Should women who need maternity coverage pay more for insurance than those who don't?

[CreekDog]

I know we shouldn't need a poll for this...

35 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	Insurance with maternity coverage should cost the same as other insurance
	32 (91%)
	Insurance with maternity coverage should cost more than insurance without
	3 (9%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[PowerToThePeople]

1. Pass - Universal health care should not include "insurance"

[CreekDog]

3. In Germany, Japan, the Netherlands, it does...

should it not there?

Although I support a single payer system, that doesn't prevent me from having an opinion on what should be allowed when selling insurance since that's the system that we, and many other countries have.

I think you can answer the question.

[PowerToThePeople]

9. How much water should be used for waterboarding?

How many copies of collected metadata should there be and who should store them?

(more examples available upon request)

There are many things we have in place in this country that I do not need to have an opinion on other than "we should not do that."

What about insuring the impregnator for the pregnancy? Why does it have to be the mother who is insured for it? I know, that is silly (maybe). The whole question is moot with single payer, which is the just way to handle health care.

[CreekDog]

11. yes, that's exactly the same thing as requiring insurance companies to cover maternity

i stopped reading after your subject line.

please write smarter things if you'd like me to get through your entire message next time.

[PowerToThePeople]

12. you missed my point then.

too bad.

[CreekDog]

17. when you post BS, people stop reading

[PowerToThePeople]

18. It only appeared BS because you stopped reading. eom

[Romulox]

50. This thread questions the "right" of private, for-profit insurers to make $$$$, that's why. nt

[LWolf]

113. That's why I passed.

Care. I want universal CARE.

[Gravitycollapse]

2. You're probably equally likely to get cancer in a lifetime. Should you pay more for that?

What about all of the other common ailments?

What makes pregnancy different from anything else? This is what insurance is for. It covers medical needs. Why is this even a question that is being asked by anyone?

[CreekDog]

4. because a number of people here think maternity coverage should not be included

they shouldn't have to pay into insurance that covers maternity if they themselves can't have a baby.

i think the posters who think that way are ridiculous.

[Gravitycollapse]

6. Who's saying that?

Point me in their direction.

[Arugula Latte]

86. You can click on "show user names" to see who is in favor so far.

[lumberjack_jeff]

91. Which is of course the whole point. It's yet another shit-list generating exercise.

[calimary]

8. Well, I don't want to have to pay for their Viagra or Cialis, then.

How 'bout that?

[jamzrockz]

35. You dont wanna go there

cos women on average will run up more healthcare dollars than the average man even with cialis and viagra added. I am conflicted on this because I don't want to punish women who get pregnant but then you want to reward people who do their best to reduce world population by not giving birth. And you cannot reward one without punishing the other.

[WinkyDink]

41. "....women on average will run up more healthcare dollars than the average man..." LINK?

[lumberjack_jeff]

64. here

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1361028/

Per capita lifetime expenditure is $316,600, a third higher for females ($361,200) than males ($268,700). Two-fifths of this difference owes to women's longer life expectancy. Nearly one-third of lifetime expenditures is incurred during middle age, and nearly half during the senior years. For survivors to age 85, more than one-third of their lifetime expenditures will accrue in their remaining years.

The ACA spreads this disproportionate expense onto men. It's why, whenever you hear someone complain that their medical insurance went up 50% last year, it's always a man.

[bettyellen]

90. except that women are paying in proportionately every month during those extra years....

and we have been paying more than men, whether fertile or not for way too long.
and I don't think anyone progressive thinks women should be penalized for having the babies that in most cases they have already paid plenty for - in terms of carrying them for nine months. men have it easy in that respect. having babies doesn;t endanger their health or life.

[Aerows]

94. Men that were born

Who at one time had a mother that needed maternity care.

[lumberjack_jeff]

95. Retroactive insurance?

Last edited Mon Mar 17, 2014, 04:27 PM - Edit history (1)

One assumes that most of our birth-debts were paid for long ago, usually by our fathers' employment-based insurance.

[Aerows]

101. You were born, though, right?

Or did you hatch out of a test tube, ready to work and purchase insurance?

[lumberjack_jeff]

104. I'm relieved to learn that since my birth debt is valued in 1962 dollars...

...that I'm responsible for only mine and not that of my children, who are responsible for their own.

[calimary]

58. Welcome to DU, jamzrockz!

Glad you're here! I get what you're saying. Totally. But I still go there. And I feel as though that's something we ought to be pointing out. There's SO MUCH DAMN GRIPING about what are the intrinsic issues facing women in health insurance coverage matters. Given. But while there are people bellyaching about why they have to pay for coverage for our contraceptives and such, why then can't we mention the men's part? Hey - men have distinctive gender-based insurance coverage matters. Prostate issues. Urinary issues. And yeah, the Viagra thing. So if they're objecting to covering what matters to women - why then should we not throw that back at them and point out - hey, I'M not a man. I don't take or need Viagra. Why do I have to pay for that, then? It's that ol' door that swings both ways, seems to me. My point is - well, maybe the folks crabbing about the coverage of women's health needs should just shut up. Because nothing's ever bitched about or taken to task when it comes to men's issues.

[ElboRuum]

23. Same people who say...

..."why do I have to pay school tax when I don't have any children."

[WinkyDink]

40. THREE. Count'em, THREE. BFD.

[CreekDog]

115. try 8

[Daemonaquila]

36. Because some people will never need it.

It's really simple - it's never going to be a health issue for women who are incapable of childbirth or who know that the only children they'll ever produce are coming out in pieces at the end of a suction hose. It's as stupid for many of us to have to pay for pregnancy coverage as it would be to ask us to pay for care of our erectile dysfunction.

[WinkyDink]

42. IOW, you simply don't believe in any universal coverage.

Last edited Mon Mar 17, 2014, 11:03 AM - Edit history (1)

[Crunchy Frog]

61. Of course, it will be other women's children

who will be treating your illnesses and wiping your backside and maintaining an economy that will (hopefully) keep you fed and clothed and housed and entertained into your old age.

The fact is that everyone has a stake in the new people who come into the world.

[mike_c]

5. once we start dividing up the pool, it isn't a pool any more....

When we buy insurance, pooled risk only works because others agree to accept our health risks and we agree to accept theirs. We can't have it both ways, i.e. having others carry our risks without our carrying theirs. I'm male and post-reproductive. I will NEVER need maternity care. But my nearly certain heart disease, cancer, or other degenerative disease can only be covered if I pool my risk of health care costs with that of younger, reproductive women. Solidarity, sisters!

[CreekDog]

7. i agree.

you're in the pool that covers their care and they're in the pool that covers yours.

[gollygee]

38. +1

If we start excluding people who can have a medical expense we can't have, everyone will have something not covered.

[elleng]

10. NO,

insurance covers ALL RISKS, that's what it DOES!

[Daemonaquila]

37. No, it doesn't.

I have paid my whole life for a private policy that excluded pregnancy. That was a standard option, and a fair one.

[seabeyond]

49. i am NEVER gonna get spinal bifida, so i do not want to pay.

[uppityperson]

92. I will never get prostate cancer and don't want to have to pay for it.

[Warpy]

13. Should men pay more because they are more prone to cardiovascular disease?

How about those prostates, boys? Even if you don't get cancer, chances are you'll need a TURP if you live long enough.

How about jacking the male rates up because men have higher accident rates when they're young and higher alcoholism, suicide, and reckless behavior risks as they get older?

Men have been requiring women to pay triple premiums in case they get pregnant for long enough. It's high time you guys realize that anatomical risk is universal and we will all get sick and need health care.

[Romulox]

46. Men use less healthcare than women. nt

[mercuryblues]

70. last i heard

a woman could not get pregnant without the help of the male. As a matter of fact, if it wasn't for males women could not get pregnant at all.

I propose this: While males have sperm capable of impregnating a women, men should pay higher premiums than women.

[Romulox]

72. I'm not arguing for how to make mandatory for-profit insurance "fair". Just pointing out

that it's weird to defend for-profit insurance and then decry the way actuarial principles work.

[DefenseLawyer]

14. Republicans simply can't wrap their heads around it

"You mean I have to pay for something that doesn't directly benefit me?"

"Well, yes, but by spreading the cost of insurance across a wider, less risk prone group, it actually makes everyone's insurance cheaper. "

"So you're saying that I have to pay for something that doesn't directly benefit me????"

[LittleBlue]

15. We shouldn't need insurance to stay alive and be healthy

I hate this debate because no one should have to make that choice.

It's like arguing about to what degree you should be burdened for wanting to live. Pure insanity when this country has such immense wealth.

[PowerToThePeople]

21. Yes, how much is your life worth to you?

Ok, give it to me.

DURec your post.

[Nye Bevan]

16. The cost of all pregnancies and childbirth should be socialized and funded from general taxation,

along with most other medical expenses. And I say that as a DUer who is probably more pro free-market and capitalism than most. This is something that should not be treated as a free-market commodity.

[undeterred]

19. Its like asking should people who don't have children pay taxes for education.

Yes. Everyone pays for everything. There is a common good. And that is especially true in the case of insurance for medical needs.

[Fumesucker]

20. The idea that those who likely need more care pay more is already established in the ACA

If that wasn't so then everyone would be paying the same rate (subsidies aside).

So there really isn't a single "pool" but rather a number of different ones..

[pnwmom]

25. There are three tiers related to age. But everyone who lives will eventually

pay more -- subsidies aside. So in that sense, it equals out.

The point is to encourage younger (usually healthier) people to enroll.

If you charged women more for getting pregnant then you'd have to charge more for all the other people with genetic conditions (such as XX chromosomes) that can lead to health conditions. And the ACA was designed not to charge more for preexisting condition,. . . even the preexisting condition of XX chromosomes.

[hunter]

22. Everyone here has a mother. Pay it forward.

What's the problem?

[CreekDog]

31. the problem is that some people think it's fair to cover their own health issues

but not those of a pregnant woman. wtf.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

24. this is the lame Republican approach to Health Care, dude

Are you aware of this?

[MiniMe]

26. That is how insurance works

Everybody pays a part of everything. That is how they can pay for all ailments.

[DebJ]

27. Other option: mandate that the father's pay in full for all maternity care / childbirth costs?

[jeff47]

59. My kids cost over $50k each.

If I could pay the same rate that the insurance company negotiated, maternity care and childbirth cost more than $50k per child. Only complication was c-sections. Without those, it would have been about $30k per child.

And that's paying the rate the major insurance company could negotiate. The "normal" rate on the bills was at least double.

So your "solution" of paying $100k per child isn't practical for those outside the 1%.

[DebJ]

60. Sorry I should have used the sarcasm thingie. My comment was aimed at those

gentlemen who feel that the full cost of a birth should apparently be solely upon women.
Including, apparently, the woman that brought them into this world.

[Walk away]

28. Healthy babies are the future! Go healthy Babies! nt

[MADem]

29. EVERYONE NEEDS MATERNITY COVERAGE AT SOME TIME IN THEIR LIFE!!!!!!!

Some people only need it in the FIRST NINE MONTHS of their life.

Others need it more frequently.

But EVERYONE needs it.

And yeah, I was yelling...!

[Mr.Bill]

30. You should pay for maternity coverage

if you were ever involved in a birth. You know, like when you were born.

[Skittles]

32. it's a ridiculous question

EVERYONE has a vested interest in healthy babies

[CreekDog]

33. to most it is a ridiculous question

unfortunately, even at DU, it isn't ridiculous to all.

[Skittles]

34. oh yeah, THOSE folk

predictible

[WinkyDink]

39. This is clearly a "divide, conquer, and take more money" plan.

[riqster]

43. From a business standpoint, hell no.

That isn't how the product works. Insurance works by getting a large pool, and spreading the costs across those who use more or less of it.

Which is why National Health Care is gonna happen someday. Given the costs, we need a pool composed of all Americans to have a sustainable model.

[Iggo]

44. No.

Again.

[madville]

45. No for maternity but

No for extra charges for maternity coverage. The argument could be made for additional charges for smokers, alcoholics, drug abusers, the obese, etc.

[MillennialDem]

111. As long as obese is defined by body fat % and not BMI. BMI discriminates against

the athletic and the tall.

Now of course whenever BMI discussions come up everyone and their mother posts about how they are 12% body fat (or lower). I'm not going to do that here. I am athletic and do lift weights and run etc - my body fat could certainly be lower though, especially if I wanted to be a professional athlete or fashion model.

That said, the reason my BMI is bullshit is mostly because of my height (6'2). I fit in the overweight category, because BMI takes my height to 2nd power instead of to the 3rd power (or uses an exponent between 2 and 3, such as 2.5). As you grow taller you don't just grow in 2 dimensions, which BMI assumes.

[Romulox]

47. As long as health INSURANCE is private, and for-profit, it should follow actuarial principles.

If that's "not fair", then we need to change the entire system.

[TBF]

52. "We need to change the entire system" -

that is where I come down, and further it is not just nationalizing health care. The profit motive is only good for billionaires.

[Romulox]

53. It's "not fair" to deny people care because they can't pay, period. You and I agree. nt

:

[CreekDog]

89. not if those principles disriminate

fail

[Romulox]

110. Um for-profit insurance discriminates against people who can't pay.

[CreekDog]

114. if you'd like us to not talk about discrimination against women, just tell everyone that

ok?

[Sunlei]

48. no, every person should be covered for everything. we should throw out the middlemen profiteers.

And on the other hand, stop giving a tax discount for kids. People want to have 2 kids?, 10 kids?, fine, should not get a discount on income taxes for kids.

[CBGLuthier]

51. PASS: Healthcare Insurance is an obscenity.

One extra layer of profit the world could do without.

[Jackpine Radical]

56. I voted PASS for the same reason.

[CreekDog]

63. so you don't think it should be illegal to charge women more for insurance that covers that?

cause that's the question, the question isn't single payer, which i support too.

[Jackpine Radical]

67. If there MUST be an insurance based model, the idea of

"profiling" people by actuarial means (e.g. via pre-existing conditions, age, sex, etc.) as well as excluding or charging extra for certain conditions or services seems to violate the principle of shared risk that supposedly justifies insurance in the first place. But that's already become part of the business model of the general insurance racket. Young people pay more for auto insurance just because of their age, even though some of them are no doubt very safe drivers. Old people pay more for health insurance even though some of them use very few medical resources. And on and on.

[CreekDog]

68. underwriting is allowed in Obamacare?

one of the reasons for the poll is because of the complaints by a few here that Obamacare doesn't charge more for maternity coverage.

[Jackpine Radical]

69. Here--

The ACA's 'age rating bands' would prevent insurers from selling nongroup coverage to an adult age 64 or older for more than three times the premium they charge to a 21 year-old for the same coverage—allowing for a 3:1 premium ratio based on age.

[Jackpine Radical]

73. OK, I went off on a tangent there.

My disgust with the insurance model obscured my reaction to the point you are trying to make here.

Let me clarify something about my underlying position.

Regardless of whether we are discussing a system like our current mess or a more rational national health plan, it is wrong to discriminate against women or to seek to demand "maternity insurance" or whatever you might call it.

I believe that it is not just women, but society as a whole, that benefits from providing adequate maternity services, including health care. Does anyone seriously want more children gestated and born under less-than-healthy conditions? No matter how cold-hearted you may be about motherhood or children, you're going to end up paying a lot more for the tragic consequences of that social choice than the few extra bucks you might save on your insurance bill. And you may be sure that there will be kids born to mothers who couldn't afford that "add-on," or who just didn't expect to get pregnant.

I would go further and say that society as a whole, not just women or any other group that has traditionally been treated unfairly, benefits when that society enacts policies and practices forbidding discrimination against any of its members.

[CreekDog]

76. I agree with you 100%.

I support single payer, but where this model doesn't exist, laws need to protect people from discriminatory practices.

[jwirr]

54. There used to be a saying, "It takes two to tango." A man and a woman created this circumstance.

[djean111]

55. Yes, maybe both parents' insurance should be charged. Or, of course, just have

Universal Health Care.

[lumberjack_jeff]

62. They are. A 25 year old man pays the same as a 25 year old woman...

But will receive about 30% less services over his lifetime. It isn't fair, but it is practical. The pool works best when it's large and sliced up into as few actuarial criteria as possible.

Put another way, I think that medical insurance should be one of the things that we get as a benefit of being a taxpaying citizen, and I wouldn't support higher tax rates for women because they get more benefits.

[Jackpine Radical]

57. Society is better off if all people have access to health care.

"Health insurance" is the wrong way to reach that goal.

PASS.

[Sheepshank]

66. No

the woman is unable to get PG without the additional genetic material offered by a man, he has some responsibility to help produce a healthy infant. The cost should be shared, therefore the insruance should be the same.

With that same thought, the cost should also be shared for abortions and birth control.

In the article posted abut women over a lifetime may use more medical intervention, because the live longer...says nothing about the "burnden" of covering maternity. So if a dud lives to be 85 or more, he should be cut off form all health care after the median age of 76? The argument is stupid on it's face that women should be charged more. Universal health for all!!

[Avalux]

71. Who voted it should cost more?? Pregnancy is NOT an illness.

Here again - anyone who suggests such a thing is attacking women. Pregnancy is a normal biological process that women undergo when they decide to have children. There may be complications to the pregnancy, but pregnancy itself is not a catastrophic illness.

Stupid stupid stupid idea.

[CreekDog]

74. "No" votes attack women, not "Yes" votes

[Avalux]

78. Ha, thanks!

[CreekDog]

79. i realize the poll question is flipped from the OP subject line

[SoCalDem]

75. Should you only buy homeowners' insurance when you smell smoke?

[CreekDog]

80. what if it wasn't a choice?

[CreekDog]

82. .

jyotimoon's Profile

View posts by jyotimoon
Transparency Status
Information on this Transparency page is currently displayed to logged-in members because the member's posting privileges were revoked on Mar 17, 2014.
Posting Privileges Revoked
Revoked on Reason Revoked by
Mar 17, 2014 repeat disruptor
For more information see Terms of Service

[Demo_Chris]

81. We simply need universal coverage. Until then we have an every man for himself system. nt

[oldandhappy]

83. should men who need penis pumps pay more?

I have a really really hard time with the anti-women's health stuff. OK I got that off my chest.

[polichick]

84. Maternity coverage? Smoking? Weight? Speeding tickets? Etc...

[gollygee]

85. .

[OmahaBlueDog]

87. First, maternity is the main "bubble buster" of the young-people-don't-need-insurance myth

All insurance policies for persons of childbearing age (12-50) should be priced to include pregnancy, complications of pregnancy, pre-natal (including basic child care and breastfeeding training), and post natal. The pricing should simply be built in, and be spread to both genders -- since it does actually take both genders to make a baby at some basic level.

I'll leave it to brighter minds than mine whether fertility treatment should be covered. I'm of two minds there.

[alc]

88. we keep using this word "insurance"

but don't seem to know what it means. We use the word in the sense of how the government may insure (guarantee) a loan - they guarantee it will be paid back and they will pay it if the company (or country) fails to be able to repay it.

But the ACA set up commercial insurance in the sense of a group of similar people sharing risk - a group of people with similar risk pay into a pool, then when a small percentage of them are affected by the risk, they are covered by the money in the pool.

What we want is government to insure (as in "guarantee&quot that health care costs will be paid. But we are trying to accomplish that from "shared risk pools". I don't want to "share risk" with people who are not like me, just like I don't want my home insurance to cost the same as Romney's or my auto insurance to cost the same as LeBrons or my health insurance to cost the same as someone who could need 10x or 100x as much coverage as me.

If I'm sharing risk with "people like me", then it does matter if I (or they) smoke, exercise, are obese, or can get pregnant. If the government guarantees payment for all citizens, then none of those things matter. The main thing that happens when the government tries to guarantee health care by forcing us into pools is that we get less transparency on how the premiums are used vs what we'd get on how taxes are used. The other thing that happens is that we fool ourselves into thinking about "shared risk" (and we talk about that a lot) rather than health care for all (which is supposedly the goal of the ACA).

[Aerows]

93. Were you born?

If the answer is yes, then insurance should cover pregnancy. Just because you are already here doesn't mean that someone didn't pay for you to get here.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

96. Yes, but the state should provide free-at-point-of-use healthcare, rendering it moot.

Health insurance is a commercial product. What you get should be what you pay for.

[CreekDog]

97. No, your answer is not correct, you should have said:

96. No, but the state should provide free-at-point-of-use healthcare, rending it moot.

Health insurance is a commercial product that must not discriminate by gender or medical condition. What you get is what others should get: the health insurance you need at the price someone else would pay for what they need.

Donald Ian Rankin
96. Yes, but the state should provide free-at-point-of-use healthcare, rendering it moot.

View profile
Health insurance is a commercial product. What you get should be what you pay for.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

98. No, my answer was correct and yours is wrong.

Commercial health insurance should not be a form of welfare or a social safety net; it's a form of gambling, nothing more and nothing less.

Bookmakers should be free to set their own odds, and the idea that they should take all bets at the same odds is daft.

"The health insurance you need" should be "none" - people should not be required to gamble in order to pay for healthcare.

[CreekDog]

99. do not call maternity coverage welfare

post that nonsense at FR not here.

i'm right, you're wrong, and that was a sexist post to call maternity coverage welfare.

what's the matter with you?

[PowerToThePeople]

102. ...

CreekDog
99. do not call maternity coverage welfare

View profile
post that nonsense at FR not here.

i'm right, you're wrong, and that was a sexist post to call maternity coverage welfare.

what's the matter with you?

No such thing was said. Reading comprehension skills could use some work. I do not know, but your posting patterns here lead me to think you have ties to the insurance lobby. Yes or no?

Please take some time to re-read the posts in this topic of yours. Better yet, print them all out and have someone else read them to you. You are taking many things said here incorrectly.

[CreekDog]

103. yes, he said charging the same for the two things was "welfare"

but if you want to agree with libertarian BS, that's what you've gotta do.

[TheKentuckian]

100. If it is medically necessary or restorative then it should be covered.

[davidn3600]

105. My only issue isnt necessarily with maternity coverage

It's the fact that women will use medical services more often than men over the course of the average lifespan, yet we pay equal premiums now. The reason insurance companies were charging more for women wasnt because they hate women...it's because women make more medical claims on their insurance plans than men do.

Meanwhile, men still have to pay more than women for other forms of insurance. Health insurance is really the only type of insurance where women paid more than men.

Ultimately though, I am not necessarily a fan of Obamacare because this law does not fix the biggest problem with the system, which is cost. Even with Obamacare, people are paying for insurance that they will possibly never use because they will never be able to reach their high deductibles. So they will continue to skip needed tests and preventative doctor visits.

Compared to the rest of the developed world, our system is simply too fucking expensive.

[CreekDog]

106. and you've posted against men being paid on average higher wages than women?

i'll await my answer before discussing anything else with you.

[davidn3600]

107. I have never posted anything that suggests men should make more money than women

And that's a completely different problem than what's being discussed here.

[CreekDog]

108. you're complaining here that women's health care costs more

you have never complained about the wage disparity that favors men over women.

that's sexist because when (you say) women are favored, you complain.

when men are favored, you are silent or you rationalize.

pretty self serving there.

[davidn3600]

109. I complain when anybody is favored...

Just the other day I posted an article about how in domestic Hollywood films women only make up 15% of leading protagonists. How many replies did that post get? Zero. No one seemed to care other than the one person that gave it a rec.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024653208

Have I ever talked about wage disparity? Sure. I've done that before here but I dont talk about it every single day. If I see a worthy story about it browsing through the news. But the media doesn't discuss it very much. I think the last article I saw about it was a couple months ago talking about how the millenials are closing the gap. If you look at just single women under 30, they are making 93 cents to the dollar that their single male peers make.

[Romulox]

112. Creekdog, it's a FOR PROFIT system. Quit saying everybody needs to shoulder the load, when some are

making huge $$$$$$ off of this.