Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Men's Group

Major Nikon

(36,827 posts)

16. I would go two steps farther

Reply to Warren DeMontague (Reply #9)

Thu Oct 11, 2012, 06:15 AM

Oct 2012

Which is to do what other countries do which is universal coverage and basing premiums progressively on income rather than risk. However this is a progressive idea that is beyond the small American's mind to grasp.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

20 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Double standard in reporting gender based insurance costs [View all] 4th law of robotics Oct 2012 OP

Exactly right. lumberjack_jeff Oct 2012 #1

I spent around 20 or so years as a insurance underwriter... TreasonousBastard Oct 2012 #2

"Messing with the system for political purposes doesn't change the arithmetic . . . " 4th law of robotics Oct 2012 #6

Lots of actuarial data exists. lumberjack_jeff Oct 2012 #10

Oops! Just reread my post and what I meant was... TreasonousBastard Oct 2012 #11

Try as I might- digonswine Oct 2012 #3

In both cases people are charged more due to their gender 4th law of robotics Oct 2012 #4

I'm glad you were not comparing the two as equal- digonswine Oct 2012 #5

As I explained upthread, they are equivalent... TreasonousBastard Oct 2012 #7

I understand that from the insurer's viewpoint- digonswine Oct 2012 #8

I agree with all that 4th law of robotics Oct 2012 #13

I'm not even sure how you would make the argument from a social justice viewpoint Major Nikon Oct 2012 #17

I plug any argument or discussion around Health Insurance into my operating system, and I always get Warren DeMontague Oct 2012 #9

"US gets single payer health care system! Women expected to be benefit most" 4th law of robotics Oct 2012 #12

Everyone would win. Warren DeMontague Oct 2012 #14

I would go two steps farther Major Nikon Oct 2012 #16

Hmm, I would think that a SPHC funded through taxes would do that sort of automatically Warren DeMontague Oct 2012 #19

Just because something is discriminatory, doesn't mean it's wrong Major Nikon Oct 2012 #15

Yup. The opposite of "discriminate" is "indiscriminate" lumberjack_jeff Oct 2012 #18

I think it is counterproductive to universal and/or single payer Major Nikon Oct 2012 #20