When it comes to women from the moment of turning eighteen, until they reach the age of sixty-five are permanently sanctioned discriminatory practices in the health insurance market. On average, a woman seeking an insurance policy quoted a price that is less than one thousand dollars higher than any other man of the same age. What is interesting is that women are more valued value during the reproductive period, when there is no good reason.
This discriminatory practice of health insurance makes more women to accept a much higher excess of the normal annual cost to maintain the lowest average monthly health insurance at a time when they need additional revenue to meet the needs of their children.
The argument will continue to offer insurance providers is the fact that many women today are choosing caesarean section instead of natural childbirth. It 'true that many women work, have more responsibility and have opted for caesarean section have a child at the right time, but women do not have children every day or every year.
That women have group insurance through an employer or have their own policy of low cost health insurance, price is always higher than that of a man the same age. The health sector is also considered the pregnancy a pre-existing condition. It is not because they think it is a pre-existing condition, but do not want insurance to absorb the high costs surrounding a cesarean section.
Is this practice will continue once the universal health care takes full effect? Maybe there will be a one size fits all approach in the insurance sector. It will be interesting to see some changes as they take effect. Could be the reason why a flight of money? Is it possible that the insurance industry tries to influence the behavior of others with the commitment to the task less for medical care and hospitalization of the mother and child?
And 'interesting to medical science, health, medical applications of the same amount regardless. These hospital costs start to mount more staff time and attention to caesarean section, rather than natural childbirth. At this point, remains the same old, same. What changes when you are ready to pass health care reform?
This discriminatory practice of health insurance makes more women to accept a much higher excess of the normal annual cost to maintain the lowest average monthly health insurance at a time when they need additional revenue to meet the needs of their children.
The argument will continue to offer insurance providers is the fact that many women today are choosing caesarean section instead of natural childbirth. It 'true that many women work, have more responsibility and have opted for caesarean section have a child at the right time, but women do not have children every day or every year.
That women have group insurance through an employer or have their own policy of low cost health insurance, price is always higher than that of a man the same age. The health sector is also considered the pregnancy a pre-existing condition. It is not because they think it is a pre-existing condition, but do not want insurance to absorb the high costs surrounding a cesarean section.
Is this practice will continue once the universal health care takes full effect? Maybe there will be a one size fits all approach in the insurance sector. It will be interesting to see some changes as they take effect. Could be the reason why a flight of money? Is it possible that the insurance industry tries to influence the behavior of others with the commitment to the task less for medical care and hospitalization of the mother and child?
And 'interesting to medical science, health, medical applications of the same amount regardless. These hospital costs start to mount more staff time and attention to caesarean section, rather than natural childbirth. At this point, remains the same old, same. What changes when you are ready to pass health care reform?
No comments:
Post a Comment