Consider this in relation to the Fluke testimony. Remember that sad story? She looks vigorous and healthy, but she requires a minimum of $1000 per year in healthcare handouts for her birth control alone. I recall being her age. I don't recall imposing any healthcare costs on anyone for my birth control. So, she's a woman and I'm a man.
How does insurance work?
C'mon, I'm almost embarrassed to ask. But, it appears that most Americans don't really understand the concept of pooled risk. They seem to believe that it is a magical bean sort of situation in which you chip in a bean or two and it grows magically into a huge beanstalk of golden egg-laying geese that drips money into doctors and hospitals. There is no asset/liability computation involved.
That's not true, of course.
Healthy people pay a premium so that a small proportion of people needing medical service can have the cost defrayed. If only the elderly or high risk people subscribed to the insurance then rates would be outrageously high. Risk determines rate. QED.
Women Pay More For Healthcare Insurance Than Men
Why does the NYT think that is newsworthy? Can't they apply basic Flukonomics? Women consume a lot more healthcare at an age that men do not.
Birth control, mammograms, Pap smears, PMS medications, pre-natal care, OB/GYN services, etc. etc. What do men use at the same age? An ace bandage for a softball game induced ankle sprain?