When getting quotes for health insurance, check for gender discrimination

The lawmakers in Colorado are debating a change in the law to correct the gender discrimination currently requiring women to pay more than men to insure their health. The facts are uncompromising. In some 90% of all private health plans, women have premium rates 60% higher than men. This is so even though the statistics show women enjoy better health than men and make fewer claims. This is so even though the men used for comparative purposes are significantly older. And, if you feel you need any more confirmation of the basic unfairness, even men who smoke pay less than female non-smokers. As one of the women promoting the bill commented: insurers often refuse coverage because the applicant has a pre-existing condition. The way the premiums are loaded, it seems being a woman is a pre-existing condition.

The people who are paid to speak on behalf of the insurance industry usually fall back on the tried and trusted defense that women have medical needs specific to their gender. The most often quoted example is maternity and prenatal care. Ignoring the fact that men also have problems specific to their gender, such as erectile dysfunction, women are still quoted premiums 60% higher on policies excluding reproductive health needs. In other words, the discrimination persists even though the scope of the medical coverage is identical. So what's going on? The answer, in this instance, is slightly complicated. If we start with auto insurance, it's common knowledge that young men are statistically more likely than any other group of drivers to crash into another vehicle or some stationary object. Thus, where the policy discriminates between different groups of drivers, young men pay significantly more than women who tend to drive more safely. Not all auto policies do discriminate. By spreading the risk among a big group of drivers, the good subsidize the bad. But, most auto insurers do set different premium rates for different groups of drivers distinguished by gender and age. In medicine, it's a fact that men fall ill and die, whereas women tend to recover from illnesses. This is one of the reasons why women have a longer life expectancy than men. But it also explains why women cost more. They survive for longer with chronic problems requiring continuing treatment. Thus, if the premium is a reflection of the likely costs of treatment over a person's lifetime, it may appear slightly more reasonable to charge women higher premiums. Except this ignores the general rule that private health insurance stops at 65 as Medicare kicks in. The major long-term costs tend to occur after 65.

Colorado looks as though it may join the one or two other states with equality provisions. There's no evidence from these other states that men now have to pay significantly more. For now, insurers simply make less profit. As a woman, it's particularly important to research exactly what the different companies offer. Because of this, searching for cheap health insurance is a greater challenge. Always refer to the websites of the companies making the best quotes to see if there are additional discounts available or special policies for women. If there seems to be no cheap health insurance available, talk directly with the insurers to see whether the difference between the male and female premium rates can be reduced. Not everyone is lucky enough to live in a state committed to equality. It is for you to protect yourself as best as possible.

Health insurance must now deliver coverage in a reformed system

To encourage the Democrats to vote through his healthcare reform bill, Obama framed the moment as one of morality. He argued everyone should have a right to basic health care. This was the chance for politicians to stand up for what was right, even though they might lose their elected jobs as a result. Yet, if you look at the numbers, this law is not going to deliver universal coverage. In socialized countries, everyone has a right to care. What is now branded as Obamacare will only add about 32 million people to the insurance market.

That was said about 10% of the US population. This makes for an interesting possible result. A small percentage of the population gets access to care and the costs for everyone else go up. It is that fear driving a general loss of support for the law. Whether it will turn out that way is anyone's guess. It is incredibly difficult to predict the future with any certainty. All that can be said with any certainty is that the majority of the Democrats feel good about themselves for voting the bill into law. They walked the walk along the moral high ground while the GOP was the party of "No" that wanted to sacrifice people's health for their own political advantage.

It is a tragedy for all thinking people the means of passing the law was framed in such black and white terms. If the two sides in a debate can never agree on anything because the other side is immoral scum, it gets very difficult to enact good laws. No one has a monopoly on good ideas. Indeed, the federal law bears a striking resemblance to the law in Massachusetts. When Mitt Romney pushed it through, conservatives hailed the reforms even though it imposed a mandate on Americans to buy insurance. Now Romney is leading the charge accusing Obama of an unconstitutional abuse of power. This is modern Communism he asserts, quietly forgetting his own law. When both sides are committed to disagreeing, truth is sacrificed and hypocrisy rules. So where does this leave us with the insurance companies?

Unlike the healthcare systems in other countries (such as european countries), the private insurance industry remains the key player. Americans will primarily look to the private sector for coverage. If businesses and private individuals cannot afford the premiums, the state will offer some financial support. This is wonderful news for the insurers. Millions of new people to insure with the government picking up a lot of the bill. This is a licence to print money unless the government acts to reduce the costs of treatment. If the government controls the prices of medications and forces hospitals to deliver only the forms of treatment shown to be cost-effective, this will remove the pressure on the health insurance industry to keep increasing the premium rates. Some rates will inevitably rise in the short term. But, as costs level out, they can be spread out across of wider range of people, many of whom will be healthy. This will take time and the Democrats may lose out in the midterm elections. Nevertheless, with President Obama in the White House, there will be no repeal of this law. The longer it is in force, the more difficult the GOP will find it to repeal as and when they return to power. Until things do stabilize, get the maximum number of health insurance quotes to find the most affordable policy for you and your family.