Women and the ACA

[Skidmore]

The benefits of this law for women is huge through better access to health services and rates that are the same as those men pay, not higher. Go read.

http://www.nationalpartnership.org/issues/health/adwords-aca.html?gclid=CIeVua3n6bkCFXBo7AodMzwABQ

[lumberjack_jeff]

1. Everything else being equal women could expect a 15% decrease in their premiums.

... and men expect a 15% increase due to the elimination of sex as a rating criteria.

That's one of the main reasons that people complaining about "ACA raised my insurance premiums!!!" posts should have context.

[Romulox]

2. If it's "insurance", then rates should be based on actuarial principles. That means women should

pay rates based on how much healthcare they use.

That's how insurance works.

[lumberjack_jeff]

3. How many actuarial criteria are enough?

If diabetic poorly-educated female cancer survivors of child-bearing age pay a rate that reflects the costs experienced by their peers, they wouldn't be able to afford it. It becomes a system in which the only people who are insured are those who won't need it.

The whole point was reducing the number of uninsured. Limiting the number of rating criteria to two (smoking/nonsmoking and age) was an important step. I'd argue that there should be only one - age.

[Romulox]

4. The point is that it is utterly illogical to keep the for-profit part but abandon the actuarial part

Your very question begs its premise--that for profit insurance is the goal. We shouldn't mandate for-profit insurance in the law, then (bizarrely!) complain about how insurers charge more to those who use more.

We should cut for profit insurers out entirely.

[lumberjack_jeff]

5. Don't really disagree with the last sentence.

But insurers can consolidate "the actuarial part" to fewer criteria without abandoning it.

If you're 25, I think it's reasonable to pay a different rate of insurance than me at fifty-something, and I also think there are some good policy reasons to do so.

Is it reasonable to pay less because I'm a man? YMMV. I don't see many really compelling public policy reasons to keep that criteria.

... however, I don't see any good reasons to pretend that we're doing something other than what we are actually doing; Charging men extra to subsidize women's medical care.