Hacker News Reader

Comment by cameldrv | Hacker News Reader

It’s a tough philosophical question as to whether it is fair to discriminate based on gender to determine insurance rates. In the U.S. we split the difference. For car insurance and life insurance, where men have significantly greater risk, men pay more, because they cost the insurance company more. For health insurance, where women cost the insurance company more, insurance companies are forced to charge the same rates, because it’s wrong to make someone pay more for something based on an inherent trait they have no control over.

View on HN

That doesn't seem like splitting the difference as much as putting the costs on men...

Obviously you never tried getting private insurance that covers pregnancy pre-ACA. Always a separate rider, always expensive. Whoopsie if you didn't catch that fact, failed to get a separate rider, then went on to have pregnancy complication. Hello bankruptcy! Hell, even with the pregnancy rider, a complicated pregnancy put a lot of insured people into the poorhouse.

Pregnancy complication example #1. Even with insurance, pregnancy can be treated as a preexisting condition and denied coverage. Wonder if her plan excluded the rider?

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/canadian-woman-gives-birth-americ...

"For health insurance, where women cost the insurance company more, insurance companies are forced to charge the same rates, because it’s wrong to make someone pay more for something based on an inherent trait they have no control over."

I don't think this hypothesis is consistent with the fact that ACA plan rates depend on your age, which you have no control over.

They split the baby on that one too. Old people can only be charged 3x as much as young people, but the actuarial difference between an 18 year old and a 65 year old is something like 10x, which used to be the price difference too.

How is it splitting the difference when the choices are

1) men pay more

2) men and women pay the same

Reply on news.ycombinator.com