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 Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

TreasonousBastard

(43,049 posts)
6. That number includes maternity...
Wed Sep 4, 2013, 01:42 AM
Sep 2013
Although we were able to estimate the role of females' longevity on their greater lifetime expenditures, our age-specific expenditure data did not come with diagnostic codes. Thus, the data did not permit us to assess the other obvious source of male–female difference: pregnancy and the childbirth process. Presumably, much of the male–female difference in expenditures during the reproductive years is attributable to pregnancy and childbirth. Using different methods, Mustard et al. (1998) concluded that differences in mortality-related expenditures combined with women's sex-specific health care conditions account for nearly all of the male–female difference.


And I suggested that without maternity, already accounted for in most premium systems, the differences are small.

And again, the ultimate goal is not premium equivalence, but efficiency in health delivery. I dealt with, and am still dealing with, my mother's bills in the year or so before her death, and they are staggering.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»Men's Group»Time: "Women should ...»Reply #6