Women should pay more for health insurance

[Politically_Incorrect12]

 WomenWomen should pay more than men for health insurance -- because they have boobs.

That's one of the arguments made on an August 27th Fox & Friends segment featuring Dr. David Samadi. Samadi claimed that men should not pay as much as women for insurance because: "We only have the prostate. Women have the breasts, the ovaries, the uterus, they get checked in every part."

He went on to assure everyone that he wasn't being sexist or biased because of his gender. “Look, it’s not bias, I’m not saying this as a man,” Samadi said. “[Women] go through a lot of preventive screenings, they give birth, they have the whole mammogram, the Pap smear. Guys, we don’t like to go to doctors, right?”

Hosts Gretchen Carlson and Brian Kilmeade also chimed in on the issue. Kilmeade said that women should pay more because they live longer, better lives. Carlson brought some very necessary sanity to the debate, pointing out that women are more likely to use preventive care and bring their loved ones in for such care, lowering the risk of having to deal with more serious medical crises later on.



read more at: www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/27/women-should-pay-more-health-insurance-fox_n_3823595.html

[Politically_Incorrect12]

Another article on the same subject:

insertWomen Should Pay More for Health Care

Women's costs are higher, and they live longer, yet Obamacare will charge men the same for health-insurance premiums

The Obama Administration is about to spend $684 million on a public relations and enrollment campaign to persuade young, uninsured Americans to buy government-approved Obamacare plans. In order to be successful, it needs to persuade young men in particular to enroll, but Obamacare requires insurers to charge men the same for their premiums as women in 2014.

This attempt at fairness is anything but. If fairness were really the guiding principle, it would be quite simple: women would pay more for health insurance because women consume more health care.








Read more: ideas.time.com/2013/08/23/women-should-pay-more-for-health-care/#ixzz2dPNLdERA

[zibazinski]

So what? Healthy people who don't eat like pigs subsidize the ones who eat unhealthy.

[EVT1]

Imagine that coming from Fox....

Well- it does show the rift in the public.  Only two sides to it when put like that:

Fox side:  Health insurance should be 100% medically underwritten and if you cannot afford it-too bad.  Premiums will be negotiated annually and depending on your age or previous claims you may be denied coverage for some or all conditions.  There will caps utilized based on risk.  Medicare and Medicaid should be abolished.  People born with conditions are not the problem of insurance companies unless a specific policy was in effect to address those conditions.  As you age your premiums will rise, coverage limitations will increase, until you are deemed uninsurable.  Since Medicare will be eliminated the recommendation is to use the emergency room until EMTALA is repealed as the slave labor it is.

Normal people:  Citizens are covered 100% for health care via taxes.

What a hard decision that is to make........ (only for the USA though)

[jkapp]

Aug 29, 2013 22:11:32 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Imagine that coming from Fox....

Well- it does show the rift in the public.  Only two sides to it when put like that:

Fox side:  Health insurance should be 100% medically underwritten and if you cannot afford it-too bad.  Premiums will be negotiated annually and depending on your age or previous claims you may be denied coverage for some or all conditions.  There will caps utilized based on risk.  Medicare and Medicaid should be abolished.  People born with conditions are not the problem of insurance companies unless a specific policy was in effect to address those conditions.  As you age your premiums will rise, coverage limitations will increase, until you are deemed uninsurable.  Since Medicare will be eliminated the recommendation is to use the emergency room until EMTALA is repealed as the slave labor it is.

Normal people:  Citizens are covered 100% for health care via taxes.

What a hard decision that is to make........ (only for the USA though)

"Normal" people? No, normal people do not want 100% coverage and have it paid by taxes, thus hiding the costs of care and giving an open checkbook to the medical community without any filters to prevent fraud and abuse of the system. Only ignorant government-worshipping progressive liberal nutjobs want something like that.

IMO, normal people want people to be responsible for their own care, have some skin in the game above and beyond some pittance of a tax, that some won't even have to pay (read subsidy), and be accountable for their poor choices.   Costs of healthcare should not be hidden away behind co-pays and tax returns. 

[Deleted]

shhhhhhh.....

you arent supposed to mention the "R" word

responsibility....never!

i can eat 6 big mac meals a day and let my fellow taxpayers foot the freaking bill....

[NomoreDramaQ1015]

Guys, we don’t like to go to doctors, right?”

 

Men should be turning their heads and coughing and getting a finger up the butt on a regular basis. 

I can't get testicular cancer nor do I have a prostate so I'm not sure what his point is about my boobs and ovaries.  I'll give him that men can't get pregnant.

They CAN get breast cancer though and it's a lot more common than people think.  Especially with our obesity issue it's becoming more common because fat really screws with your hormones.

[Sum Dum Gai]

But when we go in for the turn your head and cough and bend over and spread 'em routine there's no imaging machine involved. Takes my doctor two minutes to get it done. Checking out lady parts is a more involved and expensive process.

[Deleted]

Aug 30, 2013 10:50:30 GMT -5 NomoreDramaQ1015 said:

Guys, we don’t like to go to doctors, right?”

 

Men should be turning their heads and coughing and getting a finger up the butt on a regular basis. 

I can't get testicular cancer nor do I have a prostate so I'm not sure what his point is about my boobs and ovaries.  I'll give him that men can't get pregnant.

They CAN get breast cancer though and it's a lot more common than people think.  Especially with our obesity issue it's becoming more common because fat really screws with your hormones.

Men are just better in all health aspects and it's about time women start owning up to that fact. But we're getting tired of constantly giving and giving and getting little in return except for the continual whining and complaining. (jma23 ducks and runs from room)

[NomoreDramaQ1015]

Checking out lady parts is a more involved and expensive process

I take it you've never seen a pap smear?  There's no technology involved.  Man I wish it'd evolved past a speculum and a finger.  Besides the sitting around waiting for the doctor to show up I'm in and out in less than five minutes as well. 

Same for a routine breast exam. Which is fancy medical lingo for fondling.

I think they just changed the recommendations and I don't even have to have a pap smear every year now.  Just a pelvic exam which is the female equvialent of bend over and spread them.  So not even a speculum is involved yearly anymore.

I'll give you mammograms but women aren't expected to get regular mammograms till we're in our 40's-50's unless you already have a history.  By then men are getting cameras shoved up your behinds. So now you're costing more money too. 

[Deleted]

Aug 30, 2013 11:18:02 GMT -5 NomoreDramaQ1015 said:

Checking out lady parts is a more involved and expensive process

I take it you've never seen a pap smear?  There's no technology involved.  Man I wish it'd evolved past a speculum and a finger.  Besides the sitting around waiting for the doctor to show up I'm in and out in less than five minutes as well. 

Same for a routine breast exam. Which is fancy medical lingo for fondling.

I think they just changed the recommendations and I don't even have to have a pap smear every year now.  Just a pelvic exam which is the female equvialent of bend over and spread them.  So not even a speculum is involved yearly anymore.

I'll give you mammograms but women aren't expected to get regular mammograms till we're in our 40's-50's unless you already have a history.  By then men are getting cameras shoved up your behinds. So now you're costing more money too. 

My doctor just told me a colonoscopy is not necessary until I hit 60 (3 more years) But my DW should have one now at 55. It's going to cost me more money.

[NomoreDramaQ1015]

Is it because she's a woman or because of her history?  Just curious, I'm many many years away from needing a routine colonoscopy.  DH however should have been getting them a long time ago due to history of colon cancer and other intestinal issues i n his family.  He just turned 40.

If he was following instructions he'd be much more expensive preventative wise than me.  He's more expensive even without going for a yearly physical!  My fault for marrying a hypochondriac.  If he did just routine prevenatives we'd probably be about even.


Like I said I'll give the guy that men can't give birth and that mammograms involve expensive technology.  I'm just lol-ing at the idea that all female preventative screenings are somehow more costly because we have mysterious internal parts.

For most of our lives we do the female equvialent of bend over and spread them unless our history says we need to do otherwise.  

And we all get more expensive as we get older.  Isn't a popular rant on these boards how much more expensive old people are to take care of and insure?

[Deleted]

Aug 30, 2013 11:48:30 GMT -5 NomoreDramaQ1015 said:

Is it because she's a woman or because of her history?  Just curious, I'm many many years away from needing a routine colonoscopy.  DH however should have been getting them a long time ago due to history of colon cancer and other intestinal issues i n his family.  He just turned 40.

If he was following instructions he'd be much more expensive preventative wise than me.  He's more expensive even without going for a yearly physical!  My fault for marrying a hypochondriac.  If he did prevenatives we'd probably be about even.


Like I said I'll give the guy that men can't give birth and that mammograms involve expensive technology.  I'm just lol-ing at the idea that all female preventative screenings are somehow more costly because we have mysterious internal parts.

For most of our lives we do the female equvialent of bend over and spread them unless our history says we need to do otherwise.  

And we all get more expensive as we get older.  Isn't a popular rant on these boards how much more expensive old people are to take care of and insure?

It was because of her family history. Her dad had colon cancer. The OP's whole premise of this thread was hilarious to me. I was just joining in.

[Deleted]

[The Captain]

Ok...back to the subject (kinda).

I'd be perfectly willing to pay more for healthcare as a female since we cost more in that arena.

In turn men have to pay more in income/property taxes because they commit more violent crimes, cause more wars, and abandon their children at higher rates.

Sound fair?

[Deleted]

Aug 30, 2013 13:17:34 GMT -5 The Captain said:

Ok...back to the subject (kinda).

I'd be perfectly willing to pay more for healthcare as a female since we cost more in that arena.

In turn men have to pay more in income/property taxes because they commit more violent crimes, cause more wars, and abandon their children at higher rates.

Sound fair?

No, If women aren't always trying to make so many babies, the reduced population levels would eliminate the problems with those men. Taxes should be the same while women pay higher insurance rates, it's only fair.

[The Captain]

Yep, you are absolutely right.  If fact, I'm willing to bet if we reduced the population levels of those men EVERYTHING would be better.


pffth - men, who needs them anyway...

[Deleted]

Aug 30, 2013 14:02:15 GMT -5 The Captain said:

Yep, you are absolutely right.  If fact, I'm willing to bet if we reduced the population levels of those men EVERYTHING would be better.


pffth - men, who needs them anyway...

I sure don't need them. (I'm "straight") I wish I would get more than 1 in 10 of the pictures people post. I'm always missing out. Even when I put up the icon list it only shows about 15 of the small ones and none of the bigger ones

[Politically_Incorrect12]

Aug 30, 2013 13:17:34 GMT -5 The Captain said:

Ok...back to the subject (kinda).

I'd be perfectly willing to pay more for healthcare as a female since we cost more in that arena.

In turn men have to pay more in income/property taxes because they commit more violent crimes, cause more wars, and abandon their children at higher rates.

Sound fair?

That is the reason men pay more for auto and life insurance because the numbers show that men die sooner and basically cost more...but when the same logic is applied to health insurance, it is somehow sexist because women are shown to cost more.

[Politically_Incorrect12]

Aug 29, 2013 22:11:32 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Imagine that coming from Fox....

Which is why I also posted an article from Time.

Well- it does show the rift in the public.  Only two sides to it when put like that:

Fox side:  Health insurance should be 100% medically underwritten and if you cannot afford it-too bad.  Premiums will be negotiated annually and depending on your age or previous claims you may be denied coverage for some or all conditions.  There will caps utilized based on risk.  Medicare and Medicaid should be abolished.  People born with conditions are not the problem of insurance companies unless a specific policy was in effect to address those conditions.  As you age your premiums will rise, coverage limitations will increase, until you are deemed uninsurable.  Since Medicare will be eliminated the recommendation is to use the emergency room until EMTALA is repealed as the slave labor it is.

Normal people:  Citizens are covered 100% for health care via taxes.

So basically only people who agree with you on this are "normal?"

What a hard decision that is to make........ (only for the USA though)

[EVT1]

Aug 30, 2013 18:36:02 GMT -5 Politically_Incorrect12 said:

Aug 29, 2013 22:11:32 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Imagine that coming from Fox....

Which is why I also posted an article from Time.

Well- it does show the rift in the public.  Only two sides to it when put like that:

Fox side:  Health insurance should be 100% medically underwritten and if you cannot afford it-too bad.  Premiums will be negotiated annually and depending on your age or previous claims you may be denied coverage for some or all conditions.  There will caps utilized based on risk.  Medicare and Medicaid should be abolished.  People born with conditions are not the problem of insurance companies unless a specific policy was in effect to address those conditions.  As you age your premiums will rise, coverage limitations will increase, until you are deemed uninsurable.  Since Medicare will be eliminated the recommendation is to use the emergency room until EMTALA is repealed as the slave labor it is.

Normal people:  Citizens are covered 100% for health care via taxes.

So basically only people who agree with you on this are "normal?"

What a hard decision that is to make........ (only for the USA though)

I'll modify that- normal people would not support our current system.  How can any rational person defend it? I failed to mention there are many options other than single payer under the normal umbrella.

 

[Peace Of Mind]

That is just ridiculous! Everybody knows that men should pay higher insurance because they're taller.

And I thought men needed more colonoscopies because they talk out of their ass. No?

[Sum Dum Gai]

They recently changed the recommended guidelines on colon cancer screening.  Most men get it, and in the vast majority of cases it's such a slow growing cancer that you'll die of old age decades before it gets you.  So, unless you have a family history of the faster growing colon cancer, they no longer recommend getting tested for it.  The complications from treating the slower growing cancer were worse than the cancer itself.

Reason number 2,479 that it's better to be a dude.

[Tennesseer]

Aug 31, 2013 0:21:46 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

They recently changed the recommended guidelines on colon cancer screening.  Most men get it, and in the vast majority of cases it's such a slow growing cancer that you'll die of old age decades before it gets you.  So, unless you have a family history of the faster growing colon cancer, they no longer recommend getting tested for it.  The complications from treating the slower growing cancer were worse than the cancer itself.

Reason number 2,479 that it's better to be a dude.

DH-do you mean prostate cancer and not colon cancer?

[Tennesseer]

Aug 30, 2013 23:21:26 GMT -5 Peace Of Mind said:

That is just ridiculous! Everybody knows that men should pay higher insurance because they're taller.

And I thought men needed more colonoscopies because they talk out of their ass. No?

That's not talk out of their asses but gas escaping after the colonoscopy.

After women cut off men from any further sexual contact as a result of higher insurance premiums, men's premiums will go down due to no further need for erectile dysfunction medication.

[Sum Dum Gai]

DH-do you mean prostate cancer and not colon cancer?

Probably.  I just remember hearing about it on the news a year or two ago.  The details are a bit fuzzy.

[Opti]

The person quoted in the OP is FS.

I have no health insurance and currently don't get checked in any parts.
I'm cheaper than him and anyone with insurance.

[Politically_Incorrect12]

Aug 30, 2013 23:21:26 GMT -5 Peace Of Mind said:

That is just ridiculous! Everybody knows that men should pay higher insurance because they're taller.

And I thought men needed more colonoscopies because they talk out of their ass. No?

That was pretty funny.  

[zibazinski]

I still remember my poor old grandfather with dementia in the nursing home having to have some colon removed because he had colon cancer. Another reason to make sure your medical POA is in order or to just have one. 4 sister and they wouldn't agree. 

[cereb]

Aug 30, 2013 18:32:02 GMT -5 Politically_Incorrect12 said:

Aug 30, 2013 13:17:34 GMT -5 The Captain said:

Ok...back to the subject (kinda).

I'd be perfectly willing to pay more for healthcare as a female since we cost more in that arena.

In turn men have to pay more in income/property taxes because they commit more violent crimes, cause more wars, and abandon their children at higher rates.

Sound fair?

That is the reason men pay more for auto and life insurance because the numbers show that men die sooner and basically cost more...but when the same logic is applied to health insurance, it is somehow sexist because women are shown to cost more.

Auto insurance rates for men are based on their behaviors while driving. Women are women. They have vaginas and breasts. That isn't a behavior.