ObamaCare: Gentlemen, Do You Like Subsidizing Women's HC costs?

[Fern]

In the not-to-distand past there was quite a fuss about women being charged higher HI premiums than men. Claims of higher premiums range from about 25%-50% (depending upon age, locale and other factors). Of course, this was based on insurers' claims experience. The simple fact is that women use more HC services than men.

Here is an example of one of many such articles: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/30/us/30insure.html

Well, then comes ObamaCare. Gentlemen, some/many of you will have the privilege of paying higher premiums so you can subsidize women's HI. They, of course, will be paying less thanks to you.

It would seem:

If you're a single guy, you're screwed.

If you're married, it may be somewhat of a 'wash' since your wife's cheaper premiums will offset your more expensive one.

If you're a gay (male) couple, you're doubly screwed. Both persons' premiums will be higher. Vice-versa for female couples, it's win-win here.

Oddly enough while this so-called "gender discrimination" (which is nothing of the sort actually) is not allowed for individuals or small business, it is allowed for large corporations. Meaning HI companies can still charge them less for men and more for women. Well, sSmall business takes it in the shorts gain (self-employed people would be buying as individuals).

http://www.aauw.org/learn/publications/outlook/outlookWinter2011_preview.cfm

In March 2010, President Barack Obama signed two bills into law that will significantly overhaul the nation's health care system — the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Health Care and Education Affordability Reconciliation Act, which contained some fixes to the new health care law as well as some AAUW-supported student loan reforms. The new law bans gender rating for plans offered in both the individual and small-group markets (defined as organizations em*ploying 100 or fewer people). Unfortunately, as part of a compromise, the new law allows insurance companies to continue this discriminatory practice in plans offered in the large-group market. AAUW strongly advocated for the elimination of gender rating and was disappointed that the law did not include an outright ban.

ObamaCare: Not fair to men, not fair to small business.

Fern

 

[sandorski]

This seems a Winning argument!

 

[her209]

What about fat people? And smokers?

 

[fskimospy]

You're right! Businesses should also be able to hire women at lower rates than men because they will probably take more time off when they have kids. This is only one of many reasons I believe women should be punished for their required role in the continued existence of the human race.

I eagerly await more sage advice from Fern about gender equality.

 

[Fern]

What about fat people? And smokers?

Insurance rates absolutely take those factors into account. Smokers and overweight people pay higher premiums.

Fern

 

[CoachB]

Fern,
As a hetero male and huge fan of women, I'm ok with it. Look at it this way, this is compensation for the prevailing habit of paying women less. BTW, do you think us old guys with failing parts should pay up too?

 

[Fern]

You're right! Businesses should also be able to hire women at lower rates than men because they will probably take more time off when they have kids. This is only one of many reasons I believe women should be punished for their required role in the continued existence of the human race.

I eagerly await more sage advice from Fern about gender equality.

Boy, that's stupid.

Statistics show women incur higher costs, so they should pay more.

Hmmm... Oddly enough statistics show men are 'riskier' than women, so men pay more for life insurance.

Is it True That Men Pay More for Life Insurance?

Yes this is for the most part true, and it is not a form of sexual discrimination, it’s about statistics. Life insurance rates, like all insurance products, are based on potential risk, and men as a statistical group are riskier to insure than women, so they pay higher rates.

http://www.lifeinsurance.org/most-important-questions/men-pay-more-for-life-insurance/

Why is that not gender discrimination?

fern

 

[Anarchist420]

Obama and the Democrats are corporatists for not replacing employer tax deductions for insurance with deductions for everyone for all health care expenses.

It's almost not worth working if you can't get to choose your health care plan and if your taxes are going to be so high.

 

[lopri]

Seriously, Mr. Fern. You may well know the most participants in this thread will be males. There have already been many threads on this topic, in which you insisted that it wasn't about women's reproductive right but it was about "religious freedom."

Now you're doing a sort of an about-face, and turning it into an economic issue and matter of subsidy/entitlement. (What happened to your conscience-based argument?)

I am sorry but I can't help but notice the oh-so-familiar pattern that this kind of discussion is being brought up. No doubt it will quickly run its course and devolve into the usual grievance against women's right. (if we're lucky we might avoid abortion, but I don't hold my breath.) Did you really have to start a new thread?

By the way, do you realize the massive amount government subsidy received by the churches and their affiliates? A lot of the times, the uproar of the churches crying foul against the government occurs because they do not want to lose the federal subsidies, while simultaneously ignoring the strings attached to the subsidies. What they're fighting for, by declaring "war on religion", is indeed their entitlement to federal subsidies.

I have no objection to the massive federal subsidy provided to almost all religiously affiliated institutions. I assume you don't have objection to that, either, despite you not belonging to a certain faith. (pick a faith that you do not subscribe to) Faith organizations do tremendous good for the society, and they have good cause to receive government support. It doesn't mean, however, the government surrenders its sound policies at the front door of the churches.

 

[Fern]

Fern,
As a hetero male and huge fan of women, I'm ok with it. Look at it this way, this is compensation for the prevailing habit of paying women less. BTW, do you think us old guys with failing parts should pay up too?

Now see, I don't mind someone who admits the unfairness/absurdity and makes a willing choice to pay it.

Some above act like it's heresy to raise this issue.

To the best of my knowledge, my "failing part" isn't costing me or anybody any money at all. I suppose it would if viagra or the like entered the picture. But I've dismissed any thought of that. it would probably just make me chase the wife around the house but my calves cramp up too easy to be doing that.

Fern

 

[sactoking]

As an insurance regulator I am comfortable saying that even though a variable consideration may be actuarily sound that does not mean that variable is socially palatable. You see this all the time in automobile insurance rates that prohibit credit screening and at least one state (Montana, I think) prohibits the use of gender in setting auto rates. Young males (and their parents) have been complaining for years that their rates are higher than young females and state insurance departments are starting to listen (usually after a legislative mandate or voter initiative). This is just the flipside of that.

 

[Fern]

Seriously, Mr. Fern. You may well know the most participants in this thread will be males. There have already been many threads on this topic, in which you insisted that it wasn't about women's reproductive right but it was about "religious freedom."

I think you're conflating entirely different issues.

For one, there is the debate about forcing religious institutions to fund something against their principals in apparent conflict with the 1st Amendment. The point I'm raising has nothing to do with religion or the 1st.

Another, which, unfortunately IMO, has seen the above issue morph into the larger issue of (all) contraceptives as an 'insurable costs'. I think that and the 1st amendment issue above two are separate and distinct issues but have unfortunately become blurred together too often in discussions. My point here has nothing to do with specific costs which may or may not be properly considered 'insurable costs'.

Now you're doing a sort of an about-face, and turning it into an economic issue and matter of subsidy/entitlement. (What happened to your conscience-based argument?)

Again the 1st amendment and this are very different. Men's HI premiums will be artificially priced higher to subsidize women's permiums.

I am sorry but I can't help but notice the oh-so-familiar pattern that this kind of discussion is being brought up. No doubt it will quickly run its course and devolve into the usual grievance against women's right. (if we're lucky we might avoid abortion, but I don't hold my breath.) Did you really have to start a new thread?

So now it's a women's right that she be able to pay below FMV for her HI policy by virture of men being charged higher than FMV?

By the way, do you realize the massive amount government subsidy received by the churches and their affiliates? A lot of the times, the uproar of the churches crying foul against the government occurs because they do not want to lose the federal subsidies, while simultaneously ignoring the strings attached to the subsidies. What they're fighting for, by declaring "war on religion", is indeed their entitlement to federal subsidies.

I have no objection to the massive federal subsidy provided to almost all religiously affiliated institutions. I assume you don't have objection to that, either, despite you not belonging to a certain faith. (pick a faith that you do not subscribe to) Faith organizations do tremendous good for the society, and they have good cause to receive government support. It doesn't mean, however, the government surrenders its sound policies at the front door of the churches.

"Church subsidies" and the like don't have a damn thing to do with this topic.

I'm now thinking you were responding in a different thread but somehow your post ended up here.

Fern

 

[lopri]

"Church subsidies" and the like don't have a damn thing to do with this topic.

Fern

Really? I thought you're talking about the cost-shifting nature of government subsidies.

 

[Siddhartha]

In the not-to-distand past there was quite a fuss about women being charged higher HI premiums than men. Claims of higher premiums range from about 25%-50% (depending upon age, locale and other factors). Of course, this was based on insurers' claims experience. The simple fact is that women use more HC services than men.

Here is an example of one of many such articles: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/30/us/30insure.html

Well, then comes ObamaCare. Gentlemen, some/many of you will have the privilege of paying higher premiums so you can subsidize women's HI. They, of course, will be paying less thanks to you.

It would seem:

If you're a single guy, you're screwed.

If you're married, it may be somewhat of a 'wash' since your wife's cheaper premiums will offset your more expensive one.

If you're a gay (male) couple, you're doubly screwed. Both persons' premiums will be higher. Vice-versa for female couples, it's win-win here.

Oddly enough while this so-called "gender discrimination" (which is nothing of the sort actually) is not allowed for individuals or small business, it is allowed for large corporations. Meaning HI companies can still charge them less for men and more for women. Well, sSmall business takes it in the shorts gain (self-employed people would be buying as individuals).

http://www.aauw.org/learn/publications/outlook/outlookWinter2011_preview.cfm



ObamaCare: Not fair to men, not fair to small business.

Fern

I do not have a problem with everyone, including women, having good health care.

 

[Fern]

Really? I thought you're talking about the cost-shifting nature of government subsidies.

This is about cost shifting in general, but has nothing to do with govt subsidies. Anyway, I think the specific issue of ObamaCare denying HI premium rates based on sound statistics as has historically been the norm (to the detriment of a gender specific portion of our population), and the general issue of govt subsidies to churches are so dissimilar that they should be in separate threads.

Fern

 

[Fern]

I do not have a problem with everyone, including women, having good health care.

Actually, this has nothing to do with HC quality. It's about who's paying for whose stuff.

If the argument is that women's HC quality will rise because they are paying less, then you'd be saying men's HC quality will decrease because they'll be paying more.

Fern

 

[lopri]

How is it dissimilar? Following your logic in your original post, a tax-paying, law-abiding atheist might be in a tremendous disadvantage and have an understandable grievance toward the government subsidy of churches and their affiliates. Or any member of different faiths could be feeling disadvantaged and losing out on the benefit by the less-than-mathmatically-perfect distribution of government subsidy programs on various religious organizations.

Does this analysis differ from your gender and marital-status based analysis of the ACA?

 

[fskimospy]

Boy, that's stupid.

Statistics show women incur higher costs, so they should pay more.

Hmmm... Oddly enough statistics show men are 'riskier' than women, so men pay more for life insurance.

No, it sure isn't. The reason cited for why women pay more is that they undertake a unique and more costly role in the perpetuation of the human species. This also impacts the amount of time they are able to devote to work. Logically, businesses should be able to discriminate against women because of this due to the fact that they will be, statistically speaking, less dedicated employees time wise. It is a perfectly logical corollary to your argument.

It's pretty clear you didn't think through the consequences of what you were trying to say. But hey, OBAMACARE, right? You've definitely become much more right wing in the last several years. I don't think you would have posted something like this thread a few years back.

 

[Pia]

You're right! Businesses should also be able to hire women at lower rates than men because they will probably take more time off when they have kids.

This is only one of many reasons I believe women should be punished for their required role in the continued existence of the human race.

Paying people less when they produce less is not "punishment". You want subsidization for some group of people, it should come out of taxpayers' pockets. There are countries which do exactly that; people on maternity/paternity leave retain the same pay but are paid by the government instead of the employer. This is transparent, doesn't distort the market, and removes the valid reason employers have to avoid hiring women.

 

[ericlp]

Hahaha! I dropped out of my health insurance. I don't see a need for it. Matter of fact if you can't see that HEALTH CARE is a SCAM pulled over your eyes then you have serious issues. Yep, I'll let the state pay for my health care. Since I am not working... I life off my investments. I found it time to opt out. so screw you guys. I'm on the Obama care now. After paying into this scam for most of my life I finally woke up. I'm not going to play the game. They (the hospital) can send me all the bills they want. I just send them a check, photo copied of course for my records of an IOU! Just like bush did!

Thanks, but No thanks. I am not gonna get screwed by this scam any longer and either should YOU!

 

[lothar]

Why is it wrong to discriminate against women on health insurance, but okay to discriminate against men on life and auto insurance?

 

[fskimospy]

Paying people less when they produce less is not "punishment". You want subsidization for some group of people, it should come out of taxpayers' pockets.

When they are producing less due to their unique role that is required for our species to continue to exist, perhaps that's not a valid reason.

EDIT: So your argument is that you're totally okay with this cost shifting but you would like to alter the mechanism? Uhmm, okay.

 

[fskimospy]

Why is it wrong to discriminate against women on health insurance, but okay to discriminate against men on life and auto insurance?

Are men more costly in life and auto insurance because they are undertaking activities that are required for humanity to continue to exist?

 

[sandorski]

Paying people less when they produce less is not "punishment". You want subsidization for some group of people, it should come out of taxpayers' pockets.

Who gets Paid based upon their Production? :\

 

[fskimospy]

By the way I have to say I have really been enjoying all the threads in the last week or so created by men that all talk about how we should be handling women's reproductive issues.

Only on the internet.