ObamaCare Outlaws Sex Discrimination. Or, Does it Require it?
ObamaCare outlaws sex discrimination in insurance premiums, and that provision takes place immediately. “It’s about time,” was my immediate reaction. As a male, my expected health costs are lower than a female of the same age and health status. Yet the insurer we deal with wants to charge men and women the same premium – in effect, overcharging the men so that the women can be undercharged.
Thank God that sort of rank discrimination will no longer be tolerated… Just checking the fine print here… let’s see… Hmmm… What?… Wait a minute folks… These guys are not going to outlaw sex discrimination… They are going to mandate it!
John, welcome to the strange new world of politically correct thinking.
Cute. But the people on the other side have absolutely no sense of humor. I think you know that.
Outlaw sex discrimination? Of course it’s not going to do that. Any more than it will outlaw age discrimination. In fact young people are really going to get screwed so the older people can pay premiums below their actuarially fair value.
My favorite line:
“The health care industry and health care insurance in general has been riddled with the most discriminatory and unfair practices to women,” said Marcia D. Greenberger, the founder and co-president of the National Women’s Law Center. “This law is a giant leap forward to dismantling the unfairness that has been a part of the system.”
Unfair to whom? To the men who have to pay more to subsidize our care?
It only makes sense that women between the ages of 19 and 35 are a bigger risk.
Virginia, don’t you know it is unfair to ask people to pay for what they get? Making other people pay for your benefits is the “giant leap forward.” In an earlier era we would have called that robbery.
Being an unmarried male, I’ve probably only seen a doctor three times in the past 15 years.
It’s common knowledge among physicians that men typically will not see a doctor until their wives make them.
Using Marcia Greenberger’s logic, single men should be forced to pay extra to subsidize the cost of married men when their wives make them see a doctor.
Tom,
I was saying that it is unfair for men to subsidize women’s care. If I owned an insurance company, I would charge a lot more for women. Sorry if I was unclear.
If I’m not mistaken, women pay more for long term care policies because men can typically rely on their wives to take care of them in the home. Widows, on the other hand, don’t have that option.
Virginia sez: “I would charge a lot more for women”
I’ve heard waiters and waitresses complain that groups of women take more time to order and don’t tip very well. How about a restaurant that charges women more then men?
artk,
I’ve been following this blog for a while. You have brough up several valid arguments and I appreciate your insight. One friendly critique, however. You frequently misuse the word “then” when you should use “than.” The comment above is one case in point. Correcting this mistake in future comments will make your comments even more compelling.
I wish this entry contained more details. I frankly don’t know what exactly what Mr. Goodman is referring to.
This is fairly basic.
Ordinarily in an insurance market people get charged premiums that reflect their expected cost to the plan. Some of these expectations differ by sex. For example, in a free market for life insurance, men will pay higher premiums because their life expectancy is shorter.
Teenage boys will pay higher auto insurance premiums than teenage girls, because they have more accidents.
In health insurance, however, women in general are more costly than men. So the market will tend to charge women a higher premium.
None of this is sex discrimination, however. It is just a matter of paying for what you get.