General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsShould it be illegal or legal to charge women more than men for health insurance
In your opinion, without regard to current law or proposed laws, on the question of gender equality in health insurance rates:
| 22 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Time expired | |
| It should be illegal to charge women more for health insurance based on gender (both genders should be charged equally) | |
16 (73%) |
|
| It should be legal to charge women more for health insurance based on gender (both genders need not be charged equally) | |
6 (27%) |
|
| 0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided. | |
| Show usernames
Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll |
|
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
hooverville29
(163 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)hooverville29
(163 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)
freshwest
(53,661 posts)Men believe babies are delivered by storks, thus they are not in any way responsible to pay for them. There's a reason they believe this:
Where did the “delivery stork” myth originate?
...Some believed that a stork could cause a woman to become pregnant just by looking at her. (!)
Storks are migratory, which means they could technically be delivery babies from some far away, mystical land.
The souls of unborn children were once believed to live in marshes, wells, springs and ponds - all areas also coincidentally frequented by storks. The birds were said to fetch the babies’ souls during their migratory flights and deliver them to their expectant parents...
White storks measure 40 to 50 inches tall with a wingspan of 61 to 70 inches and weigh between 5 and 10 pounds - potentially large enough to at least imagine carrying an infant...
http://blog.sfgate.com/pets/2011/05/08/where-did-the-delivery-stork-myth-originate/
They don't trust any woman about this issue, because as you can see, the storks did it. All births are by immaculate conception. See, still not their responsiblity.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)insurance policies specifically include things like coverage for prostate issues and for maternity care.
insurance which covers "medically necessary" things would cover whatever the person medically "needs".
you don't get a discount or a surcharge because you have different parts.
Squinch
(50,954 posts)issues, Viagra and testicular cancer, even though I am a woman? I have "paid" for all these things all along, while maternity was not covered.
Why do you make the distinction?
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)and if you get a prostate, it'll be covered! 
Squinch
(50,954 posts)
Lars39
(26,109 posts)kestrel91316
(51,666 posts)if necessary.
Hekate
(90,708 posts)Or do you think we should consider all human beings in a single risk pool labeled "Human Being"?
mimi85
(1,805 posts)on MY insurance when I was working. A bit too much assuming on this thread that it's always the other way around. And of course men and women should be the same - kind of a silly question, imo.
BainsBane
(53,035 posts)Every time a woman gives birth, a man was involved. 
SQUEE
(1,315 posts)and its is an even split of responsibility that you are walking down a really sticky road on choice correct?
I actually would think men being the jackasses we are in terms of "hey watch this-ness" WOULD HAVE A HIGHER COST ON THE TABLES, also, more men smoke, and are far more likely to have an unhealthy diet. Aside from maternity issues, which the industry itself has institutionalized, there would seem to be no reason to charge a women more.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)else you can use the same argument that the man really did not want the baby so he should not have to pay child support. and ya... there are men that argue this. doesnt fly.
I just point out that there are those that are just waiting for this line of thought to gain a legal foothold, and will use it to utmost advantage to strip a woman her right to control her body.
BainsBane
(53,035 posts)to save themselves a few bucks and absolve themselves of responsibility for children.
BainsBane
(53,035 posts)He's got a few options: take responsibility for birth control himself, vasectomy, or keep his fly zipped.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)BainsBane
(53,035 posts)That they have no responsibility for the children they sire? Its' the woman's problem and the men get to wash their hands of it? So what if the children are the men's too? Moreover, society has no interest in the propagation of the species? We could all die off as long as you save a few bucks?
It has nothing to do with abortion. That is an entirely unrelated. Does a woman get to control whether you can set a broken arm?
BainsBane
(53,035 posts)Here's a lesson on the birds and the bees
fitman
(482 posts)Pregnancy aside, women use health insurance significantly more than men and have more claims across the board as rule.
I am a health insurance broker..men don't go to the doctor unless they saw their arm off-not all men of course but that is the general rule...women use the coverage more. Annual ob/gyn visits etc . regular pap smears, women are more apt to use mental health benefits than men..maybe form loss of a loved one etc..men just hold their grief in....women are way more health conscious regarding their bodies than men..
Women use health insurance more up to their 50's versus men-not just related to pregnancy but men catch up when they get into their late 50's when the abuse of their bodies catches up to them and they can no longer ignore medical issues.
Just the facts.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)that the men should be rewarded for not doing the responsible thing, like going to the doctor when needed is ass backwards.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)you have yet to meet a womans issue when it did not fall on the side of anti woman, as you continually say how wonderfully smart and capable your wife is, proving how non sexist you are.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)charge them more, from birth? oh, lets.
me b zola
(19,053 posts)...
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Women spend 30% more over their lifespans for healthcare, about half of which is because of their longer lives.
The overriding reason for supporting the law is;
a) practical (key senators wouldn't have supported ACA without elimination of gender as a rating criteria)
b) policy (eliminating rating criteria was important in getting people to particpate)
c) economic (without massive buy-in the ACA was unsustainable)
Yes, everything else being equal, men who previously had individual policies should expect their premiums to go up 15% for this reason, but I think it was still the right choice.
uppityperson
(115,677 posts)lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)It is true that more men die before retirement than women, but the difference in average life expectancy is all at an age after both men and women have retired and stopped buying insurance. Men and women are privately insured for the same period of time.
Private insurance isn't affected by longer female lifespan. However, medicare definitely is.
Maybe the OP should be asking whether having two medicare tax rates would be appropriate.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)even on retirement, from what i understand, we are still paying into medicaid. i am not real sure how it works since i am not close to that yet, but my father still pays into insurance.
Demo_Chris
(6,234 posts)CreekDog
(46,192 posts)
i sure do try though!
Demo_Chris
(6,234 posts)I'm funny that way.
Your attempted insult aside, it is a very interesting question that invites MANY more.
For example, is it okay to charge older people more simply because they are older and statistically more likely to use that insurance? If so, is that not "ageism"? And if not, if one cannot charge a senior more for insurance (of any type), why then is it acceptable to charge a younger driver more simply because they are more likely to crash their car? Is that not also discrimination? And really, isn't discrimination based on probablilities the entire FOUNDATION for the insurance industry?
The point being, your question highlights the absurdity of the entire system. So...
My answer would be this: No, women should not pay more simply because they are women. Medical care should properly be a guaranteed right of citizenship, run by the government without profit, and funded through a progressive tax that everyone pays into.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)heaven forbid you'd jump on gender equality too hastily!
Demo_Chris
(6,234 posts)One might say that true equality would be to charge what the actuary table indicated as appropriate for that individual. That is not the case here, but it certainly is in other categories. For example, I suspect that when it comes to life insurance, men -- who tend to die younger -- likely pay more than women at similar ages. If so, are you willing to take up the banner and oppose this so-called injustice?
In any case, while one could make that case, I will not. As I said, the problem here is with the system itself, the INJUSTICE is within the system, and ham-fisted efforts to correct these injustices only shine a spotlight upon these flaws.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)ok.
oh and thank you for not making the Men's Right's case for charging women more for health insurance.
thank god you didn't make the case deciding instead to simply post the case.
very impressive.
Demo_Chris
(6,234 posts)I said it was an interesting question that raised a lot of interesting points, and I even took the time to point out one example.
In any case, clearly you want some kind of argument or debate. I don't blame you, I enjoy that myself, but in this case I am not your man because I do not necessarily think that you are wrong. Having given it some thought (since voting several hours ago) I think women probably SHOULD receive this benefit at no additional cost in the name of promoting long-suppressed women's reproductive rights.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)
PETRUS
(3,678 posts)Everyone should get the healthcare they need, period. There is no reason for such severe rationing this service, especially based on some category of personhood. Of course it should be illegal!
Auntie Bush
(17,528 posts)
customerserviceguy
(25,183 posts)about auto insurance rates?
My lady and I aren't married, we simply choose to live together, and even though we're both in our mid-fifties and too old to be running around at singles bars, she pays less than I do for auto insurance.
It sure would be nice for me to get rid of sexism in insurance coverage that lumps me with guys out living in the fast lane, while I drive my hybrid five miles below the speed limit to maximize gas mileage.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)just getting their license and having to insure them, i hear ya. but at 26 or something like that, that difference drops off. i also have a husband that has total two vehicles and had a couple accidents. his insurance is higher than mine.
i do not like the insurance for a teenage boy. but the teenage girl is higher also. my only guess would be, that car insurance is not health. but i am all for at least making the teenage boy and girl the same.
though it is kinda a hoot in that women are pegged as incapable of driving and men are the masters, when statistically, that is not a truth.
dsc
(52,162 posts)I think men do have some legitimate gripe here, as maternity care is very expensive relative to the rest of their premium. Honestly that is a pretty large problem. In essence, you are asking men to accept having to pay rather higher rates when young to offset women but then when they get old and have higher health costs of their own, you are saying sorry it is perfectly OK to make you pay based on age.
Hekate
(90,708 posts)... the default human beings and that women are the aberration?
As it happens, there are more women than men -- more baby girls born than baby boys -- so perhaps we should be thinking instead that women are the real default humans and men are the aberrations? How would that affect insurance calculations?
I'm curious to know if anyone here has ever actually thought about it that way?
dsc
(52,162 posts)In a perfect world I think getting rid of women paying more would be fine, though I fail to see women asking for auto and life insurance companies to change their rates (that would help men btw). But the fact is getting rid of gender rating entirely is going to ding men significantly and then those same people have to turn around and pay higher rates when they age. I think at the very least, men who live in states that haven't expanded Medicaid and who have incomes in that range (and thus can't get subsidies) should not be forced to pay for maternity care (nor should women in that cohort if they can't have children and/or agree to refrain from having children). Otherwise many in that cohort will be forced to do without insurance entirely.
Hekate
(90,708 posts)... has been denied for women, I am unmoved by the logic of your argument. "Forced"? No, just accepting that the pool of Human Beings includes all of us.
dsc
(52,162 posts)they can be charged several multiples of what younger people can. Again, I think it is not unreasonable for people making between 100% and 133% of the poverty level, who live in states without subsidies (over half), to be given a pass on this.
fitman
(482 posts)Was in a fast food place last month..and a couple ..early 70's asked for their senior citizen discount and then walked out and got into their $90k Lexus..yet the very poor young girl behind them who is struggling don't get squat and she went out and got into her beat up 1997 Honda.
Women do have lower rates in health insurance at an older age..The medicare supplement rates I am looking at right now in my hand has a female age 65 at $128.02 and a male age 65 at $147.15
dsc
(52,162 posts)but the fact is even middle aged men (say 40's and 50's) pay quite a bit more than younger people to get insurance, and don't get senior discounts it should be noted.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)They are more likely to be uninsured and their participation was important to the success of the pool.
They have fewer medical expenses and enticing them to sign up requires some kind of value proposition.
I don't smoke, but what doesn't make any sense is using smoking as a rating criteria. There's essentially zero difference in lifetime healthcare costs between a smoker and nonsmokers, because smokers die sooner.
BlueCheese
(2,522 posts)You have to set up more context. There are a lot of factors that go into determining a person's health risk. The idea of single-payer health insurance is that everyone gets put into the same pool, and taxes pay for it all.
If insurers are supposed to sell individual policies, then they'd normally want to charge people based on their risk. Even under the ACA, insurers are allowed to charge people more based on their age, location, and smoking habits. If you're going to demand that they charge two different groups the same amount, then you need some guarantee that the less risky group will still enroll. Without that guarantee, it just wouldn't work economically, without getting to the moral issue.
So my answer is that gender shouldn't be a factor, but only when the right context is also imposed.
Next question: Should car insurance companies be allowed to charge men more than women? They do, where it's allowed.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)
Recursion
(56,582 posts)
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)Some form of which is practiced by every developed country except the United States.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Not remotely true. The UK, for instance, doesn't have single payer, it has what I guess you would call "single operator". Several countries have a regulated, subsidized private insurance market like we're moving too. And in none of those is health care free, though in some it's paid for by taxes. The UK model of an NHS is comparatively rare.
Canada, for instance, has a single payer system, but the premiums for it cost money.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)nation has a socialized health care system. Whether it's technically "single payer" or not seems to me just that, a technicality.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)We spend IIRC about $2 trillion on health care services per year in this country. Whether we do that through premiums to insurers or taxes or out of pocket doesn't change the fact that that money is going to get spent.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)
Quantess
(27,630 posts)and that doctors don't work for free. Duh... really?
I'm pretty sure most of us aready were aware of that.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Last edited Fri Oct 11, 2013, 10:50 AM - Edit history (1)
No more individual insurance, no more employer based insurance. "You" don't go to an "exchange" and purchase crappy, less crappy, even a bit less crappy, or almost not crappy for profit health insurance, everyone is covered by the same standard not for profit system. We could call it "Medicare".
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)That is the logic that would charge women more for having children.
BainsBane
(53,035 posts)This poll was motivated by some reactionary, sexist comment complaining about men having to pay insurance coverage for the birth of their own children?
FoxNewsSucks
(10,434 posts)if the insurance companies can show that women cost more to insure ( the way they claim men cost more to insure for cars) then it should be legal.
If they can't show proof, then it should not be legal.
BainsBane
(53,035 posts)Or do you plan to? You do know that women don't give birth by immaculate conception? Did you learn about the birds and the bees? It takes a mommy and a daddy to make a baby, not just a mommy.
boston bean
(36,221 posts)FoxNewsSucks
(10,434 posts)According to Christians, immaculate conception is indeed possible. But not very common. In vitro is more common, and sometimes yes it's a single mother. Nothing wrong with that.
The issue is insurance rates proportionate to costs. What in my statement saying that didn't you understand?
BainsBane
(53,035 posts)Last edited Fri Oct 11, 2013, 02:32 AM - Edit history (1)
so maternity coverage is for men too. Get it? It takes a man to make a baby.
The cost differential is attributed to child birth. Do you not get that? Do you not get the fact that the children also are men's and that society has an interest in the propagation of the human species?
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)Which I think helps make the point that "it takes two."
BainsBane
(53,035 posts)I think it's a great idea. If the GOP is so keen on promoting family values, they could pass a law extending both paternity and maternity leave.
boston bean
(36,221 posts)and women.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)BainsBane
(53,035 posts)for neither men or women.
boston bean
(36,221 posts)BainsBane
(53,035 posts)FoxNewsSucks
(10,434 posts)You're too busy trying to pick a fight over something I didn't even say.
BainsBane
(53,035 posts)You seem to think discrimination in health care is acceptable. Your justification of the comparison between cars and healthcare, which ensures life and the continuation of the human species, is bogus. You're completely impervious as to what this whole issue is about, and refused to engage with any of the points. Or perhaps you aren't impervious and you think men should have no responsibility for the children they sire. You haven't bothered to develop anything resembling a coherent argument. Mostly, I really don't care to hear your justifications for reactionary views on gender and healthcare. It's your problem. I've seen enough to know we aren't on the same side of anything. Most Republicans wouldn't even support such a reactionary position.
FoxNewsSucks
(10,434 posts)because you're still arguing with what you claim I said, not what I actually said.
Most republicans do that.
Plays In Traffic
(16 posts)all gender based discrimination if was done across the board. However, I have a problem with inconsistency. I don't care for people who argue for eliminating gender discrimination in health insurance based on "equality", but have no problem with gender discrimination in the care and life insurance industry.
Until these same people start fighting to eliminate all gender based insurance discrimination, I have no problem with women paying more for healthcare. After all, they require it and use more of it. It should be capped - say, 5% - 10%.
TheKentuckian
(25,026 posts)cristianmarie533
(51 posts)Women in this country already get paid less than their male counterparts for the same jobs. Why should they have to suffer even more?
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)That's the best way- the most economical, the simplest, and the most ethical- way to run insurance.
Ideally, non-profit and administered by the gov't, otherwise known as a SPHC system.
eridani
(51,907 posts)This rarely occurs in countries where health care is a human right. Most young people are going to get old, right?
Mariana
(14,857 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)
defacto7
(13,485 posts)it's a split deal financially. Just because the woman has most of the medical care doesn't make the men less responsible. When it comes to the actual work involved, women deserve the break.
HockeyMom
(14,337 posts)That was at my last employer who self-insured. Women's questionnaire stated that, since the AMA recommends having your first child before 30, you were at risk if you didn't. Ready for this? Complications from labor and delievery if over 30, AND an increased risk of breast cancer. Oh, you wouldn't believe what they did. They even asked how old you were when you first started menstruating. I guess that was a risk to them if you were too young when you got your period? Like what the hell are you supposed to do about that???? Women were FURIOUS over this.
"If under 30, are you planning on having a baby in the next year?" One young teacher was 28 and unmarried. She wrote on that form and asked if they had a Dating Service, besides their Health Coaches (sic), and find could her a husband so she could get pregnant ASAP, "comply" (they said that a lot), and not be charged higher premiums.
I suppose because they self insured they thought they could charge, and discriminate, however they wanted. Could this even be LEGAL?
bemildred
(90,061 posts)Savannahmann
(3,891 posts)Are you equally upset at this inequality? Are you going to start a movement to insure that everyone pay the exact equal amount on car, home, renters, or personal liability insurance?
Or are you only interested in gender equality in medical insurance?
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)it for you?
opiate69
(10,129 posts)Some simpletons would toss him under the MRA bus...
Lyric
(12,675 posts)as the need for healthcare. You aren't going to die from not having a car. The consequences of having auto insurance denied to you are not anywhere near as damaging to your existence as a human being than the consequences of not having access to healthcare.
Your comparison fails.
Savannahmann
(3,891 posts)I merely pointed out that there are other inequities as well. BTW, the reason this was posted was that another individual had posted that his rates were going up because of the ACA, and that had a lot to do with coverage he had previously opted out of as a male. He had chosen not to have the female procedures covered under his old cafeteria plan as he doubted he would need mammograms, OB-GYN coverage, or maternity related needs. Now, his policy has all of those, to be in compliance with the ACA, and costs significantly more with more out of pocket expenses.
So there were a flurry of polls shortly after he posted the pictures of his plans, this was one of them. The polls all asked a variation of the same question, is it fair to charge this group more than that group. My point is that it has always been gender associated in every insurance plan. Males are unlikely to need mammograms etc. Females are unlikely to need prostate exams. Insisting that the other side has no argument because they make a point denies that they have a point. There is truth on both sides of the coin.
Besides, Speaker Pelosi said we had to pass the law now, and fix it later. Before we can fix it, we have to be able to discuss what can be improved in it. Or are you suggesting that the ACA is perfect?
Dr. Strange
(25,921 posts)Health insurance is not a basic right.
Health care, on the other hand, should be. And the government should provide for that. Like they do in Canada.
And speaking of Canada...
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)I recognize as fellow advocates of single payer. With single payer, you get additional taxes levied based on income and I guarantee you that gender is not a factor in that nor is any risk like smoking, etc.
I dont understand how one justifies being for single payer and then says they want ACA to discriminate on the basis of gender.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)The current system is seriously flawed. Under a single payer plan the government should in no way be able to increase taxes above that of men for health care reasons.
BenzoDia
(1,010 posts)La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)should not be a reason to charge people more
Vox Moi
(546 posts)Parsing out segments of the population by gender or age or is like parsing out an individual for insurance by body part.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)thank a woman.
dipsydoodle
(42,239 posts).
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)As I'm a proponent of Britain's NHS model, I do not see any (consistently) valid reason to charge female patients more than male patients.
Nor do I believe that any adult parent with a special needs student as a son or daughter should pay any more in school taxes than I, a single adult with no children do.
BainsBane
(53,035 posts)while five more aren't sure which is more important. It takes a deep hatred of women to want to see them penalized for giving birth to children that ensure the propagation of the human species. Not to mention the fact that a woman's demonic womb gave birth to them.
This is a prime example of a small minority of Democrats being more reactionary than the GOP.
dflprincess
(28,079 posts)there are a few other states that also did not discriminate (prior to the ACA).
CreekDog
(46,192 posts) 
DebJ
(7,699 posts)The person who was 'hit' doesn't pay.
That's my comparison for men dropping off their sperm to get their jollies off and then saying "See ya.
and by the way I am not responsible, particularly financially, for the results of my actions."
