Gender rating

General Buck Turgidson said:
The issue is whether the government can do something about it, not whether there are legitimate reasons why health insurers do it (there are!). Basically, should the government equalize the amount women and men pay for the same insurance, which forces men to pay more than they otherwise would and women less.
Click to expand...

It...is...not...the...same...insurance. Just because they both use the term 'preventative care... doesn't mean they are the same. They are not. A concept you are apparently too dense to comprehend.
 
Cynic said:
since when did insurance companies become charities?

I would really like to know this.

They are a BUSINESS.

If they've determined female customers, on average, are going to be needing more medical care, why shouldn't they be charged a higher premium?

If I live in an area with few earthquakes, my earthquake insurance is going to be very cheap. If I live in san francisco, earthquake insurance is going to be much higher.

If I am a guy and don't have to buy birth control, or spend time in a maternity ward, or have a lower chance of cancer, I am going to pay less.

DUH!

And if a woman is going to be having more medical bills, then she obviously she should pay more.

Insurance companies are not charities
Insurance companies are not charities
Insurance compnaies are not charities.

They are a business.
They're goal is to make a profit.

Handing out money to those that are going to cost them more money, is not a smart business plan.

I seriously understood this stuff in the second grade.
Click to expand...
That's right they are a business. The ethical question here is should a "business" be permitted to maximize profits based on the outcomes of other peoples health? Keep in mind that it is a Republican idea to use a market based solution but that these companies should be regulated and managed as non-profits.

What you seem to be missing here is that if a company has to choose between maximizing its profits or serving a customers best intrest (their health) they will choose to maximize the profit. If that means they have to choose between providing for you cancer treatments or meeting the Streets expectations for Q1.....then guess what they are going to do? This is what you would call a "conflict of interest".
 
General Buck Turgidson said:
I'm guessing it's something along the lines of post #36.
Click to expand...

i guess. but everyone has different problems. Some people are born with thyroid conditions that make them fat, some are have a higher risk for diabetes, cancer, etc. Everyone has issues they have to deal with. If they use healthcare more, they should pay more. Insurance companies are not a charity.

Also I can't wait for when this mandate fails, as it is very much unconstitutional :)

No free money for the proles! :D
 
Derp Derp said:
That's right they are a business. The ethical question here is should a "business" be permitted to maximize profits based on the outcomes of other peoples health? Keep in mind that it is a Republican idea to use a market based solution but that these companies should be regulated and managed as non-profits.

What you seem to be missing here is that if a company has to choose between maximizing its profits or serving a customers best intrest (their health) they will choose to maximize the profit. If that means they have to choose between providing for you cancer treatments or meeting the Streets expectations for Q1.....then guess what they are going to do? This is what you would call a "conflict of interest".
Click to expand...

if we had a constitutional, tax-funded, single payer system, I wouldn't cry myself to sleep at night.

But in the context of insurance companies, they have the right to charge whatever they want if they feel certain customers will be using them more often.

And in the context of obamacare, it's asinine that I would be forced to purchase healthcare I may not need.
 
Superfreak said:
It...is...not...the...same...insurance. Just because they both use the term 'preventative care... doesn't mean they are the same. They are not. A concept you are apparently too dense to comprehend.
Click to expand...


Women pay more for the same health insurance plans. That's was gender rating is.
 
Cynic said:
if we had a constitutional, tax-funded, single payer system, I wouldn't cry myself to sleep at night.

But in the context of insurance companies, they have the right to charge whatever they want if they feel certain customers will be using them more often.

And in the context of obamacare, it's asinine that I would be forced to purchase healthcare I may not need.
Click to expand...
NO it's not. Insurance companies have an apparent conflict of interest with the public trust. This is why they are regulated. Tell me how we eliminate the conflict of interest?
 
Derp Derp said:
NO it's not. Insurance companies have an apparent conflict of interest with the public trust. This is why they are regulated. Tell me how we eliminate the conflict of interest?
Click to expand...

how is there a conflict of interest? what are you referring to?
 
Derp Derp said:
Aww shoot!

I thought it was giong to be a real JPP gender rating. kinda like;

Manliness rating (1 to 10 scale, 10 being most manly)

Billy - 7.8
Grind - 6.7
Watermark - 4.6
3D - 3
Damo - 7.1
Mott - 10.5
SuperFreak - 2.3
Bravo - -6.6
Darla - 8.9
Click to expand...

Mott, you're from Ohio. That makes you already less than human, so manliness is out of the question for you.
 
Darla said:
the woman should just tell the man, "if you want sex I need $5.95 for the contraceptives we're going to use"........

This is very revealing of the conservative male mind. Very revealing. You see how first of all, it's always the man who wants it and the women who gives it, so it's incumbent upon her to negotiate the terms of her surrender. In fact, when the bed magic is upon the man, that is the only time the woman has the power to negotiate. And of course, sex is always transactional.
Click to expand...

That's the first thing I thought, too. It's always the woman's responsibility.
 
christiefan915 said:
For all the men complaining about "paying for women's birth control."

Health-care law to end gender rating

A woman who buys her own health insurance in Ohio can count on paying more than a man for the same coverage, because of a discriminatory practice called gender rating. For many women, this can put affordable, comprehensive coverage out of reach.

President Obama's health-care law will ban such practices once it is fully implemented, but until then they remain a widespread problem.

In Ohio, 100 percent of the best-selling individual health insurance plans practice gender rating, and 100 percent exclude maternity coverage.

One plan charges a 40-year-old woman $371 more in annual premiums than a 40-year-old man for the same coverage. Another charges $669 more.
Nationwide, the effect of these discrepancies can be staggering. A new analysis by the National Women's Law Center finds that gender rating costs women approximately $1 billion a year.

Insurance companies are aware of the problem, but have not voluntarily taken steps to eliminate it. That's why provisions of the health-care law that will roll out in 2014 prohibit gender rating in the individual insurance market, require all plans on the individual market to provide maternity coverage, and prohibit sex discrimination in health plans from insurance companies that receive federal funds.

The practice of gender rating is not going away by itself. This national problem demands a national solution. We have one in the health-care law.

Marcia Greenberger
Co-President National Women's Law Center Washington, D.C.

http://www.toledoblade.com/Letters-.../31/Health-care-law-to-end-gender-rating.html
Click to expand...

The thing about these insurance policies is that most don't cover pregnancy/maternity or cover very little of the cost, but they are still allowed to charge women at a higher rate for the same coverage a man would receive because they can.
 
Cynic said:
i guess. but everyone has different problems. Some people are born with thyroid conditions that make them fat, some are have a higher risk for diabetes, cancer, etc. Everyone has issues they have to deal with. If they use healthcare more, they should pay more. Insurance companies are not a charity.

Also I can't wait for when this mandate fails, as it is very much unconstitutional :)

No free money for the proles! :D
Click to expand...

It says they use the health care more but I don't see where it says the company pays out more money because of this. It all depends on the nature of the usage.

Example: woman has 3 yearly exams at $75/ea. for 10 years, total amount insurance pays is $2250. Man has no usage for 9 years and in year 10 suffers a coronary, total amount insurance pays $60,000+.
 
Cynic said:
if we had a constitutional, tax-funded, single payer system, I wouldn't cry myself to sleep at night.

But in the context of insurance companies, they have the right to charge whatever they want if they feel certain customers will be using them more often.

And in the context of obamacare, it's asinine that I would be forced to purchase healthcare I may not need.
Click to expand...

The writer was talking about the same coverage. She's not saying "except for maternity benefits or prostate exams", she's saying the same coverage.

A woman who buys her own health insurance in Ohio can count on paying more than a man for the same coverage, because of a discriminatory practice called gender rating. For many women, this can put affordable, comprehensive coverage out of reach.

President Obama's health-care law will ban such practices once it is fully implemented, but until then they remain a widespread problem.

In Ohio, 100 percent of the best-selling individual health insurance plans practice gender rating, and 100 percent exclude maternity coverage.

One plan charges a 40-year-old woman $371 more in annual premiums than a 40-year-old man for the same coverage. Another charges $669 more.
Nationwide, the effect of these discrepancies can be staggering. A new analysis by the National Women's Law Center finds that gender rating costs women approximately $1 billion a year.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
seriously....in your entire life have you ever had to ask a man to have sex with you?.......if the answer is yes, perhaps some of the things the AOL folks have said about you are true......
Click to expand...

Your question really is - have I ever initiated sex? And the answer of course is, absolutely.

It has come to my attention that few, if any, conservative men have experience with that phenomenon though. I understand that's why you write about it as if it's a trial for a woman, and she should negotiate for something in return. That's been your lived experience.
 
Darla said:
Your question really is - have I ever initiated sex? And the answer of course is, absolutely.

It has come to my attention that few, if any, conservative men have experience with that phenomenon though. I understand that's why you write about it as if it's a trial for a woman, and she should negotiate for something in return. That's been your lived experience.
Click to expand...

He's hilarious, isn't he. Men just love it when the woman initiates. I guess this is foreign territory for Pmp. Pity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top