Skip to main content

View Diary: The gender gap in insurance rates, state by state (23 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Excuse me sir, but women don't create (0+ / 0-)

    those babies all by themselves.  So, kindly stop telling women that they should bear the full cost of maternity medical expenses.   Or if you want to go down that road, women who haven't nor intend ever to have children, will refuse to pay those female surcharges, those that object to organ transplants can demand a lower insurance rate, etc.  

    •  I appreciate your position but (0+ / 0-)

      you may be missing his point, and putting words in his mouth to boot. Nobody said it was fair that women pay more for health insurance, any more than it is fair that sick people pay higher insurance rates. But from an insurance company perspective, the premiums they charge are directly correlated to the risk they are taking on by insuring someone. Health insurance companies don't make off-hand guesses, the math gets put into actuarial models and out pop the premiums.

      The answer, of course, is to treat health care as the public good that it is and go single-payer. Hopefully that is where we are heading.

      •  Don't need to be schooled in how (0+ / 0-)

        insurance companies can calculate disparate rates based on certain criteria.  They've been doing it to minorities for decades.  Am also quite sure that wasn't the point of the comment I responded to.

        Note: several states do not permit a premium surcharge for women.  Therefore, it's state legislatures that choose not to address this issue.

        •  women require more expensive health care (0+ / 0-)

          on average, than men do.

          It's not just childbirth.  

          Medically speaking, women's health should properly be thought of as a different animal than men's health.  The most obvious examples are that women have a much higher rate of breast cancer, and then there are the unique cases of uterine cancer and prostate cancer.

          You can argue that men should be paying the same rates, even though on average their outlays will be lower.  But be aware that this is what you are arguing.  It's not a "female surcharge".

          http://www.amcp.org/...

          "Between their late forties and early sixties, women tend to spend 50% more than men on health care. With the onset of menopause, the prevalence and impact of costly conditions increases substantially among women"

          •  Women also pay less for car insurance.... (0+ / 0-)

            Not that I'm in favor of women paying more for health insurance.

            The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy;the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness

            by CTMET on Fri Mar 30, 2012 at 07:30:54 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  I wonder how much of the increased spending is (0+ / 0-)

            related to the relentless message that menopause is unnatural and it has to be treated and fixed with hormone therapies and such.  If men had such a dramatic change in their reproductive system to remind them of their own impending mortality, drugmakers would scramble to provide therapies (beyond Viagra and other ED drugs).  I seems that in the upper-most age range men and women are nearly equal in healthcare expenditures in the link.  

            My sister helps a pharmaceutical company coordinate drug trials and men are usually the preferred test subjects--much of it due to the fact that women can get pregnant and the drug manufacturers don't want to deal with any repercussions due to infant mortality and birth defects.  Perhaps the healthcare industry should not consider men as the baseline for care and treatment development in human beings--that already sets women apart as deviating from the "norm"

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site