Being a woman is not a pre-exisitng condition!

[funnyguy]

I got this from the National Women's Law Center and think it is timely and should be acted upon by men and women alike in the US:

Though the House bill completely eliminates the harmful practice of gender rating, in which insurance companies charge women higher premiums, the Senate bill only eliminates gender rating for companies with less than 100 employees. That means that larger employers with predominantly female workforces, like child care providers, visiting nurse associations and even some smaller school districts will continue to be charged higher premiums simply because of the demographics of their workforce. How much more? One employer with a predominantly female workforce estimated that her business’ annual premiums were $2,000 a year more!
As members of Congress are working to merge the two health reform bills into one final bill, we need to make sure that they are doing what’s right for all women. Please take a moment to contact your Members of Congress to tell them that health care reform must end gender rating for ALL women.

 

[B_New End]

Like insurance companies charging men more for car insurance?
Bah, burn all insurance companies to the ground.
Reverse gambling, all it is.

 

[StraightCock4Her]

Unfortunately, without the insurance companies we couldn't have nearly the standard of living we have today.

We would have to save every penny we ever made... I dunno if in the end it would be a positive change to society if we destroyed them all... but it would be interesting to see what would happen!

 

[hud01]

I got this from the National Women's Law Center and think it is timely and should be acted upon by men and women alike in the US:

Though the House bill completely eliminates the harmful practice of gender rating, in which insurance companies charge women higher premiums, the Senate bill only eliminates gender rating for companies with less than 100 employees. That means that larger employers with predominantly female workforces, like child care providers, visiting nurse associations and even some smaller school districts will continue to be charged higher premiums simply because of the demographics of their workforce. How much more? One employer with a predominantly female workforce estimated that her business’ annual premiums were $2,000 a year more!
As members of Congress are working to merge the two health reform bills into one final bill, we need to make sure that they are doing what’s right for all women. Please take a moment to contact your Members of Congress to tell them that health care reform must end gender rating for ALL women.

Men have been charged higher premiums for auto and life insurance for years. Why haven't you been complaining about that?

 

[Tattooed Goddess]

Women must have exams on their various female body parts pretty frequently, we are more prone to things that would cost an insurance company more money, like the ability to harvest babies in our uterus and give birth. We cost more, we pay more. Why is this considered discrimination? Just like anything else, the extra costs are passed on to those who use it and not those who run it. Or else there would be no reason to run anything if it means you are projecting losses and not revenues.

When my business supplies cost more, i put that cost onto my new clients. If a client needs specific supplies i dont ordinarly provide, i pass that cost onto them not another person who doesnt need them at all.

It's business, like everything else.

 

[ConstantComment]

The irony here is that if the traditional family unit existed, then health insurance costs would fall equally on men and women as you average the cost over the entire household. However, these days many women choose to have children out of wedlock and this is what happens.

 

[AlteredEgo]

The irony here is that if the traditional family unit existed, then health insurance costs would fall equally on men and women as you average the cost over the entire household. However, these days many women choose to have children out of wedlock and this is what happens.

I'm not sure I understand your math. Can you please elaborate?

 

[Not_Punny]

Women also live longer (statistically), so are a better income source for money digging insurance companies.

- - - - -

Having done copywriting for owners of insurance companies, I can vouch for their fat incomes and their wasteful, inefficient business structures.

 

[Not_Punny]

The irony here is that if the traditional family unit existed, then health insurance costs would fall equally on men and women as you average the cost over the entire household. However, these days many women choose to have children out of wedlock and this is what happens.

And the fault lies solely with the woman?

 

[EboniGoddess]

I don't think this is fair what so ever. The insurance companies figure that women will generate higher costs because me require maternity care and expenses when we get pregnant. But every woman doesn't have children. Most do but those that don't have children aren't given their money back. This is discrimination in the worse way. They make millions or probably billions in profits and yet what to spike rates to women.

 

[B_New End]

I don't think this is fair what so ever. The insurance companies figure that women will generate higher costs because me require maternity care and expenses when we get pregnant. But every woman doesn't have children. Most do but those that don't have children aren't given their money back. This is discrimination in the worse way. They make millions or probably billions in profits and yet what to spike rates to women.

Men have been forced to pay, by the government, extra for car insurance for decades.

Now, you can thank the Democrats, who have taken Hillary Clinton's mandatory health insurance idea, and made it their own. Now women will be forced to pay extra, since they will be forced to purchase health insurance.

It was state sponsored discrimination then, and it is state sponsored discrimination now.

 

[Tattooed Goddess]

I don't think this is fair what so ever. The insurance companies figure that women will generate higher costs because me require maternity care and expenses when we get pregnant. But every woman doesn't have children. Most do but those that don't have children aren't given their money back. This is discrimination in the worse way. They make millions or probably billions in profits and yet what to spike rates to women.

Whether or not you will have children doesnt matter, the fact you are capable of having children is what the expense is calculated on. Discrimination in the worst way? Hardly. How would one know who is going to get pregnant on an insurance plan or not? Millions of women find out they are pregnant when they werent planning on it at all, but their insurance company has seen it happen so much that you must expect a woman will likely get pregnant in her lifetime, its statistics honey.

What about those on antidepressants? - they are known for having other physical problems that cost an insurance a bundle.

What about those on blood pressure medications? They are at risk for heart attack, stroke, vascular diseases, etc.

What about those who smoke? They are at risk for cancer costs.

It's a risk the insurance company is not willing to bet on and lose. They charge you more for those things as well.