There Are Only Upsides
At least when you're the New York Times, and the topic is the new Health Care Reform law. Even for the Times, Denise Grady's breathless "Overhaul Will Lower the Costs of Being a Woman" is breathtaking in its worshipful tone.
"Being a woman is no longer a pre-existing condition" it begins. Oh-kay. We are told that insurance companies have traditionally discriminated against women by charging them different rates. "Until now, it has been perfectly legal in most states for companies selling individual health policies — for people who do not have group coverage through employers — to engage in “gender rating,” that is, charging women more than men for the same coverage, even for policies that do not include maternity care."
Kind of like how they charge different rates for life and auto insurance based on sex - but that's never mentioned - I mean not mentioned at all - because in those cases men are charged more, and so it's irrelevant.
This discrimination knows (or knew - the beatific new law forbids it) no bounds. "The rationale was that women used the health care system more than men. But some companies charged women who did not smoke more than men who did, even though smokers have more risks." My goodness those insurers are a wacky bunch - willfully eating extra claim expense covering male smokers cheaply just to give women a hard time. Although I'm a bit confused because later in the article we're assured that "insurance companies were masters at protecting their bottom line" - funny that they'd go to such trouble to overcharge women without any basis.
Of course "gender pricing" isn't the only mode of discrimination - individual insurers often do not offer maternity coverage - or if they did they might charge more for it. Not anymore! "It has to be a part of the premium just like heart attacks, prostate cancer or any other condition" that men willingly acquire at very high frequencies in their 20's and 30's.
And speaking of men, will they now have to pay more for insurance? We're never told that answer - but nothing Ms. Grady has written would lead me to believe that she doesn't expect women to now pay the same as men, without either's premiums being raised.
A prominent source of outrage in the article is the tale of a woman who was denied a policy because she had had a previous Caesaren delivery and the insurer, obviously concerned about having to be on the hook for another, declined her. The insurer explained that had she been "sterilized" they'd have approved the policy. Ah, that word "sterilized" - of such unfortunate word usage are major policy decisions born in this rational land of ours. How these costs are going to be covered in the individual market is again not even remotely discussed - it's like the loaves and fishes.
I exaggerated a bit when I implied there are no downsides mentioned. The main source for this "analysis", one Marcia D. Greenberger, the founder and co-president of the National Women’s Law Center, was quick to note that all is not peaches and cream. "Despite her enthusiasm for many aspects of the new law, Ms. Greenberger said she was profoundly disappointed in provisions that she thought would limit women’s access to abortion services." Well at least she provided a balanced view.
"Being a woman is no longer a pre-existing condition" it begins. Oh-kay. We are told that insurance companies have traditionally discriminated against women by charging them different rates. "Until now, it has been perfectly legal in most states for companies selling individual health policies — for people who do not have group coverage through employers — to engage in “gender rating,” that is, charging women more than men for the same coverage, even for policies that do not include maternity care."
Kind of like how they charge different rates for life and auto insurance based on sex - but that's never mentioned - I mean not mentioned at all - because in those cases men are charged more, and so it's irrelevant.
This discrimination knows (or knew - the beatific new law forbids it) no bounds. "The rationale was that women used the health care system more than men. But some companies charged women who did not smoke more than men who did, even though smokers have more risks." My goodness those insurers are a wacky bunch - willfully eating extra claim expense covering male smokers cheaply just to give women a hard time. Although I'm a bit confused because later in the article we're assured that "insurance companies were masters at protecting their bottom line" - funny that they'd go to such trouble to overcharge women without any basis.
Of course "gender pricing" isn't the only mode of discrimination - individual insurers often do not offer maternity coverage - or if they did they might charge more for it. Not anymore! "It has to be a part of the premium just like heart attacks, prostate cancer or any other condition" that men willingly acquire at very high frequencies in their 20's and 30's.
And speaking of men, will they now have to pay more for insurance? We're never told that answer - but nothing Ms. Grady has written would lead me to believe that she doesn't expect women to now pay the same as men, without either's premiums being raised.
A prominent source of outrage in the article is the tale of a woman who was denied a policy because she had had a previous Caesaren delivery and the insurer, obviously concerned about having to be on the hook for another, declined her. The insurer explained that had she been "sterilized" they'd have approved the policy. Ah, that word "sterilized" - of such unfortunate word usage are major policy decisions born in this rational land of ours. How these costs are going to be covered in the individual market is again not even remotely discussed - it's like the loaves and fishes.
I exaggerated a bit when I implied there are no downsides mentioned. The main source for this "analysis", one Marcia D. Greenberger, the founder and co-president of the National Women’s Law Center, was quick to note that all is not peaches and cream. "Despite her enthusiasm for many aspects of the new law, Ms. Greenberger said she was profoundly disappointed in provisions that she thought would limit women’s access to abortion services." Well at least she provided a balanced view.
posted by ziel | 3/30/2010 11:33:00 PM
2 Comments:
The application of anti-discrimination legislation (or attitudes) has always been problematic because insurance underwriting is all about discriminating among applicants in terms of risk.
Black men have shorter lifespans on average than do white or Asian men, but if life insurers take that into consideration (which they have every reason to do) are they not then guilty of "discriminating" against black men?
For whatever it's worth, women have higher morbidity rates, and thus higher medical bills, throughout their lives than do men, even though they outlive men. Unfortunately, the notion of non-discrimination is now so engrained in the social consciousness that even valid forms of discrimination will be criticized on the grounds of equity.
ps: I'm not at all surprised that this level of analysis made its way into the pages of the NY Times.
Black men have shorter lifespans on average than do white or Asian men, but if life insurers take that into consideration (which they have every reason to do) are they not then guilty of "discriminating" against black men?
They used to in fact charge different rates based on race explicitly, with different mortality tables as do with sex. That was stopped in the first half of the 20th century. Logically, underwriting should uncover any higher risks that race is merely a proxy for, but I'm guessing there are still higher risks associated with race not found by underwriting since there appears to be your standard Asian > White > Black mortality in the general population.
ps: I'm not at all surprised that this level of analysis made its way into the pages of the NY Times.
Sigh - I suppose it's a measure of my naivete that I'm still surprised by this, perhaps because there are still the odd Times articles that are so well done.
Ever since Duff Wilson's disgracefully credulous front-page article on the Duke rape "case", no one should ever trust the Times again. But I guess in my heart I keep hoping it's a passing phase.
Post a Comment
<< Home