Should women pay more for health insurance?

Avatar image for spaceinsomniac
SpaceInsomniac

6353

Forum Posts

42

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 3

Poll Should women pay more for health insurance? (358 votes)

Yes, because that's how insurance works. Most risk / frequent use = more money. 42%
No. I don't care if it makes sense statistically, I still disagree. 30%
No. And the elderly shouldn't pay more either. That's Ageism. 14%
No, and these "facts" are clearly just another means of oppressing women. 14%

Here's an interesting ethical question for you. If women take more out of the health care system than men do, but they both pay the same amount in insurance premiums, would it be accurate to call that gender equality?

Inspired by this lovely piece of completely one-sided "journalism" over at Yahoo:

http://shine.yahoo.com/healthy-living/fox-s-sexist-comments-on-women-s-healthcare-spark-outrage-172914267.html

The comments section is great, though. Many people--including more than a few women--agree that women should pay more. They also raise a good point about the gender discrimination when it comes to women paying less for car insurance, and how nobody in our government seems to care about that.

If women are statistically safer drivers, they SHOULD pay less for car insurance. That makes perfect sense, and it's the way insurance works. If you are less likely to need it, you are less likely to cost the system more than you put in, and you pay less money.

Anyhow, here are a couple of quotes from the doctor in question, who dared to suggest that people who statistically use their insurance more should actually pay more.

“We only have the prostate. Women have the breasts, they have the ovaries, they have the uterus, they get checked in every part.

"Look, it's not bias, I'm not saying this as a man," he said. "They go through a lot of preventive screenings, they give birth, they have the whole mammogram, the Pap smear. Guys, we don't like to go to doctors, right? Seventy percent of health care decisions are made by women. In my own practice, I see it's the women who bring the guys, who say, 'Go get screened.' Otherwise, we would never go."

And of course, at that point, all sorts of feminists and various women's interest groups cried fowl. And some people have suggested that the fact that women seek out preventative care certainly must make them LESS expensive to insurance companies than men. But let's look at that argument.

The thing is, I often hear that feminism views gender inequality as a systemic problem. I hear the argument that feminists don't view males as evil men twirling their mustaches and secretly piloting how they can continue to oppress women. And I believe that argument, and I feel that the vast majority of feminists do not view men in that way.

But the thing is, with that said, we're left with one of two possibilities.

1) There are men who run health insurance companies. These men structure their entire business around the concept of knowing who is more likely to pay into the system, and who is more likely to take more from the system. These men see hard data on all of their customers, and use that data to determine insurance premiums. These men have determined that overall, women take more from the system than men. Because of this, they charge women higher health care premiums than men.

2) There are men who run health insurance companies. These are evil men twirling their mustaches and secretly piloting how they can continue to oppress women.

So instead, we're left with the simple non-sexist fact that women really do cost health insurance companies more than men. The question is, do you believe that is fair?

And again, if women take more out of the health care system than men do, but they both pay the same amount in insurance premiums, would it be accurate to call that gender equality?

 • 
Avatar image for spaceinsomniac
SpaceInsomniac

6353

Forum Posts

42

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 3

#201  Edited By SpaceInsomniac

@viking_funeral said:

Man, those choices. I can't even vote.

Do women statistically take more out of health insurance? I see the simplistic "more body parts" argument, but is that an actual statistical certainty? 'Cause I'm pretty sure men are more likely to visit the emergency room or die of complications. Well, whatever. This doesn't seem like a thought out argument as much as some school yard 'logic.'

Whitehouse.gov says women use more health insurance than men. For more info, see post 137 on page 3.

If it is a statistical certainty, and you still don't support women paying more than men, simply vote for the second option. There's no shame in putting your interpretation of what is ethically right over what is statistically accurate.

And for a better explanation of my argument than the original post offers, see post 176.

Avatar image for sathingtonwaltz
SathingtonWaltz

2167

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 2

#203  Edited By SathingtonWaltz

The way insurance works and is set up necessitates the "more risk = higher fees" equation. There's no malevolence against anyone here, it's just a simple yet ethically dubious method of pricing their "services".

Avatar image for sathingtonwaltz
SathingtonWaltz

2167

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 2

#204  Edited By SathingtonWaltz

@lively: The free market could have fixed it, but there are too many regulations protecting the big insurance companies to allow for any kind of proper competition. The best solution now is probably some kind of single payer system, though almost half the country is divided on that method.

Avatar image for darji
Darji

5412

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#205  Edited By Darji

The way insurance works and is set up necessitates the "more risk = higher fees" equation. There's no malevolence against anyone here, it's just a simple yet ethically dubious method of pricing their "services".

yeah you can ethically not do that. For example just because white people can get a sunburn and though easily cancer you should not charge them more then black people. Gender or Race should not make a difference how much you pay for it. Some people just need more money than other people.

Avatar image for spaceinsomniac
SpaceInsomniac

6353

Forum Posts

42

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 3

@darji said:

@sathingtonwaltz said:

The way insurance works and is set up necessitates the "more risk = higher fees" equation. There's no malevolence against anyone here, it's just a simple yet ethically dubious method of pricing their "services".

yeah you can ethically not do that. For example just because white people can get a sunburn and though easily cancer you should not charge them more then black people. Gender or Race should not make a difference how much you pay for it. Some people just need more money than other people.

Seeing as you're using the term 'ethical' as if this were a black and white issue--not referring to race, there--I'm going to quote this again, because it's kind of the crux of my argument:

A) The answer that agrees with how insurance works, and goes with statistics, believing that to be a fair and ethical system. What you are asked to give is representative of what you take out.

B) The answer that agrees with how insurance works, and goes against that for any reason. I was actually implying a moral / ethical reason, but I didn't want to come right out and say that, as both systems could be argued to be either unethical or not a true example of equality.

That is why I stared my thread with: "If women take more out of the health care system than men do, but they both pay the same amount in insurance premiums, would it be accurate to call that gender equality?" With the proposed system, you have two groups contributing the same amount, with one group taking more than the other. With the current system, you have two groups taking only what they put in.

When phrased like that, it sounds much more fair than the first description, but you still have to ignore the fact that one group is being forced to pay more than the other group to use the same services.

Either way the system works, it could be argued to be unfair, or unethical.

Yes, you can argue that it's unethical to ask women to pay a bit more than men, but for that matter you could also argue that it's unethical to ask anyone to pay for healthcare. But let's look at that argument, by going back all the way to this post:

@nivash said:

Sorry if this comes off as sniping or something, but healthcare is indeed considered a human right. Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

  • (1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control

Healthcare is a human right just as much as it is a human right not the be a slave or to suffer torture. In regards to the US and similar privatized healthcare systems, they are not in breach of the article since it has been determined that the interpretation has a lot of leeway: it is perfectly acceptable for a nation to choose a private system as long as everyone is given equal opportunity to participate, meaning that those with less means can be excluded or be given inferior care if the nation has determined that the system still gives the best care to the population as a whole. It's mostly there to prevent nations depriving certain groups, such as particular races or political groups, healthcare. But healthcare is very much a human right. This isn't really up for debate.

It's right there in the document, "the health and well-being of HIMself and of HIS family." See? No girls allowed.

Seriously though, that sounds kind of sexist for a declaration of HUMAN rights. At any rate, medical care is a human right--not healthcare--and not FREE medical care, either. Food and shelter are human rights, but people still need to buy food and pay rent. Like you said, the interpretation has a lot of leeway.

The way insurance works and is set up necessitates the "more risk = higher fees" equation. There's no malevolence against anyone here, it's just a simple yet ethically dubious method of pricing their "services".

Exactly. I'm a capitalist, not a sexist. When the shoe is on the other foot--such as with car insurance--I'm fine with that as well.

Avatar image for nekroskop
Nekroskop

2830

Forum Posts

47

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

Can we please shut this shitshow down? It's getting out of hand here.

Avatar image for deactivated-5e49e9175da37
deactivated-5e49e9175da37

10812

Forum Posts

782

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 14

@spaceinsomniac: I am a capitalist only in the sense that it offers more freedom to citizens than command or cooperative systems. Well I appreciate your universalism in tolerating both scenarios, I am universal in tolerating neither. I refuse to be held to a standard based on my gender and I refuse to hold anyone else to that standard. Expecting that I should be given an inflated rate due to the actions of other men is not acceptable in a society of personal responsibility, and neither is expecting women should receive inflated rates based on their gender. If a specific woman uses more healthcare or if a specific man drives recklessly, I would expect them to receive inflated rates, not those who share their genitals.

I wonder what car insurance companies do for intersex or androgynous people. Split the difference?

Avatar image for dichemstys
dichemstys

3957

Forum Posts

16891

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 2

I pay more based on the color of car I have, and I'm fucking colorblind.

Seeing as how insurance is entirely based on risk and stats, yeah I guess so.