Women pay up to 50% more for health insurance premiums

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

It just isn't right, is it.

No, it isn't. The overt penalizing of women of child bearing age should raise quite some outrage in this pro-life country of ours, shouldn't it?

"Overt penalizing" man, you are out-there~!

Next time you order a pizza with all the toppings... see if they penalize you and make you pay more for that too.

It's a cruel world my friend, go in business with your mind-set and see how long you last.

If an employer would charge female employees of child bearing age more for the same health plan than it would charge non-child bearing age female employees or male employees, that employer would rightfully have a discrimination lawsuit slapped on them faster than I can type this response.

If, on the other hand, any employee of such company elects a higher coverage plan option or elects to cover dependents (that's the pizza with all the toppings, if you will), then that employee would reasonably expect to pay higher premiums and there's nothing wrong with that because here, the higher premium is due to a choice an employee makes.

Last I checked, age and gender are exactly items of choice. But I'm the one that's "out there".

[mawilson 2,133]

If an employer would charge female employees of child bearing age more for the same health plan than it would charge non-child bearing age female employees or male employees, that employer would rightfully have a discrimination lawsuit slapped on them faster than I can type this response.

I doubt that. In this country, employers can pay or charge their employees whatever

the heck they want.

If they want to pay a woman of child-bearing age less than a man, they are certainly free to do so.

Pay and health care benefits are subject to negotiation and are a function of your qualifications

and seniority, not age or gender.

[DeadPoolX 9]

I simply don't believe women earn less than men (at least on average, anyway). Here's why: if employers can consistently pay women less than men, why would they ever hire a man? In most cases, men and women can have equal education and skill sets. So if there are two employees with relatively similar backgrounds, why take the one who'd cost the employer more?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

You're forgetting that there's an unspoken assumption that a young woman (especially married) is more likely than not to have a child at some point in the not too distant future - and the company will be required to pay mandatory maternity leave with no guarantee that the woman will come back to work.

That seems to be the thinking. It's an unspoken discrimination - but discriminatory nonetheless.

Edited October 27, 2009 by Gene Hunt

[Empress of Groovy 373]

Insurance of any type is inherently "discriminatory" (in the broader sense of the word) and based on defined risk factors. It doesn't seem right that this model should apply to a basic need like health care, but there you go...

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Insurance of any type is inherently "discriminatory" (in the broader sense of the word) and based on defined risk factors. It doesn't seem right that this model should apply to a basic need like health care, but there you go...

Aye.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

If an employer would charge female employees of child bearing age more for the same health plan than it would charge non-child bearing age female employees or male employees, that employer would rightfully have a discrimination lawsuit slapped on them faster than I can type this response.

I doubt that. In this country, employers can pay or charge their employees whatever the heck they want.

If they want to pay a woman of child-bearing age less than a man, they are certainly free to do so.

Pay and health care benefits are subject to negotiation and are a function of your qualifications

and seniority, not age or gender.

Actually, you'd be wrong. While employers can charge for health insurance whatever the heck they want - or not provide any such benefit at all - they cannot discriminate based on gender or age. Nor can they pay a woman of child bearing age less than a man for the same work performed.

Equal Pay and Compensation Discrimination

[mawilson 2,133]

Nor can they pay a woman of child bearing age less than a man for the same work performed.

For the same work, yes. Which is almost never the case in real life.

Also:

"Pay differentials are permitted when they are based on seniority, merit, quantity or

quality of production, or a factor other than sex."

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Nor can they pay a woman of child bearing age less than a man for the same work performed.

For the same work, yes. Which is almost never the case in real life.

Also:

"Pay differentials are permitted when they are based on seniority, merit, quantity or quality of production, or a factor other than sex."

Your original statement was that "If they want to pay a woman of child-bearing age less than a man, they are certainly free to do so." - and the fact is that they're not free to do so.

If they want to pay a less productive, less senior, less experienced worker that happens to be female less than the more senior, more productive and/or more experienced worker that happens to be male, than that's okay because the lower pay is based on something other than gender.

[HAL 9000 96]

Is it still the case that Viagra is covered more than birth control pills?

[mawilson 2,133]

Your original statement was that "If they want to pay a woman of child-bearing age less than a man, they are certainly free to do so." - and the fact is that they're not free to do so.

They usually are - they can always give the man more non-contractual benefits,

such as discretionary bonuses which are not covered by the EPA.

[DeadPoolX 9]

Is it still the case that Viagra is covered more than birth control pills?

Maybe they figure that if the man can't have an erection, there's no need for birth control pills.

[HAL 9000 96]

Is it still the case that Viagra is covered more than birth control pills?

Maybe they figure that if the man can't have an erection, there's no need for birth control pills.

I'm being serious. This in light of premiums being divergent...

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Is it still the case that Viagra is covered more than birth control pills?

It's still a man's world.

[AlHayatZween 2]

Can i just inject a note of good cheer in this discussion?

After 2 months of haggling, my new health insurance company is going to waive the pre-existing condition on my maternity. Doctor bills are covered... now on to the hospital bills!

A celebration of small, but very important victories!