Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 cincydooley wrote:

 sebster wrote:



Give people a price reason to not be born as a girl?

Don't worry; they're made up for with their health and auto insurance costs.

Damn being born a man.

If you are that worried about it you can have a sex change.

I think that the big difference between health and car insurance is that you're not required by law to own a car. Sure you have to have insurance if you own one but you don't have to have one. I think a better example is FICA and Social Security. Men and women, smokers and non-smokers, everyone pays the same rates in even if they have little statistical chance of taking full benefit. Everyone pays the same amount for the common good. The problem with the ACA is that it's a bastard child that tries to cater to companies AND provide a blanket public service.


Edit:
darn spellcheck

 agnosto wrote:
I think that the big difference between health and car insurance is that you're not required by law to own a car. Sure you have to have insurance if you own one but you don't have to have one. I think a better example is FICA and Social Security. Men and women, smokers and non-smokers, everyone pays the same rates in even if they have little statistical chance of taking full benefit. Everyone pays the same amount for the common good. The problem with the ACA is that it's a eastward child that tries to cater to companies AND provide a blanket public service.

The other thing about car insurance is in every state I've lived in, the required insurance does not really cover your car. It covers medical for you (protection from uninsured/underinsured) and medical and repairs for anyone you hit. The consumer still has a choice as to how they cover their car(s).

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

 sebster wrote:



Give people a price reason to not be born as a girl?

Don't worry; they're made up for with their health and auto insurance costs.

Damn being born a man.

If you are that worried about it you can have a sex change.

I'm free of mental illness, thanks.

But by that argument, if women are concerned about paying more for Health Insurance, they can just have a sex change.

So, to be clear, that argument sounds absurd both ways.

 sebster wrote:


No, seriously, what's the point of making women pay more?

They cost everyone more. Women take up a higher amount of health insurance cost than men and, more importantly, they live longer on average than men do, thus need to be taken care of for a longer time.

I am not defending the reasoning, just giving you one. It's a logical reason.

On the other hand, I agree with the, current, unisex rule. Yes, women cost more than men, but in the end...well...someone has to carry our babies

 CptJake wrote:

 agnosto wrote:
I think that the big difference between health and car insurance is that you're not required by law to own a car. Sure you have to have insurance if you own one but you don't have to have one. I think a better example is FICA and Social Security. Men and women, smokers and non-smokers, everyone pays the same rates in even if they have little statistical chance of taking full benefit. Everyone pays the same amount for the common good. The problem with the ACA is that it's a eastward child that tries to cater to companies AND provide a blanket public service.

The other thing about car insurance is in every state I've lived in, the required insurance does not really cover your car. It covers medical for you (protection from uninsured/underinsured) and medical and repairs for anyone you hit. The consumer still has a choice as to how they cover their car(s).

You usually don't have a choice about covering the car if you're still making payments on it.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 agnosto wrote:
I think that the big difference between health and car insurance is that you're not required by law to own a car. Sure you have to have insurance if you own one but you don't have to have one. I think a better example is FICA and Social Security. Men and women, smokers and non-smokers, everyone pays the same rates in even if they have little statistical chance of taking full benefit. Everyone pays the same amount for the common good. The problem with the ACA is that it's a eastward child that tries to cater to companies AND provide a blanket public service.

The other thing about car insurance is in every state I've lived in, the required insurance does not really cover your car. It covers medical for you (protection from uninsured/underinsured) and medical and repairs for anyone you hit. The consumer still has a choice as to how they cover their car(s).

You usually don't have a choice about covering the car if you're still making payments on it.

That is not between the gov't and you though, that is between you and your financing institution. A private transaction. I have no problems with that.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 sebster wrote:


No, seriously, what's the point of making women pay more?

They cost everyone more. Women take up a higher amount of health insurance cost than men and, more importantly, they live longer on average than men do, thus need to be taken care of for a longer time.

I am not defending the reasoning, just giving you one. It's a logical reason.

On the other hand, I agree with the, current, unisex rule. Yes, women cost more than men, but in the end...well...someone has to carry our babies

And they kind of already do pay more for insurance...

Women, on average, live five years longer than men, but that's not the only reason their overall health care bills tend to be higher than men's. Until the Affordable Care Act took effect, many insurance companies charged women higher health insurance premiums, and they're still often charged more for long-term care insurance. Long-term healthcare insurance premiums for single women rose by more than 12% annually between 2012 and 2014, according to the American Association for Long-Term Care Insurance. In addition, women may face obstacles finding affordable health care coverage after a divorce or the death of a spouse. The Kaiser Family Foundation estimates that in 2013, approximately 17% of women ages 19 to 64 were uninsured—leaving them without access to preventive care and more apt to postpone care when they do become ill.

https://www.ml.com/articles/why-women-pay-more-for-health-care-and-what-you-can-do-to-prepare.html

 cincydooley wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

 sebster wrote:



Give people a price reason to not be born as a girl?

Don't worry; they're made up for with their health and auto insurance costs.

Damn being born a man.

If you are that worried about it you can have a sex change.

I'm free of mental illness, thanks.

But by that argument, if women are concerned about paying more for Health Insurance, they can just have a sex change.

So, to be clear, that argument sounds absurd both ways.

But you are the one who is worried that they are not.

So your second argument contradicts your first one twice.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

But you are the one who is worried that they are not.

So your second argument contradicts your first one twice.

No, it really doesn't.

The notion that if someone is unhappy with what they pay for insurance then they should simply change their sex is an absurd one from any perspective.

And it doesn't change the fact that people with a higher risk (women, smokers, the obese) should pay more for their insurance than people with a lower risk.

 cincydooley wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

But you are the one who is worried that they are not.

So your second argument contradicts your first one twice.

No, it really doesn't.

The notion that if someone is unhappy with what they pay for insurance than they should simply change their sex is an absurd one from any perspective.

And it doesn't change the fact that people with a higher risk (women, smokers, the obese) should pay more for their insurance than people with a lower risk.

Unless the insurance company decides to lump them into risk pools with those of lesser risk... Which is what appears to have happened to some extent.

Ehm, you cannot change your sex. What commonly is referred to as a "sex change" basically is slapping a penis / vagina on and getting hormones in. You won't magically live longer just because of that.

 cincydooley wrote:
the fact that people with a higher risk (women, smokers, the obese) should pay more for their insurance than people with a lower risk.

That sounds more like an opinion than a fact, and it really depends on what you want the system to do. If you think people should only pay for what they use, then why bother with insurance at all? Just have everyone save and pay for their own medical care. That way people who think they aren't going to be a drain on the system by getting sick, won't need to worry about other people "leeching" off them. That system might sound fair to you, but to me it sounds like a system where only the very wealthy can afford care. Which is just a recipe for millions of people left to die in squalor, and probably murderous hatred of the rich.

Alternatively, if you want a system where healthcare is affordable for everyone then you need to spread the cost across more people. This means that some people will pay more than they aught to "statistically", but that means little, since no one really knows what the future will bring. That 300lbs woman who chain-smokes 50 a day, might die suddenly of a massive heart attack, and never cost the system a dime, while a healthy 23-year-old man might break his neck, and need life long care.

But dont you see? We need to punish people who don't conform to our ideas of what is "Fair"

Women don't have a higher risk, men do. Men live a much more dangerous live and are much more prone to injury. Biological coding etc. Women pay more because they live longer, on average, and they, naturally, give birth to children and, mostly are the ones to keep children, further increasing health insurance cost.

Here's what we are going to do going forward - we're all going to follow RULE #1.

No more snide remarks, 'clever' asides or witty put-downs.

Because the ability to post in the OT FORUM can easily be curtailed and/or removed entirely.

So, use this post as a mile marker of sorts.

Past this point, well, just make sure you follow all the rules.

 Smacks wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
the fact that people with a higher risk (women, smokers, the obese) should pay more for their insurance than people with a lower risk.

That sounds more like an opinion than a fact, and it really depends on what you want the system to do. If you think people should only pay for what they use, then why bother with insurance at all? Just have everyone save and pay for their own medical care. That way people who think they aren't going to be a drain on the system by getting sick, won't need to worry about other people "leeching" off them. That system might sound fair to you, but to me it sounds like a system where only the very wealthy can afford care. Which is just a recipe for millions of people left to die in squalor, and probably murderous hatred of the rich.

Alternatively, if you want a system where healthcare is affordable for everyone then you need to spread the cost across more people. This means that some people will pay more than they aught to "statistically", but that means little, since no one really knows what the future will bring. That 300lbs woman who chain-smokes 50 a day, might die suddenly of a massive heart attack, and never cost the system a dime, while a healthy 23-year-old man might break his neck, and need life long care.

We actually do have smokers and obese people pay more for insurance. The statistics bear out that they do, over enough time, cost more to keep alive. This is because of the obvious things: lung cancer, heart disease and the like. My neighbor's wife works in a specialist clinic... If a person presents with kidney/liver problems, and it comes out that they drink like a fish, quite often the insurance companies will not approve a procedure or medication to save them.

IMO, The people who have a choice should continue paying more. Roofers and other highly dangerous professions are often viewed as uninsurable or they get gouged because of the risk involved in their work. It's a high risk activity. Smoking is a high risk activity. being morbidly obese on its own may not be risky on its own (there are naturally large people out there, and there are also people who don't conform to the BMI indices or are otherwise very heavy, but very healthy), but it's simply a truth that the risks for a decent sized list of problems increase massively by being morbidly obese.

Here, I actually agree with Smacks: being a particular gender, in itself should not be a reason for higher monthly premiums

I understand that some people are statistically a higher risk, and I agree they are a higher risk. What I disagree with is the idea that because they are a higher risk, that means they should pay more (or pay less, or even pay the same). What people should pay depends entirely on what society wants to achieve out of the system.

 Sigvatr wrote:
They cost everyone more. Women take up a higher amount of health insurance cost than men and, more importantly, they live longer on average than men do, thus need to be taken care of for a longer time.

I am not defending the reasoning, just giving you one. It's a logical reason.

Sure, but I’ve pointed out three, just because we can identify some groups will cost more, it doesn’t mean we need a system where insurers can charge that person more. It would be in the interest of an individual insurer to charge different prices (and so encourage cheaper people to join their roll and not someone else’s, and encourage more expensive people to join other rolls), but overall everyone needs to be insured by someone. There’s no benefit to the whole by making my insurance a little cheaper and woman’s a little more expensive.

So the only time you get an actual change is when the price difference is on a controllable condition, like smoking or weight.

On the other hand, I agree with the, current, unisex rule. Yes, women cost more than men, but in the end...well...someone has to carry our babies

There’s also that, yes

This is why I'm glad that I never left the motherland. No health insurance, just free healthcare for everyone. (It might not be the best, but it does the job.) and the rich pay more to fund it.


I can relate on car insurance, there used to be a huge divide between male and female drivers. Young males are the most likely to be involved in accidents, so the insurance was really high. Then the ECHR stepped in and declared that was sexist. So they raised the insurance premiums on women to match men. Everybody wins!

 sebster wrote:


So the only time you get an actual change is when the price difference is on a controllable condition, like smoking or weight.
)

I fully agree. If you willingly put yourself at risk, then you're playing with the money of everyone involved. Therefore, you should pay more. On the other hand, if you behave very well, e.g. often take part in sport events, have a low amount of body fat etc., then you should be rewarded by paying less or getting a bonus (the latter is much better and easier law-wise). Positive Punishment and positive reinforcement, that's how humans roll.

 Sigvatr wrote:
On the other hand, if you behave very well, e.g. often take part in sport events, have a low amount of body fat etc.

Playing sports increases your risk of injury, and having a low amount of body fat does not necessarily indicate good health.

 dogma wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
On the other hand, if you behave very well, e.g. often take part in sport events, have a low amount of body fat etc.

Playing sports increases your risk of injury, and having a low amount of body fat does not necessarily indicate good health.

Being active highly increases your overall health and promotes a healthy lifestyle. Long-term. What makes health insurances expensive aren't people breaking a leg or having a muscle torn. It's long-term patients that increase cost by an insane amount and in a lot of cases, a healthy lifestyle can work well with lowering the risk.Having a low amount of body fat is the best way to reward people who take care of themselves. BMI does a good job at sorting obese people out, but you also punish very muscular people at the same time...albeit that isn't too healthy either....but being lazy and fat isn't doing anything good for anyone.

 Sigvatr wrote:

Being active highly increases your overall health and promotes a healthy lifestyle. Long-term.

I am 29. I will need to have a knee replacement before I am 35, this is what my physicians call "bad".

I also have nervous injuries that cannot be fully corrected, this is explicitly because I spent ~15 years of my life playing contact sports and training to do so.

 dogma wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

Being active highly increases your overall health and promotes a healthy lifestyle. Long-term.

I am 29. I will need to have a knee replacement before I am 35, this is what my physicians call "bad".

I also have nervous injuries that cannot be fully corrected, this is explicitly because I spent ~15 years of my life playing contact sports and training to do so.

Cool?

I bet your cardiovascular health is phenomenal, though.

Knee replacement, surgery, and upkeep is far cheaper than the constant upkeep of someone with heart problems caused by obesity.

And oh yeah, obese people also have significant problems with their joints, too.

Not entirely sure what point you're trying to make, but I'd wager 10 out of 10 doctors would rather have a fit, athletic person with some joint issues as their patient than a morbidly obese person with all the issues that come with it.

 cincydooley wrote:

I bet your cardiovascular health is phenomenal, though.

That's debatable. Like many of the men who grew up playing sports in which high body weight was considered a positive thing I have put a lot of stress on my cardiovascular system.

 cincydooley wrote:

Knee replacement, surgery, and upkeep is far cheaper than the constant upkeep of someone with heart problems caused by obesity.

Many athletes, regardless of age, are obese. Obese does not mean "fat".

That said all the care which leads up to knee replacement is constant. I have been in and out of various doctor's offices for 15 years, fighting insurance companies all the while.

 dogma wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

I bet your cardiovascular health is phenomenal, though.

That's debatable. Like many of the men who grew up playing sports in which high body weight was considered a positive thing I have put a lot of stress on my cardiovascular system.

 cincydooley wrote:

Knee replacement, surgery, and upkeep is far cheaper than the constant upkeep of someone with heart problems caused by obesity.

Many athletes, regardless of age, are obese. Obese does not mean "fat".

That said all the care which leads up to knee replacement is constant. I have been in and out of various doctor's offices for 15 years, fighting insurance companies all the while.

As someone with zero cartilage left in either knee due to many years of sports, I understand.

But that doesn't change the fact that those same outcomes you're attributing to sports are also outcomes of the stressors put on the joints due to unhealthy obesity. And I know you know that.

I think your argument that your cardiovascular health is less than that of a morbidly obese layabout is a bit disingenuous.

 cincydooley wrote:

But that doesn't change the fact that those same outcomes you're attributing to sports are also outcomes of the stressors put on the joints due to unhealthy obesity.

Being obese is being obese, there is no differentiation between "healthy obesity" and "unhealthy obesity"; sports often motivate people into becoming obese.

 cincydooley wrote:

I think your argument that your cardiovascular health is less than that of a morbidly obese layabout is a bit disingenuous.

That isn't the argument I made. I argued that my cardiovascular health might not be phenomenal.

So we seem to be pretty solidly in the "health of obese people" topic which relates back to healthcare costs for obese people compared to non-obese people (specifically athletes) which relates back to Obamacare which relates back to one facet of the original topic. Is that right? Because if it is, we can probably call it done here.

 motyak wrote:
So we seem to be pretty solidly in the "health of obese people" topic which relates back to healthcare costs for obese people compared to non-obese people (specifically athletes) which relates back to Obamacare which relates back to one facet of the original topic. Is that right? Because if it is, we can probably call it done here.

That'd be my call...