What Is Her.meneutics?

The Christianity Today women's blog provides news and analysis from the perspective of evangelical women. We cover news stories and books related to international justice and evangelism, pregnancy and sexual ethics, marriage, parenting, and celibacy, pop culture, health and body image, raising girls, and women in the church and parachurch.

Her.meneutics is edited by associate editor Katelyn Beaty and online editor Sarah Pulliam Bailey.

Free Newsletters

books we're reading



« Glow-in-the-Dark Bark | Main | The Matriarchal Blessing »

May 6, 2009

Women Benefit from Health-Care Overhaul

The failing industry says it will stop charging women at higher premium rates than it charges men.

Katelyn Beaty

In an attempt to stave off a major federal overhaul of the $2.5 trillion health-care industry, health-insurance companies agreed yesterday to stop insuring women at higher premium rates than they do men.

OuchFlintGoodrichShot1941.jpg

Karen Ignagni, president of the trade group America's Health Insurance Plans, testified before the Senate Finance Committee that she doesn't think gender should factor into rates for individual policies. Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.) likewise introduced a bill that would prevent insurance companies from considering sex in setting policy premiums.

"The disparity between women and men in the individual insurance market is just plain wrong, and it has to change," said Sen. Kerry. His proposed bill also bars insurers from denying or limiting coverage based on a woman's "pregnancy status or delivery method." "With Mother's Day around the corner," he said, "there's no better gift to American women than discrimination-free, affordable and accessible insurance that meets their health needs."

Two-thirds of women in the U.S. ages 18 to 64 are medically insured through their employers, and so are already protected by federal and state laws that bar employer plans from setting premium rates based on gender, race, or poor health. It's the 5.7 million women, often self-employed, who buy insurance in the individual market that are most vulnerable for being charged at rates higher than men for similar policies.

According to an April story from NPR's Sarah Varney, a major reason for the disparity between men's and women's insurance rates is that women old and young alike are more likely than men to make regular doctors' visits. Another, more obvious factor is the incredible cost of childbirth, which the American Pregnancy Association currently puts between $6,000 and $8,000. (It goes up for high-risk pregnancies.) More sobering, the APA estimates that 13 percent of women who become pregnant each year are part of the 41 million Americans who are uninsured.

Perhaps unfairly, the high cost of childbirth affects young and middle-aged women who do not end up having children. Varney reports that in California, for example, even when maternity costs are factored out, women pay nearly 40 percent more than men for comparable individual policies.

What do you think? Is it discrimination by default for insurance companies to charge women at higher rates than they do men? Or do you think it only makes sense from a business standpoint for insurance companies to factor in the chance of pregnancy?

Share |

Posted by Katelyn Beaty on May 6, 2009 8:56 AM

Comments

It's discrimination - because, after all, men are as responsible for pregnancy as women are. If insurance companies need to compensate for pregnancy and childbirth costs, they should simply put men and women both at a higher rate, and let both genders share the extra cost.

Posted By: Ann | May 6, 2009 10:45 AM

I think it's a tricky subject. I remember learning at my first job that pregnancy was considering a "pre-existing condition" so one of the pregnant women who was moving and changing insurance companies had to use COBRA to cover her medical expenses until she gave birth. And I'm trying to think of any other non-disease health condition that requires so many doctor visits and check-ups. There's no doubt that pregnancy is expensive. (I'm not getting pregnant until I can afford better health insurance.) And that health insurance companies as businesses try to compensate for that. That doesn't make it the best way or even a tolerable way to handle it, but the money has to come from somewhere. Spreading it over both genders seems fair to me, but does it seem fair to the person who has made a decision not to have children? Does it seem fair to subsidize fertility treatments for the poor and for the medical expenses of those resultant children as discussion in Nadya Suleman's (Octomom) case? Do we have a responsibility as stewards of the earth to consider the environmental impact of our children in family planning? The answers to any of these questions aren't easy ones (even if you can answer them quickly). The implications of either side are far reaching and somewhat scary when pushed to the extreme. I think that there needs to be a balance allowing everyone to have their opinion while protecting the rights of the poor and disadvantaged. That stat that 13% of the women who become pregnant are uninsured--that's the thing that needs to be rectified, making sure that every woman regardless of social or financial standing can provide her child with a healthy start, whether that happens through legislation of equal health insurance payments between genders, nationalized health care, or a resurgence of faith-based medical facilities.

Posted By: Bethany | May 6, 2009 12:00 PM

Swine flu (A-H1N1) and Healthcare In America

Well my fellow Americans, and people of the World. That was yet another very close potential catastrophe. Especially for those of us that live in America with our busted, greed driven, private for profit healthcare system. What ever you do World. Don't copy our current healthcare system.

If that virus (A-H1N1) had emerged just a few months earlier our busted healthcare system in America would have collapsed. Just like our economy almost did. And hundreds of thousands more Americans, if not millions would have needlessly lost their lives. As hospital ER's became choked with the sick, and dying.

All on top of the hundreds of thousands of Americans who needlessly lose their lives in America each year from a rush to profit by the private for profit healthcare industry. Rich, middle class, and poor a like. Insured, and uninsured. Men Women, Children, and Babies.

This was yet another big WAKE-UP! call for America, and for our Government. It's time for Congress to end the debate. And stop dancing around the issues of how they can continue to try and justify protecting the private for profit healthcare industry, and the private for profit healthcare insurance industry. These industries are killing hundreds of thousands of Americans every year in America, and endangering our National security.

"the health-care system is, first and foremost, for the American people—not the companies that profit from it." (Tom Daschle | NEWSWEEK)

IT'S OVER! The Private for profit healthcare experiment in America is dead. It FAILED! And it was a DISASTER!

"NOT FOR PROFIT, TAX PAYER SUPPORTED, SINGLE PAYER, AUTOMATIC, FREE UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE FOR ALL. Is the ONLY! way to go.

Essentially HR676 (enhanced, and expanded medicare for all). Just like every other CIVILIZED! country in the developed World has. There is no other way to truly fix or reform our current disastrous healthcare delivery system. NONE!

Congress, fix our healthcare crisis while you still have time.

President Obama, VP Biden, the Obama administration and the rest of his advisors, along with Speaker Pelosi and Harry Reid are doing an excellent job of protecting you. And also an excellent job of representing you and the best interest of the World. But it's time for the rest of Congress to get on board.

To those of you who keep standing up and fighting for single-payer universal healthcare for all. YOU! are Americas true HEROES! And I am proud of you. :-) Don't let up.

I will have more to say about this VERY! unusual virus (A-H1N1), and flu in general, later. There are some things you really need to know and think about... All of you.

Till then, God Bless And Keep You All

Jack Smith — Working Class

Posted By: jacksmith | May 6, 2009 6:36 PM

I think questions regarding health care insurance and regulation are much larger than political and media soundbites. Indeed, I think it is true that more needs to be accomplished on behalf of those who need health and dental care in this country. I'm not sure I'm interested in, for the sake of equality, moving to a univeral system where the quality of overall health care takes a hit. In Canada, for instance, people often cross the border to seek quality, timely treatments because they aren't always available in Canada. In terms of charging women higher rates than men, we see discriminating practices in other areas, and for good reason. Young men are charged higher car insurance rates than young women. This is a practice based on statistics and risk assessments. I don't think the health insurance industry, like the car insurance industry, is being diabolical in their practices.

Posted By: Sarah Flashing | May 7, 2009 9:40 AM

I have yet to see a model for "universal" health care that I would want to emulate in the US. But I think part of the problem is that we often have no choice or very little choice in our insurance plans or what they cover. Why is it that I can pick any number of home or car insurance plans and decide on things like deductible, collision coverage, etc. But I can have no such choices with insurance, or a very limited choice. Also, why is it that doctors often don't say up front how much a given procedure would cost and allow consumers to shop for price as well as quality.

Posted By: Christine | May 7, 2009 12:13 PM

The post says, "Women Benefit from Health-Care Overhaul: The failing industry says it will stop charging women at higher premium rates than it charges men." I have several observations and questions about this title:

1. Who says the health care industry is failing? How is "failing" defined?

2. If it is failing in the sense of running out of money or being unable to cover everyone who wants to be covered (some people voluntarily opt out), then how will forcing insurers to cover women (who presumably cost more on a per-capita basis than do men) for the same price help keep these companies from crashing?

3. Will this change really help women, or will the insurance rates simply rise for everyone, men and women? There is no such thing as a free healthcare lunch. The companies will make their margins, one way or another.

4. Perhaps charging men and women equally to cover companies' higher costs related to pregnancy and childbirth is fair, since it takes both a man and a womman to produce a child, and a thriving, healthy new generation is in society's best interest.

Just thinking aloud.

Posted By: Stan | May 7, 2009 12:36 PM

I have also a great information about pregnancy and tubal reversal. According to a survey, each year over 600,000 women in USA undergo a tubal ligation. Tubal Ligation means permanent birth control and this ends a woman’s ability to have children. But what if a woman decides to become pregnant again? It is estimated that 6 percent of women who originally decided that tubal ligation was the way to permanently birth control, just within five years, they decide that they want to experience pregnancy and the birth of a new baby. Tubal reversal allows a woman the ability to conceive naturally without any harm. And in approximately 90% of cases the procedure can be reversed successfully. and thanks for sharing your information.

Posted By: tubal reversal | May 11, 2009 1:02 AM

If you are uninsured and does not have insurance, you should check out the website http://UninsuredAmerica.blogspot.com - John Mayer, California

Posted By: Johnmayer | May 28, 2009 12:34 AM

If you are uninsured and does not have insurance, you should check out the website http://UninsuredAmerica.blogspot.com - John Mayer, California

Posted By: Johnmayer | May 28, 2009 12:35 AM

Stan, it is much more than that. A healthy society is good for all of us as a whole. If you're not going to invest in your own citizenry, then what message are you sending?

Posted By: Car | September 5, 2010 3:30 PM

Post a comment:





Verification (needed to reduce spam):

tags

February 2012
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29