Dem Asks: "Why Should A Woman Pay More Then A Man?" - Repub Answers: "Why Should A Smoker Pay More"

[kpete]

From Courthouse News Service:

In promoting the House health bill, New Jersey Democrat Frank Pallone made reference to discrimination by insurance companies, citing their reluctance to insure people with preexisting conditions and differences in costs based on gender. "But that's not against the law," Texas Republican Pete Sessions said.

Pallone replied, "No, but we would make it against the law. Why do you have a problem with that?" he asked. "Why should a woman pay more than a man?"

"Well, we're all different," Sessions explained. "Why should a smoker pay more," he said before getting interrupted by a burst of chatter throughout the room.

Sessions asked Pallone if he had seen the cost calculations of the Republican health bill. Pallone replied that he had not. "You really don't care do you," Sessions said.

http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/11/06/Hyperbole_Begi...

[RB TexLa]

1. Because they have more parts to go wrong. Why should a person with a more expensive car pay more

for auto insurance? Same reason.

[Moosepoop]

5. I hope you're kidding ??

If not, that's one of the most ridiculous things I've heard in a while.

Premiums should be based on number of body parts??

OK, so amputees should receive discounts, as should anyone born with missing parts or who have had organs removed, right? I don't have a spleen -- DISCOUNT!! YAY!!! I'll be sure to make sure I receive my good deal for reduction of body parts when I finally have insurance again.

[Yupster]

6. That was my thought too

Why do men pay more for car insurance?

Why do men pay more for life insurance?

Because insurance is about calculating risks.

Men have more car crashes.
Men die earlier than women.
Women use more healthcare than men.

[Zavulon]

17. +1.

This is common sense, and no amount of whining changes that.

[intheflow]

28. IF women use healthcare more than men

(and you haven't provided any links supporting that claim), then it may not reflect that women have more health problems, but rather men are less likely to seek treatment because of things like not wanting to appear weak, thinking they can "power through" whatever they're feeling, etc. In fact, that kind of machoism could be a contributing factor to why men die earlier on average--they don't seek treatment.

[JonQ]

86. Insurance companies don't care about rewarding

certain genders, behaviors, whatever.

They have people who do nothing but collect these statistics and they figure out that if you are a woman you will on average cost them X more than would a man. So you get charged the difference. Same as they do for the elderly, smokers, obese people, those with family history of illness etc.

There is no personal axe to grind, it is entirely a numbers game.

[robinlynne]

122. I'm guessing women give birth, men don't......would be enough to back up that claim....

[JonQ]

85. Charging men more is acceptable

men are a greater risk and generally considered the inferior sex, they should be penalized.

Charging women more is unfair sexism (even if you have numbers to back it) and cannot be tolerated!

Or so many on here seem to think. Selective outrage it's called.

[Paladin]

107. Just Wondering Something:

Do you ever spend any time over at Free Republic, pointing out hypocrisy in right-wing viewpoints---or is your little act confined entirely to trashing liberals?

No need to reply, the answer is pretty obvious......

[JonQ]

114. Nope, I don't visit free republic

never had any interest in it.

I wonder: do you ever criticize people you agree with, or is everyone on the "right" side of the aisle perfect in your eyes?

I suppose we really all should learn to march lockstep, gloss over the failings of the "good people" and see only faults in our enemies (which is everyone not "with us").

That's what you want right?

[BuelahWitch]

11. Your testicles, my ovaries what's the difference?

Your penis, my uterus. Men have "parts" it's just that yours are all on the outside...

[RB TexLa]

20. costs are the difference

[Pool Hall Ace]

70. I had my tubes tied, so I never have to be concerned about

pregnancy or birth control. Can women like me have a discount?

[JonQ]

94. Possibly

you'd have to ask your insurer.

[Ilsa]

168. Do you know what robotic prostate surgery for prostate cancer costs?

It isn't cheap, but it is intended to keep men sexually functioning. With women, they just remove the uterus and ovaries.

[treestar]

41. I'm torn. Can kind of see the point

Having a baby takes medical treatment these days. Men don't need any of that. Men don't need pap smears or mammograms. There seems to be more that can be done to treat women, too. Like if you catch those cancers early.

Women get pap smears from their 20s, mammograms from 35 and if something is caught, there is treatment possible. Men don't need anything comparable at those ages.

Modern health science has done a lot for women. Think of being female in 1890 and you get the idea. A lot of us are still alive due to medical advance, whereas for men it could be fewer.

[Hello_Kitty]

46. African Americans and Hispanics have higher rates of diabetes

Diabetes is a very high-maintenance and expensive illness. So they should be charged higher premiums, right?

[TwilightGardener]

47. Men lack the cardiovascular-protective benefit of estrogen--

their premiums should go up.

[treestar]

52. No you can't identify race as well as gender

With a few exceptions, gender is very clear. People who aren't black get diabetes. People who are half black and half white might get it.

But men don't need mammograms, period. Though I have heard they can get breast cancer. Just not at rates justifying all the testing.

Men can't have babies and the cost of all that treatment is a female only thing. And it's not a bad thing. We don't die in childbirth like we used to.

[Hello_Kitty]

54. I have no intention of having a baby.

I have, in fact, taken a permanent medical step to ensure that. Why should I pay a higher rate because other women have babies? Maternity care is a huge factor (possibly the largest one) in the differential between female and male health care costs. If men don't have to share in the cost of childbirth, then why the fuck should I? What, I just get an automatic "uterus penalty" simply for possessing one?

[BlancheSplanchnik]

72. +10000

Women who aren't interested in breeding still get the uterus penalty in pay, too.

Uterus penalty on insurance, uterus penalty in pay, uterus penalty in promotions....

pay more, get less....

[JonQ]

95. I have no intention of driving like an idiot

why should I have higher insurance rates because people with genetalia like mine choose to do so?

[Bluerthanblue]

98. you shouldn't- it's a form of prejudice.

But I don't get to write the policies- Women shouldn't be paid less than men for doing the exact same job either-

We can work towards true equality, but not if we continue to support prejudicial policies.

[JonQ]

112. But if men weren't charged more for being men

when it comes to auto insurance then womens rates would go up (someone has to make up the difference). And if mens are higher, womens are lower currently, but they are required to make them equal then womens rates would necessarily go up. Are you willing to pay more to subsidize behavior you have nothing to do with?

Likewise if health insurance were the same for both genders then men would be forced to pay higher rates to cover treatments and procedures they could never use.

[Confusious]

101. All U probably have to do is prove whatever prodedure you had

And you rates should be reduced, at least it *SHOULD* work that way. But fing insurance companies...

[TwilightGardener]

60. It's about risk--higher-risk groups are penalized.

Women should not be seen as an inherently higher-risk group just by virtue of being women and having the parts. Normal reproductive function and maintenance, INCLUDING routine childbirth, should also not be considered "risk". Any premium hikes or denial of coverage that automatically penalizes women for being normal, healthy women is discrimination, same as if races were treated differently.

[CTyankee]

135. Well, it's the cost of doing business, in a way. If we want to reproduce, which

I assume lots of people want to do, and not die out as a life form, we have to gestate and give birth...we haven't figured out another way of doing it.

This is ridiculous...

[Raksha]

84. Whaaat? Women don't get prostate cancer. n/t

[Confusious]

100. We have to have a finger shoved up our butt at 40

I'm really *NOT* looking forward to that, once I *get* healthcare that is.

[Hello_Kitty]

16. And what if it were determined that Hispanics had more health problems?

You'd be okay with charging Hispanics higher premiums, right?

[ZombieHorde]

56. What should the legal definition of "Hispanic" be?

[Hello_Kitty]

57. In this case, it would be whatever the insurance cos. deem it to be.

I make the point to demonstrate how absurd it is to justify gender discrimination in insurance using risk factors. As I've pointed out elsewhere, I have no intention of bearing a child. Why should I be forced to subsidize other women's maternity care simply because I'm a woman too, while men don't have to share in the cost?

[ZombieHorde]

63. I am not saying charging one gender more than another gender is ethical,

but physical gender significantly easier to determine than race. Race is more of a social structure than a physical structure.

[Hello_Kitty]

65. Then we agree. It's unethical. eom

[StarfarerBill]

27. Men have prostates, women don't...

...and prostate cancer is one of the biggest killers of men. Shouldn't we pay more for that part that goes wrong so often? Ditto with testicular diseases, and ED and sexual performance meds.

[mainer]

48. Our parts do more than men's parts

Now, if men would like to be the ones to have babies, I say go ahead and knock yourselves out.

[JerseygirlCT]

74. And it's thanks to those parts that you're here to write something

like that.

[Renew Deal]

93. Finally someone speaking logically

[alarimer]

2. A smoker needs incentives to quit; maybe higher insurance is one of them

Quit, and your premiums go down right away (although given that insurance companies are evil they probably wouldn't actually do that).

Women have no options. Higher insurance premiums for women IS discrimination.

[ZombieHorde]

59. Why do smokers need an incentive to quit? nt

[alarimer]

99. Because it causes health problems

Leading to higher medical bills. Emphysema, cancer etc. Look up the science if you doubt it. But that wasn't my point really; it was that smoking is a temporary condition, easily solved by quitting.

But the point is that smokers can quit, thereby lowering their costs, while women cannot cease being women. Well, they can I guess but that is a whole other issue.

[ZombieHorde]

106. People have a right to live unhealthy lifestyles in my opinion. nt

[Mari333]

3. I quit in June because of the SCHIP taxes

but I chew motherfucking nicorettes like they were candy.
I didnt quit for my health, fuck that, I dont care. I just dont want my money paying for health care that could have been paid for by stopping 2 goddamned wars that are not necessary.
The poor ALWAYS get screwed. The rich Military Industrial Complex is always rewarded.

[liberalmuse]

4. No one in the responses has even called out the overt sexism here?

Republicans despise women, plain and simple. What a disgusting response.

[Toots]

8. I don't believe Republicans despise women, they just think women "have their place"

Remember, for some reasons I can never fathom, there are many women in the Republican Party.

[Darth_Kitten]

13. No, they just love those lazy, good for nothing feminazis.....

Try listening to right wing radio. Trust me, they don't like women.

[liberalmuse]

67. Definition of a 'Feminazi'...

A woman who believes she is much more than a vagina. Republican definition of 'vagina': Toy. Male treatbag. A magical thing that turns male sperm into a white, protestant, republican voter.

[BuelahWitch]

12. Insurance companies always screw women over

Why is Viagra covered but birth control pills are not? I guess they think all those erections are going into a knot hole in a tree or something...

[Darth_Kitten]

14. On another note, maybe men should pay much higher taxes....

look at all those prisons, the crime rate, society paying the costs because too many guys don't look after their own offspring, etc, etc.

Chew on that, Republicans.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

73. great point, there!

I don't want my premiums going to pay for dick heads who like to get drunk and violent, or just manly and violent....

[JonQ]

88. Interesting road to go down

as the single greatest indicator of later success in life (or failure, unemployment and crime) is the mothers status.

[treestar]

37. Well to be fair

to the poor insurance companies not having birth control means more babies and more people to buy their product. Viagra obviously helps create more consumers!

[JonQ]

87. Yeah always, that's why car insurance and life insurance

for women is so much higher than for men . . . oh . . . nevermind. Those don't count, don't look at those numbers anybody.

[BuelahWitch]

124. Bullshit. I was talking about health insurance and you know it

And my car insurance doesn't pay for birth control either, btw...

[JonQ]

130. You said insurance companies

but I take it that means you only care about issues where women are getting the worse deal, and think we should ignore issues where men are getting screwed?

Funny huh?

BTW, my healthcare doesn't pay for condoms either. And as another poster told me on this thread, you can choose to copulate or not, if you don't want to get stuck with the bill keep your pants zipped. Then birth control isn't an issue.

[sandnsea]

15. I was shocked at that

And I don't know why women don't remind these men of their part in the reproductive process either.

[kpete]

21. thank you

for getting it, kp

[TwilightGardener]

25. It is disgusting--as if female anatomy and health is equivalent to detrimental behavior.

[JonQ]

89. The role of insurance companies is not to reward or punish behaviors

correct?

So whether something is detrimental or not is irrelevant. They only care about the money each person is likely to cost them. If it can be shown (and it has been) that women have higher healthcare costs than men it would be sexist to charge men the same rate as women.

I don't see much outrage over the fact that womens haircuts generally cost more than mens. Why do you suppose that is?

[TwilightGardener]

123. Women's anatomy is not a choice or a behavior. It's simply the human form

for half the world. Deal with it. It's discriminatory to base expected insurance costs on MEN'S bodies and compare women unfavorably. Same as it would be discriminatory to charge other races more by using whites as a yardstick for prevalence of certain conditions and diseases.

[JonQ]

129. Ok, you're still not getting this

it isn't about reward/punishment. Ok? Got that? Good, let's move on. An insurance company is a business. They sell group security against some calamity (health care costs in this case). And they skim a little off the top to make a profit. They can do this because they have all these really smart and boring guys who do nothing but collect data all day long. Data on every detail that may be relevant to the cost their costumers will put on them for reimbursement. And then they charge the individuals a little more than they are likely to cost them based on those details. If you are a little healthier than average you are losing money, if you are a little less healthy than average then you are a getting a good deal.


Now, at some point they realized that people with a certain kind of genitalia correlate to higher healthcare costs. So to continue making that profit they charged those people a little more, because it can be shown very strongly that they will cost more. At no point did they make a moral judgement on those people, at no point did they think to themselves "we really should try to get people to stop having this kind of genitalia and I think higher rates just might do the trick". No, they simply looked at the data and found that to make a profit on those people they had to raise the rates.

The alternative is to either not cover those people, or charge others more. Neither of which is fair.

This is quite simple.

And a bit hypocritical as no one has an issue with men being charged more for auto and life insurance.

[TwilightGardener]

131. I didn't say it was about "reward/punishment". I said it's discrimination.

Charging healthy, normal females more, right off the bat, for having healthy normal reproductive anatomy and function is discriminatory. I don't think there's a conspiracy to "punish" women, I understand how they assess risk--I'M saying that just charging more automatically for gender is unethical. For both sexes, under any circumstances. I can't speak to men paying more in life and auto, because my husband and I have joint car insurance and his life insurance policy is from the military. But if men are discriminated against because of their gender, then I oppose that and would not bitch about an increase in costs. I'm a very fair person, actually.

[JonQ]

132. Ok so you would favor raising rates on men then

if you charged everyone equally then men would necessarily have their rates go up to compensate for womens higher costs.

What about people with a hereditary disease, or just a predisposition to certain illnesses? Certainly they didn't choose that, but they will be charged more. Or you can charge everyone else more to compensate.

And it is common knowledge that men pay more for both auto and life insurance, but no one has generated the least bit of outrage over that.

[TwilightGardener]

134. I think charging an automatically higher premium for family history

is discriminatory. One should have to develop the illness to be dinged for it. Hereditary disease that already exists, well--you've got to pay for that. Many diseases and conditions have a strong hereditary component, anyway, so "hereditary" is not really a very exclusive category. Am I upset if men's health premiums go up to prevent women from being discriminated against? No. Would I be upset if my auto insurance went up to alleviate gender discrimination against men? No, not terribly. No one is happy about rate increases, but the genders have to be supported equally, races have to be supported equally, at least in my little utopia. If you want outrage about men's discrimination, start a separate thread and see if anyone else is outraged. This thread is specifically about females and health insurance.

[JonQ]

137. So you think we should penalize those who get sick

with higher rates? They didn't choose that route.

[TwilightGardener]

140. That's the point of health insurance--all insurance. If I make a lot

of claims on my homeowner's insurance, my insurance costs will go up. If I get into several wrecks, they'll jack up my car insurance rates. Right? If I come down with a chronic illness, I would expect to have to pay more (at least when purchasing an individual plan--I don't know if they hike premiums for employer coverage on certain people, I have always had military insurance so it's not an issue I am familiar with). But the state of being sick is not the same as the state of being female, in terms of health insurance.

[JonQ]

142. And where does your initial rate come from

prior to being sick/injured?

And in terms of health insurance the possibility of needing coverage is all that matters, the reason for those possibilities is irrelevant. And being a woman increases the odds that you will need health coverage does it not?

[TwilightGardener]

145. To answer your first question--Health history and age, I would assume.

I have never had private insurance, so I don't know what all is involved in getting that. You are fixated on the fact that women may use more coverage than men. I am fixated on the opinion that it doesn't matter, the insurance co's or government need to find a way to deal with that cost instead of making it solely a woman's burden. Now, if you want a REAL argument, we can argue that older people are discriminated against in life and health insurance, and that the under-25 crowd is discriminated against in car insurance.

[JonQ]

150. Do you choose your health history

or your age? If not then factoring those things in would be discriminatory (going by your argument against using gender) would it not?

I have never heard of anyone voluntarily aging, or voluntarily choosing to have been born predisposed to diabetes.

"I am fixated on the opinion that it doesn't matter, the insurance co's or government need to find a way to deal with that cost instead of making it solely a woman's burden."

We're talking private insurance companies here, a government run program would be separate. And it is not private companies jobs to ensure that everyone can afford their products, that is a completely different argument.

[TwilightGardener]

161. It would be ridiculous to dismiss health history when buying HEALTH insurance.

So, that's pointless. It would be like ignoring driving records and accidents for auto insurance. And we will see what shapes up from HCR--I am hopeful that Congress will ensure that women will be treated fairly and not discriminated against for simply being women.

[JonQ]

162. Why is health history important

when deciding the cost of health insurance for the individual?

[TwilightGardener]

165. Because if you have a history of hypertension, there's going to be

a cost involved in correcting that condition and treating serious complications down the road. If you have asthma, that must be monitored and treated. If you have diabetes, that must be monitored and treated, and very often there are serious complications. If you've had a previous MI, you may have decreased cardiac function and arrhythmias and valve issues, and you are at greater risk than your cohorts of having another. Do I need to go on? Deviation away from health and normalcy and into a harmful condition or disease state is a fair way to judge risk--you come with baggage.

[JonQ]

167. But you didn't choose those

the companies aren't trying to punish those people. And those tendencies can go away. Two people with a history of some disease won't necessary require the exact same treatments.

So in other words you are charged more not because you will definitely cost more, but because the stats show there is a chance you will.

It isn't about punishment, or certainties, merely likelyhoods. It isn't your fault you are born with a disease, nor is it your "fault" you are born female, no one is attempting punishment, merely to make a profit.

If it is unfair to charge women more for the reasons you have stated then it is unfair to charge the sick more as well.

[TwilightGardener]

169. Women's anatomy and function are not equal to a state of sickness.

Therefore it's wrong to charge them simply for being healthy women--so if insurance companies do this, it's discriminatory, in my view, and they shouldn't pre-emptively hedge their bets on the backs of women, but rather disseminate the expense and try to make it up elsewhere--it's the cost of doing business, the way all businesses do with any population that they can't legally discriminate against. We've beat this to death, my views on this aren't going to change. But once you've deviated from a state of health, you pose an increased risk to the company, by varying degrees, compared to policy holders who are in a state of health. Companies wouldn't be in the health insurance business at all if they had no way to deal with those with pre-existing conditions and treated everybody the same--so the most natural, fair and cost-effective practice would be to charge those with pre-existing conditions more money (I know this happens with individual plans), or refuse to cover them at all (which is going to change). If you walk in to buy car insurance with a bashed-in bumper that was your fault, or a host of speeding tickets, or a recently suspended license, the fairest thing to do would be to charge you more than someone who walks in with no such problems. If you walk in to buy life insurance with an audible wheeze and a history of congestive heart failure, well...good luck. In these cases, the company is basing the cost increase on the most directly relevant criteria to that which is being insured.

[JonQ]

170. Look we keep coming to the same issue

you think it's about penalizing people for having an "abnormal" health state. So it shouldn't count because "female" isn't a disease.

I'm saying it has nothing to do with normal or abnormal, merely cost. And in fact that is the case.

[lumberjack_jeff]

79. Maybe. But the math doesn't have any similar bias.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Lyric made a very good argument in favor of spreading those higher costs onto men by using the example of people with congenital disabilities.

Personally, I think that the fewer rating criteria, the better... but I think we should be clear about what we're doing; we're spreading the medical costs associated with living longer onto those who die young.

[Salviati]

7. As a smoker, you choose to pay more when you buy that pack of cigarettes.

I'd be fine with charging women more as soon as the egg is educated of the consequences of it's decision when it chooses which sperm to use in fertilization.

Until then, what biological sex you are is generally not a choice that people make.

[underseasurveyor]

9. Oh my this thread is one way to get the blood pumpin' in the morning.

This is going to... 10, 9, 8, 7, calm down undersea, calm down. Breathe. So many ways this is wrong. 6, 5, ...

[dmallind]

10. On a purely proximal level that is a perfectly good response

Smokers pay more because they cost more in health care - women cost more in health care too. So far so reasonable. However once you start looking beyond proximal cause the problem surfaces very quickly. Beyond a very small number of transgender folks out there, women did not face a decision where they decided between remaining female or not remaining so. Smokers make that decision every time they light up. Actions may very well have consequences. Biological chance should not have.

[Darth_Kitten]

18. Why? Because men generally won't go to doctors?

Why should women pay because a bunch of ignorant guys won't go to doctors with legitimate health concerns?

[dmallind]

23. Facts do not have to be benign to be valid.

Women cost more in health care than men. Why, or which one is more responsible or "correct", is a separate question. That's why I said this was reasonable at the proximal level. Do you disagree that women cost more than men in health care? Do you disagree that costs are a part of a discussion on insurance?

Again read what I wrote - and tell me where I was wrong if you think so. You will see absolutely no implication of any fault on the part of either gender, or any assessment of which gender uses health care more appropriately. You will see a definitive statement that I do NOT believe women should pay more for insurance - only that they cost more. So what is your objection?

[sandnsea]

19. Women can't reproduce alone

The cost of reproductive health care should be spread out among all citizens because it is the very basis of all of society.

[RB TexLa]

22. Reproductive health is not a necessity, it's a lifestyle choice

[sandnsea]

24. That men make along with women

And I beg to differ than health care for women's reproductive system is a "lifestyle choice".

[RB TexLa]

26. A woman makes the decision if she is going to have a child, a man has no say in that

[polly7]

29. Divine conception? What about all us atheists, aliens attack us in the night? nt

[RB TexLa]

30. I made no mention of devine conception, you had to make that up yourself

[polly7]

33. I guess you know the point would be, it takes a man to produce a child.

Punishing a woman for carrying it and delivering really isn't fair.

Should men be charged more because they have the ammo to create this 'reproductive problem'??? and choose to use it? When I think of all the rape victims and religions banning contraception, women dying in childbirth with their 8th child ...... yes, it still happens, this makes me sick.

[sandnsea]

31. Most couples decide together

Regardless, a sperm is always required. It's time men take responsibility for their role in reproduction. Men get pregnant too.

[RB TexLa]

34. A man decides if he will or will not father a child, but that does not prevent

a woman from obtaining pregenancy, only prevents them from obtaining it from him.

[JoeyT]

40. While that may be..

At first I thought you were objecting to people that had decided to remain childless having to pay the same premiums as couples that would have kids. A point that would never gain traction in this child-centric society, but still a point. (I don't much care for the idea of subsidizing say...the Duggars and all the other quiverfull idiots.)
Can we use that to explode the rightwing heads? "Ok, we'll take abortion funding out...but we're giving discounts to gay people."

Even if a woman goes the artificial insemination route a male is still required, so men as a gender are equally responsible for pregnancy. Well, unless I haven't been paying enough attention and women developed asexual budding and no one told me.

[sandnsea]

42. And he should pay the cost of incubating a child

It's his responsibility too.

[tabbycat31]

50. you honestly think that?

I know of a few women who wanted to have a baby, became pregnant, and the men forced them to have abortions.

Have you ever heard of a baby born out of rape or incest?

[lumberjack_jeff]

62. Forced?

That would be assault, wouldn't it?

[tabbycat31]

66. It wasn't assault

but in both cases, he told her that he did not want the baby to ruin his family reputation, and to "make the problem go away immediately"

He paid for the abortion too.

[sandnsea]

82. This is about health insurance

And the stupid-ass notion that women should pay more because they're the ones who get pregnant - or raped - or otherwise need reproductive health care, while men don't have to take any responsibility for their part in the process. Forced, voluntary, however.

[lumberjack_jeff]

61. Are you suggesting that the father should have an equal say in pregnancy decisions?

It is an accurate observation that women's health care costs more. A reasonable debate can be had on whether some of those costs should be shifted onto men.

[sandnsea]

81. I'm suggesting he had an equal say

when he unzipped. He ought to have an equal responsibility in paying his share of the insurance premium.

[JonQ]

92. What if she told him

she was on birth control, knowing she wasn't? What if he wanted her to have an abortion and she chose not to?

Seems you're spreading the liability to everyone, but leaving the control in the hands of only the woman. Doesn't strike me as fair.

Either women have ultimate say in their reproductive choices, and also ultimate liability, or they are entitled to share their liability, but give up some of their freedom to choose. You can't have it both ways.

And "he had an equal say when he unzipped"? Sounds a bit like "if she didn't want to get pregnant she would have kept her knees together".

[JonQ]

91. So reproduction is a choice for men?

Does that mean we get a say in whether or not a woman gets an abortion?

[Caretha]

125. No

But you do have a say in whether you copulate or not. Nobody is forcing you, so keep it zipped and you won't have any problems - you do have the choice to satisfy yourself, it's called your hand. Use it.

[Name removed]

128. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

146. Deleted message

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

[Caretha]

147. I'm 57 fucking yrs old

you idiot. I've raised 2 daughters, put them thru college, and have had 4 businesses in my lifetime, and paid hundreds of salaries and multiple in taxes. Now you need to go away. Permanently.

[JonQ]

156. You are also a sexist

using language to denounce men that would not be tolerated for denouncing women. It is unfortunate you feel the need to resort to censorship to avoid acknowledging your deeply held prejudices against men.

[JonQ]

164. You seem to be a very angry and hate filled individual

please stop sending me private messages expressing such irrational hate. I don't want to block you as I don't generally approve of completely severing communications in that way but I would ask that you desist from sending me any further personal attacks.

[intheflow]

32. So when you get testicular cancer

you won't be heading to the doctor since reproductive health is just a lifestyle choice.

[RB TexLa]

35. Not to remain able to reproduce, that is for other people to do.

[Bluerthanblue]

76. but to continue to LIVE- you would-

it has nothing to do with procreation when it's cancer- it has to do with it metastasizing and killing you.



but you know that- you are "RB TexLa" .

[JonQ]

117. Testicular cancer is also fatal if untreated

and even then losing both testicles will have profound effects on a man who never plans on having children. They produce a number of hormones, testosterone being the best known, that are essential for normal functioning in men.

[underseasurveyor]

36. Now that is a completely ignorant statement

Reproductive health is not a necessity?

That's so ridiculous. I guess testicular cancer and prostate cancer and yes even cancer of the penis are myths?

Whew good thing for you.

[Raineyb]

38. The hell it is!

You think people should have to deal with the pain and discomfort many issues with one's reproductive organs can cause that have not a goddamn thing to do with actually reproducing because it's a lifestyle choice?

I didn't choose to be female any more than you chose to be male.

Although you have chosen to be a fuckwit so maybe we should charge YOU more. Since the fuckwit's stupidity is more likely to land an innocent party in the hospital.

edited for clarity

[polly7]

39. My sister in law just died of uterine cancer.

My uncle just died of prostate cancer.

[underseasurveyor]

51. And my first husband died of penile cancer.

Although rare it does happen.

My condolences to you and yours on the loss of your SIL and your uncle

[polly7]

53. Thanks, my SIL wasn't 40 yet so it was quite a shock.

My uncle elderly, but still devastating. Thank you for the condolences. I can't wrap my mind around either one being in a riskier group because of which organ was the original site. Doesn't even make sense to me.

[sandnsea]

43. He has an HSA

He doesn't want to pay for any health care at all because it'll cut into his "savings".

[Flaneur]

49. Dude, stop digging that hole!

[Hello_Kitty]

58. So what about childfree-by-choice women like me? eom

[Starry Messenger]

69. What do you think the parts do when they aren't creating babies?

[JerseygirlCT]

75. Ok, then

Good thing to know for all those women with cervical cancer, or ovarian cancer. Bet they'd be surprised to know that their care isn't a necessity - gee, they could just have opted out!

[Bluerthanblue]

78. bullshit- you are here thanks to a uterus and ovaries.

You have no choice about that-


Until you can claim otherwise, you are indebted.

[JonQ]

118. We are all here

thanks to both sets of reproductive organs. You are indebted (if you choose that route) to both of your parents.

No women = no children.
No men = no children.

I'm not sure why you think women have a monopoly on reproductive ability. Without men they are incapable of the act.

[glitch]

44. I wish they'd quit trying to prove they're morons to us. We've already conceded that to them. Now

they're just boring. Borons.

[underseasurveyor]

55. LOL

Wouldn't that be Borans?

[glitch]

83. Doh! You got me :) nt

[TwilightGardener]

45. "We're all different"--no, not really. Humans come in only TWO forms--

both forms must be cared for. The female body is not an unusual, expensive anomaly.

[JonQ]

119. Unusual? No, more than half wouldn't be unusual

anomaly? Again no.

Expensive? In terms of health care, yes.

I would take this outrage more seriously if the same people were pissed about men getting charged more for other things, dying sooner, being more likely to lose their job, and so on.

[TwilightGardener]

121. Doesn't matter which gender costs more--and I don't take it as truth

that women always cost more anyway. Insurance companies shouldn't be allowed to discriminate and charge a woman more, simply for being a woman. Being a normal, healthy female is not a pre-existing condition or liability. Women should not be compared to men as if men are the standard for what a human being should be. As for your other complaints, I've never heard of men getting charged more for anything. I've also never heard that they are more likely to lose their jobs. Dying sooner--well, guys, that's mostly YOUR fault (except for estrogen/heart benefits). You drag down your own average lifespans, that's not women doing it to you. Smoking, drug use, alcohol consumption, bad eating habits, lack of exercise, stress, injuries, accidents of all kinds, violence, ignoring health symptoms until they become serious--women have trouble with all these, but men have it more. But I wouldn't approve of insurance companies charging men more simply for being men--because I'm nice that way.

[JonQ]

126. Fortunately it's not a matter of opinion

numbers cannot be sexist or biased in anyway.

Will one particular woman always cost more than any given man? No, obviously not. But on average women (as in all women being insured) cost more than men. That is a fact.

"Being a normal, healthy female is not a pre-existing condition or liability."

If it can be shown to cost more then it is a liability for the company, yes. And it isn't really a matter of men being declared the norm and everything else is aberrant. That's just the way some people are phrasing it. You could just as easily say women are the norm, and men get charged less because they use less than the normal amount of healthcare. That's irrelevant semantics that doesn't really address any significant point.


"I've never heard of men getting charged more for anything."

Then you haven't been paying attention and your input on this is suspect.

And womens healthcare costs are partly a result of their choices. Women choose to go in for more routine checkups, and for minor illnesses and ailments, and of course women choose to get pregnant and keep the child. But of course that would be unfair, it's only acceptable to blame men for the choices they tend to make, women are at the mercy of nature and should be pitied.

[TwilightGardener]

136. I see that you are arguing the insurance co's perspective on women--

that they are automatically a liability to the company. I'm arguing that that view is discriminatory--I oppose the insurance co's view, and believe they should accept that female anatomy and function is not something they can automatically charge more for, even if it MIGHT cost them more--so we're just going to keep butting heads on that forever. Your last sentence is full of assertions and generalizations that can't really be proven, sounds like your opinion. I am a female that doesn't go to the doctor for minor illnesses, for example, and my husband and I BOTH chose to have children, wasn't my decision alone. I think you really dislike women, deep down.

[JonQ]

141. It isn't a perspective

it is math. You can't have an opinion on whether numbers are good or bad. And no, mathematics does not discriminate against women, or by race, religion, whatever. 2+2=4 is the same for everyone.

And insurance companies do nothing but charge people for what they might cost them. If they knew ahead of time exactly what each individual would cost they would charge on an individual basis, but that is impossible currently as time travel does not exist, right? So they go by predictions (what "might" happen) and gender is a strong factor in that prediction, as other traits are.


Your insistence on penalizing men for the actions of women shows that deep down you really dislike my gender. Why is that?

[TwilightGardener]

143. No, it IS a perspective if they choose to act on that math by imposing

a higher fee for women, automatically, before these women make a single claim or develop a single disease, or get pregnant, or have a single doctor visit. They could choose to hike rates for African Americans for the possibility of sickle-cell anemia or kidney disease or hypertension--would you think that was right? They could choose to hike rates for Native Americans for diabetes--is that right? There's math, and then there's how they choose to deal with that math. I am saying that in my opinion, the cost of being female, and needing routine female care and maintenance, should be a societal cost, spread out among society. Same with men. The genders aren't separate species, occasionally bumping into each other, not responsible for each other. As far as penalizing/disliking men--I'm not on a men's health insurance thread advocating that men just suck it up and pay more for being men. I'm married to a man, have two sons. I loves me some men! I'm advocating for fairness. You, however, seem angry about women costing you money with their anatomy and habits.

[JonQ]

151. They have to act on those numbers

that's how they make a profit. It isn't a non-profit, charity or government institution. And if one company starts charging everyone equally then men are going to go to another, where they will be charged a more accurate amount. And so they would have to raise their rates which would force even more people out. Eventually they go bankrupt. That is not their business goal.

"They could choose to hike rates for African Americans for the possibility of sickle-cell anemia or kidney disease or hypertension--would you think that was right?"

If there were a test for identifying race as accurate as the one for telling genders apart (there isn't) and as strong a correlation between those ethnicities and higher costs (there isn't) then yes that would be valid.

"I am saying that in my opinion, the cost of being female, and needing routine female care and maintenance, should be a societal cost, spread out among society."

We are talking private companies here. If you want to transfer their role in society to the government that would be another topic. Right now we're discussing if they are unfairly discriminating against women. As it is a major factor in the costs they will put on the company that is a fair criteria to consider.

'You, however, seem angry about women costing you money with their anatomy and habits.'

You know that is a weak argument used when facts and logic don't back you right? No different then screaming racist whenever someone disagrees with you. I tried to show you how irrelevant and silly it was, apparently you didn't get it.

[TwilightGardener]

160. They can't discriminate against race. They shouldn't be allowed to

discriminate against gender. Both race and gender, in and of themselves, are not deviations from the norm, and are not risk factors. The state of being a healthy female is not a reason to charge more. I hope such discrimination is prevented at least in the public option. And yeah, any man who obsesses about paying a little bit more so that things are equal and fair between men and women is someone who's got a problem with women.

[JonQ]

163. You just stated one example of how race was a health factor

and then you said it is not a factor. Look biology/evolution don't care about what is fair, that is never an issue. And because of biology men and women are different, I assume you've noticed some differences at this point in your life. When it comes to health care those differences might be expected to be relevant.

"And yeah, any man who obsesses about paying a little bit more so that things are equal and fair between men and women is someone who's got a problem with women."

And what of women who think it is ac