~ archived since 2018 ~
Popular
Other
CanadianAsshole1
[–]PPD-AngelIncel Ban Count: 9[M] [score hidden] 7 years ago stickied comment (0 children) | Copy Link
No link dropping. This one will be left up because it seems to have some answers already, but in the future keep this in mind when posting.
[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link
Philosophical difference of opinion. If you think 'driving a car' should be protected as a right on par with 'being alive and healthy', you should get together with my 95 year old grandma who lives with us and had to stop driving after racking up four collisions in a year.
I'm glad that, while it hasn't always been the case, increasingly, decisions about healthcare are being made under the assumption that every person should have equal access to health and safety.
Perhaps there are other people out there who believe that class barriers to car ownership for low-SES young men are a flagship issue, and you could find those people and work together to advance what you believe is a universal right to the same extent as 'living'.
[–]abaxeron✴️Indian Programmer1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link
Driving a car for men is usually not an entertainment but part of means of sustenance.
By the same logic, national health insurance can be covered by taxing food.
One of the most prominent medical conditions women suffer from and request medical assistance for - is chronic pain. By no means lethal by itself.
[–]crackrocksteady7Jason tell me what you're chasing1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
One of the most prominent medical conditions women suffer from and request medical assistance for - is chronic pain.
my physical therapy office is filled with old boomer women thinking that $390 appointments will make them regain their youth
[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
What do you go to PT for? (If you don’t mind saying)
[–]crackrocksteady7Jason tell me what you're chasing0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
i guess you missed the post about my crash. i have a fucked up shoulder and a ton of wrist ligament pain
[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Missed that sorry to hear.
[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
If you're big on 'the universal right to transportation' (which I do think is a way we could improve society greatly) the brilliant solution is public transportation, not 'a cheap car for every man'.
Men should access care for chronic pain more often. They refuse to seek out the services that would help them address issues early and prevent worsening of conditions. This is one of the reasons that men die earlier than women. Do you think this is how women should access care, too? Rather than aiming for the lowest common denominator, I think we should all treat regular preventative care, for chronic pain or whatever the hell else, as the standard. It would save healthcare costs in the long term.
[–]abaxeron✴️Indian Programmer0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
'a cheap car for every man'
LITERALLY NO-ONE (except you) said anything about 'cheap cars for every man'. If you want emotional straw fight instead of staying on topic (which is acceptability of discrimination in insurance), I'll just start screaming about evil baby-killing pills covered by female health insurance. And I bet 20 bucks it'll fly right over your head, and you'll mock me by pretending that you thought I was serious.
But on a side note, you won't be happy in your public transportation utopia, with a bunch of builders, electricians, plumbers, and painters all now travelling next to you and carrying their tools, uniforms, and sometimes materials with them. They won't be happy about it either, because it'll kill their backs in a couple years.
Men don't need assistance. Men need freedom. And to get this freedom, men need women to become self-reliant; at least single women.
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
You sound really upset about this. I think public transportation is very important, and I'd be proud to ride the subway next to anyone else trying to get to work. I think society works best when everyone has a right to live and everyone has access to a way to get to work.
OP asked 'why is the situation like this'? I said 'because lawmakers are beginning to value the right to life over insurance companies' right to maximize profits, but at the moment the 'equal-opportunity right to drive' does not take precedence over insurance companies' right to maximize profits'. Lawmakers are acting to preserve equal access to healthcare, and if someone thinks they should take the same action to preserve equal access to car insurance, that's a question of personal values.
You made a variety of statements in response to my comment that didn't make a lot of sense. Driving is a means of sustenance? So is walking, but there are no sidewalks in my neighborhood because the HOA successfully convinced local lawmakers that 'the right to maximize property values' supersedes my right to safely access my means of sustenance (walking to the bus stop). These trade-offs happen all the time. If you want to make a great case for 'higher insurance rates as barrier to the right to the means of life', you're going to have to do a better job of proving that cars are the only way to access sustenance, because otherwise people like me will suggest alternatives, like public transportation, as other ways to access sustenance, and then you'll feel upset.
Ignoring chronic pain is lethal, and men shouldn't be forced by societal conditions and expectations to do it. They should be able to take a bus or subway to the nearest hospital and see a doctor without fear of bankruptcy if they learn the cause of the pain is lung cancer, as women currently can and do much more frequently.
You are the only person here who is upset.
[–]abaxeron✴️Indian Programmer0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
the HOA successfully convinced local lawmakers that 'the right to maximize property values' supersedes my right to safely access my means of sustenance (walking to the bus stop) ... If you want to make a great case for 'higher insurance rates as barrier to the right to the means of life', you're going to have to do a better job of proving that cars are the only way to access sustenance, because otherwise people like me will suggest alternatives, like public transportation, as other ways to access sustenance, and then you'll feel upset.
Some jobs require carrying a bunch of stuff with you - often not as much to require a full-sized truck, but just enough to require a car. Nearly every single one of them is male-dominated. I provided 4 examples of such jobs. You ignored them all, essentially ignoring my argument, and went on essentially saying "lol u triggerd".
lawmakers are beginning to value the right to life over insurance companies' right to maximize profits, but at the moment the 'equal-opportunity right to drive' does not take precedence over insurance companies' right to maximize profits'
"Not forcing men to subsidize your healthcare" isn't equal to "no right to life".
Ignoring chronic pain is lethal
Don't ignore it. "Not forcing men to subsidize your healthcare" isn't equal to "ignoring chronic pain".
I did a brief Googling that pointed out that in the US, insurance companies are free to charge extra off of smokers (mostly men) but not obese people (mostly women). I'm sure it's just a coincidence as well. Also, federally-mandated Medicaid benefits include assistance in tobacco cessation.................... for pregnant women.
By the way, I'm not the US citizen; so I have absolutely no reason to be upset about whatever happens half a continent and one ocean away from me.
[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Wait, so you don't think we should subsidize the risk posed by insuring each others' healthcare but do think we should subsidize the risk imposed by insuring each others' cars? They're fundamentally different things, so that's not impossible, but reflects some values I can't say I share. I think the right to transportation is worth defending; I also think that cars aren't a viable option for long-term transportation and that you're picking an irrational hill to die on, here, as insurance pricing differential is far from the only factor contributing to the financial inaccessibility of car-specific transportation.
People deserve to be alive at the expense of insurance companies' profit margins, and lawmakers currently agree with me. If you believe that people deserve to own cars at the expense of insurance companies' profit margins, we agree on that, as well, though I think that lawmakers could do more to increase access to transportation by improving public transportation infrastructure.
If you don't have a reason to be upset, chill. If you want to post scary-italics-ellipses gynocentricity conspiracy theories about why it's a health and economic benefit, on sum, to men and women, to reduce smoking in pregnant women, that's fine, but I'm not interested in arguing with someone who has no interest in discussing the fundamental philosophical question at work here: what can we convince insurance companies/the public to value more than insurance companies' profits?
Life? ...sort of. Independent car ownership? Not so far.
[–]abaxeron✴️Indian Programmer0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Wait, so you don't think we should subsidize the risk posed by insuring each others' healthcare but do think we should subsidize the risk imposed by insuring each others' cars?
No; my concerns are with methods and consistency.
Even if I agree for the sake of the argument that we (well; you, Americans) need more government to have more justice in one and only one type of insurance which just oh so randomly happened to be virtually the only type of insurance predominantly affecting women - we're still left with this justice applied inconsistently - such as charging smokers more than non-smokers (despite smoking being both an addiction and a self-destructive behavior), but not charging obese people more than people of normal weight (despite obesity being an indicator of both bad food intake patterns and lack of excercise - i.e. two bad patterns of behavior).
But of course, pointing out that all those inconsistencies result in a money flow in one and the same direction - is just a conspiracy theory.
Since the American government already subsidizes medical insurance, it theoretically could subsidize it with taxes on inheritance. Instead, it subsidizes it with taxes on income (even if they're technically listed as payroll taxation). But I'm also sure that it's just a conspiracy that inheritance predominantly benefits women, while incomes are earned predominantly by men.
And something tells me that insuring proper healthcare for women could be sufficiently achieved just by raising women's retirement age in accordance with their longer lifespan and lower workplace participation rates.
Don't get me wrong; I'm not some right-wing nutjob who faps on the fantasy of seeing poor people dying on the streets. I've got two relatives dependent on medical assistance for the rest of their days (and by "dependent" I mean "lack of assistance would cut their lifespan to 3 months"); and I'm really fond of them and want the rest of their days to be long, happy, and painless. What I am worried about - is how much freedom I must be stripped of to provide long, happy, and painless days to people who either don't care about my freedom, or openly hate me, and want me profiled, in prison, dead, or even castrated.
insurance pricing differential is far from the only factor contributing to the financial inaccessibility of car-specific transportation.
Absolutely; I was about to say that expensive insurance probably makes cars cheaper, so, your equation of 'cheaper insurance' with 'cheaper cars' made no sense; I ommitted it to make the comment shorter.
People deserve to be alive at the expense of insurance companies' profit margins
Then the law that forced insurance companies to charge men and women equally despite women consuming astonishingly more healthcare goods and services - should have instead forced the companies to discolse and limit their profit margins, no? I must admit that I'm not familiar with the regulation itself; has it actually resulted in lower profit margins for insurance companies, or has it functionally resulted in those profit margins simply landing on the shoulders of men?
[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.8 points9 points10 points 7 years ago (26 children) | Copy Link
They are or at least were. My old boss told me I was super expensive to insure because I was a young woman of child bearing age. “You’re the most expensive person to insure in the office”.
Ok my bad 🙄
[–]Alth12Purple Pill Man6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
My girlfriend had to pay 2x the premium I had to pay with the same company when we moved to Asia. When she queried it she got told she was of child bearing age and they pointed to studies which said women use medical services more than men.
[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
You know what demographic eats up the most health insurance money of all? The elderly.
[–]Salty-Bastardjust an excitable boy1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
That's why we have Medicare for your mom and dad.
Well yeah
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Well, he's right. Men under 40 cost practically nothing to insurance companies.
It was still annoying like I should have felt bad or something. I cost practically nothing when I was there too but what are you gonna do. I have to admit I’m still pretty lucky because in my industry we pay nothing for insurance, employer covers it 100% and people have led me to believe that’s not that common. So I can’t really complain.
[–]SkookumTreeWe are DONE with "cope"2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link
My understanding is that this is now illegal. As it should be.
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link
Why? If men use less healthcare then why should we pay as much as women? I should've have to pay more just to cover others
[–]kim-possible1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link
I should've have to pay more just to cover others
That is literally the point of insurance though. You all pay together and it covers the people who wind up needing the service. You might end up being a super expensive client. You don't know. Assuming you personally should pay less because you might cost less based on your gender defeats the whole point.
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link
No, the whole point of insurance is for emergencies and women use it for regular care. Not to mention pregnancy which doesn't even apply to me.
[–]kim-possible1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link
the whole point of insurance is for emergencies
Umm. No. Preventative care is important and in many areas saves money in the long run. STD screenings, cancer screenings, reporting of communicable diseases. There are tons of ways in which 'regular' use of health services is important and saves money.
Not to mention pregnancy which doesn't even apply to me.
You came from a uterus. Pregnancy applies to you.
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link
umm. No. Preventative care is important and saves money in the long run
Not really. If that was true then rates would've went down after Obamacare mandated routine tests instead of going up. This is what most people simply do not understand.
Many people (mostly women) go to the doctor for any little thing, and since insurance pays for it, they don't price check.
You came from a uterus so pregnancy applies to you
Dumbest argument I've heard today. My dad paid for my birth. If i have children then I will be partially responsible for the birth of my child as well.
I give zero fucks about random babies who belong to other people. Fuck other people who take from me to find their personal life choices. Half are single moms, most of whom i don't even like.
[–]kim-possible3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link
If that was true then rates would've went down after Obamacare mandated routine tests instead of going up.
I think you're missing the part where a) Obamacare is a conservative and patchwork approach to healthcare, b) rates are not the measure of cost, c) you've only had most of the program for four years, d) rates are partly going up in response to uncertainty about ACA continuing due to Trump and Republican efforts to repeal and d) the US is not the only place where healthcare exists for comparison. Your one little data point doesn't actually reflect the larger picture.
Fuck other people who take from me to find their personal life choices.
Ah yes. I too hate that my taxes go to roads I don't drive on and schools for children I don't have and subsidies for companies I don't work for and a military for a country that is unlikely to be attacked in my lifetime, etc. etc. We are all living together on this planet. I'm not sure why you consider it such a radical idea that we should (in the most broad sense) care about other people.
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
I too have that my taxes go to roads i don't drive
The tax on gas mostly pays for the roads. So the people who drive are mostly paying for it.
And schools for children i don't have
Completely agree. 100% i should not have to pay school tax.
And for military
I'm strongly in favor of pulling out of NATO. Huge waste of money, and most snotty Germans hate Americans anyway. Let them defend themselves. The middle East is the only area of value
[–]kim-possible0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
So you think taxes should only be used on things you agree with and that benefit you personally. Cool. That's just not how societies work, dude. They literally could not function that way.
[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Personally I think forcibly equalizing stuff for ideological reasons is idiotic, and this applies to insurances as well.
There's a good reason men of a certain age are considered a high risk group, the same way women are a risk/cost factor in other regards.
[–]poppy_bluAARP sent me a birthday card0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link
I was always under the impression from my conversations with HR people that age is the biggest determining factor for employer group insurance rates.
I could ask my HR manager I’m not sure. My old office was pretty small and no one was past their 40s.
[–]poppy_bluAARP sent me a birthday card-1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
It probably is dependent on the size of the organization. Either way older people who on average have 3 chronic conditions cost far more than a woman having a baby. That’s crazy that he would say that to you though. You should have said “well you can give up your raise next year, that will offset the cost of my womb.” 😆
[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.-1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Ha I bet he would have loved that
[–]UnconfidenceSocial Anarchist - BP9 points10 points11 points 7 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link
Car insurance primarily protects against liability for mistakes. Health insurance primarily protects against natural and unavoidable illnesses. If the majority of car insurance claims were no-fault occurrences on collision or comprehensive coverage policies, or if the majority of health insurance claims were from accidents and mistakes, you'd have an argument.
[–]Eastuss༼ つ ▀̿_▀̿ ༽つ2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Getting sick, getting pregnant, getting a bone broken, all these things are results of choice, lifestyle, and mistakes just as well, so your argument is kinda of flat.
On top of it, money doesn't care about why, it cares how much.
[–]UnconfidenceSocial Anarchist - BP0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Which we eliminated with the passage of the ACA. Now, health insurance companies have to care about why, just like any company dealing in the necessities.
Also, that you can list off a bunch of things which are a result of accidents doesn't magically make them the majority of medical costs. That's still illness and old age, by far.
[–]Eastuss༼ つ ▀̿_▀̿ ༽つ-1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
we should kill old people at birth.
[–]CanadianAsshole1[S] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
That's an arbitrarily determined condition. How does that justify generalizing men while simultaneously not allowing generalization of women?
By your logic, discrimination would be ok in any case that does not involve someone's physical health or safety. So for example, it would be ok for a company to give men more promotions because they are men.
health insurance primarily protects against natural and unavoidable illnesses
Diet and fitness play a huge role in determining your risk of getting ill.
[–]UnconfidenceSocial Anarchist - BP2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
By your logic, discrimination would be ok in any case that does not involve someone's physical health or safety.
Provided that a noticeable difference in cost or type of service along those divisions is proven, then yes. I'm in sort of a tricky predicament with this though, because while I agree that some people should be able to make such assessments when statistically proven, I also think that specifically insurance should be prohibited from charging anything but a flat rate for any given policy, regardless of who is getting it, same as loans and other financial dealings. So while I think it's okay for, say, a barber shop to generally exclude women on the basis that the normal demands of women and men with regard to hair styling is entirely different and requires a different skillset, I'd actually agree with you that insurance companies shouldn't be allowed to discriminate by gender. Of course, the men's barber shop shouldn't turn down a woman who wants a crew cut, but in general targeting a specific gender or excluding a specific gender from your targeting isn't necessarily wrong when there's a valid criterion for doing so.
[–]crackrocksteady7Jason tell me what you're chasing1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
I also think that specifically insurance should be prohibited from charging anything but a flat rate for any given policy
that would result in good drivers heavily subsidizing coverage for bad drivers and high risk drivers
[–]Mr_SmoogsThe 2nd most obnoxious poster here-1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Interest rates not based on credit worthiness? What is wrong with these people and their understanding of finance this week. I now understand how the lawyers here feel lmao
The past is the past mr loan officer. That mortgage I defaulted on a year ago? The past is the past!
[–]chloapsoap2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
Unpopular Opinion Time: I don’t think auto insurance premiums should be determined by your gender. The insurance company can’t possibly know how safe of a driver you are by your gender.
There we go. Problem resolved. Health insurance should be treated the same. Don’t fuck up health insurance just because auto insurance is fucked up. Fix auto insurance
[–]kim-possible1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Agreed. How is that not textbook gender discrimination? Auto insurance already increases costs when you get in an accident. Why is that not sufficient? I am from British Columbia where we have government-run insurance and they do not do this.
[–]chloapsoap0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
In the US, auto insurance is required by the government in order to own a car, but privately run.
Actually, a lot of institutions in the US are run like this (prison jumps to mind, many of which are privately owned) and it results in an absolute shit show where the privately owned company begins to extort its customers (who are legally obligated to pay for it).
As far as I’m concerned, I agree. It is textbook discrimination. I don’t think there’s been any real motivation to reform it though. People complain but no one organizes...
I am not a discrimination lawyer but I would have to look into whether illegal discrimination covers disparate pricing based upon protected classes versus the normal run of the mill illegal discrimination contexts that everyone knows about like housing, employment and public accommodations.
If that is the case insurance couldn’t charge people more due to age or disability either since those are also protected classes.
[–]goatismycopilotPurple Pill Woman3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link
Should you not be arguing with insurance companies about this, they came up with the cost algorithms that decided men especially younger men were a greater liability. It has nothing to do with constitutional provisions plus you are apparently Canadian.
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link
Then women should pay more for healthcare based on that as well since they cost more.
[–]goatismycopilotPurple Pill Woman1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
I am not saying that men should pay more for car insurance I am saying take it up with the car insurance industry.
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
Men aren't complaining about car insurance, we accept it because we cost more to cover in accidents. but it's a double standard. I rarely go to the doctor, so why should my healthcare cost go up to cover women who go all the time.
Not my body, and not my babies. If I was married my insurance through work would actually go up
[–]goatismycopilotPurple Pill Woman3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
From the post it sounded like he was complaining. I pay my out of pocket costs for whatever is not covered on health insurance.
Which is kind of a myth. After 25 men pay the same for insurance.
However, men tend to drive more expensive cars, so the insurance is more for the car, not the person. Plus men tend to drive more miles, and that affects your rate as well. Kinda like the "pay gap", men aren't paying more because we are men, but because of our choices.
Like when I bought my new corvette, I pretty much paid more for insurance (duh)
[–]goatismycopilotPurple Pill Woman-1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
I assumed accident rates prior to 25 were higher if they are not that is a problem.
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Used to be, but now with girls texting and driving, and hitting cars in front of them it's hard telling. I've been hit a couple times from girls on their phone
[–]goatismycopilotPurple Pill Woman0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Yes idiots being idiots.
[–]ElonMuskForPrison5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (37 children) | Copy Link
Not having a car doesn't necessarily result in you dying.
[–]crackrocksteady7Jason tell me what you're chasing2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (32 children) | Copy Link
same with not having health insurance
[–]ElonMuskForPrison4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (31 children) | Copy Link
Not having health means you are dead.
[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin🔪Yeetus that Feetus🔪6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (25 children) | Copy Link
"health" and "health insurance" are not the same things
[–]TheBookOfSeilCuckleberry Finn1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link
To liberals and people who want free healthcare, it is.
[–]poppy_bluAARP sent me a birthday card1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link
Right. Liberals want universal health insurance just for shits and giggles. Has nothing to do with not wanting taxpayers to front the costs of uninsured people using the ER to get antibiotics and then skipping out on the bill.
[–]TheBookOfSeilCuckleberry Finn0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link
How is what you described any different from “universal healthcare?” Those same people who couldn’t pay would be the first in the door and the rest of the taxpayers would still collectively be fronting the costs to pay for them.
[–]poppy_bluAARP sent me a birthday card0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
The cost to get antibiotics at your PCP's office, even at an urgent care walk in, pales in comparison to the cost to use the ER to get them (plus you're tying up ER professionals time with non emergencies - want to know why it takes 2 hours to get seen in the ER?). When an insured patient doesn't pay the bill from an visit, a hospital by law can recoup the cost from the state -- meaning you. A large hospital in an urban center can end up cashing in as much as $2 million a year from state uncompensated care pools. One hospital.
Insurance also rewards you for preventive care and encourages better management of chronic conditions (which drasically reduces those ER visits).
[–]TheBookOfSeilCuckleberry Finn0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
The cost to get antibiotics at your PCP's office, even at an urgent care walk in, pales in comparison to the cost to use the ER to get them
Okay? Sooooo again, universal health care mostly benefits the people that can’t really afford healthcare anyway. I don’t see that as a problem with healthcare, per se, but more of a problem with being able to exploit the system, which ends up screwing everyone else because someone has to pay for it. Maybe hold those people accountable for their own debts so they’re not encouraged to keep going back?
When an insured patient doesn't pay the bill from an visit, a hospital by law can recoup the cost from the state -- meaning you.
Do you mean an uninsured patient? If so, that’s a simple fix. Hold them accountable for their debt or deny service until they’ve paid.
Sounds like everyone should just be paying for their own healthcare then because they’re encouraged to be responsible for their lifestyles.
[–]poppy_bluAARP sent me a birthday card0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
It benefits the taxpayers by reducing the cost of unnecessary emergency care reimbursed by tax dollars, reducing the cost of lost productivity by workers from sick days, eliminates the burden on businesses to carry the insurance system, etc. Healthier people are better for society and cost the system far less.
To understand this you have to be able to view it from a system perspective rather than an individual perpsectve and I realize conservatives are incacpable of doing that -- but just try.
Hold them accountable for their debt or deny service until they’ve paid.
You can't get blood from a stone. If they don't have money, you're not getting any money from them.
[–]ElonMuskForPrison1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link
Having a car and having auto insurance are not the same thing either.
[–]crackrocksteady7Jason tell me what you're chasing4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link
not having auto insurance is very illegal
[–]ElonMuskForPrison1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link
Completely untrue. You aren't legally required to get auto insurance if you don't own a car.
[–]highspergymeinvoluntary fuckboy2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago* (7 children) | Copy Link
For people in most parts of the country, owning a car is not optional if you want to work and provide for your family.
And yet, for a time, it was illegal not to purchase health insurance despite not exposing myself to any optional major risk factors to my health like fatness or smoking.
[–]ElonMuskForPrison-1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
So live somewhere less shitty.
You cannot be without a body.
[–]highspergymeinvoluntary fuckboy4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
So live somewhere less shitty
I could just as easily say “So live a less shitty lifestyle.” to repulsive self-hating fat people, but this site decided that was wrongthink.
And my point was that, even further, you briefly could not be a citizen of this country without being forced to subsidize the poor choices others made with their bodies.
Or does the right to bodily autonomy only exist when convenient for arguing pro-choice?
youre implying that big cities are less shitty LMAO
[–]blackedoutfastRed Pill Man0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
not true, not even including the whole "just don't buy a car" thing.
in some states, you're not legally required to have car insurance BUT if you don't have insurance you're required to pay an "uninsured motorist fee" of $500ish that doesn't include any insurance coverage.
[–]crackrocksteady7Jason tell me what you're chasing0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link
in some states, you're not legally required to have car insurance
not my state soooo
[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin🔪Yeetus that Feetus🔪0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Nor was it asserted
[–]crackrocksteady7Jason tell me what you're chasing2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
i didnt have my health insurance card when i got pulverized by a car 3 months ago and they still treated and billed me
its funny the first bill was marked down almost 50% because they assumed it would be self pay. almost like they know when health insurance is in play supply and demand is no longer in effect and they can bill whatever ridiculous amount they want
please keep going
[–]ElonMuskForPrison0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
i didnt have my health insurance card ...
Again, health insurance is not health.
what point are you making? the only one in which health insurance has anything to do with health is where doctors leave you on the side of the road outside of the hospital if you dont have an insurance card
[–]ElonMuskForPrison0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
what point are you making?
That you keep conflating insurance with the thing that it is insuring.
[–]CanadianAsshole1[S] -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
You're using an arbitrarily determined condition to justify discrimination in some cases but condemn it in others? What does this have to do with whether discrimination is morally acceptable or not?
Oh, also, while driving is not strictly necessary, neither is health insurance. I have the option of biking to work, just like I have the option of paying for hospital bills out of pocket. It's just that it's more time-consuming/expensive.
[–]ElonMuskForPrison5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
You're using an arbitrarily determined condition to justify discrimination in some cases but condemn it in others?
...being alive is an arbitrarily determined condition?
Oh, also, while driving is not strictly necessary, neither is health insurance.
The comparison is not health insurance to driving, the comparison is having a body to having a car.
[–]CanadianAsshole1[S] 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Why does that have any bearing on whether that discrimination is morally acceptable or not?
By your logic, discrimination is ok as long as it doesn't affect your health or safety. For example, a company could decide to pass up women for promotions in favour of less qualified male candidates.
having a body to having a car
This discussion is not about out-of-pocket healthcare costs or healthcare in general, this is specifically about health insurance.
You don't need health insurance, strictly speaking. Getting healthcare will just cost more. Just like how not having a car will make commuting much less convenient,
[–]ElonMuskForPrison1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Because you can choose not to have a car. You cannot choose not to have a body (without dying).
Yep. I'm all about private discrimination. Government? No, government needs to treat everyone equally.
Which is on a product that you cannot choose whether or not to have. You can choose whether or not to have a car.
[–]legaladvicequest1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
First, I'm pretty sure it was Clinton who made it illegal to discriminate against women in healthcare.
Second, it should be illegal to discriminate by race or gender in any way- even if the company is private.
[–]wekacuckstupid buggy bot0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Obamacare. If it were up to actuaries they'd still be separate in various creative ways.
[–]CanadianAsshole1[S] -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
it should be illegal to discriminate by race or gender in any way
Including "positive discrimination" such as gender quotas in STEM?
[–]chloapsoap2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
There are no gender quotas in STEM. Find something else to moral panic about. This has been debunked over and over again
[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
There are no gender quotas in the Us period they are illegal.
[–]yaseedog will hunt1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
cuz health>driving (to the point where in my country, we provide free healthcare)
but tbh I don't feel gendered pricing for car insurance is fair
[–]Wandos7naproxen sodium0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
I don’t think it’s fair either. IMO it should be based on age because teenagers are generally shit drivers.
[–]yaseedog will hunt0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Younger people generally do have more expensive insurance don't they?
[–]AutoModeratorBiased against humans[M] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Attention!
You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message.
For "CMV" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies.
If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment.
OP you can choose your own flair according to these guidelines., just press Flair under your post!
Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
[–]jax006 1 points1 points1 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Money always flows from balls to pussy
[–]PPD-AngelIncel Ban Count: 90 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Question for Blue Pill. Take it to the AutoMod.
[–]Eartherry0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
The price is determined by an algorithm used to calculate risk. The higher the risk, the higher the price.
Statistically, men tend to drive faster than women, making them more of a risk. Except if he's married or has children as having someone to live for makes a person more careful. In that scenario he'd be paying less than a single woman with no children.
Red/orange cars also mean higher prices as they make people aggressive and tend to get hit more often. People who drive sports cars also automatically have to pay more.
This isn't considered discrimination because gender isn't a protected class. Ages aren't protected either. That's why only seniors qualify for senior discounts. But why are there women's fitness centers?? They applied for club status, making them able to exclude anyone they want, the same as like a country club.
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Statistically, men tend to drive faster than women, making them more of a risk.
actually most of men's higher premiums has more to do with men driving more expensive cars (cost of replacement), and the fact that men drive more miles. Most delivery and truck drivers are men, and men are more likely to drive farther commutes.
[–]CanadianAsshole1 1 points1 points1 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
statistically men drive faster than women
"Statistically blacks commit more crime, therefore it's ok for me to treat them with more suspicion"
How does that statement make you feel?
gender isn't a protected class
You're just blatantly lying now.
[–]Eartherry2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Some protected classes, like gender and age, only apply to employment. That's why lady's night and senior specials are legal. Race applies across the board.
[–]TheBookOfSeilCuckleberry Finn1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Tried explaining this to the guys over in the Men’s Rights sub because they were getting triggered over a picture of “Women parking only” signs outside of a business in the Netherlands that appeared to cater exclusively to female customers.
Of course, they said “it’s discrimination and that’s illegal! This shouldn’t be allowed!”
[–]DesignerDebates3 small children in a trench coat[M] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
No race baiting or racially charged content. There is no reason to bring race into this.
© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.created by /u/dream-hunter
[–]PPD-AngelIncel Ban Count: 9[M] [score hidden] stickied comment (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points (11 children) | Copy Link
[–]abaxeron✴️Indian Programmer1 point2 points3 points (10 children) | Copy Link
[–]crackrocksteady7Jason tell me what you're chasing1 point2 points3 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]crackrocksteady7Jason tell me what you're chasing0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]abaxeron✴️Indian Programmer0 points1 point2 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]abaxeron✴️Indian Programmer0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]abaxeron✴️Indian Programmer0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.8 points9 points10 points (26 children) | Copy Link
[–]Alth12Purple Pill Man6 points7 points8 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]Salty-Bastardjust an excitable boy1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]SkookumTreeWe are DONE with "cope"2 points3 points4 points (15 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points (13 children) | Copy Link
[–]kim-possible1 point2 points3 points (11 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points (10 children) | Copy Link
[–]kim-possible1 point2 points3 points (9 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points (8 children) | Copy Link
[–]kim-possible3 points4 points5 points (7 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[–]kim-possible0 points1 point2 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]poppy_bluAARP sent me a birthday card0 points1 point2 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]poppy_bluAARP sent me a birthday card-1 points0 points1 point (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.-1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]UnconfidenceSocial Anarchist - BP9 points10 points11 points (7 children) | Copy Link
[–]Eastuss༼ つ ▀̿_▀̿ ༽つ2 points3 points4 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]UnconfidenceSocial Anarchist - BP0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Eastuss༼ つ ▀̿_▀̿ ༽つ-1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]CanadianAsshole1[S] 0 points1 point2 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]UnconfidenceSocial Anarchist - BP2 points3 points4 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]crackrocksteady7Jason tell me what you're chasing1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Mr_SmoogsThe 2nd most obnoxious poster here-1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]chloapsoap2 points3 points4 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]kim-possible1 point2 points3 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]chloapsoap0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]goatismycopilotPurple Pill Woman3 points4 points5 points (8 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points (7 children) | Copy Link
[–]goatismycopilotPurple Pill Woman1 point2 points3 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]goatismycopilotPurple Pill Woman3 points4 points5 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]goatismycopilotPurple Pill Woman-1 points0 points1 point (2 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]goatismycopilotPurple Pill Woman0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]ElonMuskForPrison5 points6 points7 points (37 children) | Copy Link
[–]crackrocksteady7Jason tell me what you're chasing2 points3 points4 points (32 children) | Copy Link
[–]ElonMuskForPrison4 points5 points6 points (31 children) | Copy Link
[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin🔪Yeetus that Feetus🔪6 points7 points8 points (25 children) | Copy Link
[–]TheBookOfSeilCuckleberry Finn1 point2 points3 points (9 children) | Copy Link
[–]poppy_bluAARP sent me a birthday card1 point2 points3 points (8 children) | Copy Link
[–]TheBookOfSeilCuckleberry Finn0 points1 point2 points (7 children) | Copy Link
[–]poppy_bluAARP sent me a birthday card0 points1 point2 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[–]TheBookOfSeilCuckleberry Finn0 points1 point2 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]poppy_bluAARP sent me a birthday card0 points1 point2 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]ElonMuskForPrison1 point2 points3 points (14 children) | Copy Link
[–]crackrocksteady7Jason tell me what you're chasing4 points5 points6 points (13 children) | Copy Link
[–]ElonMuskForPrison1 point2 points3 points (8 children) | Copy Link
[–]highspergymeinvoluntary fuckboy2 points3 points4 points (7 children) | Copy Link
[–]ElonMuskForPrison-1 points0 points1 point (6 children) | Copy Link
[–]highspergymeinvoluntary fuckboy4 points5 points6 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]crackrocksteady7Jason tell me what you're chasing1 point2 points3 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]blackedoutfastRed Pill Man0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]crackrocksteady7Jason tell me what you're chasing0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin🔪Yeetus that Feetus🔪0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]crackrocksteady7Jason tell me what you're chasing2 points3 points4 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]ElonMuskForPrison0 points1 point2 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]crackrocksteady7Jason tell me what you're chasing0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]ElonMuskForPrison0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]CanadianAsshole1[S] -1 points0 points1 point (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]ElonMuskForPrison5 points6 points7 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]CanadianAsshole1[S] 1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]ElonMuskForPrison1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]legaladvicequest1 point2 points3 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]wekacuckstupid buggy bot0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]CanadianAsshole1[S] -1 points0 points1 point (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]chloapsoap2 points3 points4 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]yaseedog will hunt1 point2 points3 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]Wandos7naproxen sodium0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]yaseedog will hunt0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]AutoModeratorBiased against humans[M] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]jax006 1 points1 points1 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]PPD-AngelIncel Ban Count: 90 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Eartherry0 points1 point2 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]CanadianAsshole1 1 points1 points1 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Eartherry2 points3 points4 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]TheBookOfSeilCuckleberry Finn1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]DesignerDebates3 small children in a trench coat[M] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link