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

[Pia]

The overwhelming majority of people have group health insurance. Healthy people subsidize unhealthy people.

Prior to Obama care it was super expensive or impossible for an overweight person or a smoker to be insured without being on a group plan.

However, the difference between being a smoker or being overwieght and being a woman is different. You are born male or female. You choose to be smokers/fatasses. Health insurance should charge the same for a male or female who are the same age and same health.

Proper insurance cost should just depend on the estimated risk, and in healthcare that risk is higher for women. Insurance is about sharing risk, not at all about subsidization. I regard the practice of hiding subsidization into so-called "insurance" as insidious. If there's going to be some kind of wealth transfer, it should be explicit and completely through the government. Insurance business should be 100% private.

 

[Throckmorton]

Considering the future of the human race depends on women being women and needing all that healthcare, and that it takes both a man and a woman to get pregnant, or use contraception, it makes complete sense that we'd "subsidize" "them".

 

[Wreckem]

Proper insurance cost should just depend on the estimated risk, and in healthcare that risk is higher for women. Insurance is about sharing risk, not at all about subsidization. I regard the practice of hiding subsidization into so-called "insurance" as insidious. If there's going to be some kind of wealth transfer, it should be explicit and completely through the government. Insurance business should be 100% private.

Gender shouldnt be considered a risk.

And Men, in the medium to long term are riskier than women. Men are more likely to have catostrophic injuries, chronic diesases, and are more likely to get cancer.

 

[Pia]

Gender shouldnt be considered a risk.

And cats shouldn't be considered animals because they somehow seem more like vegetables to me?
If it raises the healthcare cost expectation, it is - by definition - a risk. And the insurance company should be free to take it into account when pricing their health insurance products.

 

[fskimospy]

And cats shouldn't be considered animals because they somehow seem more like vegetables to me?
If it raises the healthcare cost expectation, it is - by definition - a risk. And the insurance company should be free to take it into account when pricing their health insurance products.

No, they most certainly shouldn't. Our only calculation for health insurance related regulation should be what creates the maximum benefit for society at the lowest cost. Allowing insurance to be based solely on risk would effectively remove people with certain illnesses from the pool for available medical insurance and care. This is a terrible idea from both a societal and a moral perspective.

Sorry, all companies are regulated. That's not changing, particularly with something like this.

 

[Throckmorton]

And cats shouldn't be considered animals because they somehow seem more like vegetables to me?
If it raises the healthcare cost expectation, it is - by definition - a risk. And the insurance company should be free to take it into account when pricing their health insurance products.

In this case the government mandates that insurance companies share the costs between men and women, leveling the playing field between all insurers who must abide by the law. Men subsidizing women is extremely fair for the reasons I posted above.

OK, so gay men don't get women pregnant... But they're at a 20% risk for HIV which is an expensive disease to treat, so I'd say they're doing pretty well insurance wise. Lesbians still use birth control and sometimes they do choose to get pregnant through artificial insemination. Celibates? Well they still came out of a vagina so it's not that big a price to pay for the gift of life.

 

[Wreckem]

And cats shouldn't be considered animals because they somehow seem more like vegetables to me?
If it raises the healthcare cost expectation, it is - by definition - a risk. And the insurance company should be free to take it into account when pricing their health insurance products.

And if they did take into consideration everything. Men are risker for the majority of their lives. Men can start off with lower premiums and keep artificially lower premiums that dont take into account future risk. Women are the opposite.

Yes women do cost more during the short term, but over all men cost insurers more in the long run.

 

[Wreckem]

In this case the government mandates that insurance companies share the costs between men and women, leveling the playing field between all insurers who must abide by the law. Men subsidizing women is extremely fair for the reasons I posted above.

They only subidizes women for a relatively short period of time compared to length of life. Men in the long run cost more than women in the long run.

 

[Rainsford]

Hmm, no, I can't really get upset about this. It's in my best interest that the 50% of the population made up of women has affordable health care. I think the main value in insurance is normalizing costs, which is why I'm also against things like high deductible plans despite the fact that it would economically a good deal for me personally.

I am in favor of charging more for people who choose to engage in riskier behaviors, like smoking, eating too much fast food or drinking too much. But I don't think costs should favor in things that the person in question has no control over, like genetic issues, gender, etc.

Economically I think it's a smart idea for me to subsidize higher health care cost folks (maybe not directly, but since I don't live in a cabin in the middle of the woods...), and morally I agree with it as well.

 

[Fern]

Actually big business overwhelmingly supports universal healthcare, because they want it to be like the rest of the modern world, where businesses don't pay for employee healthcare.

Where did you get the idea that business under UHC don't pay for the employee HC?

I was under UHC when I lived and worked in Paris. The employer paid for the HC through very high payroll taxes.

Fern

 

[Throckmorton]

Where did you get the idea that business under UHC don't pay for the employee HC?

I was under UHC when I lived and worked in Paris. The employer paid for the HC through very high payroll taxes.

Fern

It makes more sense because all employers are equally impacted by health insurance cost. As it is, employers are subject to risk (small business that has a few people get sick = high insurance premiums), union negotiations for expensive insurance plans, regional differences, etc.

 

[Wreckem]

Where did you get the idea that business under UHC don't pay for the employee HC?

I was under UHC when I lived and worked in Paris. The employer paid for the HC through very high payroll taxes.

Fern

Not all UHC is like that.

 

[Jhhnn]

Actually big business overwhelmingly supports universal healthcare, because they want it to be like the rest of the modern world, where businesses don't pay for employee healthcare.

If that were true, we'd have universal govt sponsored healthcare, but we don't. What big business wants in this country, they generally get.

Obamacare is the Repub plan from 1993, Romneycare, what the people at Heritage first conceived of in 1989. The only reason they opposed it at all is because they saw it as a way to Beat Obama! They'd knowingly destroy the middle class to accomplish that, concern trolling aside.

 

[Pia]

No, they most certainly shouldn't. Our only calculation for health insurance related regulation should be what creates the maximum benefit for society at the lowest cost. Allowing insurance to be based solely on risk would effectively remove people with certain illnesses from the pool for available medical insurance

Of course already realized illnesses can't be insured for - the correct price of a policy for a guaranteed event would be higher than the maximum potential payout, so no one would ever buy it.

I myself have a hereditary health issue that results in expenses which are largely known. Obviously, I cannot be insured against already realized costs, and so my health insurance policy (taken after the health issue was discovered) specifically excludes any treatment for the issue. This is as it should be.

and care.

This is a terrible idea from both a societal and a moral perspective.

No. If you want public healthcare, create public healthcare. If you want a Woman Subsidy, create one and mail a check to everyone who qualifies. Propping up a public-private healthcare monster that has neither the benefits of private industry nor the benefits of comprehensive public healthcare is stupid. Incorporating subsidies into insurance that are, by definition, not insurance is stupid.

Sorry, all companies are regulated. That's not changing, particularly with something like this.

In general, private businesses are not expected to carry out forced wealth transfers between their clients on behalf of the government. Grocery stores aren't forced to subsidize large people even though they need to eat more than tiny people.

 

[TalonStrike]

In the not-to-distand past...

stopped reading at "distand."

 

[fskimospy]

Of course already realized illnesses can't be insured for - the correct price of a policy for a guaranteed event would be higher than the maximum potential payout, so no one would ever buy it.

I myself have a hereditary health issue that results in expenses which are largely known. Obviously, I cannot be insured against already realized costs, and so my health insurance policy (taken after the health issue was discovered) specifically excludes any treatment for the issue. This is as it should be.No. If you want public healthcare, create public healthcare. If you want a Woman Subsidy, create one and mail a check to everyone who qualifies. Propping up a public-private healthcare monster that has neither the benefits of private industry nor the benefits of comprehensive public healthcare is stupid. Incorporating subsidies into insurance that are, by definition, not insurance is stupid.

No, it's not. You seem to be caught up in a name for reasons that I cannot fathom. If it would make you feel better to change the name from 'health insurance' to 'health care program' maybe we can do that.

While our system is indeed stupid, it's not at all stupid for the reasons you're complaining about. I also see no reason why mailing separate women's subsidy checks would be a superior alternative to accomplishing the same goal through a quick regulation. If anything, it's even more wasteful and silly.

In general, private businesses are not expected to carry out forced wealth transfers between their clients on behalf of the government. Grocery stores aren't forced to subsidize large people even though they need to eat more than tiny people.

What businesses are 'generally expected' to do is entirely irrelevant, and an appeal to tradition. It's either a good idea or it's not. While a fully socialized, single payer program would be far better than what we have now, the idea that we're suddenly going to rip up our health care delivery system and change it into a purely insurance based model with a patchwork of outside public health initiatives is absolute silliness.

 

[shadow9d9]

Yes, yes I do.

 

[Fern]

I wonder how many people who don't object to this are employees.

And of that employee group how many work for a company with 100 or more employees.

(Edit: I probably should've included unemployed OWS types and kids typing from mommy's basement.)

Fern

 

[shadow9d9]

I wonder how many people who don't object to this are employees.

And of that employee group how many work for a company with 100 or more employees.

(Edit: I probably should've included unemployed OWS types and kids typing from mommy's basement.)

Fern

I have my own company, just my father and I. We both buy on the individual market.

This is why trying to make insinuations based on assumptions is silly.

Some people actually care about their fellow countrymen. Health care access should be a right. Not something to be determined by profits when you are young, then having to pay for the elderly, poor, and ER through taxes.

 

[werepossum]

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.

Generally speaking, if one is required to pay for something one also gets a say in it. I don't find that odd in the least. There is no inherent right to part of someone else's life other than possibly charity, so don't expect me to subsidize your life or women's health care and expect me to have no opinion on it because it isn't my needs being funded. Paying for something automatically gives one an integral interest in it. Progressives seem hell-bent on removing any controls on government whatsoever, even expressing opinions. That is not a good thing.

As a male (and one who is pretty conservative) I really don't have a problem with men and women paying the same rates, even though my insurance goes up accordingly. It's like potty parity laws, which say that to be "equal" the women get twenty-four water closets while the men get two and four urinals, women need to be protected. I only disagree when the health insurance gets warped from actual insurance (i.e. covering unexpected costs) into a straight wealth transfer supporting someone's life style.

 

[Throckmorton]

I see several of you are now referring to health insurance as "wealth transfer". Where did that talking point originate?

 

[nonlnear]

I see several of you are now referring to health insurance as "wealth transfer". Where did that talking point originate?

It's not so much a talking point as a fact from econ 101 - well maybe 201: subsidies are wealth transfers. The fact that it's a wealth transfer doesn't necessarily make it a bad thing.

 

[Broheim]

Considering the future of the human race depends on women being women and needing all that healthcare, and that it takes both a man and a woman to get pregnant, or use contraception, it makes complete sense that we'd "subsidize" "them".

erm, the future of the human race doesn't depend on whether a woman gives birth in a hospital or not... if it did we wouldn't be having this conversation.

 

[Pia]

I see several of you are now referring to health insurance as "wealth transfer". Where did that talking point originate?

Insurance is never wealth transfer, but the thing that is currently commonly called insurance in the US has wealth transfer piggybacked on it.

When subsidies are not visible and explicit, but tacked piece by piece on a million regulations they don't belong with, it makes it harder for everyone to plan intelligently. That goes for the people trying to live in the system, for business, for politicians and political scientists trying to craft intelligent new policy.

The laws and regulations being muddled promotes pork barrel politics, corruption and inefficiency. If I recall correctly, the US is the highest per-person healthcare spender in the world, but does not have anywhere near the best results; efficiency is missing.

Transparency and orthogonality isn't a partisan political issue, it's vital for the design of any large system. The only people who have reason to be against those things are the people actively benefiting from the corruption.

 

[fskimospy]

I wonder how many people who don't object to this are employees.

And of that employee group how many work for a company with 100 or more employees.

(Edit: I probably should've included unemployed OWS types and kids typing from mommy's basement.)

Fern

I don't object to this.

I am an employee.

I work for a company with fewer than 100 employees.