Ben Harakel
Intro to Economics
Obamacare
Women Should Pay More for Health Care
This article discussed the fairness of Obamacare's targeting of younger men and the fact that younger men have to pay the same premiums as young women. While it is common knowledge that younger women require more health care because of birthing costs and the stress on their generally smaller bodies, I have to say that it is a better idea to charge women more. To start it would discourage having a baby with a man that you aren't married to because if he leaves, you will get stuck with a high amount of cost. I can see some of you asking why it is that women should be stuck with all the costs of childbearing so her is my solution. If you happen to have Obamacare, are having a child, and are married to the father of the child then the costs should be split between the two. That way if you are married the costs will split evenly but if aren't it will serve as a deterrent.
The other big thing that I think is key about this article is the fact that females tend to spend a lot more money on preventative coverage, whether or not they have healthcare. It brings to mind the fact that the cost of something is what you give up to get it. In this case if males really don't use that much preventative care normally, why would they pay money for it. For me this is why I believe that Obamacare is not a good idea for our country. Why would a government health care system target certain age and gender groups if its goal is just to provide health care for all people. Why charge males the same as females when females will spend more money on healthcare.
Does this mean that other groups that tend to require more healthcare, such as minorities and those below the poverty line, should be charged more as well?
ReplyDeleteIt is true that women often seek out preventive care more often, but I don't think they should be charged for doing so. It's cheaper to prevent a disease than to try and fix it later. As for the pregnancy thing, just split it between both parents. That's the fair thing to do.
ReplyDeleteI think it’s not fair to charge women more. Women are the ones who go through pregnancy, and it’s not fun at all. If Obamacare charges women more, women might choose not to have children. Obamacare is supposed to provide healthcare to everyone, not to control population. I also think that Obamacare should give women more benefits and charge them less. Obamacare should also create a family plan that gives more benefits and costs less to families that are planning to have children. They need money to support their children! If the parents are spending too much money on healthcare, they wouldn’t be able to give their children everything.
ReplyDeleteI can definitely see where this notion would come from, but I am not sure that it is fair. I understand that life is not fair and all, but a woman has absolutely no control over the fact that she is a women. If all men or women (equal rights equal rights) are created equal, I don't understand how all women should be charged more for healthcare. However, there may be a few economic positives to enacting a a policy such as this. As prior comments stated, it could be a method of child prevention. This could providing some relief to the rapidly growing population. It could definitely reduce the amount of women with multiple fathers to multiple kids because they would have to pay more in health insurance for all of those children. In some cases those ladies end up getting government assistance because they can not support that many kids. So maybe an increase in health insurance would prevent these situations? Not entirely sure. Input from others would be great!
ReplyDeleteI do understand the argument of charging the women more, but the fairness of the situation is not balanced at all. The women cannot control what happens to them simply because they are women, and since it does not happen for men as well.
ReplyDeleteI see where you're coming from; however, just as Gabe stated, if women have to pay more, shouldn't everyone that uses "more" healthcare be charged more? Charging women more wouldn't really do much considering fathers and men are most likely the people paying for it anyways. This is really generalized so i cant say i am for or against it but i believe it raises a good argument.
ReplyDeleteCharging women more for healthcare than men would be a sexist policy, and should never be considered as a viable option for evening up healthcare costs. While I understand your concern with men being charged the same as women for less treatment under Obamacare, it's simply unjust for women to be charged more for healthcare than men. Women do not choose to be women, and therefore should not be penalized for something they cannot control. In addition to this, you must also realize that charging single mothers more for healthcare expenses than married mothers means that insurance companies would be advocating a specific moral position and attempting to punish single mothers for their chosen lifestyles. In a perfect world, men and women would spend equal amounts on healthcare, but that is just not the case. The argument you are presenting here is severely out of touch with reality.
ReplyDeleteI agree that women should have to pay more. It is perfectly fair that someone who has to use the system more should have to pay more. All people who use the system more are charged more now. Im not saying they should be initially, however I am saying that once they start to need more medical procedures their rates go up for things like that.
ReplyDeleteI understand what you mean, and I agree completely Ben. Now, whether or not I agree or not doesn't mean that it is right or is going to happen anytime soon. It would kind of be sexist, but women do use preventive care more often than men do.
ReplyDeleteOk, I agree with the people who say this would be sexist because it would, well, literally be discriminating against a certain sex. If we do that, where is the line drawn? I mean, like Gabe said, do we charge African Americans more because they are more susceptible to sickle-cell anemia?, etc.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to David N's comment... I agree. Butttt just to play Devil's Advocate, you said "charging single mothers more for healthcare expenses than married mothers means that insurance companies would be advocating a specific moral position and attempting to punish single mothers for their chosen lifestyles."
Well, aren't they already doing this? Smokers are charged more for healthcare. People who are overweight can be charged more for healthcare. Isn't THAT also advocating a specific moral/health-related position? I realize you're talking about if they would only charge single mothers and not all mothers, but I still think I make a valid point.
In regards to David G., I don't understand why this class is so obsessed with population control. Also, I don't think what you suggest would have any effect. Most women who have unwanted pregnancies weren't sitting and weighing the economic costs of increased insurance penalties before they accidentally got pregnant.
Overall there needs to be some sort of balance. We can't discriminate, but on the other hand, costs need to be tied to use. I don't have an answer for that because if I did, Congress would be out of a job.
I would hardly call one or two brief sentences an obsession. While they weren't weighing costs obviously, maybe it would provide some extra negative incentive to use contraceptive techniques?
DeleteIt's a good thing Chris Frei is not in this class...what with his social darwinist views. He is all about population control.
DeleteI read all of the comments so far and I have some responses:
ReplyDeleteTo Kirsten
To start off I can't think of any reason other than rape where a woman gets pregnant without some kind of consent. Men don't just walk up, impregnate the woman and then just walk away. So having a child isn't the males fault entirely.Secondly, the whole idea of the higher charge would only affect mothers who are having birth without the husband which my morals tell me is not a good choice of a father of their children by the female. In most cases of a married or together couple the healthcare would likely be covered out of both parents pay so in the end the woman is not solely paying for her healthcare.
To David Nelson
I'm not mad that men and women are charged the same, I have no problem with gender equality. However if a man only requires $100 dollars worth of Obamacare a month then he should be charged those $100 dollars and if a woman requires $150 than she should pay $150. We both shouldn't be payed $125 to even it out, especially if I am a single male because now I am paying for someone I don't even know. That was my case, women should be charged more not necessarily in relation to men in general but in relation to how much Obamacare they use because some men may use more healthcare than some women.You say that the woman can't help that she is born a woman but it's not a man's fault that he was born a man. Why should a man pay more than what he uses just to offset the woman's rate. It says in the article (which is written by a woman) that the point of charging single men more was so that it would offset the higher costs of single mothers with high healthcare costs a.k.a women who had children with men who left them before or shortly after birth.
AGAIN I'M SAYING THAT WOMEN SHOULD PAY MORE BECAUSE THEY USE THE SYSTEM MORE, NOT BECAUSE THEY ARE WOMEN. SO IN EFFECT ANYONE WHO REQUIRES MORE HEALTHCARE SHOULD PAY FOR THAT EXTRA HEALTHCARE.
I understand why people think women should pay more, but like others have said it would be sexiest and like Gabe and Alex said if we make women pay more where do we stop making people who are more likely to need the system more, I know Ben you are saying they should pay more because they use it more not because they are women but then like you said that means that everyone who uses it more should pay more but it is not like women choose to use it more, we have too. I also though don't think it is fair though that people who don't use the system would have to pay more either. Now, just touching on the topic of health care, I do think we should have universal health care because thirty-two developed countries have universal health care and majority of those countries have the best health care you can get, France being #1 and having universal health care,and yes we are a lot bigger than France but they are not the only one; just number one. So, it is clear that we can have goo health care and have universal health care. We just need to make our universal health car plan better.
ReplyDelete