Is it true women pay more than men for health insurance in USA? If yes, then why?

[Draka]

It's not just that women have babies or use birth control. Women, as a whole, simply have more things that can go wrong with us and, therefore, require more upkeep. Our reproductive organs can have several things that can go wrong with them and need checked on a regular basis. Also, since they are on the inside rather than the outside procedures to examine are often considered more involved and more invasive. There is also the fact that women far and away are victims of breast cancer more than men are and are thus screened more frequently and more in depth than men. Our bodies, by sheer virtue of being women, require more healthcare than men's.

Now, though, on the flip side, men are more likely to be injured than women due to the lines of work that more men get into. Men are more likely to have back, neck, and hip issues than women (though women may suffer such things later due to osteoporosis - another delightful women heavy condition) due to work related strains and injuries. While men are at higher risk for heart attack and stroke than women the numbers for women are slowly rising. Women do live longer, true, but many times it is a life in need of care, thus more financial burden.

There are differences in healthcare for the sexes, as to if the split is the most correct in what one pays...I really don't know.

 

[Revoltingest]

How would that make it more fair?! It would make it less fair. The person that uses a service should pay for it. Isn't it bad enough that males die a half dozen years sooner? Imagine if females died six years sooner than males AND males used 60% of health care funding AND asked females to pay the same as males? There would be riots in the streets! Yet the reverse is true.

Are females lives worth more than males?

No, sir. The current circumstances of females paying for what they use are just and justified. If they don't care for it there is a ready remedy, don't use as much of the services, then their insurance rates would go down.

I was being facetious.
Some believe fairness means everyone should pay the same rates for things, even if they cost more.

 

[Shaul]

I was being facetious.
Some believe fairness means everyone should pay the same rates for things, even if they cost more.

LOL, you got me.

 

[Smart_Guy]

I'm not sure exactly what you are talking about...

Me neither... Not anymore!

Looks like health insurance in other countries than mine have some kinda serious core differences that my simple and clear questions are difficult to decode (?).

 

[4consideration]

Yes, I'm talking about the subscription fees. Not sure what terminology is used for that.

So, do woman without medical insurance memberships pay more than men to X medical insurance company, in the contract signing? (dunno how else to ask it!)

OK. I think we might be stumbling around some terms. I don't know what medical insurance memberships are, but I think you might be talking about health insurance plans that one can get through an employer. Where I'm confused with what you're asking is that if you are talking about health insurance plans, a woman without one would not be paying anything to a health insurance company.

I don't think there's an easy answer to the question I think you're asking.

To the best of my knowledge, typically, health insurance plans gotten through an employer have been less expensive than individual plans, since it is a group plan that includes a group discount -- which also means the employer is usually (or always) paying some portion of the premium. Therefore, the cost to the person is lower in this situation.

With ACA some people are able to purchase an individual (or family) health insurance with the help of a federal subsidy, so for those people that are buying a (non-group) family, or individual plan, there is some reduction in cost to them, but not reduction in actual cost of the coverage. It's just that the federal government is paying it. In this situation, even if the premium did not increase in the following year, an increase in income for the person could mean an increase in the out of pocket cost of their health insurance coverage.

There are different kinds of plans, and it used to be that a person could purchase insurance in keeping with their expected needs, and have premium that reflects that. AFAIK, the ACA set certain requirements that spread the cost of coverage over a larger group of people, and set some requirements for all policies -- so that, for instance, no one can avoid having part of his/her healthcare coverage premium include payments for birth control and maternity coverage. It is my understanding that women may no longer be charged more for this coverage and that insurance companies cannot make gender based determinations, to charge one gender more for coverage than the other. https://www.healthinsurance.org/faqs/do-all-health-insurance-plans-cover-maternity/

I think (not positive) that all states provide emergency type coverage for "medically needy" women under Medicaid for pregnancy, so that even if a person did not have insurance and did not qualify for Medicaid under the regular income requirements rules, they still would get coverage to have the baby in a hospital. The term "medically needy" is in quotes because it is a specific term used for specific circumstances that allow for exceptions to the general rules.

Did I come close to answering your questions?

 

[Palehorse]

 

[Smart_Guy]

OK. I think we might be stumbling around some terms.

Those were not terminologies, those were descriptive statements I'm using to clarify.

Did I come close to answering your questions?

I guess. Thank you

 

[4consideration]

I'm not sure of the point you're trying to make, since you just posted this without any personal commentary of the significance you think it has to the discussion.

I just wanted to point out this issue is different than the costs for females versus males, which is the subject of this thread.

What point are you trying to make here?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I suspect a reason isn't because women have birth and are more likely to have breast cancer, or other women's health issues because men have their own range of things they only get (such as testicular or prostate cancer), but a big issue probably revolves around the issue of men being more reluctant to go to a doctor, which will save from preventing doctor bills, but it does result in men being more likely to die from a terminal illness because they didn't see the doctor until the problem became much worse and when it's too late to even treat. There are likely several reasons, but "male stubbornness" is one that should be factored in.

 

[Palehorse]

I am just adding to conversation... I think that is how problems are resolved.

I often wonder what percent of American women are without insurance. Some states might have more women than others. Washington DC is not a state. And who pays more for medically needy women?(planned parenthood) Men or women? or states or federal? ...We all pay taxes... I guess my point is empty

 

[Shaul]

That is flat-out incorrect. In the US there is universal health care. By law no person that arrives at a hospital emergency room can be denied service. What the US does not have is universal health coverage. The two are different things.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

In the US there is universal health care.

We have no such thing. We have medicare and medicaid that are offered by the federal government, but unless you're old, disabled, very poor, or if your state didn't expand it, you can't get those. For everybody else there may-or-may-not be a state health plan and then there is private insurance companies. We have no universal health care.

 

[Shaul]

We have no such thing. We have medicare and medicaid that are offered by the federal government, but unless you're old, disabled, very poor, or if your state didn't expand it, you can't get those. For everybody else there may-or-may-not be a state health plan and then there is private insurance companies. We have no universal health care.

The US has universal health CARE. It does not have universal health COVERAGE. Please read and understand the difference.

Any person in the US that needs urgent health care, such as for a heart attack, can go to any emergency room and will be treated. Period. That is universal care. What the US does not have is universal coverage.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The US has universal health CARE.

No, we don't.

Any person in the US that needs urgent health care, such as for a heart attack, can go to any emergency room and will be treated.

That isn't universal health care but a shoddy and **** poor excuse of health care for people that do not have access to real health care. Typically, someone has no health care, so they have to wait it out, and if it gets worse, because they have no other options, they go to the ER because they have no other options, despite the fact a regular doctor's appointment would be more suitable and appropriate, but they have no health care or health coverage so they take the only option they have which is a costly trip to the ER over non-emergency purposes. That is not universal health care. Yes, emergency rooms have to treat anyone who goes to them, but to refuse treatment is not only illegal, it is unethical as it would violate the Hippocratic oath our doctors take. If we had universal health care, people could go to a family physical or general practitioner to take care of things before they become emergencies, or even get treatment for non-emergencies without having to go to the emergency room. And if it's not something that can be treated by an ER doctor, something like my history of tearing the ligament or cartilage in my knee, there is no ER care despite the necessity to repair those things.
We have neither universal health care or health coverage. I've had to suffer through needless damage accumulating on my left knee because we do not have universal care or coverage and it was difficult to get those surgeries I needed, and even when I had carpel tunnel syndrome in both wrists I had to wait until I got a new job to get the surgery for that because the job I had when it became a problem had an insurance plan that wouldn't cover the surgery.
And depending on where you live, you may not have care, coverage, or even access to services you need. Help with Asperger's Syndrome is very hard to find around here, and I have to drive 60+ miles, one way, for almost nearly all of my specialist appointments, 25 miles for one therapist, and about 55 miles for other treatments (that are not provided for under any sort of health care or insurance).

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Hell, I didn't even have decent health care until after the ACA, Indiana expanded the HIP insurance, and I got a social worker to interject on my behalf, state my case, and only after that was I finally able to get on HIP (before that, doing it alone, despite the problems I have/had, I was always denied).

 

[Shaul]

Yes, emergency rooms have to treat anyone who goes to them,

"Anyone" means it is universal. "Emergency rooms" provide health care. Ergo we have universal health care.

Now if you want argument that it is too limited that is separate argument. But the US does have universal health care, as I have written. It does not have universal health coverage. Which is supported by your overly long, anecdotal missive.

 

[Palehorse]

Don't forget were trying to figure out who pays more for Universal health coverage, men or women.

Universal health coverage is also covered in prisons which are very overcrowded with plenty of patients. Some judges order "follow all doctors orders." as part of their sentenceing. Some judges send the innocent to mental health hospitals before trials because they are deemed incompetant. Should the states be sending everybody in their custody to their hospitals to get free government health care coverage?

Sorry.... forgot to copy and paste...didn't have my skittles yet...

 

[Shadow Wolf]

"Anyone" means it is universal. "Emergency rooms" provide health care. Ergo we have universal health care.

As I pointed out, an ER room will not treat things like a torn ligament. We DO NOT have universal health care. And it's also very expensive and unnecessary to go the ER over something that isn't an emergency. And how would an emergency room handle something like IBS? There is no one test for it, but rather it requires a range of tests from X-rays, ultra sounds, blood tests, urine tests, colonoscopies....how does an ER room do all that (and all that must be done because IBS has symptoms that are similar to a number of other issues such as Celiac's disease, colon cancer, pancreatic cancer, pancreatitis, and several others)? If it's allergy season and you need an inhaler, why should you go to the ER? If you have problems with anxiety, the ER isn't going to be able to do much except send you an expensive bill.

 

[Draka]

ER is a stabilize and bounce area. That is, they are there to stabilize the patient, get over the critical hump, and then bounce the patient to another department or clinic for further treatment as warranted. Now...those other departments and clinics are not required to take every patient who comes with a referral. It often does become a matter of coverage. What healthcare coverage plans are accepted. And even then, if you do have coverage, there are certain doctors and clinics that are in their service network and some that aren't. So if you are referred to a doctor who isn't in your network of providers your insurance may deny payment, the doctor may deny treatment as well because of that. Now, if you can find a doctor within your network that would do what was needed you aren't guaranteed to get a referral to that particular doctor, nor are you guaranteed that they will be anywhere near you so that they are accessible to you. And of course, without coverage, you aren't guaranteed squat. You may get into a hospital that will go ahead and treat you through to release, through different clinics, but you are usually going to get the bare minimum of what is required and then, guess what, you are usually told to follow up with your regular doctor for continuing treatment. If you can't afford a regular doctor for continuing treatment then you start the cycle again of waiting until something gets so bad that you require another trip to the ER.