Should gender be a health insurance rating criteria? Should women pay higher premiums?

[lumberjack_jeff]

In 2004, the Health Research and Education trust conducted a study analyzing healthcare spending by gender. The lifetime cost of care for the average man is $268,700 (about $302 per month for life) while the lifetime cost of care for the average woman is $361,200 (or about $376 per month for life). About 40% of that $92,500 differential is due to the fact that women live longer.

Should those costs be shifted onto men?

Discuss.

http://www.imdadvisor.com/index.php/imd-news/womens-health/5981-average-lifetime-healthcare-costs-higher-for-women.html

[XemaSab]

1. I bet a big chunk of that is that women have babies

It takes a man to make a baby, so those costs should be split.

[lumberjack_jeff]

3. The study suggests that pregnancy is a small part of the differential

reading between the lines, less than 25% of it.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1361028/

[XemaSab]

22. 25% is still a big chunk

:shrug:

[kelly1mm]

5. Agree on the portion that has to do with child birth should be split. The

OP however stated that 40% of the difference was "caused" by women living longer. That portion I would not have a problem with being reflected in insurance rates. (I am a SP advocate so I think this SHOULD all be academic anyway)

[Yehonala]

2. Rhetorical Question

I'm really confused about this. I might be weird, but if you pay for health insurance, shouldn't the company do their job and pay for the healthcare you request? Companies are insane to decide if whether or not they want to provide a service that you yourself paid for.

[Warpy]

4. Maybe if they know they're paying for it, men will go to the doctor

That's why they have lower average costs, they have to be at death's door before they will ever go in. Also, they aren't the ones producing the next generation of citizens. That adds considerably to a woman's lifetime cost.

Discriminating against one group opens the door to discriminating to others: smokers, people who eat fast foods, people with family histories of heart disease and/or cancer, people with pre existing conditions. Those stinking actuarial tables are part of how we got into this mess and certainly one reason so many of us are uninsured.

We need insurance for health care. Every single person out there will whine about being cheated one way or another until he gets sick.

Then he'll get the point of being insured.

[Warpy]

6. Hiccup

[lumberjack_jeff]

7. What about smokers?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1588892?ordinalpos=1&itool=PPMCLayout.PPMCAppController.PPMCArticlePage.PPMCPubmedRA&linkpos=2

This is interesting. According to the NCHS, the total differential in lifetime healthcare expenditures for people who smoke is only $6239.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

8. Should women pay higher Social Security taxes?

If women draw SS longer than men, should they pay more into the system?

Seems a logical question when considering the basis for setting a scale based on projected usage. The only reason this isn't an issue in our current system is SS is not a for profit industry.

[lumberjack_jeff]

10. Social Security isn't kind to black males.

With a life expectancy of 69 years, Social Security isn't a very good investment.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

13. True and a white male will on average pay in 1/3 more into SS

Yet both groups on a whole are going to get back around half of what they pay in.

This is due in part to how SS befits generator formula favors lower income earners. The income difference is a racial disparity which is another issue all together.

[treestar]

9. Do they already?

An interesting thought. There is more the health care system can and does do for women. But they still make less money, so the higher premium wouldn't be popular, at least for the poor and middle class.

The countries that have socialized health care might prove a point on this. Maybe just socialize it - if men pay for women, that can be justified because women contribute to society maybe slightly more than men by having the babies.

[lumberjack_jeff]

12. By that measure...

Nadya Suleman must be a prolific "contributor to society".

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SoCalDem]

14. It should be across the board, for everyone, without ANY

"special groups".. The reason we are where we are today, id because groups are pitted AGAINST each other.

All of us, treated as anonymous people (as far as the "state" goes, is the only solution.

If we segment people based on their gender, or personal proclivities, we are doomed to fail.

Women live longer (as a rule), but perhaps they also take better care of themselves, and don't collapse at 55 (out-of-the-blue) from heart disease, like many men do.. young people usually stay away from doctors, but they have a HIGH rate of accidents and drug-related "incidents", smokers usually come to an "acute" end, at a younger age of death (so maybe we are "spared" a long drawn out, expensive death process), drinkers pickle their livers, but he damage often takes a lifetime to accumulate (how do we pro-rate their care as they age?..make them pay more, when they are at their poorest/sickest?

IT ALL AVERAGES OUT..

The "right" to healthcare does not mean that we will all turn into hypochondriacs, headed to the doctor every spare minute we have. It JUST means, that if our kid is sick, we can take them to a doctor BEFORE they spike a 104 fever at 1 AM, or so we can be screened EARLY for potentially dangerous conditions.

We are obsessed with health care now, because we either don't have it, or we are desperately afraid we'll lose what we have now, which could be a death sentence.

Once we get a decent national health care plan, people will settle down. and it will become just another part of their lives, and not all that special

[lumberjack_jeff]

15. Then the challenge becomes how to convince the invincibles to participate.

When I was 20, it would have seemed ridiculous to be required to pay $302/month to pay for my lifetime's care, let alone the $350 that would be required to equalize gender costs.

[SoCalDem]

25. That's precisely why it has to be mandated and "normal"

like income tax. We all grumble about which things we don;t want "our" taxes spent on, but all the money gets lumped together in the end, and the individual does not get to pick and choose. It's the singling out of "groups" and shining a light on them, that causes the trouble.

[nightrain]

16. if we actually had a health "service", this question would be moot.

Needed services would just be provided-- not based on sex, religion, age, skin color, pregnancy status, sexuality, etc. Imagine that! Services based on need....

[Lyric]

17. Disabled people cost more, too.

And people with congenital birth defects, conditions, and disorders.

Should they pay higher premiums?

[lumberjack_jeff]

18. A good argument.

At this point, they are simply denied coverage.

[Lyric]

20. Well I was approaching your question from a logical standpoint.

Theoretically, if we make one group of people pay higher premiums due to an accident of birth (sex) that creates a higher overall cost for their healthcare, then why wouldn't we make other people who have higher costs due to other accidents of birth (disability, etc.) pay higher premiums too?

I would hazard a guess that most people would be deeply uncomfortable telling disabled people that because they're disabled, then they deserve to pay more for healthcare. The reason for that discomfort is because disability is something that is certainly not anyone's "fault." Most people dislike taking an action that seems to punish others for something that isn't their fault, especially if it involves a PC situation like disability. But then again, the sex a person is born with is not their fault, either.

Another thing to consider: making women pay more because their sex means that they're likely going to *need* more is akin to DNA profiling people and raising their premiums based on higher genetic risk factors for cancer, heart disease, etc. In a medical sense, sex is a genetic condition--part of someone's DNA. So how would such a thing NOT be genetic profiling and discrimination? Is that something that anyone here would support?

[seabeyond]

19. does one race statistically live longer than another. does the rich statistically live longer than

the poor. are these groups of people being charged more?

[SmileyRose]

21. The REASON why older people and people with disability are eligible for Medicare

is because the FOR PROFIT insurance industry didn't want to touch them with a 29 and a half foot pole. There's no excuse why any other American who finds it difficult to either obtain or afford needed medical insurance can't also join Medicare. At any age for any reason.

This bullshit about how private insurance could not compete with a public option has to be stopped. The WHOLE POINT of public medical insurance is to cover groups and individuals that the insurance industry has decided they do not want as customers.


A public option does the same thing national flood insurance does. It covers people who CAN'T get coverage on the private market.

[lumberjack_jeff]

23. This reform bill avoids that pitfall

It compels insurers to ignore medical history.

The public option won't be the insurer of last resort.

[varelse]

24. Of course they should

this would inspire men to live longer, just to get their money's worth.