Women pay more for the same health insurance

This NYtimes article caught my eye. Perhaps this belongs in the politics forum, but to keep it here I won't name a presidential candidate who would like to allow shopping for insurance across state borders. Some states prohibit the practice of sex-based rates. Shopping across borders would mean that insurance companies would flock to states where they are free to discriminate against women.

I find it appalling that maternity care is not even part of this conclusion. If we include maternity care, women pay astronomically higher rates. This is for non-maternity (as if that is not part of health) care. I think it's despicable and we need to make this against the law.

As a man who already can't afford insurance because of the profit based system we have, I did not think it could get any worse unless I developed a history of illness. Yet if I were a woman I would be looking at a 48% increase in the price of the healthcare I can't afford, regardless of my health.

I simply don't think this is fair, and I don't think it should be legal, nor would it be if we had an equal rights amendment.

My apologies if this is too political, but I am pretty mad about this, and there aren't as many haters on the women's issues forum.

 

Insurance companies = corrupt pieces of shit. I was born with a disability and am unable to get affordable insurance, instead I must get a state plan which gives me no option but a HSA, which blows. I myself do not go to the doctor anymore than the next person and I do not get prescriptions, yet I can not get regular health care.

But for a healthy woman to pay more than a healthy man, that is bullshit. It just shows how a uncontrolled system does not work. Give a corporation the right to create it's own guidelines and the consumer will be screwed every time.

 

Give the government the right to control healthcare, ....

 

Actually, I think you will find this varies by state. You may also be surprised to know that as we age women's rates typically get lower than the rates for men. It all comes down to statistics on expected health care costs. The real problem is not insurance companies; it is the extrodianary high costs of our health care, although there is obviously blame for the ins comapnies too. It doesn't matter whether the governemnt, an in ins company or we self pay, the bill is too high to start with. we must work on that problem before we can work on the ins companies. My opinion probably won't be popular, and I don't even like it but it is factually correct. Our health care and health ins is certainly a mess but I'm even more scared of the government running it. They already run 3 of the worst health care programs in the US. Do you know anybody who thinks that Medicare, Medicaid or the VA works well? Between these 3 the gov't pay half of all health care expenses in the US already. What a mess! Good luck.

 

But on the flip side for life insurance and car insurance men have to pay more. I think really its simply women are more likely to go to a doctor if they think something is wrong. Alot of men will put it off and just wait for it to go away until something is very obviously wrong.

 

I think if you actually read the article before commenting, you would not find a need to point this out. "It varies by state" is the whole point. Also covered in the article you didn't read was the effect of age on these rates. We are hitting women hardest when they are at optimal child bearing age. Seems to me the net effect would be to push women towards pregnancy later and later in life, which is a fine personal choice but does carry extra risks.

If we allow the purchasing of insurance across state lines but don't set good regulations to protect consumers we will get the worst of both worlds. This kind of discrimination is illegal in some states, and needs to be illegal nationally.

We can not do anything without women, because we can't come into being without women. Why in the world would we penalize women for bearing the burden of renewal. Seems to me we are shooting ourselves in the foot. Small wonder that we have the infant mortality rate of a third world country.

You've claimed the costs are too high and the government can't run healthcare. I say, bullshit! Back yourself up with research. Why don't you do a little legwork and report back to us the following: administrative costs as a percentage of total cost of healthcare for the VA system, Medicare, and an insurance company of your choosing.

I'm willing to pay more tax to insure the health of our mothers. Are you?

 

Nah I wouldn't pay, as someone who doesn't have health insurance, I still say healthcare is not a right, it's ridiculous how expensive it is and there's no need for this, but you do not have a god given right to healthcare. Hospitals are required to take in emergencies, that should obviously be required, but again we don't have a right to health insurance.

However I have libertarian leanings.

 

you know, i've got those same libertarian leanings. I don't like unnecessary government intervention.

But due to overwhelming empirical evidence, I've had to rethink my position. Maybe we don't need singe payor healthcare. But can I at least get you to agree it should be illegal to profit from a service that is essentially coercive (health insurance)? You can lose your life if you are denied coverage. Is it right to decline to save the life of another because they cannot pay? Is it right to save them only if they agree to a lifetime of servitude? Should corporations that profit from sickness and disease have the same rights as individuals?

We need to end the for profit health insurance industry, or at the very least restrict their right to discriminate for the purpose of profit maximization at the expense of one's health.

 

gosh, you know, i know i've paid more for maternity, but it was worth it to me. my bills, without it, would have bankrupted us due to my complications. i really didn't mind paying more, since i was, in fact GETTING more. it's a for profit business. if it wasn't for profit, it would be a business, it'd be a charity. i have a hard time with this one. i just can't really get up in arms over it.

however, i do have a problem with a company that covers viagra but not birth control. something like that.

 

If it was not for profit, it would not necessarily be a charity. there is more to the world of professional endeavor than just profiteering and charity. the fact you can only think in those terms is an indicator of our primitive system.

While it's great that you have the money to pay, it's often the case that people are forced to change their life plans to suit the insurance company. Why we cry about taxes, then turn around and defend insurance companies is a mystery to me. If you fail to pay your taxes, you might go to jail. If you fail to get medical care, you might get sick and die.

Please explain to me why it makes sense to pay more than any other country to have less desirable health outcomes, a high number of medical care induced bankruptcies, and a high infant mortality rate.

The germans have a health system that, while not the cheapest in the world, is much cheaper than ours, does not ration care, does not discriminate against the disabled or the sick, and does not penalize the poor. It does not take away coverage when we need it most (job loss). Yet, it is not a charity. Their insurance companies are not-for-profit, much like my natural gas provider is not-for-profit. Last time I checked, public utilities are not charities.

 

The thing with for profit health care sysytems though is that they're not fair, but if can afford it, they're good. I don't care what they say, while alot probably do want to help people, I doubt there's a doctor out there who doesn't want to make mad money.(Even though it'll take them like 10 years to pay of med school 1st, this might be where the problem begins) but they get customers and make more money by being good doctors that give awesome care, not to mention the fact our country is sue happy. This is why people who can afford it that live in the UK and such often come here for care. Is it fair though, obviously not.

In terms of sensible capitalism, it's like mama said, what the fuck is with companies paying for viagra but not BC, instead of the government trying to take 23 years to fix the problem, why don't just a mob of 5,000 people descend on their headquarters and be like yo, we're gonna torch this place unless you change this, they can't arrest 5,000 arsonists at once.

 

Syd, I think you should find out a bit more about why doctors become doctors in different cultures. Doctors make shitty wages in japan, for instance, yet it is still very difficult to make it into med school, and their quality of care is outstanding. Being a doctor in japan makes it very easy to marry a hottie, despite the low wages.

The simple supply/demand model that applies to commodities simply breaks down when we look at medical care, as does the moral hazard theory.

People don't tend to shop for the best care at the best price, as there are all kinds of barriers to doing so, geography being foremost. Information is also very difficult to collect and sift through. Not to mention when you are sick and worried you don't tend to make rational decisions.

As for moral hazard, it has been proven empirically that the vast majority of people will not hang out at the doctor's office because it is free, and that paying high rates for care drives up the eventual cost of treatment and reduces the chance of positive health outcomes. People who worry about paying avoid doctors, and by the time they get care, it is often in the form of expensive intervention. For the poor, this results in taxpayer assistance in the form of medicaid, which drives up the cost of everything for everyone.

You know the saying: an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Ever see rich germans coming to the US for healthcare? There would be no point. Their care is better, not rationed, and cost is tied to income levels.

 

women as a average have 2 babies in there life,more or less.
thats roughly a 100 grand in medical expenses guaranteed that the insurers will have to pay over what normal healthcare costs would be for a man or woman.
it makes sense for that reason alone that a woman in child bearing age would have a higher premium than a man of the same age...

 

does it?

Are you assuming that all these women are artificially inseminated? Do you not have a mother? Is procreation only the responsibility of women? Maybe the babies are responsible too. What happened to "it takes two to tango"? How about splitting the cost evenly between the knocker-upper and the knocker-uppee?

and in any case, if you read the article before responding you would notice that women pay more even when we set aside maternity care. that was the topic of the article. I would suggest that your dogma is causing you to speak before thinking.

As someone who in general shares your worldview, I know where you are coming from, but I'm trying to look with my eyes.

 

the bill for the hospital is in the mothers name.. when they start sending the father half the bill then i will say thats a valid argument..
the fact is the insurance doesnt take into account that it takes two to tango.

besides that statistically women visit the doctors office in staggeringly disproportionate numbers over men..

It is estimated that men make a 150 million fewer trips to the doctor than women, every year!


Indeed, women visit family physicians about 2 1/2 times as often as men, according to data from the American Academy of Family Physicians


so you see i am looking at things from a broad and open minded perspective and it tells me that statistically women as a whole use there insurance far more than men do thus forcing the insurance companies to charge higher rates to cover the extra costs..

its the same reason mens car insurance rates are higher than womens..
statistically they are apt to use it more than women.


its really not rocket science..

 

Ah, I see, how scientific.

So if we can isolate a group and show they have in the past gone to the doctor more often we can charge them higher rates?

Can we classify them any way we wish? Race? Religion? Height? Weight?

In the case of race, the answer is no. The answer is no because we have the civil rights act.

In the case of sex, the answer is yes. Why?

If you are ok with the sex-based discrimination, how do would you feel about racial discrimination? What about political discrimination.

The purpose of insurance is to spread risk. The purpose of this kind of discrimination is to concentrate risk to improve the profit margin. Allowing insurance companies to enjoy the rights of individuals because they serve the public good (aka incorporation) makes no sense if we do not require them to serve their purpose.

 

they do spread risk,they just separate the boundaries by sex,being overweight,a smoker,diabetes as well as a host of other reasons..

your making it out like its just women who are singled out for higher rates and that simply is not true..

im quite sure if they could get away with it they would also include race when setting rates..

you know as well as i that they base there rates on statistics of age,sex,existing medical conditions and bad habits..

i really dont think i should share the burden of someone elses excessive visits to the doctor or bad habits..but thats just me...

 

being a woman is not a bad habit. having a child is not a bad habit. It's the point of life.

I'd love to be a father, but my previous experience with insurance companies and pregnancy make me think twice. And I had good insurance.

this argument is called "the moral hazard". While it makes sense on its face, it falls apart in the real world.

and no, using race is not legal, because of something called "the civil rights act".

weeding out the women from the men, he higher risks from the lower risks, is ridiculously expensive. why are you into paying for that? if we simply made it illegal to deny coverage for preëxisting conditions, and required insurance companies to insure all comers at a rate based on income, your costs would go down. Yet you cling to failed notions of moral hazard and supply an demand. why?

 

well man its really pointless to debate this with you. the fact is that that is the way they do it.
trust me,they really dont care that you think its unjust and have decided to start a protest about in at hip forums..

but to answer your question as to why i feel the way i do?

i believe in personal responsibility,i believe one should not be responsible to share the burden of others choices.. IE: to have a child,to be a smoker,to eat unhealthy and be overweight etc..
i also feel its not fair that we without children in school must pay school taxes..

im not a socialist i wasnt raised that way and i sure as hell aint changing my ideology simply because you feel its a failed notion...

but good luck getting the insurance companies to give a shit what you think..

yeah,,good luck with that...

 

thanks, I'll need luck.

And i'm not so sure it won't happen. A certain candidate for president has already proposed making it illegal to discriminate against those with preëxisting conditions. I'm pretty sure "being female" qualifies as a preëxisting condition.

Why you would rather pay more for gender discrimination, rather than just get a fair shake, pay less for insurance, and do right by those who have no power, is a mystery to me. But I have hope that when your bill goes down and your quality of care goes up, you won't take to the streets. Old habits die hard, but not THAT hard.