Regarding misogyny

[CreekDog]

here are two poll results. Luckily, discriminatory opinions are rare on DU, but for some reason, they are less rare when women are the target of discrimination.

Should it be illegal or legal to charge women more than men for health insurance

In your opinion, without regard to current law or proposed laws, on the question of gender equality in health insurance rates:

74 votes, 1 pass | Time left: Time expired

It should be illegal to charge women more for health insurance based on gender (both genders should be charged equally)
65 (88%)

It should be legal to charge women more for health insurance based on gender (both genders need not be charged equally)
9 (12%)

1 DU member did not wish to select any of the options provided.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023825052

Should it be legal to charge the disabled or the sick more for health insurance than others?

This is a question about your opinion and your values, not what is legal or illegal or soon to be illegal.

Which choice is closest to your belief?
17 votes, 2 passes | Time left: Unlimited

In my opinion it should be legal to charge the disabled or the sick more for health insurance than others
1 (6%)

In my opinion it should NOT be legal to charge the disabled or the sick more for health insurance than others
16 (94%)

2 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023824915

[seabeyond]

1. I had to vote the second poll. Just screwed up you numbers. I think I already did the first. Nt

[CreekDog]

2. that's ok :)

[Warren DeMontague]

13. Second one doesn't have a time limit for voting, first one does, and has expired.

You have 2 pretty different sample sizes, of course, but that probably just indicates the well-known fact that anything on GD containing words like "men", "women", or "gender" will generate a lot of attention.

Either way, I don't remember seeing either poll at the time. I was probably out carving pumpkins or some shit like that.

I do remember voting in similar polls on the topic, though.

[Starry Messenger]

3. kick

[lumberjack_jeff]

4. I'm intrigued that there's anyone on DU who still responds to your polls.

It's simply a name gathering exercise and everyone knows it.

And your conclusions are patently stupid. The risk of experiencing disability and sickness is what the insurance is for. No one with two functioning brain cells would expect that ones insurance rates should go up because they accessed it. If that were the case, you wouldn't need insurance. Insurance for healthy people would cost zero, and should go up to whatever the cost of the required medical care when you get sick - exactly as would be the case if you didn't have insurance.


Personally, I think that eliminating gender as a rating criteria was a reasonable if for two good reasons;
1) I support medicare for all, and I wouldn't expect women to pay higher taxes, regardless of the amount of services each gender receives.
2) It was important to get public support. If women's groups had run ads against the ACA complaining about "the penalty for being a woman", it wouldn't have passed.

That said, when a child is born, you can know with reasonable certainty that, because she'll live 10% longer, the child in the pink blanket will cost 30% more over her lifetime than the child in the blue one.

It's as unsurprising that insurers would have used that bit of info to set health insurance rates as their use of the fact that young men are more likely to be in auto accidents establishes their risk to insure.

Everything else being equal, the the new rating criteria in ACA raises the costs 15% for men, and down 15% for women. Disagreeing that this is justified is not a useful working definition of "misogyny".


Reasonable people can disagree whether this is justified, especially given the fact that the ACA sets up an entire system of freebies for women and not for men; i.e. because of ACA, tubal ligation is free and vasectomy is not.

[CreekDog]

5. You're intrigued that anyone answers my polls for the same reason we're intrigued that...

when there's a thread about rape, you only post when you think that something bad was said about men.

not the rape and how horrible that is. but the idea that something was said about men in that thread.

so you know, to answer your questions about your being intrigued that people answer my polls --it's because most of us probably have little in common with you politically or philosophically.

and it's why the soon to be banned trolls echo you and not the rest of us in those rape threads.

[sufrommich]

20. ......

.

[redqueen]

23. Well said.nt

[snooper2]

28. So you responded to the first two sentences, what about the rest of that post?

[CreekDog]

36. what question are you dying to have answered?

[snooper2]

40. What is the top speed you need to reach to be able to run on top of water?

I guess if you are fat you have to run faster of course


So, if you fall from 10,000 feet and hit water it's just like concrete right? So in theory if you can get going fast enough you should be able to basically hydroplane across a body of water right!



These guys are trying it!

[CreekDog]

46. when you're ready to talk substance you'll get a response from me

obviously, that time is not now.

[snooper2]

47. I love talking substance!

I got the substance of my thinset perfect yesterday!

You want it not like peanut butter, just a little bit more "runny"

That way you don't have to work quite so fast with your tile and when you get to the bottom of the bucket it isn't the substance of day old lard LOL

[lumberjack_jeff]

37. "Answer?" I'd call your appraisal charitable.

"We don't like you 'cuz you're icky", Wasn't really an answer.

But really, the part of the post that he reacted to is a separate topic better covered in another thread.

[CreekDog]

45. i'm not required to respond to anything, especially not a fusillade of MRA BS

i truly hope you don't subject the women in your life to that nonsense.

[Starry Messenger]

43. This.

[BainsBane]

6. When someone systematically justifies discriminaition against women

cares only about violent crime against men and says anti-rape PSAs amount to "haranguing men," there is little doubt what we're dealing with.

[Spider Jerusalem]

7. Reasonable people...

are probably sensible enough to realise that a vasectomy (which can be performed in a doctor's office under local anaesthetic) is in no way comparable to tubal ligation (which is major surgery and is frequently performed under general anaesthetic).

But then reasonable people probably aren't looking for things to seize on as evidence of how terribly oppressed men are, either.

[davidn3600]

8. Which is why women were charged higher premiums...

1. Women live longer.
2. Many procedures that women may have tend to be more complex.
3. Women file more medical claims than men.

So the insurance industry charged women more money. It's not misogyny, it's statistics. Men have to pay more for car insurance than women and you dont see men demanding reform.

[Spider Jerusalem]

9. The ACA bans gender discrimination in healthcare insurance.

Women were charged higher premiums for identical coverage at the same age (note that this doesn't include things like maternity care which weren't covered): http://edition.cnn.com/2012/03/20/opinion/greenberger-health-premiums-gender-gap/ (NB that this wasn't end of life care, or coverage of complex procedures; just basic medical insurance.)

[lumberjack_jeff]

29. No it doesn't, it institutionalizes discrimination.

Here is the list of free healthcare services a person can get because they are a woman. No comparable list exists for men, because we apparently live long enough already. The important thing about men is that we buy arbitrarily expensive insurance when we're young to enable that subsidy to work.

Women's healthcare is more expensive both because of maternity and because of longer life.

Principal Findings

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.

Oh, and as for the gibberish advocacy piece in CNN.

The discrimination is so pronounced and the practice so arbitrary that in most states, women who do not smoke are often charged more than men who do smoke. For example, the center found that 56% of best-selling plans charge a 40-year-old woman who does not smoke more than a 40-year-old man who does.

Smoking doesn't add anything at all to lifetime health care costs.

RESULTS
Health care costs for smokers at a given age are as much as 40 percent higher than those for nonsmokers, but in a population in which no one smoked the costs would be 7 percent higher among men and 4 percent higher among women than the costs in the current mixed population of smokers and nonsmokers. If all smokers quit, health care costs would be lower at first, but after 15 years they would become higher than at present. In the long term, complete smoking cessation would produce a net increase in health care costs, but it could still be seen as economically favorable under reasonable assumptions of discount rate and evaluation period.
CONCLUSIONS
If people stopped smoking, there would be a savings in health care costs, but only in the short term. Eventually, smoking cessation would lead to increased health care costs.

[XemaSab]

10. Men pay more for car insurance because of the choices they make

I didn't choose to be born with breasts, ovaries, a uterus, a cervix, and a vagina, and I didn't choose to be born in a family with a history of breast and ovarian cancer.

You didn't choose to be born a man, but you did choose to make an asinine argument right there.

[davidn3600]

11. My point is that premiums are based on statistics

When an insurance company writes a policy, they base the premium on the risk of the payout over the lifetime of the policy. Just living in a certain zipcode could increase your premium.

Women use the health services more often than men. So insurance companies made women pay more money. Is it women's fault? No. But is it fair to make men pay more money for that? It's not men's fault either.

[XemaSab]

12. Should black people be charged more for health insurance?

The life expectancy for black people is almost four years younger than it is for white people. Black people have a higher risk of being victims of violent crimes, a higher risk of stroke, a higher risk of certain cancers, a higher risk of diabetes, and a higher risk of infant mortality. Black people are more likely to be obese and they're more likely to have asthma.

Why should white people have to pay for that?

[davidn3600]

14. Because it's illegal to discriminate on race in ALL forms of insurance

Feminists pushed a law that makes it illegal to discriminate on gender for just health insurance. They didnt include other insurances.

I mean come on...if women were paying more than men for car insurance because they are women, you wouldnt have a problem with that? Be honest,.

[lumberjack_jeff]

30. I would anticipate that, like men, blacks would have relatively low health care expenses

because of their shorter lives.

People cost less when they die young.

[BainsBane]

15. Why are you more concerned about the profits of health insurance companies

that social justice or human decency? Once again we see your so-called commitment to equality.

[davidn3600]

18. What the hell are you talking about?

Im explaining how the insurance industry works and how they figure out premiums. I never said a damn thing about me supporting them or how they do it.

You see, this is why no one can have any type of intelligent debate because you continuously twist what people say and jump to wild conclusions.

And I still haven't gotten an acceptable answer why it's wrong to discriminate on gender for one form of insurance but it's OK in every other form of insurance. Shouldnt it be wrong to discriminate for ALL forms of insurance? Why not end all discrimination? What's a more progressive opinion than that?

[BainsBane]

65. Insurance companies do not work that way anymore

because the government banned the discrimination you find acceptable. Health coverage is essential for human life. No one needs a car. How anyone needs to have something so basic explained to them is unreal. That you imagine driving to be comparable to a woman's life really says it all.

I have noticed you love to site economic rationale in order to justify discrimination against women. I actually think the economic argument is simply pretext. However, when one makes an argument and essentially justifies what the insurance company rationale, any rational human being will assume you support the action. That the law has ruled such discrimination illegal clearly means nothing to you. In fact, you show that you oppose it. The argument that is how they work is bullshit. That is not how they work any longer because such discrimination has been outlawed.

Ending all discrimination is great. However, you consistently argue why discrimination against women should continue. That is your doing, no one else's.

As for my views, I despise insurance companies. They are parasites on society. If we're talking about abstract desires, I wish none of them existed and he had no insurance at all but rather direct access to single payer healthcare. As for cars, I do not give a flying fuck. They are not human life and their use is not a human right.

Here are some basic facts that elude you. Women's medical costs are higher because we give birth to children. Those children are also the children of men. Even you were born from a woman. Your very existence depends on a woman having received healthcare while she was pregnant with you. If you should ever have children, your children's lives will depend on that healthcare as well. The law assumes society has an interest in the continuation of the species that outweighs a few reactionaries determination that discrimination is justified.

[CreekDog]

38. so you're saying that if disabled people have more costly health care, non-disabled should pay less?

so if someone is born with a genetic disease, or a congenital issue, they should pay all the extra costs associated with that?

and if a man is has a genetic predisposition to heart disease, he should pay the added costs of such a predisposition?

wow.

[riqster]

61. Increasing premiums for part of the risk pool is one way to deal with risk.

The better way is to enlarge the pool. Thus the ACA's restrictions on gender surcharges: when the pool is big enough, such extra charges are no longer necessary.

Or did you think the insurers were idiots for accepting the change? Hardly. They know, as you apparently do not, that there are multiple ways to spread risk.

[lumberjack_jeff]

69. The insurers don't care... provided the competition is using the same rules.

In the absence of a law dictating how many actuarial criteria are allowable, insurers will slice and dice the pool into as many tiny slices as possible to evaluate risk.

Nonsmoking 28 year old agnostic diabetic heterosexual female mountainbiker would have a rate determined by the various actuarial criteria. It's up to government to tell insurance companies which criteria should be off limits, so now the insured would get the rate that all 28 year old nonsmokers would.

There are at best, only subtle reasons that gender should be more off limits than smoking. If medicare for all were implemented today, both age and smoking would also be off limits.

[BainsBane]

17. The misogyny is on the part of those who justify discrimination

No one expects insurance companies to care about anything but profits. We do expect so-called liberals to value equality and not privilege insurance company profits over the lives of half the population of the planet. When they don't, when they make clear they see discrimination as justified, it shows complete contempt for the principals of equality, social justice, and women's lives.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

25. BaZinga!! and bears repeating

No one expects insurance companies to care about anything but profits. We do expect so-called liberals to value equality and not privilege insurance company profits over the lives of half the population of the planet. When they don't, when they make clear they see discrimination as justified, it shows complete contempt for the principals of equality, social justice, and women's lives.

Houston, I found the problem.

[CreekDog]

19. why would living longer be basis for charging more per year?

do women live longer in 1 year than men?

obviously thinking is not your strong suit.

[lumberjack_jeff]

31. I can give you the link... again. But I doubt you'll read it this time either.

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

Living longer is a main reason for higher lifetime expenses, but women also have higher medical expenses each year.

[CreekDog]

62. how much less would your Social Security check be if children had not been born after you?

just wondering.

women had those children, or maybe you can point to some children birthed by men.

and many of those children grew up to pay into Social Security, the benefits you're receiving.

[lumberjack_jeff]

63. Do you have any settings besides "non sequitur" and "ad hominem"?

There's a thirty percent difference between the costs of health care for men and the cost for women. The topic of this thread is how to best share that differential and if disagreement with your point of view constitutes misogyny.

If you actually do have a learning disability that precludes you from reading the links I post, I apologize for my insensitivity.

Absent that, my doubt was obviously justified. Educate yourself.

And FWIW, I have no idea what my SS check will one day be, nor do I know that I will survive long enough to collect one. My taxes pay today's recipients, three-out-of-five of whom are women, and each year politicians propose further raising the retirement age, putting it out of reach of more and more men who don't survive that long.

[CreekDog]

64. oh when you disagree with someone you say they have a "learning disability"? really?

and what if I did? should i feel badly about that? should i feel stupid if i have a learning disability?

should others here feel that if they or members of their family have learning disabilities that they should feel stupid and not engage in discussion?

do tell...

[lumberjack_jeff]

66. My day job is working for people with developmental disabilities.

That experience leads me to look for reasons the people behave the way they do. It is exculpatory to find an organic reason for what otherwise appears antisocial or bizarre.

Evidence to the contrary notwithstanding, I suspect that it is within your power to stick to a topic and avoid the temptation to turn it into yet another shitfest of insults - or at least show that your interest in a topic is something other than attracting the attention of people you dislike. They call that trolling, btw.

Holding out the possibility that I'm wrong constitutes giving you the benefit of the doubt.

[CreekDog]

67. most people in this thread are agreeing with ME not YOU

so if you want to talk about antisocial or bizarre, how about Men's Right's crap all over DU that doesn't fit?

and rationalizing your comments with your day job...what's bizarre is that you probably don't even realize how many jaws you made drop by defending the "learning disability" sarcastic quip by saying that you work with people with developmental disabilities.

i'm not the antisocial or bizarre poster here.

[lumberjack_jeff]

68. How many people do you speak for?

If the number of online jaws you saw drop >1 then you should reconsider the definition of bizarre.

And it should be abundantly clear that I don't find the number of people who agree with me to be a driving factor. In fact, because I'm a shitty singer, I avoid joining a choir. In my case, silence generally means agreement.

Logical, honest, popular. Pick no more than two.

[CreekDog]

71. one person thought your statement was appalling and another agreed

[Feral Child]

57. You're missing the point of insurance:

You pay into a "pot" and can dip into that pot if you have medical costs.

A healthy woman that never experiences a pregnancy may well have lifetime medical cost much less than a man who smokes, drinks, and indulges in promiscuity, but that shouldn't matter to their insurance premiums. The whole concept is "shared responsibility"; ie, we all pay in to cover everyone's risk.


What you're citing is the insurance industry's rationalization for cherry-picking who to fuck over. You've been tricked by their marketing.

Insurers never make money on premiums. They make their profits from investing the money we pay in. They could charge us much less and remain solvent, so their charges are based on behavior-control.

Remember, they're republicans.

[CreekDog]

70. i pretty much agree with you, except perhaps for one thing

you're a charitable person in thinking that the poster you're dealing with just wants a better deal for himself and is buying into some bad reasoning because he would personally benefit.

however, there's also the possibility that he doesn't think much of women and the idea of him being ripped off by them helps sustain the attitude and grievance towards them.

i prefer your version, you're better than me.

[Feral Child]

72. It had occurred to me

that there might be an ulterior motivation but I just don't want to get embroiled in addressing it. I'm not a gender-warrior, on either side. Too rough for me.

I did think it was important to undercut the industry's rationale. We're discussing the most cynical racket since Big Tobacco.

[lumberjack_jeff]

27. Of course. Tubal ligation is invasive, expensive and risky.

So explain what public policy interest is served by encouraging couples to choose major surgery instead of a minor outpatient procedure.

The public policy interest is getting votes.

[CreekDog]

26. more crap...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023943768

[lumberjack_jeff]

33. Thanks!

I appreciate your help getting the word out!

[CreekDog]

58. with all the trolls being PPR'd it must be hard to get help

[BainsBane]

16. In this thread they justify discrimination

Pretending there is something rational about an argument that justifies discrimination based on capitalist profit. We thus have proof of what you lay out in the OP, and the justification is the sanctity of the almighty dollar, clearly far more important than the lives of women. Isn't it comforting to know our so-called allies value insurance company profits more than women's lives. With "allies" like this, who needs enemies. I doubt many Republicans would advance such reactionary views. It takes people who consider women enemies to argue that health insurance profits should take precedent over equality in coverage and thus a woman's very right to survival.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

32. With "allies" like this, who needs enemies. again, Ba-Zinga!!

I doubt many Republicans would advance such reactionary views. It takes people who consider women enemies to argue that health insurance profits should take precedent over equality in coverage and thus a woman's very right to survival.

[brooklynite]

21. 74 participants...what's known in the biz as a "tight screen"

[CreekDog]

22. that's not the issue, the issue is that 9 regulars thought it was ok

[snooper2]

35. how do you define a regular?

Somebody that comes in every day...

Or somebody that drops by every other Friday and gets PLASTERED!

[CreekDog]

39. if you think one of them was wronged here why don't you say so?

[snooper2]

41. I don't have the list, a fucking meerkat ate my thumb drive

Then the bastard laughed at me!

[DirkGently]

34. Isn't the basic question really whether,

as a society, we should subsidize, to whatever extent necessary, any additional costs associated with the biological differences between men and women?

Do we not want women, and their intrinsically more complex biology, to be part of our society? Do we, for some reason think that women themselves should bear that burden? Pay that cost?

It just seems like the most petty, irrational thing in the world when something like maternity leave comes up, and the idea is that somehow women want "something for nothing" by ... being the bearers of children? As though, what? We'd prefer them to stop doing that? Or stop working if they're going to do that?

This is what I think of when I think of misogyny. We all want women around -- don't we? In our familes, in our workplaces, in homes and shops and on the bus. It's unquestionably a better world than it would be if everyone was a man.

And yet ... some would carp and whine that it costs some amount of time or money to care for and maintain the existence of the gender capable of bearing young. Like they're bitter about it and want to know why men should put up with the existence of women at all.

"Hey women! We like you and need to you for the continuing existence of our species and all, but if you're going to have female biology and stuff, don't expect us to help!"

So, if the question is, "Should we subsidize women's health by enforcing policies that artificially lower the cost of them doing anything associated with being a woman," isn't the answer a fairly easy

"Of course we should?"

[DrewFlorida]

55. Well said, I agree. However, misogyny is only one type of discrimination, we as a society need to...

take on all forms of discrimination.

[Comrade Grumpy]

42. Some people just like to argue. n/t

[CreekDog]

44. yes, you do, since you always post snide responses to my civil rights posts

congratulations.

[Comrade Grumpy]

48. ...

[CreekDog]

50. yes, you do

you think you don't argue? nothing wrong with arguing.

but arguing like a conservative? no time for that.

[Comrade Grumpy]

52. ...

[DrewFlorida]

49. As to the question of how much certain people should be charged, based on gender...

There should be no charge for healthcare in the U.S., all people should have healthcare provided at no charge. Some things should not be placed in the realm of the for profit market, healthcare, police protection, fire protection, education, prisons, to name a few.

With that said, it is never right to discriminate based on gender, whether that discrimination is against females or males. It's not all that complicated as some people make it seem, unfortunately, discrimination of all forms seems to be a problem every person has in some form or another. When discrimination becomes more serious is when it becomes ingrained in institutions, businesses, and government. That is when it affects people in larger ways, no insurance company (healthcare, auto, life or any other) should be allowed to charge a different cost to people based on gender, no business should be allowed to offer free drinks to women, while making men pay more, no police force should "Stop and Frisk" based on skin color, no employer should be allowed to hire/fire based on age, no wedding cake bakery should be allowed to refuse service based on sexual orientation.

I'm amazed that 100% didn't answer the poll as "it should be illegal".
I'm also amazed that those were the only choices, a third choice could have been, "it should be illegal to charge anyone for healthcare".

[CreekDog]

51. should it be illegal to tax someone for healthcare?

[DrewFlorida]

59. The United States Constitution directs the government "provide for the general welfare".

It also gives the government authority to tax people. It seems logical that making healthcare available to citizens would require taxation equal to the cost of healthcare. The U.S. Constitution also directs the government to "provide for the common defense", which the government does, and taxes citizens an amount equal to the cost of defense.

If you haven't figured out my response to your question, it is unequivocally NO, it should not be illegal to tax people for healthcare.

[CreekDog]

60. ok good

[hfojvt]

53. you think 74 votes and 17 votes

out of a population of 500 proves something?

The major un-reported poll result was

first poll - 85% did not vote
second poll - 97% did not vote

pretty huge majorities there.

and the population here may be higher than 500.

[CreekDog]

56. It means that a few sexists can sure make a lot of unpleasant noises here

i don't think i need peer review for that.

[riqster]

54. Game. Set. Match.