The insurance company my dad's work went through decided they no longer wanted to work with small businesses late last year. After 2 weeks off without pay for the holidays, my dad went back to work to find out that his company would only be offering insurance to him - not me (I'm in college), or my siblings (one brother graduating high school this year, one sister in the seventh grade) or my mom, who's in her fifties and really needs to have access to a doctor. They did offer to let him pay a couple hundered dollars right there to cover us, but since he had just come back from 2 weeks without pay, obviously he didn't have the money, and we can't afford it anyway. My mom wasn't encouraged to go to college after high school, and has always been our primary caregiver. She works two jobs now to help make ends meet. The first is as a teacher aide in our school district, which they keep at part time so they don't have to pay benefits and it's a position that is being reduced for the budget (despite the superintendent's recent 3% raise). Her second job is at a small neighborhood grocery store that can't afford insurance for it's employees... It pisses me off so much that we depend on employers to provide insurance to American citizens, but can't expect them to because of the cost...

Hopefully ’08 will be the year this gets serious treatment in the election and not just lip service. It's a national shame to be so far behind the rest of the world.

I'm a college student and so I don't have health insurance. Both of my parents work full time but my father doesn't have health insurance and my mother can't afford to add my to hers, even though I'm still legally a dependent. I did have state health insurance (like Medicaid), which was great, but I became ineligible on my 19th birthday. So until I have a (full-time) job of my own, I'm basically out of luck.

I'm not surprised women are more affected my men when it comes to health care. I imagine the difference between uninsured men and women not getting the care they need has a lot to do with reproductive health care. And if organizations like Planned Parenthood continue to get trampled on by this or the next administration, it will only get worse.

So yes, I would like universal health care, please. Given the number of uninsured people in this country, I don't think I'm alone.

They found that women typically had greater health needs -- but lower incomes -- than men.

I guess they must have been ignoring the fact that men's average life span is shorter than women's to come up with that conclusion about the relative needs of care.

One data point: in Virginia, BCBS charges women roughly 20% more than men under its individual plan... and that's WITHOUT the $50 maternity rider!

That begs the question: does it cost more to keep a woman healthy than to keep a man healthy? If so, where are those costs and what can we do about them?

I can relate to this. I have grown up with parents who couldn't afford insurance, and as a result I just didn't go to the doctor for many things. It had to be a real emergency, or something required for school for me to go to the doctor.

Currently, I have medical insurance through my school. It gives me access to some things, which is better than some people's access, however it still falls short of being affordable. I feel for everyone without insurance, as I have been there and am, to an extent, still there.

Scarbo, your point actually emphasizes the point the original poster made.

Men die younger than women. Men consume less medical care than women over their lifetimes, and die faster, younger and disproportionately of violence or of sudden illnesses such as stroke or heart attack. Therefore men are cheaper to insure. They don't go to the doctor, and then they die young, thus removing the need for lengthy hospice or nursing home care. From the insurer's perspective, what's not to like?

Of course, I happen to think this is pretty awful for men, and maybe we ought to be looking into the toxic aspects of our culture that kill men early (hint: men have died younger than women throughout history when you factor out death in childbirth; feminism has nothing to do with shorter male life span.) But this does not change the fact that men consume less medical care and therefore are cheaper to insure.

Another important issues in the gendered nature of health insurance and health care is the fact that birth control and other women-only medical costs are not covered by many insurance companies. My sister needed EC last summer, and is on regular birth control, neither of which is covered by my parents' quite robust health plan. I am looking at getting the HPV vaccine, but the price tag is a major factor right now, as I am working in retail (not the highest paying sector!) and may simply not be able to afford it right away. While all people (male and female) suffer in our country from the lack of universal coverage, it is particularly frustrating not to have my medical needs adequately met because those needs only apply to half the population.

if you're in illinois, check out http://www.illinoiscovered.com

it's the governor's proposal for universal healthcare in illinois, and it has options to share your story and ways to support this plan (email your senator and representative!)

Alara,

In theory, then, men and women should have similar premiums when they are young, but that isn't the case. Also, there should be very little difference between premiums of older men and women, mostly because the PER CAPITA cost would be the same, even if there are more men than women.

Anna, you have a great point about coverage of needs that only apply to half the population. There would be FURY if we stopped covering, say, knee replacements because they only apply to old people.

Alara: I see what you're saying, you may have a point. But it kind of leads to Anna's point, too, in that insurance companies do/cover only what benefits them financially.

I would venture to say even more women than what the study says have issues with accessing health care. Without the health center at my school with the wonderful doctors and nurses there, I would be in a world of trouble. The financial aid I recieve (grants and loans) puts me above the limits for the county medical program.

One problem in general too that has to do with anyone who is un/under insured is that hospitals prey on them. I had kidney stones about a year and a half ago and it was during a school break and the health center wasn't open. I ended up in the ER at the local hospital. They gave me a shot of morphine and sent me home with a small prescription of vicodin after taking a CT scan and seeing a 4.5mm stone. Not only did they charge me over $8,000 for being there less than an hour (small town, ER is rarely busy), but had I had insurance they would have done something to break up or remove the stone instead of sending me home to 'deal'. The stone ended up being 4.5mm wide x 6mm long when it came out and was lucky I didn't end up in kidney failure. I spent the next 4 months on antibiotics to deal with the infection from the stone tearing up the tract. Took me almost a year to deal with the thrush/yeast problem being on the antibiotics so long left behind. I have no chance anytime in the forseeable future of being able to pay anything towards the bill and after only three months they sent it to collections. I tried working with the hospitals financial assistance department, but they never returned my calls and were never there during office hours. :( You know what I found they'd charge an insurance company for the same thing? $780. Talk about a f-ing markup.

Affordable health care coverage does not equate to a government-run universal health care program in my mind. And that's not because I'm a white male conservative stingy, selfish, scrooge, either.

Our government can't do anything well, or efficient. We need solutions to this that are cost-effective and efficient. I simply don't want the government in charge of my health care.

Instead, we need to find out why health care costs are so high in the first place. I suspect the first place to look is the cost of malpractice insurance. Second place to look is the high cost of doctors and hospitals; these guys want to make money. Third place to look is the high cost of drugs; drug companies (one of which I work for) want to make money.

So, unless you remove malpractice suits and force doctors, hospitals, and drug companies to provide their services and products at government-mandated price levels, how do we bring the costs down?

The counter-argument, I guess, is that the free market is NOT benefiting all, in fact, it seems to be evolving into the system we have today where only rich people can afford healthcare. The thinking is, we're a wealthy country, why not divert some of that damn Iraq money and put it to some real good?

I wish it were so easy. But I'm just so disillusioned with this government, it's just too big, bulky, stupid, to do this right. Sorry to sound so pessimistic, but I have a hunch this is a perfect time for the phrase "You better be careful what you ask for, you just might get it."

"Instead, we need to find out why health care costs are so high in the first place. I suspect the first place to look is the cost of malpractice insurance. Second place to look is the high cost of doctors and hospitals; these guys want to make money. Third place to look is the high cost of drugs; drug companies (one of which I work for) want to make money."

Fourth place to look is the cost of medical school; some doctors want to make money because they went into tons of debt to become doctors.