Total Posts:34|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The Gender Gap

Lee001
Posts: 3,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2015 6:31:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I recently did a paper on this in my women's studies class--I'll post my paper here. This is just my first paragraph.

"Let's say you go to the store and buy a 3 apples, that's it. You're standing in the line to pay, and the guy in front of you buys 3 apples as well, nothing else. The cashier charges the man $1.24 for the 3 apples, while she charges you $3.00 for the exact same thing, but just more because you are a women. Crazy right? It's unfair and unreasonable. Yet, the same scenario applies to health insurance. This is called the "Gender Rating". Women pay 1 billion more each year for health insurance then men do. It's even been proven that women take better care of their health then men do. For example as written in "Health Care Costs Are Greater For Women In Most States" written by Catherine New "A 40-year old women who does not smoke in Louisville, KY....Pays $196 a month, compared to the $128 a male smoker who pays for the very same coverage with HumanaOne." This is called "Gender Rating". They charge women more because they have lady parts. Another example, women who are overweight also pay more for then men who are equally overweight. Luckily, since Obama has taken office, the Obama's health care reform, The Affordable Care Acts, some states have already eliminated the gender rating. At least 12 states have banned the "Gender Rating".

I'd be interested in hearing opinions and thoughts on this topic.
"Condoms are societal constructs created by the government to restrain 'Murican freedom!"-SolonKR

"But I jest and digress (sick rhymes, yo); every boob is equal in the eyes of the Lord."- SolonKR

"Oh Hey, Seeing Artichokes Makes Me Want to Have Sex."- SolonKR

"Yep, but anyone who touches my hair immediately ascends to the heavens..You're already an angel, so touching my hair can do nothing <3" -SolonKR

My hubby Hayd <3 <3
SolonKR
Posts: 4,040
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2015 10:26:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Actually, I think you hit upon exactly what the issue is when you said that women are charged more because they have "lady parts".

First, it's important to note that, when compiling aggregate figures of health care spending, about 2/5ths of the difference is due to the fact that women tend to live longer (1), and people spend the majority of money on healthcare (including nursing homes) in old age (2).

Now then, where does the other 3/5ths, as well as a generally higher cost of insurance, come from? The answer is their lady parts. A 40-year old women is likely to be approaching menopause, which also happens to be when women experience health issues with the greatest frequency (3). That's not even taking into consideration all the costs associated with pregnancy and/or birth control that being a woman can incur. Insurance companies exist to make money, so, to compensate for those health care costs, they have to raise prices for those policies.

It's unfair, to be sure, but there are very good reasons for why it happens, and I wouldn't even really label insurance companies as sexist, just the overall healthcare system. In essence, being a woman is like a risk factor to insurance companies, so they treat it as one.

Now, that's not to say that the Obamacare mandate is necessarily a bad thing. I think the government certainly has a role in regulating the market to make it more fair, even if it means that men will pay the same for using fewer services; heck, I support a single-payer system. I'm just arguing that insurance companies are not being sexist, nor unreasonable, when they charge women more for health insurance.

I'd love to see the rest of the paper <3

Sources:
1. http://www.usatoday.com...
2. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
3. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
SO to Bailey, the love of my life <3
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2015 10:32:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Insurance covers risk, not people.

If you think it's a conspiracy, you can always go with health savings accounts instead, and manage your own risk.
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2015 11:57:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Health is...a little bit different. Men don't have to go get a penis or chest checkup every year. All they need is the standard checkup. Meanwhile, I hear that women have to go put their breasts under some X-Ray thingy every year and have to go check for fungi growing on their *censored*. Bleeping of course women's healthcare would be more expensive! If this is privilege, it's privilege conferred by biology.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2015 12:01:23 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
What I'm fairly certain of, though, is that a single man and a single woman of the same age, same level of education, willingness to work the same number of hours, and no employment experience who apply for a job at the same McDonald's at around the same time (thus removing every relevant factor except gender solely) would have a roughly equal chance of getting hired and either one would get paid the same amount.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,100
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2015 5:10:32 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Yeah...it would work if men and women got the same treatment, but men's healthcare doesn't have to encompass as much as women's healthcare. Thus, women's healthcare costing more is indeed just.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2015 10:32:24 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Health insurance companies aren't sexist. They use very sophisticated algorithms to determine what each person's risk factors are and chooses their prices accordingly. They probably should also charge blacks more for insurance as wel, given as how they're more likely to need a lot of hospital visits than whites due to heart reasons, risks of violent crime happening to them etc.
Hoppi
Posts: 1,655
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2015 12:29:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Yes it's unfair that women have to bear the financial as well as the physical cost of pregnancy and childbirth. It seems especially unfair that women who never have children have to subsidize those that do while the men who father those children get off with reduced premiums, along with all other men.
Todd0611
Posts: 99
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2015 6:13:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/21/2015 6:31:30 PM, Lee001 wrote:
I recently did a paper on this in my women's studies class--I'll post my paper here. This is just my first paragraph.

"Let's say you go to the store and buy a 3 apples, that's it. You're standing in the line to pay, and the guy in front of you buys 3 apples as well, nothing else. The cashier charges the man $1.24 for the 3 apples, while she charges you $3.00 for the exact same thing, but just more because you are a women. Crazy right? It's unfair and unreasonable. Yet, the same scenario applies to health insurance. This is called the "Gender Rating". Women pay 1 billion more each year for health insurance then men do. It's even been proven that women take better care of their health then men do. For example as written in "Health Care Costs Are Greater For Women In Most States" written by Catherine New "A 40-year old women who does not smoke in Louisville, KY....Pays $196 a month, compared to the $128 a male smoker who pays for the very same coverage with HumanaOne." This is called "Gender Rating". They charge women more because they have lady parts. Another example, women who are overweight also pay more for then men who are equally overweight. Luckily, since Obama has taken office, the Obama's health care reform, The Affordable Care Acts, some states have already eliminated the gender rating. At least 12 states have banned the "Gender Rating".

I'd be interested in hearing opinions and thoughts on this topic.

I believe Grey Parrot explained it well- it's about risk. Insurance companies base rates on risk/chance of having to "pay out". It's a fact that women's healthcare, overall, is more likely to be higher than a man's. That's not sexist, that's facts, gathered from research by the insurance companies. I used to smoke, I quit, by while I was a "smoker", I had to pay higher premiums for my company health insurance plan, that's because I was a greater risk to the insurance company than a non-smoker. While I never went to the doctor for health issues due to smoking, I took some issue with this, as I kept in good shape, and wondered why people who were overweight didn't have to pay more on premiums (they're at all kinds of health risks). Grey Parrot had a very good explanation about insurance companies and risk in another post, and the reasons why premiums are more for different groups.

Someone else mentioned that women have to bear all the financial burden of pregnancy (or close to that statement), and while they are correct about the physical burden of pregnancy, the financial part is only true in some cases. For example, my wife had 4 kids, at the time, I was the sole provider, and I gladly paid for her health insurance (family coverage through my employer), so she had zero financial burden. Many couples are in that same scenario, so it's not fair to say that women bear the whole financial burden by themselves. I also recognize, that not all women are in this scenario, and they are working, and so in those cases they do bear the burden.

Look at life insurance companies, they pay out obviously when someone passes away, but the rates paid by policy seekers are different based off a lot of factors, including age, gender, and health. You will probably pay a lot less as a younger person, because the risk/chance of dying young is low. As you get older, you're rates increase, as the chance/risk of you dying are higher. It's insurance- financial protection in case something bad happens. The cost we pay for insurance is based off the percentage chance that the insurance company will have to pay out. I know it's a lot more complicated than my statement, but you get the idea.
beng100
Posts: 1,055
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2015 10:10:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/21/2015 6:31:30 PM, Lee001 wrote:
I recently did a paper on this in my women's studies class--I'll post my paper here. This is just my first paragraph.

"Let's say you go to the store and buy a 3 apples, that's it. You're standing in the line to pay, and the guy in front of you buys 3 apples as well, nothing else. The cashier charges the man $1.24 for the 3 apples, while she charges you $3.00 for the exact same thing, but just more because you are a women. Crazy right? It's unfair and unreasonable. Yet, the same scenario applies to health insurance. This is called the "Gender Rating". Women pay 1 billion more each year for health insurance then men do. It's even been proven that women take better care of their health then men do. For example as written in "Health Care Costs Are Greater For Women In Most States" written by Catherine New "A 40-year old women who does not smoke in Louisville, KY....Pays $196 a month, compared to the $128 a male smoker who pays for the very same coverage with HumanaOne." This is called "Gender Rating". They charge women more because they have lady parts. Another example, women who are overweight also pay more for then men who are equally overweight. Luckily, since Obama has taken office, the Obama's health care reform, The Affordable Care Acts, some states have already eliminated the gender rating. At least 12 states have banned the "Gender Rating".

I'd be interested in hearing opinions and thoughts on this topic.

Im from the uk where we have a national health service. This service is paid for by general taxation with people contributing on the basis of how much tax they pay not their age, health, gender or race. It is a very effective method of avoiding discrimination and ensures equal treatment of all citizens. To me it is highly surprising more countries do not adopt a UK style national health service. Clearly in America it is right wing opposition that is the main reason why the current system remains highly unfair and discriminatory. It is to me ridiculous how women pay higher health insurance then men. It's blatant sexism. Even though my political views are on the right I fully support the uk national health service as do nearly all UK citizens.
Lee001
Posts: 3,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2015 11:39:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/23/2015 10:10:13 PM, beng100 wrote:
At 10/21/2015 6:31:30 PM, Lee001 wrote:
I recently did a paper on this in my women's studies class--I'll post my paper here. This is just my first paragraph.

"Let's say you go to the store and buy a 3 apples, that's it. You're standing in the line to pay, and the guy in front of you buys 3 apples as well, nothing else. The cashier charges the man $1.24 for the 3 apples, while she charges you $3.00 for the exact same thing, but just more because you are a women. Crazy right? It's unfair and unreasonable. Yet, the same scenario applies to health insurance. This is called the "Gender Rating". Women pay 1 billion more each year for health insurance then men do. It's even been proven that women take better care of their health then men do. For example as written in "Health Care Costs Are Greater For Women In Most States" written by Catherine New "A 40-year old women who does not smoke in Louisville, KY....Pays $196 a month, compared to the $128 a male smoker who pays for the very same coverage with HumanaOne." This is called "Gender Rating". They charge women more because they have lady parts. Another example, women who are overweight also pay more for then men who are equally overweight. Luckily, since Obama has taken office, the Obama's health care reform, The Affordable Care Acts, some states have already eliminated the gender rating. At least 12 states have banned the "Gender Rating".

I'd be interested in hearing opinions and thoughts on this topic.

Im from the uk where we have a national health service. This service is paid for by general taxation with people contributing on the basis of how much tax they pay not their age, health, gender or race. It is a very effective method of avoiding discrimination and ensures equal treatment of all citizens. To me it is highly surprising more countries do not adopt a UK style national health service. Clearly in America it is right wing opposition that is the main reason why the current system remains highly unfair and discriminatory. It is to me ridiculous how women pay higher health insurance then men. It's blatant sexism. Even though my political views are on the right I fully support the uk national health service as do nearly all UK citizens.

I agree that that's a better way to go in America. But you know I live in America where "Everybody is treated equally *under some circumstances*) lol.
"Condoms are societal constructs created by the government to restrain 'Murican freedom!"-SolonKR

"But I jest and digress (sick rhymes, yo); every boob is equal in the eyes of the Lord."- SolonKR

"Oh Hey, Seeing Artichokes Makes Me Want to Have Sex."- SolonKR

"Yep, but anyone who touches my hair immediately ascends to the heavens..You're already an angel, so touching my hair can do nothing <3" -SolonKR

My hubby Hayd <3 <3
beng100
Posts: 1,055
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2015 11:59:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/23/2015 11:39:07 PM, Lee001 wrote:
At 10/23/2015 10:10:13 PM, beng100 wrote:
At 10/21/2015 6:31:30 PM, Lee001 wrote:
I recently did a paper on this in my women's studies class--I'll post my paper here. This is just my first paragraph.

"Let's say you go to the store and buy a 3 apples, that's it. You're standing in the line to pay, and the guy in front of you buys 3 apples as well, nothing else. The cashier charges the man $1.24 for the 3 apples, while she charges you $3.00 for the exact same thing, but just more because you are a women. Crazy right? It's unfair and unreasonable. Yet, the same scenario applies to health insurance. This is called the "Gender Rating". Women pay 1 billion more each year for health insurance then men do. It's even been proven that women take better care of their health then men do. For example as written in "Health Care Costs Are Greater For Women In Most States" written by Catherine New "A 40-year old women who does not smoke in Louisville, KY....Pays $196 a month, compared to the $128 a male smoker who pays for the very same coverage with HumanaOne." This is called "Gender Rating". They charge women more because they have lady parts. Another example, women who are overweight also pay more for then men who are equally overweight. Luckily, since Obama has taken office, the Obama's health care reform, The Affordable Care Acts, some states have already eliminated the gender rating. At least 12 states have banned the "Gender Rating".

I'd be interested in hearing opinions and thoughts on this topic.

Im from the uk where we have a national health service. This service is paid for by general taxation with people contributing on the basis of how much tax they pay not their age, health, gender or race. It is a very effective method of avoiding discrimination and ensures equal treatment of all citizens. To me it is highly surprising more countries do not adopt a UK style national health service. Clearly in America it is right wing opposition that is the main reason why the current system remains highly unfair and discriminatory. It is to me ridiculous how women pay higher health insurance then men. It's blatant sexism. Even though my political views are on the right I fully support the uk national health service as do nearly all UK citizens.

I agree that that's a better way to go in America. But you know I live in America where "Everybody is treated equally *under some circumstances*) lol.

Have you heard of the ukip political party? It's right wing and On most issues they occupy similar ground to the republican party but at the last election they were campaigning for increased funding for the nhs! Im fairly sure if america somehow created a british style system within 10 years most republicans would realize it is much better. The amount of flaws and inefficiencies in the American health care system are extraordinary for a country with the biggest economy in the world. A basic level of health care is necessary for all citizens. Its incredible how blatant discrimination on grounds of age, gender and health can be legally made by health insurance companies. In general I favour privatizing services but clearly healthcare can't be effectively run by private sector companies. Like you say in the op in most areas privatization works effectively as everyone pays the same for a service or product regardless of age, gender or health. But in healthcare everyone's needs are clearly very different and while someone may not need any healthcare another person may need considerable healthcare and therefore have high insurance costs.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2015 3:57:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/23/2015 11:39:07 PM, Lee001 wrote:

I agree that that's a better way to go in America. But you know I live in America where "Everybody is treated equally *under some circumstances*) lol.

I mean, we can play the "equality" game for hours on end with no consensus. Women pay more for healthcare, men pay more for car and life insurance, women get paid about the same for the same productive work output, but are not paid the same for the same job title, and on and on...

And then you say it's equal that men have to work harder to pay for the increase in women's healthcare costs. You say it's equal that women should have to work harder to cover men's risky lifestyles and bad driving habits. You say it's equal that men should work harder to cover pay gaps in job titles.

Equal is in the eye of the beholder, like the famous book "Animal Farm."

All People are equal, but some people are more equal than others.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2015 4:03:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
If you want to classify women as inherently disabled by expanding the Americans with Disabilities Act, sure; then you can go get an "equalizing" check from the government to compensate for your disabilities.

Equality is a myth, and all the ADA compensations in the world still won't make all people equal. People are much more than the sum of their disabilities or inequalities.
BlackFlags
Posts: 904
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2015 4:49:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I think if there was a gender gap, then it would be something for women to collaborate and fix themselves. They should not lobby the authority and taxpayers to fix the problem for them.
Philocat
Posts: 728
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2015 11:35:07 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/23/2015 10:10:13 PM, beng100 wrote:
At 10/21/2015 6:31:30 PM, Lee001 wrote:
I recently did a paper on this in my women's studies class--I'll post my paper here. This is just my first paragraph.

"Let's say you go to the store and buy a 3 apples, that's it. You're standing in the line to pay, and the guy in front of you buys 3 apples as well, nothing else. The cashier charges the man $1.24 for the 3 apples, while she charges you $3.00 for the exact same thing, but just more because you are a women. Crazy right? It's unfair and unreasonable. Yet, the same scenario applies to health insurance. This is called the "Gender Rating". Women pay 1 billion more each year for health insurance then men do. It's even been proven that women take better care of their health then men do. For example as written in "Health Care Costs Are Greater For Women In Most States" written by Catherine New "A 40-year old women who does not smoke in Louisville, KY....Pays $196 a month, compared to the $128 a male smoker who pays for the very same coverage with HumanaOne." This is called "Gender Rating". They charge women more because they have lady parts. Another example, women who are overweight also pay more for then men who are equally overweight. Luckily, since Obama has taken office, the Obama's health care reform, The Affordable Care Acts, some states have already eliminated the gender rating. At least 12 states have banned the "Gender Rating".

I'd be interested in hearing opinions and thoughts on this topic.

Im from the uk where we have a national health service. This service is paid for by general taxation with people contributing on the basis of how much tax they pay not their age, health, gender or race. It is a very effective method of avoiding discrimination and ensures equal treatment of all citizens. To me it is highly surprising more countries do not adopt a UK style national health service. Clearly in America it is right wing opposition that is the main reason why the current system remains highly unfair and discriminatory. It is to me ridiculous how women pay higher health insurance then men. It's blatant sexism. Even though my political views are on the right I fully support the uk national health service as do nearly all UK citizens.

Saying it's 'blatant sexism' implies that the discrimination is unjustified - but in this case it isn't. Women require far more checkups than men, not to mention the huge cost of pregnancy care, childbirth and post-natal care. In short, it costs more to provide healthcare for women than men. So it may be discrimination, but only unjust discrimination can be called sexism.
JMcKinley
Posts: 314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2015 6:17:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
It is discrimination, but as far as I am concerned its acceptable as long as the discrimination is based on measurable demonstrable data, and not solely on sex.

If women do indeed cost more money for insurance companies then its perfectly acceptable for insurance companies to charge them more. Because they are also receiving more in the form of benefits.

But if the insurance companies can not demonstrate that women cost more to insure then they have no right to charge them higher rates based solely on their sex.

When I first received my driver's license I paid significantly more for insurance than my girlfriend for the sole reason that I'm male. Was it fair for me? It didn't feel that way at the time. But when you look at the data young men are in far more serious accidents than young women. This is just fact, whether I like it or not. I was a higher risk from the insurance company's view and they could prove it with cold hard facts, and so it was fair even if I didn't like it. We don't always like what's fair.

We're all equal under the law. But in reality we're all very different. I'd much rather live in a world that acknowledged those differences and made intelligent policy decisions based upon them, than in a world where political correctness demands that we all be treated the same regardless of our different needs.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2015 7:43:21 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/26/2015 11:35:07 AM, Philocat wrote:
Saying it's 'blatant sexism' implies that the discrimination is unjustified - but in this case it isn't. Women require far more checkups than men, not to mention the huge cost of pregnancy care, childbirth and post-natal care. In short, it costs more to provide healthcare for women than men. So it may be discrimination, but only unjust discrimination can be called sexism.

Hey, look. We agree on something. Let's celebrate.
Philocat
Posts: 728
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2015 8:04:49 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/29/2015 7:43:21 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 10/26/2015 11:35:07 AM, Philocat wrote:
Saying it's 'blatant sexism' implies that the discrimination is unjustified - but in this case it isn't. Women require far more checkups than men, not to mention the huge cost of pregnancy care, childbirth and post-natal care. In short, it costs more to provide healthcare for women than men. So it may be discrimination, but only unjust discrimination can be called sexism.

Hey, look. We agree on something. Let's celebrate.

Bet we'll disagree on how to celebrate :P
Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2015 9:02:01 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/26/2015 11:35:07 AM, Philocat wrote:
Saying it's 'blatant sexism' implies that the discrimination is unjustified - but in this case it isn't. Women require far more checkups than men, not to mention the huge cost of pregnancy care, childbirth and post-natal care. In short, it costs more to provide healthcare for women than men. So it may be discrimination, but only unjust discrimination can be called sexism.

So you think it's fair that women bear the financial costs of pregnancy and childbirth? Even if they don't have children? Why don't you think it would be fair for men to contribute to those costs too?
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2015 12:33:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/21/2015 6:31:30 PM, Lee001 wrote:
I recently did a paper on this in my women's studies class--I'll post my paper here. This is just my first paragraph.

"Let's say you go to the store and buy a 3 apples, that's it. You're standing in the line to pay, and the guy in front of you buys 3 apples as well, nothing else. The cashier charges the man $1.24 for the 3 apples, while she charges you $3.00 for the exact same thing, but just more because you are a women. Crazy right? It's unfair and unreasonable. Yet, the same scenario applies to health insurance. This is called the "Gender Rating". Women pay 1 billion more each year for health insurance then men do. It's even been proven that women take better care of their health then men do. For example as written in "Health Care Costs Are Greater For Women In Most States" written by Catherine New "A 40-year old women who does not smoke in Louisville, KY....Pays $196 a month, compared to the $128 a male smoker who pays for the very same coverage with HumanaOne." This is called "Gender Rating". They charge women more because they have lady parts. Another example, women who are overweight also pay more for then men who are equally overweight. Luckily, since Obama has taken office, the Obama's health care reform, The Affordable Care Acts, some states have already eliminated the gender rating. At least 12 states have banned the "Gender Rating".

I'd be interested in hearing opinions and thoughts on this topic.

The lady parts, in fact, should raise the cost.
mammograms run about $243
pregnancy and newborn care run $30-$50,000
birth control runs wildly from $9 - 62/month
menopause is something else

Assume there is no insurance. That lady in the store is going to pay more than the guy in from of her for her medical needs, on average, solely because she has lady parts.

Why should insurance companies not charge more, if a certain aspect of your profile (i.e. lady parts) will cost more? It's the same theory of charging based on age and medical history.

I am curious, though. You mentioned a $128 vs $196 gap, and that this gap is now closed due to legal mandates. What is the cost for these people now? Is the man paying more, is the woman paying less, both?

Also, your case, I am curious as to the age. Because, while smoking is more risky, at younger ages, I don't think it affects the prices too much, just like lady parts don't affect the price at older ages too much.

By the way, do you have a problem with women paying less for life insurance (since they live longer) or driving insurance (since they get fewer tickets, although this gap has largely closed in the last decade, but not when I was growing up)
My work here is, finally, done.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2015 5:26:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/29/2015 9:02:01 AM, Garbanza wrote:
At 10/26/2015 11:35:07 AM, Philocat wrote:
Saying it's 'blatant sexism' implies that the discrimination is unjustified - but in this case it isn't. Women require far more checkups than men, not to mention the huge cost of pregnancy care, childbirth and post-natal care. In short, it costs more to provide healthcare for women than men. So it may be discrimination, but only unjust discrimination can be called sexism.

So you think it's fair that women bear the financial costs of pregnancy and childbirth? Even if they don't have children? Why don't you think it would be fair for men to contribute to those costs too?

Do you feel that I, a non-smoker, should contribute to the costs of those who smoke?
Do you feel that I, who does not have diabetes, should contribute to the costs of those who have diabetes?
Do you feel that a healthy 20-something, should contribute to the costs of those who are 80 and on death's door?
My work here is, finally, done.
Philocat
Posts: 728
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2015 10:09:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/29/2015 9:02:01 AM, Garbanza wrote:
At 10/26/2015 11:35:07 AM, Philocat wrote:
Saying it's 'blatant sexism' implies that the discrimination is unjustified - but in this case it isn't. Women require far more checkups than men, not to mention the huge cost of pregnancy care, childbirth and post-natal care. In short, it costs more to provide healthcare for women than men. So it may be discrimination, but only unjust discrimination can be called sexism.

So you think it's fair that women bear the financial costs of pregnancy and childbirth? Even if they don't have children? Why don't you think it would be fair for men to contribute to those costs too?

A health insurance company takes a simple, objective view of the situation. In this case, they compare an average man and an average woman. All else being equal, statistics prove that the woman is more likely to require a greater amount of healthcare. Given how insurance works, it makes clear business sense to charge more for insuring women than it does to insure men.

Moreover, an insurance company cannot know that a woman doesn't want to give birth. Hell, most women don't know that themselves. It is very impractical to offer cheaper insurance to women who claim they don't want any children; for example, what's to stop a woman telling the insurer that she doesn't want children, claiming the cheaper insurance, and then 'accidentally' falling pregnant anyway?

Another insurance-related example is that of new drivers. Insurance companies charge higher for newly passed male drivers than for newly passed female drivers. Is this discrimination? Of course it is. But it is still justified on the insurer's behalf because men are statistically more likely to have an accident.

I will reiterate, discrimination isn't necessarily bad - only unjustified discrimination is.

In response to your question about men contributing to the health insurance costs, I would point out that it is the feminists themselves who go on about not requiring male assistance and how they are 'strong, independent working women who don't need no man'. Surely it is anathema to feminism to maintain that women need men to help them pay their insurance bills.
More to the point, why should any man have to pay for another's healthcare just because he's a man?
BlackFlags
Posts: 904
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2015 10:21:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Wylted is right. Women are more likely to get more coverage than men, therefore they are going to be faced with higher premiums.

Businesses can discriminate in some instances depending on whether they can prove financial based reasoning.
Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2015 4:58:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/29/2015 10:09:47 PM, Philocat wrote:
In response to your question about men contributing to the health insurance costs, I would point out that it is the feminists themselves who go on about not requiring male assistance and how they are 'strong, independent working women who don't need no man'. Surely it is anathema to feminism to maintain that women need men to help them pay their insurance bills.
More to the point, why should any man have to pay for another's healthcare just because he's a man?

I suppose the thing is with pregnancy that a man and a woman are responsible for it? That you need one of each for it to happen, and when the baby is born it has a biological mother and a biological father. So it just seems strange to me that women are held 100% financially responsible for everything to do with pregnancy and childbirth.
Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2015 5:00:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/29/2015 5:26:39 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 10/29/2015 9:02:01 AM, Garbanza wrote:
At 10/26/2015 11:35:07 AM, Philocat wrote:
Saying it's 'blatant sexism' implies that the discrimination is unjustified - but in this case it isn't. Women require far more checkups than men, not to mention the huge cost of pregnancy care, childbirth and post-natal care. In short, it costs more to provide healthcare for women than men. So it may be discrimination, but only unjust discrimination can be called sexism.

So you think it's fair that women bear the financial costs of pregnancy and childbirth? Even if they don't have children? Why don't you think it would be fair for men to contribute to those costs too?

Do you feel that I, a non-smoker, should contribute to the costs of those who smoke?
Do you feel that I, who does not have diabetes, should contribute to the costs of those who have diabetes?
Do you feel that a healthy 20-something, should contribute to the costs of those who are 80 and on death's door?

Do you think that men are not responsible for pregnancy? You know about all the sperm-egg stuff, right?
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2015 10:38:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/30/2015 5:00:14 PM, Garbanza wrote:
At 10/29/2015 5:26:39 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 10/29/2015 9:02:01 AM, Garbanza wrote:
At 10/26/2015 11:35:07 AM, Philocat wrote:
Saying it's 'blatant sexism' implies that the discrimination is unjustified - but in this case it isn't. Women require far more checkups than men, not to mention the huge cost of pregnancy care, childbirth and post-natal care. In short, it costs more to provide healthcare for women than men. So it may be discrimination, but only unjust discrimination can be called sexism.

So you think it's fair that women bear the financial costs of pregnancy and childbirth? Even if they don't have children? Why don't you think it would be fair for men to contribute to those costs too?

Do you feel that I, a non-smoker, should contribute to the costs of those who smoke?
Do you feel that I, who does not have diabetes, should contribute to the costs of those who have diabetes?
Do you feel that a healthy 20-something, should contribute to the costs of those who are 80 and on death's door?

Do you think that men are not responsible for pregnancy? You know about all the sperm-egg stuff, right?

Is there a reason you are condescending?
Do you understand how insurance works?
Why does my insurance go up, because you hit me, and you were at fault?
Why do I pay more for home owner's insurance if I live in a high crime area? It's not my fault others commit crimes.

Why should all men pay for all women's risks, when, ideally, specific men are around to help pay for specific women's pregnancies?
My work here is, finally, done.
Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2015 3:17:22 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/30/2015 10:38:00 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 10/30/2015 5:00:14 PM, Garbanza wrote:
At 10/29/2015 5:26:39 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 10/29/2015 9:02:01 AM, Garbanza wrote:
At 10/26/2015 11:35:07 AM, Philocat wrote:
Saying it's 'blatant sexism' implies that the discrimination is unjustified - but in this case it isn't. Women require far more checkups than men, not to mention the huge cost of pregnancy care, childbirth and post-natal care. In short, it costs more to provide healthcare for women than men. So it may be discrimination, but only unjust discrimination can be called sexism.

So you think it's fair that women bear the financial costs of pregnancy and childbirth? Even if they don't have children? Why don't you think it would be fair for men to contribute to those costs too?

Do you feel that I, a non-smoker, should contribute to the costs of those who smoke?
Do you feel that I, who does not have diabetes, should contribute to the costs of those who have diabetes?
Do you feel that a healthy 20-something, should contribute to the costs of those who are 80 and on death's door?

Do you think that men are not responsible for pregnancy? You know about all the sperm-egg stuff, right?

Is there a reason you are condescending?

Yes. The way you asked those question before seemed a little aggressive.

Do you understand how insurance works?

A bit maybe. But do you understand that some parts of society are subsidizing other parts of society through insurance? It's not a perfect relationship between risk and premiums. For example, young people are almost always subsidizing old people on health insurance.
http://www.forbes.com...

Why does my insurance go up, because you hit me, and you were at fault?

I suppose because it's based on risk, and if you're the sort of person who hangs out with violent women all the time, you live a riskier lifestyle, and the best measure of your association with violent women would be the number of times you are hospitalized by a woman over a certain time period.

Why do I pay more for home owner's insurance if I live in a high crime area? It's not my fault others commit crimes.

risk assessment.

Why should all men pay for all women's risks, when, ideally, specific men are around to help pay for specific women's pregnancies?

So here you concede that it's ideal for fathers to share in childcare costs. It's ideal. So why are they excused it on their insurance?

According to this random web site, men are more expensive than women if you take out pregnancy and childbirth costs:
"The argument for gender rating, in the days before the Afford"able Care Act, had always been that women cost more to insure. But if we ignore all costs directly associated with pregnancy and childbearing (the logic here being that it takes two parties to create a child and both parties should be willing to pay equally to sup"port that endeavor), men aren"t actually any cheaper to insure than women.
"When you get older, men cost more to insure than women," explained Jonathan Gruber, a health economist at Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Later in life, men are more likely to have a variety of conditions including heart attacks, lung cancer, and liver cancer. They"re also more likely to smoke, drink, and get in accidents, accordng to experts."
http://www.nationaljournal.com...
Philocat
Posts: 728
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2015 7:58:46 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/30/2015 4:58:13 PM, Garbanza wrote:
At 10/29/2015 10:09:47 PM, Philocat wrote:
In response to your question about men contributing to the health insurance costs, I would point out that it is the feminists themselves who go on about not requiring male assistance and how they are 'strong, independent working women who don't need no man'. Surely it is anathema to feminism to maintain that women need men to help them pay their insurance bills.
More to the point, why should any man have to pay for another's healthcare just because he's a man?

I suppose the thing is with pregnancy that a man and a woman are responsible for it? That you need one of each for it to happen, and when the baby is born it has a biological mother and a biological father. So it just seems strange to me that women are held 100% financially responsible for everything to do with pregnancy and childbirth.

But that is balanced out by the fact that the father is financially responsible after the child has been born. Anyhow, the father can still choose to help pay for the woman's health insurance.
Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2015 10:58:17 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/31/2015 7:58:46 AM, Philocat wrote:
At 10/30/2015 4:58:13 PM, Garbanza wrote:
At 10/29/2015 10:09:47 PM, Philocat wrote:
In response to your question about men contributing to the health insurance costs, I would point out that it is the feminists themselves who go on about not requiring male assistance and how they are 'strong, independent working women who don't need no man'. Surely it is anathema to feminism to maintain that women need men to help them pay their insurance bills.
More to the point, why should any man have to pay for another's healthcare just because he's a man?

I suppose the thing is with pregnancy that a man and a woman are responsible for it? That you need one of each for it to happen, and when the baby is born it has a biological mother and a biological father. So it just seems strange to me that women are held 100% financially responsible for everything to do with pregnancy and childbirth.

But that is balanced out by the fact that the father is financially responsible after the child has been born. Anyhow, the father can still choose to help pay for the woman's health insurance.

Yeah, he can choose, but often men don't choose of course.
It really doesn't make sense to me that mothers should bear all those costs alone unless the father chooses to chip in. And it's not only mothers, of course. All women subsidize child care with their insurance premiums, whether they're mothers or not. Those non-mothers don't have anyone to chip in and help them out. Why should it be women who bear all this cost? Why should men be absolved of financial responsibility for the children they father because they personally have zero risk of getting pregnant?