Every progressive should vote against a 20% Corporate Welfare Tax and repeal of Roe v. Wade.

This is an abortion.

No word on whether this will affect the dickless Democrats who voted against health care.

Every Democrat who voted for the Stupak abomination or against health care reform need to get their ass primaried big time. No more playing Mr. Nice Guy just because these guys are in swing districts. You either support the progressive agenda or you are not a Democrat. We will not become the (Slightly More) Moderate Republican Party.

Any chance private insurers can impose an added premium for being an asshole, rather than just having one?

Dear Mr. Sessions,

How’s your prostate, douchebag?

Not that I would EVER insist you pay more for health care because you have one, just throwing that turd backatcha.

Perhaps the Congress should begin having the occasional Sadie Hawkins day, where the wimmenfolk get to make all the rules. Although, after listening to Virginia Foxx, that idea seems somewhat less appealing

No word on whether this will affect the dickless Democrats who voted against health care.

Heath Shuler and Dennis Kucinich, together again.

And how about that Charlie Melancon? No wonder Vitter’s ahead – why bother voting for a DINO when you can vote for a real Republican instead?

Charging for health care based on “plumbing” lacks fact-based foundation. Like any other infrastructure, what goes wrong with plumbing depends on how it is maintained.

Adopting Sessions-think, perhaps we should charge men more for ANYTHING related to health care. Before some of you start whining that this would smack of gender inequality, bear in mind that males make up roughly 54% of all live births in this country. By the time they reach age 24, their ranks have been decimated to the point where they make up only about 48% of the population. By the time they reach age sixty, they make up fewer than 35% of the population. And it’s not just that Y chromosome; it’s “teh stupid.”

Men are more likely to engage in risky behavior: They are more likely to eat and drink in excess; if they smoke, they tend to smoke more than women, and smoke for a longer time before quitting. Men are more likely than women to get speeding tickets. Men are more likely than women to engage in sex with multiple partners and without protection…. The list goes on. But more to the point, if left to their own devices, men tend to let things slide until they are walking heart attacks, instead of having regular check-ups.

I think we should simplify all this and everyone should just get the same coverage that fuckhead Sessions gets from the US gummint. Failing that, maybe premiums for men should be based on penis length. For every inch under 6 erect, premiums (even, err, especially for
KKKongess”men”) go up by 20%. No need to ask about whether that’s science based: itz not.

Congressman Sessions has a great idea: if you’re at higher risk then you should pay more for health insurance. So I’m certain that he will enthusiastically endorse charging people who are overweight more for their health insurance as well.
Here are the states with the highest percentage of overweight/obese populations in order:

Mississippi
Alabama
West Virginia
Tennessee
South Carolina
Oklahoma
Kentucky
Louisiana
Michigan
Arkansas
Ohio
North Carolina
Missouri
Georgia
Texas

So pay up, you Red State fat fucks.

And testicular cancer. And hernias. And any injuries sustained while teabagging.

The comparison to smoking is obviously ridiculous.

But if I can be serious for a moment, isn’t it reasonable to compare gender to age? No one “chooses” to get old, but this bill still allows insurers to charge higher premiums to older customers.

We all know older people on average have higher medical bills. Do women also have higher medical bills on average? I don’t really know, but this article says “Gender-rating — or what some term as flat-out sexual discrimination — is linked to the simple fact that women, particularly those under age 50 or so, go to the doctor more often than men.”

So my question is, if it’s fair to charge higher premiums for older people, why isn’t it also fair to charge higher premiums for women?

“Gender-rating — or what some term as flat-out sexual discrimination — is linked to the simple fact that women, particularly those under age 50 or so, go to the doctor more often than men.”

True. But it costs about $100 per visit–most of which may be covered by insurance–to have a check-up. During those check-ups, women often discover they have medical issues that are treatable by changing their behavior or by taking (often) generic medications. Men often don’t go to the hospital unless they keel over at work. The ambulance ride alone can cost in excess of $500–which is more than most women spend on check-ups and tests per year. Admission to the ER–count that at about $500 min. Cardiac Intensive Care will range from $4,000-$7,000 per day. And a coronary bypass will cost roughly $75,000 if covered by Medicare, $120,000 if covered by private insurance, and over $200,000 if you are uninsured. So yes, women go to the doctor’s more often. But when men go, it’s usually much more expensive, and is more likely to result in debilitating health problems.

Ironically, of course, women get cheaper life insurance policies because they live longer and smarter than men…

But, really, your example it another reason why playing this game of “regulating” premiums is bound to fail, and why this reform package is a total dud. If you let the free market rule what should be a universal right paid for by all, available to all, you will inevitably end up marginalizing those that need the service most, but can’t pay to play.

Sure, Geico can penalize me for having a 17-year old on my plan, and that’s sort of okay because he doesn’t need to drive that badly — if I think it’s too expensive, he’ll have to wait until he can afford his own policy, or I can gamble and try to trust him behind the wheel of my car with minimal insurance. But if he has asthma I can’t really decide I’ll just skip health care for him because Aetna tells me that’s gonna cost me.

Ironically, of course, women get cheaper life insurance policies because they live longer and smarter than men…

But, really, your example it another reason why playing this game of “regulating” premiums is bound to fail, and why this reform package is a total dud. If you let the free market rule what should be a universal right paid for by all, available to all, you will inevitably end up marginalizing those that need the service most, but can’t pay to play.

Sure, Geico can penalize me for having a 17-year old on my plan, and that’s sort of okay because he doesn’t need to drive that badly — if I think it’s too expensive, he’ll have to wait until he can afford his own policy, or I can gamble and try to trust him behind the wheel of my car with minimal insurance. But if he has asthma I can’t really decide I’ll just skip health care for him because Aetna tells me that’s gonna cost me.

A 2004 study found that “Men, with an average of $268,700, had lower average lifetime healthcare costs than women ($361,200)”. Less than half of the difference was due to the fact that women live longer. So far, it seems the data supports the idea that women cost more to insure.

Let me break my question down into two separate ones:

1. Is it true or false that women on average cost more to insure?

2. If it is true, then why is it any more fair to charge higher premiums for one uncontrollable factor that results in higher costs (age) than for another (gender)?

According to the data I’ve come across so far, #1 is true, and I haven’t heard any answer for #2.

If you have a study saying that women actually don’t cost more to insure, I’d be glad to hear it, but it’s pointless to speculate about expensive male hospital visits vs. cheap female checkups unless there’s actual data to back it up.

You know, one giant risk pool for everyone would solve all these issues with age & gender affecting premiums. Now, what is the proper term for that, hmm, let’s see, I can’t quite put my finger on it. Oh yeah: SINGLE PAYER!

..or we could just stop referring to “insurance” and “premiums” and call it “private health care” and “payments” – no need for f*cking “actual data”

And testicular cancer

We can be sure that the Dems who voted against health care are at no risk of developing testicular cancer.

For Mr Sessions, I’m sure ER visits to remove the double wetsuits are covered.

Just to be clear, I think a single payer system would be great. The purpose of insurance should be to spread risk around to all participants. I would rather see everyone pay the same amount no matter who they are, or else finance the system through taxes and let higher income earners pay more.

But if we’re going to say it’s OK to slice and dice that risk, charging people more for a condition like age that they have no control over, then I don’t see why another condition like gender should be exempt. Pete Sessions is a jackass for comparing gender to the voluntary act of smoking, but this isn’t about sexism any more than charging old folks more is about ageism.

That’s it, Sessions. Keep it up.

Or rather, keep it up if you can once we nick you double for the erectile dysf*nction meds you need for that purpose. They’re purely elective, aren’t they, those meds, where the vah-jay-jay isn’t?

And while we’re at it, I would LOVE the chance to file a lawsuit under the Genetic Information Discrimination Act of 2008. Because last I checked, I’m a woman because of my genetic predisposition to that gender.

Bring it on, asshole.

[edit: by the way, can't we ask Kucinich to submit legislation putting all of Congress on the same health plan we have?]

Just lay back and think of it as a Vagina Added Tax

ah shit, that’s funny !

Would adding a strap on penis qualify ?

I didn’t realize we had so many Walter Pecks in the Senate.

Yeah. Damn women just can’t stop going to the doctor to have those babies taken care of while they’re pregnant.

There are most likely a host of reasons, many related to child bearing, that cause women to go to the doctor more than men since the child bearing years are the same years that most men don’t even think about going to a doctor.

I beg your pardon. I’m not fat; it’s just my PBR storage area.

There’s no way to tell from such simple statistics about women going to the doctor more than men whether those visits are preventative. Perhaps their more frequent visits mean women are healthier than men, live longer (true) and catch disease earlier.

Gender is a pre-existing condition.

Who knew?

Huh, as far as I’m concerned the Democrats that voted FOR this health insurance “reform” are the ones that are “dickless.” They certainly lack a spine, IMO.

If you want confirmation of just how bad this bill is, watch insurance company stocks on Monday. They’ll go UP UP UP. I’d bet on it. This bill guarantees hefty profits, new mandated customers, and subsidized premiums, most of which goes into their coffers.

The only “good” out of this bill is that it should cover some people that aren’t covered now. But it won’t cover them all. And it’s lack of pressure to lower costs just means eventually they’ll take up more and more of our resources, and add the Stupid amendment on top of it, and that’s way more “bad” than “good” and I’ll be damned if I understand why so called progressive Democrats voted for it.

What we’ll have now, is the continued unnecessary middle man skimming profits and adding tons of waste, along with continued bankruptcies due to health related issues as the level of coverage is realized, and yet no pressure to make it better because “we just did health care reform.”

Fuck that shit.

I was scared the Stupak amendment was what was being referred to. Equating women with smokers is incredibly clueless.

(also directed to Teddy Partridge @ 26)

Your points are both correct, but both irrelevant.

For the purpose of setting premiums, it doesn’t matter why women cost more to insure; what matters is that insurance companies end up paying more for a woman than for a man. The dollars they spend on claims related to childbirth and preventative care are just as green as the dollars they spend on illness and injury.

I really don’t see what’s so controversial about treating gender the same way we treat age. Either they should both affect premiums, or neither of them should. If you think it’s OK for one to affect premiums but not the other, then please, explain why!

It is not “repeal of Roe v. Wade” as much as making women pay a tax if they think they could ever get an abortion. I think paying for the abortion would be cheaper than paying the premiums on such a policy so it is discriminatory against poor women as Rayne said.

Why shouldn’t a Woman pay more for HealthCare? Good Question lets get Sarah Palin, Newt, George Will, Gov Mark Sanford, Sen Ensign views on that on tape. Then get Mark Foley and Larry Craig running from answering that question.

I hope his wife or daughter doesn’t get raped. I also hope that if they do, they don’t wait too long to deceide what to do since one of their wingnut supporters killed Dr. Tiller.

If men were charged half the cost of the medical payments for the production of their offspring, would that perhaps balance the male/female thing a bit?

What you siad. We need universal health care with a single payer, not a fucking half assed, buy private inadequate product system.

That asswipe’s mother should charge him retroactive room and board for 9 months (at today’s rates) plus damages for stretch marks, cervical stretching, hemerrhoids, incontinence, and for growing up to be an idiot.

Just a thought.

The dollars they spend on claims related to childbirth and preventative care are just as green as the dollars they spend on illness and injury.

Because chances are a Man helped them into the whole child birth being an expense thing? Samething with Birth Control and Abortion.

Now then unless Congressman Pete Sessions of Texas is willing to go on TV and argue that he and every GOPer who agrees with him never engaged in premarital or extramarital sex and its unfair to ask them to pay more money then I think Pete has a problem.

Mormons have a very high birth rate I wonder what Sen Orin Hatch’s views are?

Okay, then every man in Congress – make that every male elected or appointed official – has to wear tights and a short jacket, so we can see that he has equipment.

Indeed. It’s not intuitively obvious that costs associated with bearing children ought to be charged exclusively to women. That only works if you make that assumption a priori. Likewise, health care is a lousy subject for insurance to begin with, rather than as a provided governmental service. Ill health isn’t an accident – it’s going to happen. “Insurable interest” and “insurable event” are bullshit concepts for health care. It’s not like car insurance or fire insurance. Those involve events – accidents- which may never happen to everyone. You are gonna need preventive care and babies gotta get born. Neither of those are accidents to be insured against.

‘Back in the kitchen; I need dinner’?

That’s an interesting thought. Maybe hospitals should send half the bill to the father!

On the other hand, if you make fathers responsible for the costs of pregnancy, that puts you on a slippery slope when it comes to abortion rights, custody, etc.

You are aware I suppose that there are states that allow insurance companies to call pregnancy a “pre-existing condition” or a “voluntary procedure” thus making the woman ineligible for coverage?

Or that http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/21/insurance-companies-rape-_n_328708.html and Domestic Violence have also been called pre-existing conditions?

So you’ll have to pardon me if I don’t find it all that credible on how insurance companies set their rates and how they calculate things. I find it rather like how the bookies establish a betting line (which has very little to do with the actual contest and who wins and loses). Being a woman is not a pre-existing condition, it just seems that way from how the insurance companies whine and operate.

The GOP is handing us the Woman vote. I got a Mom, a Sister, several Female Friends and I like the idea of them being around as long as possible.
Sure it costs more to insure them they should still get insurance otherwise whats next not insuring the Mentally Challenged, People with AIDs how about the Obese lots of GOPers (Rush, Newt etc etc)? are only one Big Mac away from the big sleep.
Heck Pete we could end the GOP by not insuring the Obese I wonder when it becomes more expensive to insure a young sexually active woman vs a guy weighing 300? 400? pounds? Heart Attacks, Diabetes, Stroke, kidney, liver problems, increased cancer risks etc.
Now then if that woman uses Birth Control most or all of the time just how much less would it cost to insure a young woman vs a 40 year old and up 20% and up over weight man?

Actually the “father” has the perfect protections from this – wear a damn rubber.

Because chances are a Man helped them into the whole child birth being an expense thing?

I believe it’s a woman’s choice whether or not to have children — and that cuts both ways. I don’t see how we can reasonably expect someone else to pay for the costs without changing the responsibility for making that choice in the first place.

No, it doesn’t, unless you make the a priori assumption that men have those rights. This is why an insurance scheme is so utterly inappropriate for the provision of health care.

There are a variety of comments I think I should make. I’m an MD who practices in two unrelated fields ,just to establish a little background. First, I’d lie to comment on economic rights. If we assume a right for say health care(Or broad band) what happens as fewer people are able to pay.In the reductio ad surbum one person should have to furnish the nation.
Secondly, gyne exams aside , the average female yrly bill is almost twice the male (on a chronological matched year.) Auto immune (RA,SLE etc) and the subtle diseases (I.e.-those lab tests/imaging can’t find such as firbro,chronic fatigue etc) are a big cause. SO ,if insurance is based on risk/resources consumed, it’s an easy call. Rayne,above had what is a silly question. Dennis Kuccinich won’t ask Congress to take different health care (eg,what we get) because ,he likes his current health care and would aggravate powerful members of Congress for no purpose. Finally,tarindoc , please say “preventive” ,not pre4ventative.Makes you look smarter.

Based on Session logic men should pay more for health care because they have the pre-existing condition of siring penis deprived humans.

You could just as easily say the “mother” has the perfect protections from this – get on the damn pill… or wear a patch, ring, female condom… or take the morning after pill… or have an abortion.

Come on.

All men should pay for a woman’s child birth costs unless you are willing to take a lie detector test and publicly state you never had sex.
After all Catholics who don’t use birth control as the church teaches but who are married would make Pete’s idea politically Dead on the Table. I assume the Mormons will not be happy either or any other group that hates Birth Control.

Thanks for the supporting data and the spelling tip. I thought “preventive” looked better but decided to use the same spelling as the post I was responding to. According to the dictionary, both are correct.

Sessions can kiss my @$$. I thought all of these “conservatives” wanted women barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen and to know our place. Now we also have to pay more for that?

Geez, if I had only just known this salient fact when gawd asked me what gender I wanted to be in this lifetime, I would have chosen “better.”

It beats all, it just beats all. We can ponder and discuss this, that and the other thing about how, what, why Big Ins charges for whatever or what Sessions really “meant” by such a crapulous statement. I’ll tell you what it signifies: sexism, plain old ordinary garden varity mysogynistic sexism. If it looks & sounds like sexism, then it is.

But no surprises there.

Many women cannot take the pill. Thanks to the Stupak amendment, abortions will not be available under insurance plans for most women other than the rich. The cost of the nuvo-ring is higher. Thanks to folks like Sen Joe “Short Ride” Lieberman, a lot of women do not have access to Plan B.

Sorry but the man does play a role and if he is at all serious about not fathering a child, then he has to take a level of responsibility for his actions. Wear a damn rubber.

I live in a penis-free environment. Seems worth the price. But then, I can afford it.

always take spelling tips from the reductio ad surbum

First of all I know a few girls who had no choice in the matter. I assume they should not be charged more?
Second we should charge all men for women’s extra costs as far as sex, kids, disease etc is concerned why because most of us Men have had a hand in many a woman getting these extra costs.
What kind of a world do you want to live in? Lets have a poll a Muslim/Christian/Catholic/Mormon Fundy world without premarital sex or a world where Men pay a little extra for women’s healthcare?

You say you “don’t find it all that credible on how insurance companies set their rates and how they calculate things”, so why are you willing to make older people pay higher premiums? Either you believe the data or you don’t, right?

If insurers are discriminating against women out of pure sexism, rather than any actual higher costs, what makes you think they aren’t discriminating against old people out of pure ageism too?

[edit: by the way, can't we ask Kucinich to submit legislation putting all of Congress on the same health plan we have?]

Joe (YOU LIE) Wilson already did.

Um, women have higher medical costs because they are the ones that bear children. I’m perfectly happy with women absolving themselves from that role, thus relegating the human race to oblivion (richly deserved). I suspect, however, that most of the rest of the human race will not agree. So who is to pay?

First of all I know a few girls who had no choice in the matter. I assume they should not be charged more?

You seem to have me confused with someone else. I’m not the one assigning blame for any medical expenses!

As far as I’m concerned, it doesn’t matter whose fault any of this is. If you go to the hospital, then you pay the bill (or send it to your insurer). And if you’re part of a group that has higher medical bills on average, then either (1) it’s fair to charge you higher premiums as a result or (2) it isn’t fair, no matter whether that group is based on gender or age.

You cook the books long enough and hard enough, you can get them to say any damn thing you want them to (see: Enron).

Taradonic for god’s sake can you at least treat and think of men as something other than the weakest of creatures that can’t do anyting, be responsible for their own sperm. No wonder we have so many Pete Sessions. Everyone treats them like children all their freaking lives.

Raise better, smarter and responsible sons.

If insurers are discriminating against women out of pure sexism, rather than any actual higher costs, what makes you think they aren’t discriminating against old people out of pure ageism too?

Fair point lets not charge older people more I will agree to that all life is sacred the cost to every person should be the same. Even if some people do cost more than others. I wonder how long Stephan Hawking would have lived in America? I wonder how long he would have lived if he was poor and in America?
I wonder if Sarah ever loses her cash if she might consider immigrating?

I suggest you read corwin’s post #48. Childbirth isn’t the only factor in women’s higher medical costs.

So it’s the guy’s fault, but the gal ends up with the medical problem, and by your scheme, she has to pay. Seems fair. /s

lol It would be more cost effective if we gave vasectomies to men. Then they will not overload the medical system icky women. Downside is America dies.

Amen to that!

Yes, I can. And I will. And I have. I don’t know why you’re accusing me of doing anything else.

OK. Read the comment. Let women die because they’re too expensive to insure. Seems only fair. /s

If you think your medical expenses are someone else’s fault, then you can sue them for damages. Happens all the time. What would you prefer instead?

In large insurance groups (i.e., big businesses, and even businesses with over 20 people) older people do NOT pay more than younger —- everyone is in the pool and pays the same rate. ‘Splain that.

I’m suing the hell out of my bio dad and his estate. It’s his fault he sired me with wrong physiology.

Exactly, and he/she is a MD for sure.

This is a priceless thread…what a clever crowd. ;))

You said it, not me.

Some people can’t afford to pay and with unemployment over 10% just how many more women will die without Healthcare? How long if unemployment lasts long enough will it take to bring White Women’s life span’s down to the level of African American women? Do we want White Women to start having miscarriage rates like African American women?

Oh I can hardly wait for suing some one because my medical expenses are someone else’s fault because I am a female. Sounds like a winning case. /s

Apparently you are too naive to recognize the end snark symbol (/s for furture reference).

I read a book about that some years back by a Shrink…that all men are actually little boys….(jeez) and so “real women” know how to respond/be OK with that small fact. Book made quite an impression.

Agreed TBogg should be proud:)

You betcha. Attracked some real nutcases, and I, for one, am having fun. Gallows humor to be sure, but what other fun is there these days?

Do you actually think that anyone that reads and comments at any of the FDL blogs is remotely close to thinking anything positive of the pond scum that runs insurance companies? My view is that most all of them are corrupt and cooking the books.

The whole health and medical insurance systems is run by corrupt pond scum and if I presented what I think should be done to them, I would most likely be banned.

Sheesh, know something about your audience before you present an argument here. But I do admire your attempts at building those straw arguments.

It’s all bullshit.

Women shouldn’t pay more. Old people shouldn’t pay more. Black people shouldn’t pay more. White people shouldn’t pay more.

Health care should be a right for ALL, and it’s expense shared by ALL. Then, in a free country, let them make life choices as they see fit. If a person wants to be a race car driver, fine. Don’t charge him more, don’t charge women more, it’s all BULLSHIT.

Why can’t Americans get this right?

Some men can’t afford to pay either! That’s why we’re having this whole healthcare reform debate, you know?

You might as well ask “how many more old people will die without healthcare”? Remember, this bill still lets insurers charge older people higher premiums! Are their lives not worth as much as women’s lives?

Look, if premiums are higher than people can afford, then we should subsidize them. (Or move to a single payer system, but that ship has sailed…)

But that doesn’t mean we have to pretend that men and women cost the same amount to insure. They don’t, just like old people and young people don’t. Maybe we should offer women and old people higher subsidies than men and young people, but it’s silly to tell insurers which uncontrollable conditions they can or can’t raise premiums for.

No, I know what /s means. In context, it meant that you thought what came before was a snarky rephrasing of something that I had said. But of course it wasn’t, it was a strawman. (Which also starts with “S”! What a coincidence.)

Agreed.

Bwahahaha! Poor women getting the cash to sue and force blood tests on guys not sure if thats legal now, but in my day guy’s from my White middle class neighborhood swore it wasn’t them and it might have been or they ran out of state if a girl thought about keeping their kid. I assume guys still run these days detective bills will soar.
Either that or abortions will skyrocket after all that is cheaper than giving birth.

All I’m trying to do is get a straight answer on why it’s OK to charge more for one factor that’s beyond the insured person’s control, and not OK for some other factor. No straw involved. Not trying to rile anyone up, and I was a little surprised by the aggressive response I got, although in retrospect I shouldn’t have been surprised getting that here. ;)

Men can’t afford to pay for Viagra or Cialis, what a pity.

It probably would have scared the chit out of me. lol Gawd just the idea of having to another’s son beyond their childhood because their own parents couldn’t or refused to teach them how to be an adult.

Maybe not before, but DNA/paternity is pretty fool-proof.

Blood tests and detective bills? Sorry, I thought we were talking about childbirth due to rape (“it’s the guy’s fault” – eCAHNomics @ 66), not plain old sex.

This might be news to you, but men get sick and injured just like women do. Expensive health care is a problem for everyone.

Some men can’t afford to pay either! That’s why we’re having this whole healthcare reform debate, you know?

True lets ask what Americans want a Healthcare system with the same costs per person as France or Japan where everyone is covered or our current system with higher medical costs, higher drug costs and not everyone is covered ?
We can’t afford Healthcare for everyone you say? What if we ask Americans what they want more wars in Iraq and Afghanistan or Healthcare for all Americans?

Scary and discouraging….I still recall exactly where I was when I read it….Quite an impression…if you were watching the votes last night, QED. ;))

OK, end snark. Medical care is a social phenomenon, not one subject to alleged economic rules. In fact I started studying the economics (laughingly-referred-to-as) in 1991. Without going into details, there is no such thing as medical economics. So a responsible society either provides medical care for its citizens, or it lets them die. And those societies that provide medical care for their citizens do so at 1/2 the cost with better outcomes than the U.S.

It is quite sad overall, that the whole health care debate always degenerates down to how many shoe shopping trips some messed up executives will be denied. That says a lot about the primitive state of America.

At some point in time America will stop trying so desperately to commit suicide.

What a pity that men are also impacted by illness. You’d never know it by listening to U.S. senators.

No one has made the claim (other than you) that it is alright for one group to be charged higher rates than others. (assumed because of the tenor of how you asked your questions initially).

In group plans, as was pointed out, everyone in the plan pays the same rate regardless of age or infirmity. Which is what leads to plans becoming too expensive for the group.

Individual plans ARE expensive as it is one of the ways the insurance companies use to screw everyone. Like those who have the “pre-existing conditions.”

So whatever you think we have been saying about it being OK for different groups to pay more than others is really just something you made up or read into what others have said, for it sure hasn’t come from anyone here.

Well, Im afraid of that answer, too. We’ve had about 8 years of war and lots much counting Viet Nam, etc. We seem always able to get us a lil’ ol’ war, but not much progress on CHIP, health care, etc etc. As asked: What kind of country are we?

Oh, for crying out loud, let females die. It would save so much money. /s

No one has made the claim (other than you) that it is alright for one group to be charged higher rates than others.

Not in this thread, no.

But the bill in question does allow insurers to charge higher rates based on age. TBogg’s post is a response to jackass Pete Sessions who suggested that they should be allowed to charge higher rates based on gender as well. Again, Pete Sessions is a jackass, and comparing gender to smoking habits is stupid. But the comparison to age is a much better one, and the bill seems rather hypocritical as a result.

That is because we don’t think the insurance companies and the way they do things is the best or most cost effective way to go. Your arguing bikes to a ten speed crowd. The premise of keeping the current system like Obama wants is not an option to us. We see it as Corporate Welfare that costs us more money.
After all those millions without healthcare they slaughter pigs with Swine Flu. Their cousins flip hundreds of Hamburgers an hour at fast food places. Their daughters are nannies and maids for the rich.
We just got Swine Flu vaccine in my old hometown last week I read all those people without healthcare they are a reserve population for the Swine flu they will give the disease a place to rest and mutate.
Next Flu Season the mutation might be worse and might happen before we get a vaccine created. If everyone had healthcare we could monitor the sick and isolate them before it spreads.

I give up. My abilities to deal well with willful obtuseness is extremely limited at the moment and rapidly getting worse.

The higher costs for women for prescriptions, nursing home care, dental, vision and hearing are all attributed to the tendency for women to live longer into more advanced age. The study concluded that
if men lived as long as women, their lifetime healthcare costs would increase by $36,600 to $305,281 about 14 percent more for a life that is 8 percent longer. Conversely, if the average woman’s lifetime decreased to the same as the average man, her lifetime healthcare cost would decrease to $317,296.

First of all, the Health Research and Education Trust (“HRET”) is the 501(c)(3) of the American Hospital Association and since 1944 has focused its resources to address issues that America’s health care leaders face every day. In other words, it’s a PAC, that produces studies that Insurance companies use to “inform” (read lobby)our illustrious Congressmen.

Second, their reasoning falls apart in the last paragraph, when they adjust for age, and men still come out as less expensive to insure. The problem is that they are assuming a linear correlation between age and cost. According to their reasoning, if a man and a woman were in the same nursing home, taking the same Rx meds, and had identical medical histories up to age 75, the man would still cost less to treat. In reality, the cost function is a logarithmic relationship, where at the end of one’s life, regardless of gender, the cost increases sharply with age. Since the cost of maintaining the elderly in a medical facilty costs more than $3,000 per month in some parts of the country, and major illnesses tend to precipitate other infirmities, those 5 or so extra years add up.

Third, it is more “fair” to charge higher rates based on age rather than gender because gender is a constitutionally protected class and age isn’t; and because it’s cheaper for insurance companies to use their fleets of attorneys to design policies that screw fine upstanding teabaggers within the letter of the law than to fight appeals for discrimination from bleeding heart liberals.

Women should all take Nancy Reagan’s advice and just say no. I’ll bet we would have great health coverage in no time at all.

I think Aristophanes had the answer to such travesties some time ago. Lysistrata should be the guiding light to those women in and outside the Beltway who object to such characterizations and treatment. Heck, if just those who are practicing members of the profession tied with politics for being the world’s oldest would mount a boycott, the Village would grind to a halt.

Les jeux sont fait.

Great minds think alike.

Yep.

Do you think the limit is due to fatigue? I think most of us are very weary of the struggles on so many fronts…There must be a way to pull together. It was very discouraging to hear the stupidity in the CSpan calls last night. It is horrific that we are in this horrible war. Part of the Ft Hood tragedy is the haunting reality that our troops are at the breaking point.

I am one who thinks the vote last night was a victory of sorts….we have yet to see how it will play out. The book discussion last night was really good; rest and self-care are vital. Take care.

Seriously, I am convinced that women are going have to lead the way on this. It’s our fight and we appreciate all the support we get from some men but it’s ours. We need to mobilize every woman in the country and make them understand how they are being treated. And, yes, great minds do….

Fair enough. Thank you for being sensible and not accusing me of setting up female death panels. ;)

I think the bill is pretty pathetic compared to what it could’ve been if we hadn’t given so much away to Republicans (only to see them vote against it anyway). I can see the point of not wanting to completely destroy the insurance industry, but frankly they deserve it after years of gouging, denying claims, and rescission. I’ve been working as an independent contractor for a few months, and found out that even in Washington state, which has some pretty good insurance regulations, the individual health insurance market is a sad joke.

But I think these small changes are at least better than nothing, and nothing seems like the only alternative at this point. So I’m going to suck it up and hope that this opens the door to some more meaningful changes.

your decision to own a not-penis is going to cost you.

Holy Moly….And I thought penis-envy was dead.

Register me with the AKC so that at least there will be a record of a genetic line and who the supreme low maintenance studs were. That way you can worship at the hall of low cost, low maintenance of those dudes until your dying day. Don’t forget to give them hell for breeding such a money waste of living flesh. The bastids did after all sire a wretched two legged female, the bane of human kind and the biggest draining source on money because we had the goddamn audacity to survive birth.

It really is Eve’s fault. What a night.

Of course the truth is that the bill makes men subsidise women’s health insurance premiums. It’s sexist against men not women but the truth doesn’t mean much to feminists or progressives.

Yeah that bitch. lol How was she to know Adam was a retard who couldn’t make a decision for himself to save his life when he took that damn apple, blinded as he was by her boobies and porn star hair (I think his pecker gave him head damage when it got hard).

All the while God sat on his big saggy butt complaining, “Damn me this reality show sucks. 911 Nanny!”

So off the females in your family and consider yourself having broke even.

Why do I keep thinking about Valerie Solanas? That’s how bummed I am. They used women to pass their health care program, with all its many faults and shortcomings. They used us, trading our needs for their “victory” which they are proclaiming with their toothy smiles. Feels like being raped, ya know?

Oh, I suspect you’re a daughter of Lillith. Many of us are.

Haven’t you ever noticed that women have been getting the short end of deals for, oh, about ten thousand years?
We’re expected to bear the children, run the households, cook the food, support the churches, nurse the sick, teach the young, and oh, yeah, be ready for s-x every time the man of the house shows up with a hard-on. And all that is supposed to be done without pay, just because we’re weak, fragile beings who have to be protected from reality.

Fuck that!
Men have fragile egos, they can’t face reality, and the can damned well start recognizing that they have NO RIGHT to tell us that we can’t do something because we’re female.
As far as I’m concerned the only things determined by biology are the events involving sperm and ova, and until men can get pregnant, they don’t get to talk about pregnancy and its rights and responsibilities.

/rant

Now go back under your f*cking bridge.

You seem alright I don’t think you should have defended the insurance companies logic to this crowd though even as a hypothetical, this is a Foul Mouthed Fem Blog after all. Charging Woman more for healthcare is a violent Non Starter with the Fire Pups:)

Great! Especially the bridge part. :)

Thanks for your reasoned response.

1. I don’t think that’s a fair characterization of HRET. They identify themselves as “the not-for-profit research and educational affiliate of the
American Hospital Association”, and their board is filled with representatives of hospital groups, not insurers. If they have a bias, I’d expect it to be in favor of consuming more health care, not backing up insurers’ tricks.

2. They are not assuming a linear relationship between age and cost — the part you quoted (“if men lived as long as women, their lifetime healthcare costs would increase [to] about 14 percent more for a life that is 8 percent longer”) is enough to show that. For more detail on their methods, see the original study.

3. Age is a protected class (by statute), but only for people over 40.

Lillith was smart. I mean who in their right mind agrees to being the abject mindless slave of a dork that must be lied to and lied for on an endless basis or he cries and has no idea what to do with himself. Lopez and her crush on what’s his childlike weirdness Jonah not withstanding. The adam and eve thing was crap made up by some dude that was a slimy passive-aggressive weasel that creeped women out. lol

“Of course the truth is that the bill makes men subsidise women’s health insurance premiums. It’s sexist against men not women but the truth doesn’t mean much to feminists or progressives.”

It’s a shame women won’t stop gestating males until this gets resolved.

Me I’m a Man I like Women if that means paying more to keep more of them around I’m fine with that:) You I’m guessing are the kind of guy who takes his Mom to McDonalds for a Big Breakfeast on Mother’s Day through the Drive Through window.

I also admit as a Man I have had some hand in Women getting those extra health care costs its only Fair I help pay.

In keeping with your “ladies night” theme heres some piano bar music fit for the theme

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcP8sVjZ5qg

RevBev or others much more knowledgeable will have to chime in here if I don’t do justice to this story, but it seems Lillith was the first wife. She wouldn’t do as Adam demanded, so he called the Lord Gawd down to the Garden and asked if, indeed, Lillith wasn’t supposed to do as he demanded. Being a male, the Lord Gawd said that indeed she should and warned Lillith about her behavior. Lillith rebelled, stamped her feet, shook her fists at the sky and used the Lord Gawd’s name in vain (gasp!) repeatedly. The Lord Gawd came down to the Garden and showed her the gate. In a Good Riddance snit, she stomped out and went and lived by the Red Sea where she did as she damned well pleased.

Oh, and Lillith was formed of the same clay as was Adam. The Lord Gawd recognized that little oops! on his part, so made Eve out of Adam’s rib.

BTW, some say Lillith began to be denigrated as Moses and the tribes began running into enemies out there wandering around, and the enemies worshipped Ishtar or variants thereof. Ishtar was very powerful, and a female deity, so it was very important to suppress the notion of powerful women (daus of Lillith) and to offer up the subservient Eve as the shining example of what wimmin were really supposed to be.

i found this to be an informative link

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1513/whats-the-story-on-lilith-adams-first-wife

As all life is sacred, we need to make women pay an additional surcharge for all ova they produce and men each spermatozoa.

Many thnx.

im all over the links tonight

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0kJHQpvgB8

I think men should get pregnant, let them push that baby out of their appendage…..see how that works for them. Then women’s medical costs will go down. Dick’s will go up, so to speak.

that would teach men for sure, but its not possible. i think it would be better to try and get this shitty legislation overturned.

My sentiments EXACTLY.

That fucker is getting OLD really FAST.

I immediately thought of Lysistrata, too.

The “dickless Democrats” you refer to: why should have *any* Democrat voted for the final bill that included the Stupak language?

“Leadership” did NOTHING to persuade members of the Democratic Caucus to vote against that reprehensible language. Then they danced in the aisles when the most restrictive language in 30 years became theirs.

Any Dems who voted against Stupak and against the final bill have my gratitude. The rest of them, pffft.

To taradinoc

You don’t get the whole concept of insurance, do you?

Let me explain: You pool a whole bunch of people w/ different risk factors together, average out what they’d actuarially cost the company, divide that up, add a reasonable % for profit, and you have your premium cost. That way the expense is a reasonable amount for all, and high costs to insurers for some are paid for with the premiums of those who are fortunate enough not to have high insurable expenses during any given period. And all have the financial security of being covered. It’s particularly fair in the case of medical insurance b/c the vast majority of us will at least have an expensive final illness, if not also a serious accident or expensive chronic condition, in our lifetimes. Others have already pointed out the particular idiocy of charging one gender more than the other for the procreation of the species.

That’s the whole point of the mandate–to get young, relatively healthier and lower cost people into the pool to lower the average cost. Nevermind that auto insurers have been allowed to abuse the concept by creating different risk pools. The corruption and bamboozling that allows them to get away w/ that is not something to be emulated.

I don’t see health insurance cos. lining up to give discounts to 20-somethings, do you?

Thank you Maven; that needed to be stated. I would add that every (honest) study done on the US health care system shows that approximately 30% goes to useless paper shuffling/avoidance of bill paying by insurance companies, and this approx. 30% is enough to provide the uninsured with care, period. So, we could cover everyone at the same costs now as we spend with insurance companies doing their -avoid-payment dances.

I wish the Obama administration had taken the lead on this rather than tossing it to the sausage factory, because we’ve ended up with shit sausage as a result. Why didn’t they tout the idea of investigating the systems in use in other countries, such as the German not-for-profit health insurance companies or the examples of other forms of single payer systems? It’s almost like they wanted the appearance of reform without much actual change…

I for one think it’s very gallant of the men to simply drop dead without running up a large hospital bill.

I am new here – so be gentle.

Thank you for pointing out that age is, in fact, a protected class.

As to the general topic of age or sex classifications:

The problem I have with using age as an appropriate comparator is that everyone will grow old – but men can not grow female.

As a woman, I find this discussion fascinating. I am one of the unfortunates with a two chronic conditions, but I deal with them because I a big girl, not a whiny, pathetic bitch. The thing that grabs my ass, though, is that women have more (and more significant) problems with their reproductive system than men, and yet men have more effective treatment options. Women have too many conditions with little or no treatment alternative, or treatment that will screw you for the rest of your life so you are forced into a bad choice either way.

Pat us on the head and dismiss painful symptoms as menstruation or hysteria. I would love to see a man deal with Endometriosis, fibroids, PMDD, breast pain, childbirth, tubal pregnancy, ovarian cysts… some men get a cold and you would think they were dying! From what have observed, men have 2 major complaints in sexual health – prostate and impotency. Both are treatable, and usually without too much trauma. If a man is impotent, give a little blue pill, and he is a hero again. When a woman can not have sex without discomfort, she is a frigid bitch.

/rant

Thanks! I feel better now!

Well, there are several plausible answers to your question.

1.) Everyone, regardless of sex or race, who doesn’t die young, is going to get older. Therefore, while at any given time there’d be a cost disparity between you and your younger and older coworkers, you’re all actually hoping to age into the more costly category (even if not any time soon). Also, once they turn 65, your older coworkers can get Medicare (even if they keep working), and then they have a cost advantage over you. One might also argue (and it’s not a bad argument!) that it’s unfair of the government to cover everyone once they turn 65, but not people who are younger unless they meet certain income/disability requirements.

2.) Overall, during their earning life, people earn more as they get older. The economy may be screwing that up, but statistics still show that’s true over all. On the other hand, women earn 70% of what men do. So in one case, you’re charging more to the economically advantaged group, and in the other case to the economically disadvantaged group.

3.) Perhaps most importantly: the vast, vast majority of people continue to have be same physical sex from birth through death. (A small number alter theirs, but that involves a significant cost as well.) So unlike aging, which only yields to death, sex rarely changes.