Over on the blog of Mark Binker at the Greensboro N&R, he has a clip of Sen. Kay Hagan speaking on the Senate floor decrying the difference in cost of health insurance between men and women. She tells a story of how a 22 year old female staffer in her office would have to pay 3x as much for her health insurance as a 22 year old man.
Well, duh! (Sorry, I’m being “snarky” again). Last I checked, men can’t have babies. And as anyone who has had one recently will know, the cost of having a baby is pretty darn expensive.
Therefore, the cost for insurance companies to cover women is higher than men, thus… a higher policy premium. Is this really that hard for a US Senator to understand? And these are the people that are crafting health care reform?
Hagan is trying very hard to make a point, too bad common sense gets in the way of her attempt at some good old fashioned gender-inequity baiting.
Chris, if you spent more time watching America’s Funniest Home Videos instead of C-SPAN or Bloomberg, you would know that men suffer between 5-7 groin injuries for each child that is born. ;)
Joking aside, men do suffer 20% more injuries than women, and those injuries tend to be more serious:
“Males represent less than 50% of the American population, yet they account for about 70% ($283 billion) of the total cost of injuries. This cost disparity between males and females primarily results from the higher rate of fatal injuries among males and the subsequent higher productivity losses.”
Okay, so: A big chunk of that 283 billion (year 2000 study) is estimated lost production, which wouldn’t directly impact the health insurer. That leaves about $54 billion or so for men’s injury-related doctor bills.
By my calculations, childbirths cost the U.S. about $34 billion annually. Of course, when you put women’s lesser injury dollars in there, you’re back up to about $65 billion for babies & booboos.
And while men are less likely to visit the doctor, there are numerous studies showing how that reluctance ends up costing more in the longrun. I guess what I’m saying is, as far as overall risk is concerned, I’m not sure if it isn’t a wash between the guys and girls.
And by the way, even when women purchase health insurance that doesn’t cover maternity care, they still pay (on average) higher rates than men.
Ok then, why is it that there is a cost disparity?
Is there some massive secret collusion deal between all the insurers to jack up rates on women?
Are insurance companies just a bunch of sexist?
Maybe it’s because they’ve crunched the numbers and that’s what the actuarial tables and the market sets as the rates.
To say we’re going to just equalize the rates between men and women solely means that the rates on men are going to go up to above market rates. How is that in anyone’s best interest?
What’s next? Saying we’re going to equalize the premium cost between 22yr olds and 64 yr olds?