Young Men, are you upset that you'll no longer be able to get health insurance cheaper than women?

[CreekDog]

for example, there's a low coverage policy with pretty gaping holes that costs just $63/month for men and $93/month for women.

one of the reasons that plan was cheaper was because you are male.

how do you feel now that you'll have to pay the same amount as women for health coverage?

highlights of the Kaiser Basic plan:


Outpatient Services
Office visit:
Not covered
Lab, imaging, and testing:
Not covered
Outpatient surgery or procedure (in doctor's office):
Not covered
Outpatient surgery or procedure (in hospital-based setting or ambulatory surgery center):
$500 copay

Inpatient Hospital Care
Inpatient care:
$500 copay per day

Maternity
Delivery and postpartum care:
Not covered

Emergency Care
Emergency Department:
$250 copay
Ambulance service
20% coinsurance

Prescription Drugs
Generic drugs (maintenance/other) (up to a 30-days supply) :
Not covered
Brand drugs (up to a 30-days supply):
Not covered

Other
Transplants and related services:
Not covered


details at:

https://kaiser.healthinsurance-asp.com/expressweb/plan/ViewPlanDetails.action?productPlanKey=PSUI32973

[seabeyond]

1. my boys will not even know they are being deprived. they will think it is a norm. and they will be

surprised as fuck when they learn that like women not being able to vote in the past, they also had to pay a higher health care simply cause.... they are women.

it will just be another hurtle made, that brings us to an equality. that they will find outrageous.

[CreekDog]

2. I think it's inherently unfair to charge more based on gender

and also unfair to charge more based on preexisting conditions and disability.

as for age, i'd prefer a universal system where people contributed according to their ability via taxation and not even vary for age.

[seabeyond]

3. you and i see eye to eye. yes we do. nt

[davidn3600]

16. Yeah but now it's pushed more unequal in another way

For example....
How many times in the ACA does the word "breast" appear? 44.
How many times in that same law does the word "prostate" appear? 0.

Women get access to more guaranteed benefits such as STD screenings, cancer screenings, and other services. Men have to be approved for such benefits. Meanwhile, men die 5 years earlier on average, more than 1/4th will develop prostate cancer, and develop more serious diseases earlier in life than women.

But at least the premiums are equal...

I guess equality depends on how you look at it.

[seabeyond]

23. ya. i am sure the men are being picked on and they will not get their cancer screenings and will

meet the death panels exclusively. geeezus, you know. sometimes i just get creeped out with the insistent whiney of abuse to men. really. i do. cause we are all so fuckin sure men are going to be denied medical care. really. studies will now be done exclusively on women, leaving men out totally. they will pay for all, and we will pay for nothing. we will be coddled and they will be picked on.

[CreekDog]

27. so you're saying that the number of times a word appears indicates whether it's fair or not?

that's not so smart.

and men have breasts, get breast cancer.

you don't need to know anatomy to post here, but if you're going to spout off about it, it might be helpful.

[pitbullgirl1965]

53. That's because women made a stink about it.

domestic violence and rape were invisible until women raised hell. It's not our job to raise health issues for men, women already do too much care taking of men

[Squinch]

86. Men won't get cancer and STD screenings. Uh...sure....

ETA: they will get all regular screens that have been deemed necessary by the medical community. If you don't like the fact that PSA screenings in the asymptomatic male have been deemed by the medical community to be more harmful than helpful, take it up with the medical community. It's not Obamacare that is the cause of the omission.

[noiretextatique]

4. my male friend, who is now in his mid-30's,

has been battling cancer for over ten years. meanwhile, i never had a serious health issue until i was 49. and even though i had a hysterectomy 4 years ago, i am still asked if i am pregnant don't they know they is no way in hell i could ever be pregnant? i know they have to ask, but jesus, how about using common sense? i wonder if they still ask my 79yo mom if she's pregnant.

[Rex]

5. No.

I never even knew that was going on! I LOVE the idea of equality! Women should pay no less or more than I do.

[LittleBlue]

6. Irrelevant for me

My wife is on my plan. So whatever actuarial advantage I've lost off of my rate, it's probably been restored by a lower rate for her.

[NYC_SKP]

7. K/R Just one more similarity between ACA and a full blown single payer plan.

Progress. We wouldn't have seen this with a different president and as far as it might be from single payer, it's closer than ever.

[dsc]

8. I have to say that if I were 20, making 1.5 times the poverty level, and lived in a state that

didn't expand Medicaid, I would like the choice of a policy that excluded maternity, even if I were female, since I would likely have to go without insurance entirely otherwise.

[CreekDog]

9. yeah but having that choice means they can exclude cancer, heart disease or HIV from other policies

and then you get a system that is practically worthless overall.

then insurance companies are only insuring the parts of you that don't need care, and once they do, they can drop you and the next policy will cost far more (because of underwriting) and not cover the new thing that's wrong.

can't you figure that out?

oh wait, a minute, you're anti abortion/anti choice, no wonder you see things this way.

[dsc]

12. I don't think it should be expanded beyond that group

but the simple fact is some of those people will die from lack of insurance due to the stand you are taking. If you are OK with that, then OK, but you need to own it. On edit, maternity ads big bucks, relative to the cost of the rest, to the price of insurance. None of the rest do. For an awful lot of people in states such as Texas, FL, GA, and NC to name four, the price of that insurance will be unaffordable due to having maternity coverage that many won't use or need.

[CreekDog]

15. No they won't. I had insurance like that. It didn't do anything for me.

I couldn't use it because its exclusions.

I didn't dare use it because of underwriting.

And how ironic, the anti feminist says there should be no other exclusions than coverage for something only women have.

How ironic, but completely unsurprising.

I sense that you would be more protective of a fetus' rights than the woman carrying it.

[dsc]

18. If you can come up with anything else that costs as much

then I would exclude it too. Again, some people, I know men so who cares but believe it or not some of them will actually be women (who are the only people who matter in your world) will die from this position. I can't tell you now many but some will. There will be some number of women who will get breast cancer who won't have bought insurance because you insisted they buy maternity insurance that they didn't want or need (yes some women can't have kids, who knew). Again, I am not saying this should be a universal thing, but for this class of people, it should be permitted. I think even fertile women would prefer to have insurance that didn't cover maternity to no insurance at all. Funny how you hammer at choice, but apparently the only choices you like are the ones you like. Oh, and BTW, I don't see any complaints about old people having to pay more.

[CreekDog]

20. I ALREADY asked you that. I asked you about excluding cancer, heart disease, HIV, etc.

you said NO. You said ONLY maternity. Only. And you're anti-choice.

now you say well, okay how about some other expensive things so I'll say them again, which one? Cancer, heart disease, HIV? Which one, all of them?

and by the way if you can suggest something strongly then minutes later completely change your position how well thought out was that position in the first place? not well thought out at all.

the fact is when pressed to come up with a way to save men money, you chose to exclude care that only women can receive

that is misogyny.

if you dont' want to be thought of as sexist, don't spout sexist opinions.

oh and by the way, congratulations, it turns out you just want a return to the old health care system which discriminated for tons of reasons, excluded coverage and harmed people.

congratulations, you actually want that system back. you don't even realize it, so poor is your knowledge of that system and the one to come.

[dsc]

25. They don't cost anything remotely as much

they just don't. You can tell stories you like until the cows come home and give birth to aliens, but maternity is very different, it just is. The simple fact is, that people will not be able to get insurance thanks to your position. You can call me names that doesn't change the simple math. Again, you have apparently zero problem with 40 year olds paying more than 20 year olds. Does that make you ageist, or are you being more fair to the same group I am asking fairness for?

[CreekDog]

31. i'm not calling you names. I'm stating facts.

when the first and only way you come up with to save money is to exclude one of the primary costs to females, that's sexist.

and when combined with your anti choice position, that's sexist.

if you're offended by the terms, then give up the opinions that are correctly labeled as such.

you don't even see it. you don't see your ignorance about the health insurance system, you don't. you don't see your blithe suggestion of reducing coverage for an aspect of female health care as sexist, because it just seems natural to you.

nobody is forcing you to talk about health care or the health care system here. you aren't expected to be an expert.

but when you, of your own free will, decide to spout sexist solutions to problems you don't fully comprehend, you should expect to be told you've got it wrong. in no uncertain terms.

this is DU. you spout sexism and say that not excluding maternity care causes people to die from lack of insurance is gonna get you some serious blowback. being here for ages hasn't taught you anything about equality or civil rights, i'm sad to say. i've held a bunch of bad positions over the years, at least the people trying to point out my lack of knowledge on them have taught me something.

[dsc]

35. no you aren't calling names not at all

again, it is simple arithmetic. I know you don't like it, which is too bad, but it is. Again, I have to pay more for insurance than any 20 year old, you apparently think that is just hunky dory, does that make you ageist? No it doesn't. I should pay more for insurance than a 20 year old even under community rating, if we want 20 year olds to be able to afford insurance. Again, some of those people will go without insurance when they otherwise wouldn't. You can call me all the names you want but that is true. Just like, if they lowered the price I would pay, then even more of them would go without as their price would be that much higher. I have lived on the kind of money those people are living on, and I didn't buy health insurance on it. I couldn't afford it. For more than a few of them, the difference between say $50 a month, and $75 a month is a major difference. I take it you have never been there, or have totally forgotten being here if you have. That is good if it is the former, too bad if it is the latter.

[CreekDog]

37. Apparently, not only can't you read your own posts, you can't read mine. What did I say about age?

what did I say?

no wonder you don't remember your own positions, you can't even get mine right.

hunky dory my...

CreekDog (38,498 posts)
2. I think it's inherently unfair to charge more based on gender

and also unfair to charge more based on preexisting conditions and disability.

as for age, i'd prefer a universal system where people contributed according to their ability via taxation and not even vary for age.

[dsc]

44. you would prefer

but you sure aren't writing screeds about it are you? Let me guess, your ox isn't getting gored on that one, just a wild guess.

[CreekDog]

48. so, now that you're conceding the sexism, you decide i'm ageist.

because what's going to happen to those young people who pay less for their insurance when they are young?

they are going to participate in the overall risk pool and that will decrease the cost for the aged.

and when the young get older, what then? they will get the benefits of the young participating and reducing their costs as well.

and when they are at retirement age, they will have Medicare, which young people do not.

as people live their lives, they will be able to participate in the advantages of each age group.

however, if women are charged 1/3 more than men for health insurance, they can't simply move to the male cost group under the old system. nor will a male-centric health plan care for their health (even while it charges them more).

[dsc]

51. or maybe they die in their 50's due to not being able to afford the increased rates

and getting a deadly disease. Many people don't make it to Medicare.

[CreekDog]

58. yes, that's why i've supported single payer systems

and other universal systems, which cover all, more affordably, or completely affordably.

this doesn't.

but given the current system, these reforms, that you are willing to give up, are needed.

you'd put us right back to the old system which can cherrypick what it will cover and not cover so that one isn't picking health insurance, but playing a roulette.

should i put some chips on black hoping i don't need coverage for red? and maybe we'll just call maternity care the double-zero 00, optional really, you want it covered, pay more.

the harder you think about it, the worse ideas you come up with.

i think the reason is that you start out from an inherently unfair position which justifies differential treatment of women to save money. once you're willing to go down that road, it's no wonder that you follow with ideas that are just as bad.

[dsc]

66. I support single payer too

I think that is what would be best. I also support community rating for pretty much everyone. I think though, that the people, who through no fault of their own, live in states that have not expanded Medicaid, and who are in that income range which is too low for subsidies, should get to play under a different set of rules, until this is fixed. They already are exempt from the mandate and they should also be permitted to be exempt from having their insurance costs vastly increased to pay for conditions they aren't going to get.

[lumberjack_jeff]

72. "Male centric"? Do you even read what you yourself post?

The reason women spend "1/3 more" on health care isn't because it's male-centric. The reason that congress is spreading those costs onto men, in a bill that mandates mammograms but not prostate screenings, isn't because they are male-centric either.

[seabeyond]

103. i had two babies and paid cash the first and paid more cash insured the second. that is it.

no more medical treatment at all, all my life. i need to be penalized? really? you feel that is fair cause i am in that particular gender?

never been in the hospital. never had illness. do not get the flu or cold or anything else with medical treatment. genetics.

and i must be penalized?

rationalize that.

no broken bones. no dental problems. no eye problems. i havent had to have eye check ups all my life because i am vision impaired.

nothing.

now, rationally tell me why i should pay so much more.

[riderinthestorm]

111. Men get breast cancer too nt

[pitbullgirl1965]

59. Another Anti Choicer on DU?

What is this?

[Arugula Latte]

70. Why is it that if someone is against equal rights for gay people, they are automatically PPRed

(which I agree with), but if someone is against women's right to control their own bodies, they are allowed to stay on DU? I don't get it. These anti-choice (anti-women) a-holes should be banned, IMO.

[pitbullgirl1965]

85. Because women are women, not people.

I'm really annoyed with the admin. I posted a complaint about another DU forced birther and they haven't gotten back to me. They've answered posts that went up after mine.

Maybe if more of us complain.

[dsc]

109. two things

One I haven't posted any anti choice threads of any kind for over five years, if you don't believe me, search. As to the other, I actually don't think anti gay posters who don't post anti gay threads have been banned, if they have, then I will apologize. But I would like proof, as in a time when that actually happened.

[Gravitycollapse]

112. You're actually anti-abortion?

[dsc]

120. I believe after a certain set amount of time

say 12 weeks, it should be severely restricted. Up to 12 weeks I think it should be OK. That would be about what much of Western Europe does.

[Gravitycollapse]

121. And pray tell what exactly is wrong with getting an abortion after 12 weeks?

[dsc]

122. frankly I think by then it is much closer to killing a child

and again, this is the policy in much of Europe. Again, out of respect to the fact it is a minority position I don't post about it because I feel that it doesn't fit the ethos of the site. So this will be my last post about it.

[Gravitycollapse]

125. Good, then I'll have the last word. Post 12 week abortions do not kill a child...

No matter how many times medically and philosophically illiterate individuals shout such nonsense from the roof tops. We could wait twice as long and would still not be killing a child.

Abortion laws in the US limiting third trimester abortions deal with the issue of pain and suffering, not with the possibility that the parasite inside the woman is itself a fully realized human being.

[pitbullgirl1965]

136. No problem

That's good to know.

[seabeyond]

13. can i exclude viagra? nt

[dsc]

14. It would save you like 5 cents

incidentally I don't think Viagra should be covered under health insurance.

[dsc]

19. what part of

I DON'T THINK VIAGRA SHOULD BE COVERED UNDER HEALTH INSURANCE IS UNCLEAR. DO YOU HAVE THAT MUCH PROBLEM READING ONE SIMPLE SENTENCE.

[CreekDog]

22. I'm quoting you, that's where your position came from.

when you suggested excluding maternity coverage and I asked you about excluding other conditions YOU SAID:

12. I don't think it should be expanded beyond that group
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3939199

So deal with it.

And keep track of things you said 5 minutes ago, especially if you're going to pretend you meant the polar opposite in the same thread moments later.

[dsc]

26. I meant that group of people

not that condition. On that one I will admit to being unclear. But again, I WROTE THE FOLLOWING SENTENCE, I DON'T THINK VIAGRA SHOULD BE COVERED. why did you not read it?

[CreekDog]

33. because of what you said at the beginning of the argument in this very thread

it was a dumb idea and is one of the very things that made the pre-Obamacare system in need of reform.

and now you want to cherry pick (starting with maternity) which conditions the new system doesn't need to cover so that young men can get cheaper insurance and young women too (with that gaping gap of coverage, which is fine, overall, it protects them both, except for women.

first idea you came up with, first. when i asked you about it, you said, only that one.

you're only saying this now because the sexist label smarts.

[dsc]

39. actually it would also protect infertile women

but I guess they don't count in your universe either. Or for that matter, lesbians would be protected as well, guess they don't count either. Or for that matter women who just don't get pregnant. Again, if you can name any other condition that causes the increase maternity causes, I would be fine with letting them forgo that too. You haven't, and the reason you haven't, is that none exist. Again, you have no problem with rates by age, neither do I, BTW, but for you to have no problem with that and a huge problem with ones based on gender is pretty damn hypocritical I must say. I won't call you ageist because I don't think the position is ageist, but it is hypocritical.

[CreekDog]

42. so you want brownie points for protecting the health of infertile women

i'm no longer pissed, i'm laughing.

thank you.

[dsc]

45. glad you find infertility funny

my sister sure doesn't.

[CreekDog]

62. No, I find your attempt to get credit for including the care of infertile women as morally superior

Last edited Mon Oct 28, 2013, 11:41 PM - Edit history (1)

to justify a sexist position completely laughable.

i think you've completely lost track of what you're arguing about.

[TDale313]

63. Oh, yes, it's so clear how concerned you are

About us "infertile women". (and yes, I would qualify) For the record, you will not find me whinging that my health care policy (along with everyone else's) covers maternity care- as well as many other things I will likely never need. But it covers many things I do need, and I will no longer be able to be dumped for or denied future coverage due to a pre-existing condition. So I'm actually pretty happy. Thanks for your concern.

(Seriously, you may wanna just quit before you embarrass yourself further.)

[seabeyond]

21. hey... so. prostate cancer? nt

[CreekDog]

24. He only wants to exclude maternity care because people die of other things

nobody dies from lacking maternity coverage, or at least only some women die from that, no men die from it, so overall, the numbers are better when we just exclude that one.

[seabeyond]

28. oh... fuck. that. nt

[dsc]

29. no

I never said any such thing. If prostate cancer coverage made insurance increase by 50%, then I would be saying the same thing, It just plain doesn't.

[CreekDog]

52. Well then that would be a bad idea too

that sounds like an insurance underwriter or insurance broker.

you're going through some sort of imaginary list and saying that insurance shouldn't cover X because it's expensive.

like that got us so far.

your desire to exclude women's health care is bad enough, but i didn't expect you to go further and attempt to recreate the broken system that needed to be fixed in the first place.

[hunter]

32. Last I heard, women don't get pregnant without men.

It seems only fair men should pay for maternity in their insurance too. And heck, in the bigger picture everyone I know has a biological mother.



Maybe they should offer a discount for eunuchs? They do live longer and have fewer health problems...

[CreekDog]

34. he just has no idea what he's talking about

the only thing he's proven in this thread is that of everyone participating, he has the worst ideas on how to change the system for the better.

[dsc]

40. wow glad I am not infertile

very sensitive post you posted.

[Arugula Latte]

78. Oh, yeah, you're Mr. Sensitivity yourself

You should be ashamed of yourself.

[dsc]

79. gee glad you didn't say something nasty to me

like you said you wanted to. Do you feel better? The fact is, some people will have to do without insurance due to having to pay higher rates than they otherwise would have to.

[Arugula Latte]

88. That wasn't nasty. Believe me, I could say much, much worse.

You single out women and you don't believe they should be able to control their own bodies. What about people who overeat, who smoke, who don't exercise, who drink too much? They drive up health costs considerably. It's interesting your beef isn't with them.

[dsc]

92. actually smokers already pay more

apparently you are too busy whining about my posts to bother to keep up with current affairs. As to the other factors you mentioned, nearly all of them cause the problems when they age, and when they pay more (again, they are paying more due to being older). So pretty much those people are paying more.

[hunter]

93. I wrote it for your mother.

You don't want to pay your fair share of motherhood?

You do have a mother, no? Perhaps you were conceived in a test tube and decanted from a jar?

I could tell the story of my own testicles (one testicle long deceased, the other just as dangerous as his partner) but that would probably be TMI.

I once had a urologist, on my first appointment with him, with my wife present, exclaim "Wow! I read about you guys! Most of you are infertile!"

Nothing to do but laugh. And trivial in comparison to what my wife's been through.

Random shit that falls out of the sky. It can fall on anyone.

[SolutionisSolidarity]

38. If I were in the same boat, I'd be fighting like hell to get rid of my Republican governor.

Millions of people will now be eligible for medicaid if they can organize well enough to get rid of their crack pot governors. After a few get taken out the rest will back down.

[dsc]

41. that is great advice for 2014 or for NC 2016

but in the meantime, not so much.

[SolutionisSolidarity]

54. Nevermind, got my posts mixed up

I conflated my reply to 2 different posts, so it didn't make sense in context.

[dsc]

56. in fairness they have been released from the mandate

which I think is a good thing. But that still doesn't insure them. Not covering maternity doesn't necessarily mean junk but the bronze plan is pretty close to junk.

[Nine]

46. because no one ever has an unplanned pregnancy, right? (nt)

[dsc]

47. well say they do get pregnant

but also get cancer. the pregnancy wouldn't be covered so they would wind up owing some bills but when the cancer came they would still be alive. I have to say, that would be a pretty easy choice for me.

[gollygee]

61. Women die due to pregnancy and birth

particularly if they lack pre-natal care.

[dsc]

64. if it is at home no amount of insurance will save them

at the hospital then they get care and are billed later. It isn't like cancer where you have expensive drugs and treatments that are ongoing. Is it possible, yes. Anywhere as likely as cancer, no.

[Nine]

83. Are you just messing with us? (nt)

[dsc]

91. I am not advocating a wide spread exemption to gender neutral ratings

but I am advocating a very narrow exception for a very put upon class of people. I would not like to be pregnant and uninsured, though it should be noted that Medicaid might well cover that pregnancy for this class of people (low enough income that they can't get the subsidy since they were supposed to be covered by Medicaid). But I would really not want to have cancer and be uninsured.

[LeftyMom]

101. Young women are vastly more likely to experience pregnancy than cancer.

Think of it this way: My car insurance covers collision. It does not cover body damage caused by meteor strikes. I could save a great deal of money if I were able to purchase a car insurance policy which covered meteor damage but not collision, but nobody could legally offer this policy because it would be a rip off. Selling young women policies that do not cover their most significant medical expense, but which do cover exceedingly unlikely expenses is useless to the point of being exploitative and that is why it is illegal.

[dsc]

107. which is why I don't think this should be widespread

but for this one, particular subset, where a pregnancy is very likely to be covered by Medicaid, and where the cost is a huge amount of the policy, I think there should be an opt out for both men and women of maternity coverage. I think a more reasonable analogy is collision insurance. Many drivers choose not to have collision insurance even though there is a non trivial likelihood it will be needed during the life of the car.

[LeftyMom]

110. Why just pregnancy?

I have no family history of heart disease or dementia, I bet I could save a bundle if I could opt out of coverage for those two very expensive classes of conditions. But nobody could legally offer such a policy.

Why is only women's reproductive health care an optional luxury?

[dsc]

114. at age 20, I bet you would save pretty much 0

during any child bearing age year I bet your savings for those would be very close to 0. Heart disease maybe ads some money to a policy by age 35, but not even 1/50th of what maternity ads to those policies. And by the time those diseases become issues, we are permitted to be charged more (due in part to the fact we are more likely to get those diseases).

[LeftyMom]

118. You know what else isn't likely at 20? Cancer. You know what is? Pregnancy.

You're still arguing for a policy that covers meteor damage but not collisions, except when you're not. And you don't have a good argument for why the only exception should be made for women's reproductive tracts.

[dsc]

119. because it is a huge part of the cost of the policy

and because it would be covered by Medicaid in pretty much every state and thus is useless to even the members of this class who do become pregnant. Other than that, no I really don't have a good argument. Again, I am not saying this should be for everyone or even everyone in this income class, but only for those for whom the Medicaid expansion was blocked. If you don't like cancer, though I bet more than say 1000 such people will get cancer, substitute being hit by a bus, or getting pneumonia or whatever you like since for many of them they will have to do without coverage for anything.

[LeftyMom]

123. You're arguing that women shouldn't get the care they actually need because it's too expensive.

Meanwhile you also don't want them to have any option about pregnancy, and if they do get pregnant you just hand wave by saying that they'll get Medicaid. Medicaid has demonstrably poorer outcomes, and often those outcomes are vastly more expensive (for example the surgical delivery rate is much higher when you control for other factors because Medicaid reimbursements for vaginal deliveries are very low) but you want to shift women's reproductive care anyhow, because women having control over their reproduction makes you feel icky. Shifting women to subpar care for the poors if they get pregnant when you don't think they should is punitive and meanspirited.

[dsc]

126. again in over half the states all of them

pregnant or not, will be getting Medicaid by design. That is the law you and I supported and thought was a good idea. In 26 states, the law says they will all, every single last one of them, be on Medicaid. Now if that is such a bad idea, then why did you support the law requiring that to happen? As to the notion of who is permitting choice here, you are the one saying, to all men and women in this class, you shall not have the right to have any insurance at all, if you don't get insurance for maternity. You have no right to decide, as a man or a woman, that you will run the risk in order to be able to cover everything else for a significantly lower cost, all because you want to be pure on the issue of gender equality, results be damned.

Again, in 26 states every single solitary person in this class of people will be getting Medicaid, on purpose and by design. Did you utter even one word of protest when that was proposed? Did you call it evil punishment then? Or is it only now a problem?

[LeftyMom]

127. Why do you want to require women to buy health care insurance that doesn't cover their health care?

Why are only women's health care needs optional?

[dsc]

128. If they want a policy that include maternity coverage then they should get one

I just don't think that the people in that income range should be forced to. You still haven't answered my question in regard to Medicaid. Did you utter one single solitary word when the law was authored, which would have made all of them be in Medicaid, and is putting all of them in 26 states into Medicaid, about that being a bad idea, or did it become a bad idea just now? Again, the law as written would have them all in Medicaid, the law as interpreted by SCOTUS has all of them in 26 states in Medicaid, all by design. I don't recall you having any problem whatsoever with that notion then.

[LeftyMom]

131. What care for men do you want to exclude to keep costs down?

Again, I want an answer: Why is women's health care optional when men's apparently isn't?

[LeftyMom]

96. If you were 20 and female, pregnancy would be far your most likely significant medical expense.

BTW, since you're not a female of reproductive age, but rather an anti-choice man, can I ask what you expect a woman with no maternity coverage to do if she gets pregnant?

[dsc]

97. for the people in that income class

for many go on Medicaid for the duration of the pregnancy. Any other questions?

[LeftyMom]

98. Are you aware of the disparity in quality of care women and children on Medicaid receive?

[dsc]

99. then we shouldn't be saying

Medicaid for all. Or for that matter using an expansion of Medicaid to insure those people in the first place. My sister is currently on Medicaid and it seems to be working OK for her but I imagine it would vary from state to state. But again, if Medicaid is such a horrible choice for them if they get pregnant then it would seem that it shouldn't have been considered as a choice to insure them in the first place.

[LeftyMom]

105. You don't know the difference between Medicare and Medicaid.

And you're trying to argue about health care policy. I doubt you have the sense to be embarrassed but I'm embarrassed on your behalf.

[dsc]

108. we are covering those people through Medicaid

not Medicare. Sorry you don't know that, but that is the fact. And you have he audacity to call me ignorant.

[LeftyMom]

113. Nobody was arguing for "Medicaid for all" as in your post, the slogan was "Medicare for all"

You're confused, you got caught, you look silly. But nice try.

[dsc]

117. Medicare for all would be worse

since it has pretty massive co pays, charges a monthly premium, and is skewed for the elderly. They may have said Medicare for all but the fact is they meant Medicaid for all, since it has no co pays, doesn't charge a premium, and isn't skewed for one particular group of people. Canada's system is much more like Medicaid, than Medicare. The only thing it takes from Medicare is the way it is funded (a dedicated tax as opposed to general revenue)

[Nine]

132. Let me make this simple for you.

I think, as others have noted, you are tying yourself up in knots here. I'll make it simple for you: what you are suggesting is not a minor tweak. Rather, you are suggesting demolishing the very foundations of Obamacare; you simply cannot have people picking and choosing which kinds of coverage they want or whether they have coverage at all. Rather, all policies must meet the same minimum coverage requirements. All Americans must be required to get a policy. And there must be subsidies to help the less well-off pay for their policies. Krugman has done a good job of explaining this.

Although everyone must have a policy with maternity coverage, not everyone will need it. Perhaps your argument is that pregnancy coverage is not a true shared risk in the way that cancer coverage is because it's guaranteed that a man will never get pregnant (never mind that men are 50% responsible for creating each pregnancy), and it's unlikely that a woman over (or a girl under) a certain age will. In that case, don't think of it as shared risk. Think of it like public schools that we all pay into, even those without kids, because it makes society better, not because we all derive equal personal immediate benefit from it.

Besides that, while an uninsured woman can go without prenatal care (to the detriment of herself and her fetus), the delivery costs are harder to avoid. We all will be paying for that one way or another anyway, so why not have ACA be the mechanism for doing so since that is what it was designed to do?

[NuclearDem]

10. I said, Young Men!

There's no

NEED

TO

PAY

LESS

THAN WOMEN

[Warren DeMontague]

49. Is it fun to stay at the YMCA?

That's what you were doing there, right?

[NuclearDem]

73. It's fun to sign up for

THE

A

C

A

[Warren DeMontague]

129. *

[1000words]

11. I'm still pissed at paying more for car insurance

[Travis_0004]

36. I was going to say this as well.

We need to fight for equal car insurance rates as well. Maybe next time.

[woolldog]

57. Guys,

Don't you know it's ok for men to pay more than women for car insurance,

but it's not ok for women to pay more than men for health insurance?

At least on DU....

[ChazII]

77. I will second that

motion. Equal rates for all drivers.

[Travis_0004]

115. Except asians

Yes, that was sarcasm. I hope DU has a sense of humor.

[ChazII]

134. A sense of humor???

Sadly, that is one of the senses that seems to be MIA or AWOL at DU lately. or

[RedCappedBandit]

135. Right? hello double standard

[Turbineguy]

30. Maybe a more appropriate question is

gee guys, wouldn't you enjoy labor pain and childbirth?

If I were God I would have designed Women differently. I don't know excatly how, but they would not have gone through what my Wife went through.

Sorry, but I feel very strongly about this.

[Control-Z]

95. Just wanted to say

your wife appears to have a great husband!

[struggle4progress]

43. Yeah, I'm simply foaming and frothing with outrage about ... um ... uh ... about ...

[Warren DeMontague]

50. No.

I'm just excited that you think I'm "Young"

[darkangel218]

55. The only problem i have with the ACA is that they demand all plans to have maternity care

So if me or many other females don't want to ever have children, why get stuck with paying for something we don't need? And no, this is not the same as preexisting conditions.
Pregnency is a choice, and care for it should be optional on ACA.

[Xithras]

65. Indeed. It's a peeve of mine, and a logstanding gripe about the maternity coverage thing.

I've long advocated removing all support for breeding. Eliminate the child tax credits, enable a punitive system for government aid to reduce benefits for each additional child, etc. etc. With the population growth in this country, we need less humans, and the government should be discouraging people from breeding, not underwriting it.

The ACA maternity care thing means that my insurance $$'s now underwrite maternity care for people that I don't want breeding in the first place. I don't want to help other people have children. I want to help people to NOT have children. Ligations and vasectomies should be free and encouraged. Pregnancy should be expensive and discouraged.

[darkangel218]

67. The right thing to say would be..

To each their own.

But like you, I feel that the world is already full of unwanted young ones.
I can't /don't have the right to discourage someone from having children, but I surely dont think I should pay for their maternity coverage.

[Xithras]

84. I don't really take that approach to the issue.

Overpopulation is everyone's problem.

If you've ever read any of my environmental rants, you'd understand. Environmentalism is sort of my #1 political issue, and I've long believed that the planet could do with a few billion less of us. The ACA thing is just a minor spot where one issue intersects the other. I don't intend it as an anti-ACA thing, but simply cite it as yet another example of the government underwriting even more population growth that we don't need.

[Skittles]

68. because we all have a vested interest in healthy babies?

and healthy moms? Yes INDEED.

[darkangel218]

71. Pregnency is ( still, thank god) a choice.

No, I should not be obligated to pay for someone else's choice.

[Arugula Latte]

80. ?

Should you be obligated to help cover people who choose to smoke, who choose to overeat, who choose to take drugs, who choose to not exercise? How about those who choose to take Viagra?

[darkangel218]

90. No. if you chose to smoke, you should have a different premium.

That simple.
Overeating doesn't fall in the same cathegory, since there can be health reasons why someone would overeat.
Viagra?? Sure! Viagra doesbt cause pregnencies or carries pregnencies to term. People and their choices do.

[bettyellen]

106. and if you drink to excess?

[Skittles]

130. WTF

ugly UGLY attitude

[lumberjack_jeff]

69. It's intriguing that it's okay to be against compulsory insurance that you don't plan on using.

But it's sexist to be against compulsory insurance that you're physically incapable of using.

There were a number of good reasons to eliminate gender as a rating criteria. Fairness isn't one of them. Women spend 30% more than men mostly due to their longer lives.

Prostate cancer screenings should be free like breast cancer screening.

[darkangel218]

75. I agree. Im appalled that regular prostate screenings aren't covered by ACA.

Fucking sickening.
While a woman CHOSES to have a baby, a man DOES NOT/CAN NOT CHOSE wether he has a malignant tumor growing in his prostate or not.

[ChazII]

81. +100

Prostrate screenings should be free.

[hunter]

116. Most guys with prostate cancer don't die of it.

Some other aspect of old age kills them first.

It's not really equivalent to breast cancer.

An older guy who gets an aggressive prostate cancer is pretty much screwed, just as a younger woman who gets an aggressive breast cancer is. But the "catch it early by screening" profiles are not at all comparable. Furthermore a PSA test and the finger-up-the-butt are part of any ordinary older guy exam.

Older men often choose not to have prostate surgery because they'd rather not risk incontinence and impotency and there are other things that can be done for trouble pissing besides radical surgery. Breast, ovarian, or cervical cancer in middle aged women are an entirely different story.

vive la difference

[Lars39]

74. Maternity care is medical care.

There's a few guys that I vindictively would not want to have their prostate roto-rooted but I'll generously allow that.

[darkangel218]

76. Needing meternity care is a CHOICE.

We shouldnt pay for it if we don't need it.

[Lars39]

82. Everyone pays for everyone's whatever so that society as a whole is healthier

because *everyone* then benefits. It is extremely short sighted to cherry pick coverage.

[darkangel218]

87. Prwgnency is not a disease. its achived and carried to term by choice.

So you're wrong.

[Lars39]

89. Broken limbs aren't either, but they get medical care.

Choice to be pregnant or not, the female still needs monitoring and a safe delivery, and on occasion medical intervention so that she and the baby remains healthy.

[lumberjack_jeff]

60. It is a worthwhile tradeoff. It's hard to reconcile being for single-payer and against this.

Last edited Mon Oct 28, 2013, 09:30 PM - Edit history (1)

If health care were provided via taxes, men would bear most of our collective healthcare costs.

[dsc]

124. not necessarily

it depends upon what the tax was. Participation in the workforce is about equal so if it were a capped tax that applied to wages then I don't know that men would be paying most of that.

[Jamaal510]

94. I'm only upset that

Republicans have been blocking Obama and the country from achieving something even better than ACA (like single-payer). But I still think this is a huge step forward from what we had before because why else has the GOP been so adamantly against it?

[dflprincess]

100. A few states, Minnesota being one of them, did away with different male/female pricing years ago

Minnesotans aren't suffering as much sticker shock as a number of the mandates the ACA has have been law here for quite awhile.

It probably doesn't hurt that the only companies participating in the state exchange are non-profits that are already use to the state's stricter MLR. Not that they're cheap but MnSure is said to have some of the lowest rates in the country.

[Starry Messenger]

102. I hope that everyone who considers maternity to be "extra" is ponying up

Did you refund your mom the cost of your birth?

[devils chaplain]

104. Why are different rates by sex even allowed? n/t

[taught_me_patience]

133. I'm upset that I have to pay more for car insurance because I'm a man n/t

[lumberjack_jeff]

137. How much of a hike are we talking about? 5%? 10%?

How about 56%?



http://money.cnn.com/2013/05/14/news/economy/obamacare-premiums/index.html

[bettyellen]

138. it seems from the article they skewed this by including the uninsured?

And if the disparity were so great between men and women, it would only be an indicator of how much young women had been overpaying. That said, it was projected costs, so I think those numbers are outdated.