Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I kinda like women. What a lousy place without them so while the thread is pretty lame, I'll just say that I am perfectly fine with helping out any way I can.
Great. No one will stop you from voluntarily giving as much of your own money as you want to support women's health care. I'm sure they'd appreciate it.
I don't think there should be discrimination based on that. I just think it is interesting how when there is a gap which is not politically correct to mention that no one even mentions it even if it's a huge cost.
It is interesting though how a labor pool of 100 women from age 19 to 44 would incur a 70% health care cost to the employer as opposed to a pool of 100 men.
It does impact employers bottom lines as health insurance is a massive expense for employers but I don't believe in discrimination under any circumstance.
I just think it is interesting how wide the gap is and how it has never been mentioned.
Women are biologically much more prone to health problems, so I'm not sure why you're surprised.
Of course it impacts an employer's bottom line. Employing actual human beings in general tends to work like that.
If all women were housewives, men would need to be paid double in order to pay the bills. That would mean costing the employee 100% more of the man's entire compensation package rather than 70% of just the health insurance.
I don't think there should be discrimination based on that. I just think it is interesting how when there is a gap which is not politically correct to mention that no one even mentions it even if it's a huge cost.
It is interesting though how a labor pool of 100 women from age 19 to 44 would incur a 70% health care cost to the employer as opposed to a pool of 100 men.
It does impact employers bottom lines as health insurance is a massive expense for employers but I don't believe in discrimination under any circumstance.
I just think it is interesting how wide the gap is and how it has never been mentioned.
I've seen the statement at our company for health insurance for all our employees. Women's insurance premiums are several hundred dollars a month more than our men's insurance, for people about the same age. Which means women employees typically see considerably more in compensation (when health insurance is included) than a male employee with the same experience and skills. When women complain about making less than men-they rarely admit that their health insurance compensation often far outstrips any take-home pay difference.
Even without pregnancy, in my experience women utilize a lot more health care then men, at least in their 20s-50s. Between the time I was 18 and 50, IIRC I went to a doctor twice, both for stitches for minor injuries-and neither approached my deductible. My wife, and other women I was with at a younger age, went to the Drs regularly, at least several times a year.
Last edited by Toyman at Jewel Lake; 04-20-2019 at 09:32 PM..
I don't believe in any sort of discrimination but it is interesting how it's never mentioned how much more expensive it is to hire 100 women from 19 to 44 years old as opposed to men 19 to 44 years old?
70% higher health costs per-capita in average because of much higher obesity rates, much much higher rates of chronic and autoimmune diseases and on average two very expensive pregnancies.
Seems like employers that are paying men and women the same (which is a noble goal) actually have much larger compensation packages for the 19 to 44 years age groups because of health care costs.
Women according to the NIH have much higher rates of obesity, much much higher rates of auto immune diseases plus the average women has about 2 babies from 19 to 44 years of age which must be priced into employers health insurance policies.
I think it is interesting how they don't mention that it is much, much more expensive to hire females from 19 to 44 years of age than it is males because of the health insurance costs.
You are conflating many unrelated issues.
1. First of all, who is this "they" you speak of?
2. Hiring an employee is different than offering benefits. In jobs that don't offer health care benefits, this would be a moot point.
3. For jobs that do offer healthcare benefits, the employer gets quotes from insurance companies. How the insurance companies decide on the premium amount is an actuarial matter that the employer is not privy to. Pricing includes all potential health matters faced by the employees of BOTH genders. That would include men and their ED products, prostate cancer, the instances of heart disease, etc.
4. Did you miss the memo? There are millions of obese MEN.
5. HIRING and benefits are two separate matters.
There is no conspiracy against men. If we really want to go down the road of not covering female specific healthcare needs, we need to do the same for male specific healthcare needs.
Women also live longer thus receive more benefits in old age. Care to tell us by how much more when compared to men?
There has always been free stuff given in society, trying to remove this factor is what is undermining the very basis it stands on. 3 months paid maternity leave is the standard in most of the world; only the US, Suriname, Papa New Guinea and a few tiny island don't have it.
Why not just import women from poor countries? If she gets sick you could just send her back and get another in healthy condition. This is what the world will come to because it is more profitable.
Great. No one will stop you from voluntarily giving as much of your own money as you want to support women's health care. I'm sure they'd appreciate it.
As a society we have decided to see to the health care needs of all. This is a throw away reply to your throw away reply.
You are as free to go off by yourself and not be a part of the society overall.
It's ridiculous to tie health coverage to employers. This is a major failure in ACA. Health insurance should be on the private market just like any other insurance. One shouldn't need an employer to get insurance.
How is this a failure of the ACA? Health insurance tied to employment was already the case before the ACA, and the ACA set up exchanges to allow you to buy private health insurance independent of your employment.
Those exchange might not have been as successful as expected, but the law certainly did nothing to encourage employment based health insurance.
I don't believe in any sort of discrimination but it is interesting how it's never mentioned how much more expensive it is to hire 100 women from 19 to 44 years old as opposed to men 19 to 44 years old?
70% higher health costs per-capita in average because of much higher obesity rates, much much higher rates of chronic and autoimmune diseases and on average two very expensive pregnancies.
Seems like employers that are paying men and women the same (which is a noble goal) actually have much larger compensation packages for the 19 to 44 years age groups because of health care costs.
Um, women don't get pregnant by themselves (at least most of the time). So half of those pregnancy costs are on the man too.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
