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

[PokerGuy]

The left is for anything that expands government. Having power and control over people's health, their very lives, is the ultimate control. It's shocking that it took them that long to have government take over control of health care.

 

[nonlnear]

Insurance is never wealth transfer,

False.

Insurance is always a wealth transfer. The important distinction is that insurance, properly construed, is a wealth transfer that all parties agree to be in their mutual self-interest due to their various risk appetites.

but the thing that is currently commonly called insurance in the US has wealth transfer piggybacked on it.

This sentiment is generally correct. American health isnurance has a lot of things shoehorned into it that have nothing to do with risk sharing, including some non-consensual wealth transfer (i.e. subsidy).

 

[MotF Bane]

The left is for anything that expands government. Having power and control over people's health, their very lives, is the ultimate control. It's shocking that it took them that long to have government take over control of health care.

Because the right doesn't love to interfere with abortion. Nope, not at all.

.

 

[SagaLore]

Because the right doesn't love to interfere with abortion. Nope, not at all.

.

Most abortion is a convenience issue, not a health issue. :\

 

[Jhhnn]

The left is for anything that expands government. Having power and control over people's health, their very lives, is the ultimate control. It's shocking that it took them that long to have government take over control of health care.

The issue is whether govt enhances personal freedom or if they limit it in the aggregate within the rest of the social construct. Anti-monopoly statutes & civil rights are examples of govt interference enhancing personal freedom of the many at the expense of the very few. It's the same wrt environmental & financial regs, ultimately wrt healthcare insurance as well.

Subsidize Women's healthcare? To what extent? Is it an onerous burden, or just an anti-Obama talking point? Do we want to remember that women are our mothers, sisters, daughters, wives & lovers, or not? Do we want to remember that they carry the risks & responsibilities of bearing the next generation into the world in ways that men can scarcely appreciate?

We subsidize all sorts of other things, from agribusiness to drug research to corporate tax breaks to bailouts for Wall St & even foreign countries like Israel, but we're supposed to balk at Women's healthcare? Really? Is the physical well being & happiness of half the population less important than those other things?

 

[Ausm]

I think men should pay out of their own pockets for vasectomy's too! Oh hell I think Health insurance should be outlawed PERIOD!

 

[Ausm]

You're right! Businesses should also be able to hire women at lower rates than men because they will probably take more time off when they have kids. This is only one of many reasons I believe women should be punished for their required role in the continued existence of the human race.

I eagerly await more sage advice from Fern about gender equality.

Alot of men get six weeks or more off at the work place now for maternity leave...hell I think people who are thinking about having kids shouldn't be allowed to work so it won't burden their employers!

 

[shadow9d9]

The left is for anything that expands government. Having power and control over people's health, their very lives, is the ultimate control. It's shocking that it took them that long to have government take over control of health care.

Absolutely right. Restricting birth control, abortion, medicare D... Republicans have kept the government small and lean!

 

[shadow9d9]

Most abortion is a convenience issue, not a health issue. :\

1. I don't see the relevance of your response to what you responded to.

2. Abortion is not about convenience, it is about saving money for society, whether there are 2 fit parents around, etc. It does fall under "health" because a medical procedure is needed.

 

[Icepick]

In the not-to-distand past there was quite a fuss about women being charged higher HI premiums than men. Claims of higher premiums range from about 25%-50% (depending upon age, locale and other factors). Of course, this was based on insurers' claims experience. The simple fact is that women use more HC services than men.

Here is an example of one of many such articles: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/30/us/30insure.html

Well, then comes ObamaCare. Gentlemen, some/many of you will have the privilege of paying higher premiums so you can subsidize women's HI. They, of course, will be paying less thanks to you.

It would seem:

If you're a single guy, you're screwed.

If you're married, it may be somewhat of a 'wash' since your wife's cheaper premiums will offset your more expensive one.

If you're a gay (male) couple, you're doubly screwed. Both persons' premiums will be higher. Vice-versa for female couples, it's win-win here.

Oddly enough while this so-called "gender discrimination" (which is nothing of the sort actually) is not allowed for individuals or small business, it is allowed for large corporations. Meaning HI companies can still charge them less for men and more for women. Well, sSmall business takes it in the shorts gain (self-employed people would be buying as individuals).

http://www.aauw.org/learn/publications/outlook/outlookWinter2011_preview.cfm



ObamaCare: Not fair to men, not fair to small business.

Fern

The bolded statements above are all lies.

 

[shadow9d9]

The bolded statements above are all lies.

Even "Obamacare" is a lie. No such thing. Call it what it is, the healthcare reform bill. By calling "obamacare" it shows you are closed off to real life discussion by your posting of partisan hackery.

 

[Icepick]

Most abortion is a convenience issue, not a health issue. :\

My sarcasm meter is broken today - not sure if serious. If this is sarcasm then please forgive my response. Anyway, this is an opinion and a huge lie.

 

[Icepick]

Even "Obamacare" is a lie. No such thing. Call it what it is, the healthcare reform bill. By calling "obamacare" it shows you are closed off to real life discussion by your posting of partisan hackery.

Yup.

 

[Ausm]

The bolded statements above are all lies.

With the logic in the OP's statement,I'm going to cancel my car insurance so I don't have to cover all the idiots out there with multiple tickets,accidents, and/or OWI's.

 

[werepossum]

My sarcasm meter is broken today - not sure if serious. If this is sarcasm then please forgive my response. Anyway, this is an opinion and a huge lie.

Pretty sure you'll find that she's spot-on. I haven't looked because I don't much care about abortion either way, but I doubt very many abortions are for actual health issues. Women simply don't want to have a baby, or at least not that baby at that time.

 

[actuarial]

ObamaCare: Not fair to men, not fair to small business.

Fern

You didn't support either of these in your OP. You did at least support the fact that single men who are purchasing individual insurance are getting the short end of the stick.

You didn't show any statistics to support the fact that gay men have lower claims expectations than women, so saying they lose out here doesn't make sense.

In terms of small business, your rationalization doesn't make sense. Small businesses who primarily employ men will pay more while small businesses who primarily employ women will pay less. On the whole, assuming small businesses are treated as a separate exposure group, the overall premium charged to small businesses in total wouldn't change. The only thing that would change is the allocation of that premium between different small businesses. So 'small business' doesn't lose, since 'small business' shouldn't be paying anything more than they currently do.

What this will do is eliminate the moral hazard associated with the fact that there is a financial incentive (which, according to your post, must be meaningful if it's enough to get up in arms over the change) to hire men over women. While it's illegal to base employment decisions on gender, that doesn't mean people won't if there are specific and obvious financial incentives. It will also put men and women on equal footing in terms of the cost of striking out on their own to start a business. This is a good thing for society.

This issue does once again highlight some of the reasons why having completely private health care doesn't make sense in an advanced society.

 

[shadow9d9]

Pretty sure you'll find that she's spot-on. I haven't looked because I don't much care about abortion either way, but I doubt very many abortions are for actual health issues. Women simply don't want to have a baby, or at least not that baby at that time.

So what? If the baby is born and not taken care of by the parent, the taxpayer will have to pay for it... it is a money issue for society, not convenience. If the child grows up without a parent, has bad experiences, isn't taken care of well, the child could turn to other ways of acting out, such as vandalism and theft... again, not a "convenience" issue.

 

[werepossum]

So what? If the baby is born and not taken care of by the parent, the taxpayer will have to pay for it... it is a money issue for society, not convenience. If the child grows up without a parent, has bad experiences, isn't taken care of well, the child could turn to other ways of acting out, such as vandalism and theft... again, not a "convenience" issue.

SagaLore's point was that most abortions are a convenience issue, not a health issue, and I think you'll find that to be true. While your post raises bad possibilities, they are by no means necessary results from denying an abortion. That a woman does not want to have a baby at a particular time, or with a particular man, or at all, doesn't necessarily mean that she's a bad person or would be a bad parent. Nor is it necessarily true that an unwanted baby will be an unloved baby; lots of unwanted babies are given up for adoption to loving adoptive parents.

An unwanted baby certainly costs society money, but so does an abortion. With the baby, at least there is the potential that the baby will grow up to be a net gain for society, although obviously no guarantee. (There's no guarantee that a loved and wanted baby will not be a net drain on society either.) Note that I'm not anti-abortion because I don't think society's needs should exceed a woman's personal freedom (at least until the baby is viable outside the womb) on either side of the equation except in extremis, which as a nation we are not experiencing. Once the baby is viable outside the womb my views flip; at that point I believe that society's duty to protect its members outweighs a woman's right to her own body and her options should be limited to induced labor or Cesarean delivery, or to normal delivery and adoption. But it's a gray enough area that I can respect honest arguments on either side.

 

[sactoking]

False.

Insurance is always a wealth transfer.

Not in the generally accepted meaning of the term "wealth transfer". I've never heard of wealth transfer used to refer to anything except a redistribution of wealth for the sole purpose of some sense of equity. Insurance is risk transfer. There is a monetary component to insurance which I suppose you could argue is wealth transfer since money does transfer hands but then any economic activity would meet the definition of wealth transfer such that the term would be superfluous.

 

[nonlnear]

Not in the generally accepted meaning of the term "wealth transfer". I've never heard of wealth transfer used to refer to anything except a redistribution of wealth for the sole purpose of some sense of equity. Insurance is risk transfer. There is a monetary component to insurance which I suppose you could argue is wealth transfer since money does transfer hands but then any economic activity would meet the definition of wealth transfer such that the term would be superfluous.

It's not superfluous at all, as most transactions have no net wealth transfer at all. Most transactions involve exchanges of quantities where the goods being given have the same value as the goods being received. What we perceive as wealth transfer in commerce is the difference in depreciation rates of goods given and goods received. i.e. Consumers generally surrender currency for products which depreciate rather quickly. They imagine that they are giving up wealth at the point of sale when in fact they are breaking even at the point of sale, and destroying wealth shortly thereafter.

In insurance everybody agrees to give up a certain amount of wealth for a promise of a return under some predefined set of circumstances. Most people over the life of a policy surrender wealth, and a subset of policyholders are net recipients of wealth. That's the deal.

 

[actuarial]

It's not superfluous at all, as most transactions have no net wealth transfer at all. Most transactions involve exchanges of quantities where the goods being given have the same value as the goods being received. What we perceive as wealth transfer in commerce is the difference in depreciation rates of goods given and goods received. i.e. Consumers generally surrender currency for products which depreciate rather quickly. They imagine that they are giving up wealth at the point of sale when in fact they are breaking even at the point of sale, and destroying wealth shortly thereafter.

In insurance everybody agrees to give up a certain amount of wealth for a promise of a return under some predefined set of circumstances. Most people over the life of a policy surrender wealth, and a subset of policyholders are net recipients of wealth. That's the deal.

People who purchase insurance are also breaking even at the point of sale (ie. origination of the contract to insure). Insurance is sold at market value, so as per your above definition there is an exchange in a quantity of goods where those given (premiums) equal the market value of those received (contingent economic promise). People are not giving up wealth nor surrendering wealth over the life of a policy. Just because you do not receive a payout does not mean your are not receiving an economic benefit in form of the guarantee.

Is an out of the money put/call option a wealth transfer? Those also only pay out under specific circumstances.

Based on your definition of a wealth transfer, any transaction where the future payout is unknown is a wealth transfer. Is a corporate bond issue also a wealth transfer?

 

[nonlnear]

People who purchase insurance are also breaking even at the point of sale (ie. origination of the contract to insure). Insurance is sold at market value, so as per your above definition there is an exchange in a quantity of goods where those given (premiums) equal the market value of those received (contingent economic promise).

No, because an insurance policy isn't actually a purchase of a good so much as a financial instrument. It is a lottery ticket, which when scratched off by the passage of time might reveal a free car or house. If policyholders could resell their policies on a secondary market then you would have a stronger case for there being no net wealth transfer under my definition at the point of sale, but because that is not the case the transaction is not actually complete when the policy is bound.

People are not giving up wealth nor surrendering wealth over the life of a policy.

My employer's hundreds of millions of dollars of policyholder surplus would beg to differ.

Just because you do not receive a payout does not mean your are not receiving an economic benefit in form of the guarantee.

I fully agree.

Is an out of the money put/call option a wealth transfer? Those also only pay out under specific circumstances.

Assuming there is a secondary market to give liquidity in the interrim then it's not a wealth transfer at the point of sale, but upon settlement it can be.

Based on your definition of a wealth transfer, any transaction where the future payout is unknown is a wealth transfer. Is a corporate bond issue also a wealth transfer?

Any transaction where the future payout is unknown can eventually be a wealth transfer.

 

[biostud]

IMHO things that you are not responsible for should not allow affect insurance costs, such as gender, inherited diseases, accidents etc.

 

[Throckmorton]

Leave it to Republicans to talk about "wealth transfer" without even considering the gift of life they were once given by their mothers, the greatest wealth transfer of all.

 

[piasabird]

Next will be Free Viagra.
I wanna have a sex change!
In reallity the left is trying to use health care to allow tyrany by the federal government for laws they can not pass in Congress. It is just Tyrany by the federal government.