We are talking past each other, but with the correct tone maybe we could find if and what we disagree on.

Lets apply a quota system to those system above that today operate on individual assessment, using current imbalance that statistical evidence can detect.

Banks have data on who defaults on loans based on any number of conceivable categories, and likely incorporate some of that during an assessment. A quota system where they would grant or deny loans based on a single identity would not only be less fair because individuals can be part of multiple groups, but it would also institutionalize discrimination based on historical data. For the benefit of society it would be better if the system was more blind and relied less on the fact that people from low economic class defaults more on their loan that those from the higher economic classes.

Insurance companies is in the same boat. Having people of different categories pay higher rates make sense from a historical perspective, but it make for a worse society when women automatically pay higher medical insurance and men pay higher car insurance. Quotas where people are sorted into specific rates create a worse society.

Thankfully for both banking and insurance, individual assessment is more economical from a corporate perspective. A strict quota system which simply represented a single category of assumed risk is less effective at predicting a individual person. Individual employees of companies might still use discriminative quotas as shortcuts, but thankfully in most places that is illegal under anti-discrimination laws. There is no quota on how many African Americans can get a loan regardless of the rate of defaulting that that group historically has.

Some people have jested and suggested to have quotas in the legal system to correct existing bias. They say: Simply put more white people (and women) in jail! Obviously a quota system here would be terrible and the issue of racism and sexism in the legal system should be fixed through better individual assessments rather than quotas. Race and gender blindness would be a major improvement, while quotas would make society a much darker place.

See the theme here where blindness is the general cure to the ailment of bias and where quotas based on historical data would be terrible? Let see some examples where quotas are used.

There is an infamous school "lottery" in some places where kids from rich families have multiple choices (since they can sigh up to any number of good schools and move to places where they "win"), while kids from low economical class do not have that option and simply has to hope that they get one of the token slots from the good schools that their class get a quota from. Quotas has made matters worse, as been argued by teacher, parents and politicians alike. You don't fix the problem of good and bad schools through quotas, but rather by fixing the schools. The school should be blind to how much money a child parents has and simply provide the teaching that each individual child need.

Which lead us to the last area, medicine. Here quotas is currently used as a cost saving mechanism, where instead of individual assessment you have screenings and vaccines based on race, gender and age. It is a definitively worse system but since individual assessments are costly and doctors are limited in numbers it is still being used. The idea to give people medical care without medical assessment is at odds with modern practice of not doing harm, and the optimal solution is always to do individual assessments based on personal needs. Quotas is used as a last ditch effort when the benefits clearly outweighs the cost through careful and very conservative considerations. Quotas are dangerous and medical history is full of the harm they have done.

This is why I brought those examples. Each of them operate today on treating people as individuals and while neither system is perfect, adding quotas to them makes things worse rather then better. At best it can be used as a last ditch effort, but only if all other methods have been explored and one recognize the massive potential for harm that it introduce. I understand why it quotas feel attractive but to claim that it is impossible to treat people as individuals is practically giving up on the foundation of modern society.