SCOTUS on Prop 8 Gay "Marriage"

Discussion in 'Political Action Forum' started by Tuck31, Mar 26, 2013.

  1. okie drake

    okie drake Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    26,961
    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2001
    Location:
    Indian Territory
    Unless I misunderstand what you're contesting, the data you're citing does not back up your position. It's not data that I dispute, but do you not see the difference in the above figures and what it is that you're trying to argue?
     
  2. DR CABELA

    DR CABELA Banned

    Messages:
    9,722
    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2002
    Location:
    owensboro,KY
    my argument w/ him is that women healthcare premiums are MORE because they use more services, take more meds etc....so it is common sense that they would pay more

    jaegers argument is that the premiums should be LOWER cause more services., more meds etc for women lead to less cost/payout by the insurer

    the numbers show women use more services and meds etc and the insurance cos charge them accordingly
     
  3. jaeger19

    jaeger19 Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    8,499
    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Location:
    Parma idaho
    Where do you get zero anyway...

    We pay 400 a month for my wife's insurance... Ms Fluke was also paying for her insurance...My wifes birth control cost 140 a month...

    If it was covered 100%.. I still paid 400 dollars a month.

    A zero co pay doesn't mean that she "got it for free"...
     
  4. okie drake

    okie drake Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    26,961
    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2001
    Location:
    Indian Territory
    Mallards are pretty. At the point of sale out of pocket expense is where the 'copay/deductible' references come in and that's what I referred to. She may very well want the entire scope of care involved to be zero out of pocket, who knows. Wouldn't surprise me. But the plan didn't cover the meds and the focus was there. What all they did or did not cover related to the medical side is debatable.
     
  5. jaeger19

    jaeger19 Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    8,499
    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Location:
    Parma idaho
    No.. premiums should be lower because women are healthier for a variety of reasons..including that they use more preventative services.

    Step back and think what you are saying...

    According to you.. the next time a person with back pain asks me about chiropractic care... according to you.. I should say.. "well going 6 times to the chiropractor for your back pain will cost you more in the long run. You are better off waiting to see if it gets better and if it doesn't.. only going two times to your surgeon.. once for pre op.. the next for surgery"...

    Think about that and tell me if you still stand by your position..

    Now lets go further into this..

    Lets look at womens health... now your contention is that they cost more and don't get better health for it..

    Okay...well lets look at Life expectancy:

    If women were significantly less healthy then men.. then their life expectancy should be less then mens.. right...

    OOPS.. women live on average longer than men.

    Well, lets look at costs... certainly you have stated that lifestyle plays a big part in why people need healthcare...

    Lets look at smoking..

    http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/adult_data/cig_smoking/


    Well oops on that too...

    Well what about drinking..

    http://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/fact-sheets/mens-health.htm

    Gosh darn it.. oops again... (did you see that men have higher rates of alcohol related deaths and hospitilizations)...


    At just about every turn.. we see that womens health is either better or the same as mens..

    Thats what would account for their longer life expectancy.

    Now we wouldn't want to say that insurance companies would skew the facts to make things look a certain way... so lets examine their statement.

    From Cabelas article :

    .

    Hmmm what an interesting statement.. first of all.. they do not say that they COST more.. they say the have more tests, and use more healthcare services..
    so how do we reconcile the fact that women smoke less, drink less, less likely to injure themselves and have longer life expectancies... but then are expected to believe that women COST more because they are unhealthy?

    Now another fly in the ointment... women "ages 19 to 55" tended to use more healthcare services, regular checkups etc...

    HMMM.. 19 to 55... now what possible conditions.. could be so TIME DEPENDENT... why would they suddenly get sick at 19.. and then suddenly get better around 55 when these visits, etc drop off?..

    Could it be that women are more likely to be in a reproductive age between 19 and 55? NAWWW ...:nutz:rolleyes:

    And one last point.

    You should read the very next line in the article.

    Similar plans.. similar ages but yet one charges 81 percent more and the other 10 percent more... now if COST was simply what was going on, then the percentage of increase should be the same for similar ages in the same state..

    So cost simply doesn't account for the difference. Now.. there is no doubt that pregnancy can increase cost to the insurance company.. it certainly doesn't explain the all the difference in price.. particularly since some plans dont include maternity, and yet there is still a difference.

    And health costs relative to men certainly don't count for the difference since women in general are healthier than men.. (again, why they live longer)...

    The most likely answer is this... women value healthcare more than men.. and therefore are willing to pay more for their healthcare than men are and insurance companies when possible increase their rates relative to this in an effort to maximize profits..

    It works for womens clothing companies, hair salons etc..:l

    thats the most likely hypothesis.
     
  6. jaeger19

    jaeger19 Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    8,499
    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Location:
    Parma idaho
    Yes.. mallards are pretty...

    so what is the cause of your apparent angst over Ms. Flukes testimony?
     
  7. okie drake

    okie drake Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    26,961
    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2001
    Location:
    Indian Territory
    I don't have 'angst' over her testimony, you just appear desperate to pick a fight where there's not one.

    What is your angst over my assessment of her position/testimony?
     
  8. jaeger19

    jaeger19 Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    8,499
    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Location:
    Parma idaho
    \


    No angst.. just wondering why you don't like what she had to say...

    Especially when you apparently agree its illogical to charge a woman more because she can get pregnant, and then refuse to pay for the medication that will prevent it.
     
  9. DR CABELA

    DR CABELA Banned

    Messages:
    9,722
    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2002
    Location:
    owensboro,KY
    Why Women Are More Expensive To Insure Than Men


    Anna North BuzzFeed Staff


    The White House posted a map today showing that women pay more than men for insurance in a number of states ? sometimes way more. Insurers say this is necessary because women use healthcare services more, but some experts question that ? Marcia D. Greenberger of the National Women's Law Center told the Times that since different plans have such drastically different gender gaps (or no gap at all) it can't actually be necessary to charge women more. And some people have argued that since women "look after themselves better than men," they should actually be paying less.

    But according to Dr. Richard Cooper, Professor of Medicine and Senior Fellow in the Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics at the University of Pennsylvania, that argument doesn't hold water. He says there are two simple reasons why women cost more to insure than men do: they go to the doctor more, and they live longer. Do those additional doctor visits translate into early detection of health problems, and cost savings down the road? Nope, says Dr. Cooper ? he calls the idea that early diagnosis is cheaper "a pretty marginal notion," and points out that for many diseases, early diagnosis is actually more expensive. That doesn't mean early detection isn't a good idea for some conditions ? Cooper mentions hypertension as a prime example ? but it's unlikely to save a lot of money.

    The data back him up. A 2004 study of 3.75 million people in Michigan found that women's lifetime healthcare costs (the amount paid by them or insurers to providers) were about one-third higher than men's ? they averaged $361,200 to men's $268,700.

    None of these are policy arguments ? whether women should have to pay more for insurance than men do is a separate issue. But over the course of their (sometimes long) lives, their healthcare does appear to cost more money.
     
  10. okie drake

    okie drake Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    26,961
    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2001
    Location:
    Indian Territory
    Well, I wouldn't word it that way either but I see you've moved completely away from contesting my assessment.

    But no, I'm not big on 'this should be zero out of pocket because I think so' and that nothing to do specifically with Fluke.


    The question remains just as I stated it earlier. What is 'refuse to pay'? Is it refusal if Ms. Fluke has to pay $10? Which is what she would quite possibly be charged if she just bought it outright with no coverage? (Kind of like no 'access' even though she could quite likely walk down to PP and be seen and get an rx for zilch) Is it zero copay on every manufactured BC product regardless of overall cost or indication? $5? $47.23? $23.57?

    If you can find her referencing any copay cost besides zero, have at it.
     

Share This Page