Health insurance: men and women

DMB · Post by **DMB** » Mon May 08, 2017 5:31 pm

If women wanted to pay the same as men, they should have thought of that before they got a uterus.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/20 ... elligencer

Tubby · Post by **Tubby** » Mon May 08, 2017 6:27 pm

Reconsidered

Tubby · Post by **Tubby** » Mon May 08, 2017 6:32 pm

I've been thinking about starting a thread which bears on this, and I'll save my thoughts for that future thread.

JamesBannon · Post by **JamesBannon** » Mon May 08, 2017 7:56 pm

[quote=""DMB""]If women wanted to pay the same as men, they should have thought of that before they got a uterus.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/20 ... elligencer[/quote]

On average, women also have longer life spans. Are they going to be penalised for that as well?

dancer_rnb · Post by **dancer_rnb** » Mon May 08, 2017 7:57 pm

Prostate care should cost you more.

ruby sparks · Post by **ruby sparks** » Tue May 09, 2017 8:24 am

Insurers are bookies. They want to win their bets, not lose them. Sadly, it's about money, not fairness. This general issue also potentially affects everyone when it comes to things which increase a person's risk that they did nothing to deserve, such as carrying a cancer gene, or other parts of their medical history.

Either you have a system where 'costs' (of all sorts) are spread so that the fortunate subsidise the unfortunate (socialism) or where the individual essentially looks after him/herself. The USA is not the former.

dancer_rnb · Post by **dancer_rnb** » Tue May 09, 2017 6:35 pm

Blue cross/Blue shield is supposedly non-profit. They have lost their way.
Also a lot of non profits were taken private in the 1980-90s if I remember correctly. Their reserves were too tempting a target for short sighted people and profiteers.

Copernicus · Post by **Copernicus** » Sat May 13, 2017 1:22 am

[quote=""dancer_rnb""]Blue cross/Blue shield is supposedly non-profit. They have lost their way.
Also a lot of non profits were taken private in the 1980-90s if I remember correctly. Their reserves were too tempting a target for short sighted people and profiteers.[/quote]
From (Wikipedia)

Blue Cross Blue Shield Association:

Prior to 1986, organizations administering BCBS were tax exempt under 501(c)(4) as social welfare plans. However, the Tax Reform Act of 1986 revoked the exemption, because the plans sold commercial-type insurance. They became 501(m) organizations, subject to federal taxation, but entitled to "special tax benefits"[8] under IRC 833.[9]

In 1994, BCBS changed to allow its licensees to be for-profit corporations.[3] During 2010, Health Care Service Corporation, the parent company of BCBS in Texas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Montana and Illinois, nearly doubled its income to $1.09 billion in 2010, and began four years of billion-dollar profits.[10] In the final spending bill for FY 2015 after much lobbying since 2010, nonprofit Blue Cross and Blue Shield plans continue to have special tax breaks that were understood to be threatened by the Affordable Care Act of 2010.[11]

Sey · Post by **Sey** » Tue May 16, 2017 1:59 am

Actuarial risks could be broken down into thousands of demographic categories if we wanted to take it that far, but this, I think, would entail all sorts of untoward social consequences.

Ozymandias · Post by **Ozymandias** » Thu May 18, 2017 2:20 pm

The entire health insurance thing is just stupid. In any civilised society, healthcare should be a right given to all members of the society and should therefore be provided free at point of care. A healthy population benefits everyone in society, not just people who get sick.