Women pay more for the same health insurance

a certain candidate is a fucking socialist ...besides i support neither ..

 

maybe the reason you find it pointless to argue with me is that it takes you so long to come out and say what you REALLY think. If you had just come out and said you were against all forms of socialized medicine, we could have a real conversation.

I know where you're coming from, because it's where I've been. But I lost the argument, and here I am. Why is it that no one is able to bring me back into the fold? It's not like I can't be convinced...

Would anyone else like to discuss why women should be forced to pay more for the same coverage as men, regardless of how much care they actually get?

 

because we're not getting the same coverage as men. we're getting different care and a good deal of it.

btw, my husband is the one who paid for my health care. so, technically, my husband paid more for the health care.

 

I think if you read the article you will notice that we are talking about insurance coverage that excludes maternity care.

We ARE talking about the same coverage, and except for gynecology, the services are the same.

I find it interesting that those who have no problem with this system tend to be those doing well under the same system.

Perhaps the reverse is true as well. My own experiences with health insurance vis-a-vis my wife have been just horrendous. It really made me rethink this whole thing on more than a philosophical level.

 

thats right you are thinking on a personal level,how it should be to benefit you,how you can get the best bang for your buck..

the reality is supporters of the system as it is are doing the same.
we are all on the same level here,you just dont realize it because you feel you got the shaft.. but see supporters of the system the way it is,for the same reason you support change(IE:maximum bang for our buck) are thinking on the same personal level.
why should a male between 20 and 30 pay the same rate as a woman of the same age when statistics show she uses her policy 2 and a half times more than him?

if i fill the gas tank up on my car two and a half times more than you,should you be expected to pay the same amount as i do even though your not using near the amount of gas as i??

 

nicely stated.

btw, i supported this system for YEARS AND YEARS when i had NO insurance. i have it now, and children, too, because i can afford it. you can't afford insurance but you wanna have children? that's just crazy.

 

I could understand your position if this were actually one of the options on the table. But the truth is, with insurance and medical costs you are already doing that unless you live off the grid, don't use cash, and don't use doctors. When someone gets sick and goes from middle class to poor under the current system, you and I pay for it. Nobody goes after the dirt poor for medical bills. They only go for people with assets to stem the losses.

When you get insurance in this country, you are not "just paying for the gas in your tank". That's a ridiculous oversimplification of what is going on. And it just so happens that the healthcare itself, and the insurance, would be cheaper for everyone if we had the same system as the Germans, to name just one example. The cost of weeding out risk is incredibly expensive.

Then there is the slight moral problem of infant mortality...

 

so why dont you just quit your job and live dirt poor then you wont have to worry about the cost of insurance.. problem solved.....

 

Driving is a privilege. Is health care? Or is it more complicated?

Would it make sense to set the rules of the game such that the risk pools are larger, or does it make sense to allow insurance corporations to arbitrarily assign risk probability to individuals at great cost to larger pool? There is no benefit for even the lowest risk individuals under our current rules. All the benefit of this discrimination goes to the corporation.

Seems to me we need better rules. Our country would do just fine with three or four insurance corporations that do not enjoy the privilege of cherry-picking the lowest risks. These corporations could be no-for-profit (this is different from not making money. if you don't understand why, please research a bit. most not-for-profits are not charities), and everyone who wants coverage could be covered at an affordable price, based on a sliding scale dependent on income. Even if, like the germans, we do not ration care, the cost of both insurance and treatment would go down. A lot.

 

c'mon, man. it was funny twice.

 

if your husband gets his care through work, this does not apply to you, since discriminating by sex is illegal when it comes to employer insurance programs.

It's only legal for private insurance.

 

they're self insured.