Good job, wendy. I assume this is what Michelle Obama is out talking to women about, though I haven't heard one of the speeches.
I experienced much the same bias with my knee surgeon; the pre-surgery remarks are too icky to repeat here, but afterward, I was in immense pain; when I told him I couldn't take vicodin, he informed me that he "had no other drugs in his bag of tricks." Tricks. So i left the hospital with nothing. I assumed he was a simple misanthrope, now I wonder if he were a simple misogynist. I do know he was a simple Asshat.

Excellent post. Thanks for addressing this.

Thanks for that link about Michelle Obama's talks, Wendy; I had not seen it, nor had I heard any excerpts. I appreciate the additional information.

If women's health care is more expensive (and I see no evidence here that it is not) why -shouldn't- their health insurance be more expensive. That's how insurance works.

No one gets annoyed at auto insurance companies for charging people who drive cars that are more expensive to repair more money. Or people who drive cars that are frequently stolen, or frequently driven at 150 miles an hour.

It's the same thing. It just happens to affect your pet issue this time.

I was just about to post something similar. Actuarial tables are discriminating by nature. That's how the insurance companies can ensure they pay out their claims without bankrupting.

To show real discrimination, it would be required to show (with numbers) how healthcare costs with women were out of whack with insurance premiums as compared to men. There is essentially no data of that sort presented here. There certainly needs to be a discussion of that these numbers are arrived at as well.

Many at TPM speak in clucking tones of McCarthyism and public hysteria -- as they should. What they fail to realize is that the left also have their own public hysteria. The immediate presumption that women are discriminated against with no data is something that pervades many discussions and an example of this type of thinking. It goes right along with sexist notion that domestic abuse is primarily against women (it's not, stats -- which are most likely skewed against men for sociological reasons -- show that at least 40% of the abuse is women against men).

For the unsophisticated: I'm not saying women are or are not suffering unfairly -- I am saying that no evidence is presented here that they are. Aunt Sam's response to the blog ("Did you send this to CNN?") reminds me of the FNC and hillaryis44 crowd. She talks of using this "information" when none is provided.

You are really an Marxist, aren't you, oleeb?

"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."

There's nothing wrong with espousing a Marxist philosophy, of course, but to expect the US to become a Marxist state is sort of a non-starter in my view.

The response I made to CT below responds, in part, to you as well.

Aw, couldn't "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." also be a capitalist economist truism? If you are good at something, do it, and you are not only more productive, but make a better product, more money, and a more efficient economy.

I'm just being annoying--I kind of think that that Marxist quote is a bit vague to say the least.

And here I think we get into the issue of how health care should be provided and paid for. You’re talking about insurance, not health care. I don’t think gender discrimination in health care should be an insurance and actuarial issue. Social Security doesn’t discriminate on the basis of sex even though women generally have a longer life expectancy. Same for Medicare. Or at least, they didn’t last I knew - the Social Security calculator didn’t ask for sex, and Medicare didn’t list different premiums/benefits for men and women. I don’t think health care for everyone should be any different. (Frankly, I don’t think it should be a matter of insurance at all, but of course single payer is off the table.)

If the government is going to provide an option to private insurance, you will find it based on actuarial principles.

Social Security and Medicare on not based on actuarial principles as you correctly note. That is the reason that they are flawed systems and are going to fail -- Medicare within 8 years time.

People at TPM want to frame the debate in terms of Healthcare as Charity. Nice in sentiment - but unsustainable as policy. It's time for this group to come up with something truly sustainable.

Discrimination against women

Ok, it's true I have daughters and not sons, but even those who are innocent of female offspring are required (I think we still do it this way, don't we?) to enlist the co-operation (as it were) of a female in the instinctive process of leaving being a little self-replicating DNA.

What I'm driving at (get off the roundabout, Rogie) is that only if we just don't give a shit can we entertain the sort of arguments that CT et al favor us with.

What I'm sayin' is even if you don't have daughters, chances are you care about at least one woman, somewhere, (hell, maybe your mother).

Once you cross the "caring" threshold, the acturarial computations become an insult to your humanity.

As for the domestic violence=pre-existing condition tending to increase the acturial likelihood of big bills (trauma is so messy...) well, it is true, of course, but that is nothing to brag about. And if carried to it's logical conclusion, it would result in a lower premium for lesbian couples (less violence) and a higher one for het couples or gay male couples (even in the absence of a history of violence--the statistics, after all, do not lie...we are talking "probabilities" here, after all)

This is demonic math that only works in Hell.

If we choose to live in Hell, I guess we ought to apply these algorithms. Otherwise, they must prevoke emesis

Ah, the thought-police in action.

Believe me, if I want to say something on the basis of gender, I will. In the meantime, you can avoid the issues by bringing up non-issues like imagined sexism.

"Hysteria" is a gender-neutral word -- indeed, it's sexist of you to imply that only women can get hysterical. In fact, if you bothered to click through the reference I give, you will find Wikipedia using "hysteria" as well. It's also a term commonly references in terms of McCarthyism.

"Clucking" is also a gender neutral word. Indeed, I believe the way that I used it included male as well as female posters. I certainly don't want to excuse male behavior either.

Care to check me for imagined racist language now?

I noticed that so far that any challenges to the blog for specificity have gone unanswered and rather we see these off-topic retorts.

Only leads one to believe that the piece is not grounded in reality and is simply a red-meat piece under an old-styled feminist banner.

I have no dog in this fight (and I hope you don't read sexism into that phrase!) but I am interested in seeing something proved one way or another. So far, a thinking person would see nothing to base the assertions on. As typical of so much at TPM, it's either agree with some slogan or not.

Rather like the FNC, wouldn't you say?

Any proof for this:

But the women as a class are really getting the shaft.

You state it so categorically, it must be easy to show. I'd like to see it.

El Presidente you are an idiot. Anyone that works at a descent size company know that the insurance offered is not gender/age/race biased. I pay the same and my female counterparts, as my elderly counterparts, and my medically handi-capped counterparts, as my organic counterparts.

It's when people have to buy their own insurance, insurance companies become discriminatory. Actuary tables, and I was married to an actuary, are very complex formulas based on a lot more then just risk. Like willingness to pay, likelihood of usage, expected coverage period, and many others. So for you to claim that person a pays more then person b because they are a higher risk is false. Then you have to factor in the commissions of sales and like mortgages, the rates rarely reflect the actual risk. They profile, plain and simple and its about time that we make it illegal.

Insurance companies could give a rats ass about health or gender or the Man on the Moon, they care about maximizing profits. If they think you will pay $100 more then an identical risk, you will pay $100 more, it's that simple.

Plus your arguement basically boils down a vagina tax. I bet you would sing a different song if it was a moron surcharge or a penis levy. I suspect you would scream bloody murder.

Being the man that I am, I like woman who are conscious of their health. I like that they are disciplined enough to get checked out every year. Maybe instead of dissing them, you should appreciate how lucky it is to be a man who doesn't have to worry about things like mammograms and pap smears. I for one don't mind paying the same if it means healthier women.

And when you really think about, unless you are gay or celibate, the premium you think you are going to pay is the same premium your wife or girlfriend will be paying so why not just make is the same ?

CT --
All righty then.
I said to you, "provide the stats that prove these allegations wrong..."
to which you said, in response, in your own words, "...I have no dog in this fight (and I hope you don't read sexism into that phrase!) but I am interested in seeing something proved.... one way or another...."
Well, then, CT.
Since you accede to "one way or the other, then prove me wrong.

THANK YOU, Orlando. Footnotes, other than links to articles, are not my forte.
So, CT and El Presidente -- next?

Emesis: a new sport derived from curling, in which the "c" is replaced by an "h."

I thought I was clear that the numbers you cite add up--but the calculus is based upon flawed appreciation of the common good.

I believe you have made the very argument against the commodification of health care and acturial pricing of health care access

I will take a look at them. As I said, now we can talk numbers.

Of course, there is no point in talking about them with you, because you didn't even make an attempt.

You just hoped something would show up or you could cow someone into submission.

For a teacher, you have no intellectual rigor at all in your discussion.

Do my school taxes go up because my child is special needs? or down because I have no child? It evens out - that's why we pay for schools (and should pay for health care) as a 'society' and not as individuals.

Excellent point.

cluck
1  /klʌk/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [kluhk]
–verb (used without object)
1. to utter the cry of a hen brooding or calling her chicks.
2. to make a similar sound; express concern, approval, etc., by such a sound.
–verb (used with object)
3. to call or utter by clucking.

Since you inserted the term into the commentary of an article pertaining solely to women, the burden would be upon you to show a non-feminine origin of a cluck.

Thank you, E2, for all your points, but in particular for those Orlando just noted as well as for your professional validation -- not only as a woman yourself, but also as a legal representative -- of those involved in cases in which the experience of a woman pertains.
We've all had that experience of bias, in one way or another. We know. Only the doubting Thomases, or their kin known my different names, protest that it cannot be so.

Step right up, folks... yes, it's CELERY BOY (TM), in full flight!

WATCH IN HORROR as he ignores the great and flamingly obvious fact that most Western nations provide health care without discrimination, while also managing to be NOT MARXIST!...

FEEL THE CHILL as he double dares to pull a McCarthy, by leaping back to the past to retrieve one of America's greatest BOOOOOOOGEY MEN.... HERRRRRRRRE'S MARX!!!!

GASP IN INTELLECTUAL DISBELIEF as Celery Boy (TM) then attaches the completely irrelevant boogey man Marx to health care...

AND THEN TO THE COMMENTER HIMSELF!!!

Step right up folks! But STRAP ON YOUR HELMETS for CELERY BOY (TM)'s GRAND FINALE!! That's right... as he concludes with his hard-won, worldly-wise wisdom... that to "expect the US to become a Marxist state is a non-starter." WOW! What a show! What a staggering irrelevancy! And what an attempt! Going the full JOE MCCARTHY on Oleeb, and backers of health care reform!

"CELERY BOY!! And you thought he only talked out of that ass!"

I for one don't mind paying the same if it means healthier women.

That's what I was trying to say. (CT take note...)

As a representative and also personally. I've been through divorce, unjustified firing, and a bunch of other hard knocks, but nothing ... nothing! .. damaged me as much or left me as bitter as the indifferent, insulting medical care I received - for years. And it is the only time in my life that I felt - no, I knew! - that I was the victim of discrimination.

"But to me the most striking part of your post, Wendy, is the part about discrimination in the quality of care...the only clear, unmistakeable incidents of serious, blatant gender discrimination I encountered was in this area: women who were mocked and sent away with symptoms that were routinely considered both serious and urgent when presented by a male patient."

Well, Jon Taplin wrote that one result of the national health sytem in Australia was women entering the general practice field in larger numbers, due to its lower pay and greater schedule flexibility.

More women GPs help may mean a more sympathetic audience for women patients like you and wwstaebler compellingly describe. Of course, the "numbers" people jumped all over Taplin for his daring to raise the possibility of gender difference leading to changes in how care is delivered. You're not gonna win with some of the people here.

Ha!
You raise a good point: are curling moms strong and sure because, for years, they have had national health care and docs would think again before treating them with disdain?
On another, unrelated subject, how do you explain the film noir to which I was treated in Nova Scotia this summer, called "Winnipeg,Winnipeg"?

It is also the case that within employee group plans women are routinely denied claims for routine and medically significant services that only women reqire. For example, many health insurance companies do not cover mamagrams which are very important as women age, and so numerous states have had to pass laws requiring them to do so. The only reason they had to do that was the insurance companies were trying to push the cost off on the women to fatten their profits. Many companies and many policies do not cover birth control... pills particularly, again in an effort to fatten profits at the expense of women. These are just two examples.

This is simply wrong but is part of the elaborate game played by insurance companies to prevent having to pay out on claims.

Where this is especially troublesome is in the fiftyish age group, of single or divorced women (or men), who have gotten laid off because of economic conditions or because of age discrimination. They can't get a decent job because of age and many can't afford cobra payments. This particualr group has virtually nowhere to turn to. I suspect they are categorically the most underserved group in the country.

Your presence, in fact your very existence, renders this anything but a friendly environment.

He's 6'-2"; I'm 5'-6" -- so that would be a a no, a non, or a non sequitur, but who's measuring?

It's true, Oleeb. But I'll only say this one more time: my claim for an annual Ob/Gyn exam was denied because, according to the group health care provider, I had the pre-existing condition of...menopause. I guess that means that a woman past child-bearing age doesn't deserve to be screened for cancer, etc..

hahhahaahahahaha

GODDAMN IT ALL. IF EVERYONE HAS ACCESS TO SOMETHING, WELL THEN IT CANNOT POSSIBLY BE WORTH MUCH.

COMMIE

Hey, what don't you understand about the following sentence:

Many at TPM speak in clucking tones of McCarthyism and public hysteria -- as they should.

Perhaps you are so sexist as to think that only women comment on women isues?

I'm tired of the left playing racist and sexist cards. Especially whites that tell blacks what's racist or not. No wonder the left can't get it's voice heard.

The next time someone here whines about how the right uses "patriotism" to undercut arguments, I will remind them that people at TPM do the exact same thing.

Ah! "Stalking"... the last cry of the rogue with nothing left to say. You believe that people should be able to withdraw forever from an infinite well. Well, the well isn't infinite. It's finite. Therefore you policy amounts to disaster.

Hard as it is for you to accept, you are as far left as the religious extremes are to the right.

And Ted Kennedy is dead. Hooking your arms around him doesn't bolster your argument. It's a nice oratory point for a speech, but not convincing as an argument -- especially since he will never speak from the grave.

According to you Elizabeth, it must not be gender either (given the difference between you and Wendy). I think there is more insight in comment about insurance companies and non-uniformity than simple "gender discrimination". This, of course, makes far more sense than simply playing a "sexism" card.

behind closed doors

Does the urging you relate contribute to the reification of your municipal motto?

Unum Cum Virtute Multorum

Asswipe

I just realized, you remind me of the Black Knight...

"Come back here and fight! I'll bite your knee caps off!"

Here's some statistics to back up your claim that over 50% of those who are losing jobs are men.

I find it difficult to have a discussion when people just throw out numbers without any statistical backup. It often happens when someone has a deep-seated emotional tie to the issue, so I understand that it's not your fault so much as a deficiency of your character. I hope the link helps you to clarify your thinking for next time.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

The piggy said interconnectedness. Heh.

Yeah Wendy. I always was the most expensive to cover, and that was even after signing agreements that pregnancy would not be covered.

It's pretty obscene, really.

GASP IN INTELLECTUAL DISBELIEF

I s it OK if I "cluck" in disbelief?

people could still be paying at different levels of premium based on their demographic groups and their personal health history, but the variation would be much less,

Absolutely true, an excellent point, and not mentioned nearly enough by those pushing for this type of system. The larger the pool, the less disparity based on the particular grouping.

:)

Once again, short sightedness trying to justify itself. It can't.

Are women not people? If you prick us, do we not bleed?

Actually, Oralndo this has been going on for 10 years or more. What strikes me is that women as a group may be less healthy because we have been subject to discrimination.

I wanted to drop myself from the family policy because I was the most expensive to cover, as a result, I do not seek routine medical care for fear it will lead to higher rates for my family.

I doubt I'm alone. In fact, I know I'm not.

and BTW....

The insurance company wins in the long term when a woman has a child, their payout over their lifetime is several hundred times what it costs them to cover her pregnancy and delivery...

How did this happen? They should be paying US.

Why Clearthinker, you rude little flucker, you.

Ahhhh, municipal virtues.

And household cats named Virtute.

Having gone through the link that Orlando kindly provided gives one pause. Sure, it's easy to say "sexism", but then again, it's easy to look upon those on the right who "want their country back". Both are simple emotional responses to things that haven't been thought through. Wendy, in particular, talked above (to me) about not just hopping on board for "things we know to be true." Excuse me? Like those who just "know" that the country has gone downhill because of Obama?

If you take a look at the report, Orlando correctly points out that there is a disparity between laws for employer provided health care and privately provided. This is a much larger issue than gender discrimination. There simply should be one standard and one standard only. That would eliminate the injustice for all. But it's not a women's issue per se.

Then there's this gem that everyone seemed to neglect from the report:

In particular, women are often charged higher premiums than men during their reproductive years. Holding other factors constant, a 22 year old woman can be charged one and a half times the premium of a 22 year old man. This difference largely disappears – and sometimes reverses – by age 64.

So apparently the issue isn't women, it's reproduction -- at least in a large measure. Not surprising. And for those who made the argument above that people choose their cars but don't choose their genders, well... I guess if more women chose not to have children (which is good for other reasons), then this criterion can be conveniently handled as a "maternity" package. Again, this isn't really an issue of discrimination against women - despite the fact that only women can have children.

(On the other hand, I'd be all for abortions to be covered as a standard part of health care package because there are huge societal benefits for that.)

In fact, if you really read the report, you will see that women aren't discriminated against... but the situations they are often in are the issue. Orlando alludes to this and it's very intellectually honest to do so.

Men are often in jobs that have significant insurance requirements (e.g. construction) and that adds to the disparity. Is it gender discrimination? No. It's a type of job discrimination.

We live in a society where women want their spouse to earn more then them. Studies show the mothers don't really want to have full time work. How can this be? It's because the guy is typically the prime breadwinner. It's hardly surprising then, that women are in a different place in terms of insurance. As the study Orlando cites points out:

Even when they work for an employee that offers coverage, one in six is not eligible to take it, often because they are part-time workers. They end up either covered through a spouse (41%), purchasing insurance directly through the individual market (5%), on public programs (10%), or uninsured (38%).

Indeed, the title of the study is:

Women are more vulnerable to high health care costs than men.

This is not "discrimination"... but it is a true statement carefully supported in the article. It also talks how women cost more in terms of medical care for a variety of reasons. And we can throw in that women live longer than men. These issues go a long way to show why their costs are higher. As Orlando correctly points out (again), the larger the pool of people, the less variance you'd have for this additional care and that would make women less vulnerable. But since they require more from the system in general, it's hardly surprising that their bills are higher.

However, what did we see from this blog? The title was: "Gender Discrimination in Health Care" as if the medical profession were targeting women because they were women. Individual cases notwithstanding (and it will be interesting if Elizabeth can bring up some stats on her cases that she alludes to), it's clear that the situations that women are in can cause harm, but not their gender per se. Therefore, it's an unfair characterization of a carefully written report. The report cited does make one bait-and-switch, however:

Moreover, it is still legal in 9 states for insurers to reject applicants who are survivors of domestic violence.

The tacit (and incorrect) assumption here is that nearly all domestic abuse cases are men on women, when stats show that only about 60% are. So, again, we see that we need to correct on the basis of situation, not on gender.

This is the prime reason that I kept insisting on proof of the statements rather than mere "acceptance" because it's something we "all know". Because as we can see, the problems in the system have nothing to do with women per se, but the types of jobs that statistically more women find themselves in. That is where the injustice is... That is clear thinking.

It would therefore be wrong to walk away from this blog with the meme that "women are put up by the insurance community" -- at least on the basis of the article that Orlando cites.

However, since we are talking about things we "just know", I thought I'd throw this little thought out. Are women more tolerant as a gender?

Studies suggest not.

In fact, studies have shown that men maintain larger social networks with other males compared to women and tend to have longer lasting friendships with members of the same-sex than do women.

So much for things we "just know".

I totally agree. But not all managers are smart.

Oh Lordie, where to begin. How about here?:

You are aware that half of employer health plans do not cover contraceptives?

http://www.afscmeinfocenter.org/2009/09/equitable-prescription-drug-coverage-preventing-sex-discrimination-in-employer-provided-health-plans.htm

More insurance plans cover viagra.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=91538

Let's recap. Cover women of child bearing age at a higher cost because they might have children. Don't provide contraceptives coverage. Don't provide abortion coverage. Men get coverage for their reproductive issues.

Is that a clear enough indication of gender bias in the insurance industry?

Whenever I hear discussion about abortion there is always some self-described feminist who claim that "contraceptives are a man's issue". Of course, I don't agree.

And I would love it if contraceptives were covered by insurance. I'd love it if it weren't even an insurance issue -- simply make them available for anyone, regardless of income. Especially regardless of income.

But how is that a gender issue?

Dij, we are in violent agreement. The issue is to help people not have children. But again, contraceptives are not a gender issue. So I don't agree that this is a point of gender discrimination.

CT, overlooking the usual condescension in your comment, you're in general making a point with which I disagree. However, I can see how you've arrived at that point.

But when you switched to tacitly suggesting that somehow the problem of domestic violence against men matches the problem of domestic violence against women, you lose me.

The American Bar Association tracks domestic violence statistics:

http://www.abanet.org/domviol/statistics.html

Although I didn't get my calculator out, in terms of real numbers, it appears that you are close in suggesting that 60% of domestic violence is perpetrated on women and 40% on men. However, deliberately or not, you're leaving out many pieces of the puzzle. I can slap a man I'm living with and it might be considered domestic violence. I can punch him. Same thing. But my slap and my punch are truly sad to behold because I have no upper body strength. So, against a man who is likely to be larger and stronger than I am, even my hardest punch is unlikely to do more than bruise him. His hardest punch, however, could break my jaw and send me to the emergency room. Do I have statistics for that? No. But I have common sense, which in this case is all I need. (But p.s. the ABA statistics state that 84% of the spousal abuse victims are women, which suggests that when the relationship lasts, women bear the overwhelming brunt of the physical abuse.)

Here's another link to the Bureau of Justice Statistics:

http://www.ojp.gov/bjs/cvict_c.htm

I can't tell if you're advocating that domestic violence should be a preexisting condition, but by that logic, men should pay higher premiums or violence against them should also be considered a preexisting condition because they are at a much higher risk to be the victim of a violent crime, especially at the hands of a stranger.

So, because you're a man, you should pay more for medical insurance than I do because you're more likely to get capped.

Your tendency to view women as nothing more than potential breeders who must be punished by society every which way for the potential of bearing children is abhorrent. I'm a self-described feminist and contraception is a societal issue, not a men's or women's issue.

While insurers can't technically discriminate against pregnant women, they can choose to engage in gender bias by not covering birth control pills or devices. Women take contraceptive pills, not men. If they're covered by insurance, let's assume $30 / month. For the uninsured, how much are they expected to pay?

If you want to dis-incentivize population growth, pass tax penalties instead of tax credits for children that will be borne equally by both parents. Send a fax to your representatives about that.

I thought we were talking about healthcare and its' relative availability to the sexes. Now you tell me the discussion is about contraception and the onus of responsibility? LOL.

Sorry, Orlando, you are way off here:

I can slap a man I'm living with and it might be considered domestic violence. I can punch him. Same thing. But my slap and my punch are truly sad to behold because I have no upper body strength.

I see... so it's damage that counts? Geeze, some women will stop at nothing to perpetuate the stereotype of the poor weak woman. (Just imagine if I had said that?) Here's some anecdotal evidence in return -- men today can't punch back because they would be accused of hitting a woman.

Bottom line?

The rate of intimate partner violence in the U. S. has declined since 1993.[37] The rate of minor assaults by women was 78 per 1,000 couples, compared with a rate for men of 72 per 1,000. The severe assault rate was 46 per 1,000 couples for assaults by women and 50 per 1,000 for assaults by men. Neither difference is statistically significant.

So let's cut through your nonsense. Intent is intent, abuse is abuse, and psychological damage is psychological damage. In fact, in today's society, try to convince someone that the woman was crazy and started it. (No, I've never been involved in situations like this, but a friend was. Try convincing the cops that there was an issue. You see? Gender stereotyping works both ways.)

As far as advocating for domestic violence being a pre-existing condition? That's just plain dumb, Orlando. You want to see stuff where there is none. Next you'll be putting a Hitler mustache on my avatar.

Such a shame since you made so many good points here.

Your fellow TPMs part company with you. When tmccarthy0 had her little blog, you should have seen the responses.

I don't see women as breeders. But the rest of society wants me to... hence the basic unfairness in the abortion laws (the man is required to be financially responsible even if he wants the woman to have an abortion) as an example.

The fact is that both men and women breed. The sooner we come to that conclusion the better.

And please read my original response: I am all for handing out free contraception! As I said, we are in violent agreement, dij.

Ah, good old Godwin.

We're talking about healthcare, so, yeah, it's damage that counts. And I have an acquaintance who was arrested and charged for assaulting her husband, so I guess the cops in my town aren't so hard to convince.

As for domestic violence as a preexisting condition, that was mentioned upthread and that's the only mention of domestic violence until you brought it up. Your position wasn't clear. I agree that it's dumb to consider it a preexisting condition. Dumb and immoral.

Ok. I give. Discussing the issue of this post with you is like having a discussion with the paranoid schizophrenic who haunts the park where I walk my dog. Your intellectual constructs are too rich for me. Sayonara.

Dude: you just said contraception is a non-gender issue. End of story.

And we both hope that sometime in the future it will be covered... or given away.

Good night, Orlando. Sleep well.

My point, CT, is that when you are selling a policy for millions of people (I work for a very *large* government entity), it all evens out: gender, age, physical condition, etc. For every chronically ill person there will be someone - or several someones - who simply never get sick.

Look -- if it makes sense for "society" and is fair for people with valuable property to pay more for school taxes than people with cheap property, then why can't people who have a higher income pay more for health care than those with low salaries? If everyone is insured, those "actuarial" differences even out, and our whole society is better off if everyone has basic good health (or basic good care if they don't).

Those who want and can pay for more, better services - i.e., private schools, "Cadillac" health policies" - can get them. But everyone in our country is assured of the basics for good, productive life: education, essential health care.

The insurers are trying to pull a fast one - well, actually they are succeeding. They pay out to the whole "mass" of their insured, where the individual differences evens out .... but they charge/provide coverage based on the individual differences. It reminds me a lot of many Repubican arguments on a variety of things: you can put it into words and there is without doubt a surface logic to it .... but it just doesn't play out if you really think it through.

The insurance companies still want to increase their profits - that's what companies are in business to do and that's great. But instead of gouging or running away specific individuals, they can invest in physical fitness programs, mass screenings, innoculations, etc. They would probably gain more that way than they do now, in fact.

It was far more blatant than discrimination in hiring practices -- FAR more. And far more personally humiliating: the victims were already suffering and they were being told, by those with knowledge and in authority, that is was something wrong with *them* ---- The conditions ranged from active infection to what are termed "sports injuries" when suffered by men (and "figments of imagination" when suffered by non-athletic women) --- and the providers ranged from small town GPs to Leahy Clinic in Boston and Univ. of Chicago medical center. The former were more personally abusive - not an exaggeration in the least -- than the latter, but neither gave serious, patient consideration. ---- Success in litigation is measured in many ways: a lawsuit "won" or a settlement that addresses the patient's needs and assures good treatment in the future (the type of resolution I prefer), so that's not a really valid criteria.