.
As Insure.com is publicly traded, the responsibility for embarrassing the company with such bad info lies with the CEO, Robert Bland. It is up to the clients and stockholders to deal with that. It will be interesting to see if there might be some recourse in Canada, as their laws are far more potent in this area and their free speech provisions less so. Insure.com appears to do business in Canada.