Article here. Excerpt:
'The Pennsylvania home health care company Linda Bettinazzi runs is charged about $6,800 per worker for health insurance – $2,000 more than the national average for single coverage. One reason: nearly every one of her 175 employees is a woman.
Insurers say women under the age of 55 cost more to cover because they use more health services, and not just for maternal and infant care. But Bettinazzi, the president and CEO of Visiting Nurse Association of Indiana County, believes there's something inherently wrong in charging her company more because it hires a lot of women.
...
Gender rating is the norm today, part of a complex formula of risk factors — including health history and age — insurers say has been necessary to fairly price policies. But advocacy groups for women argue that charging more for women than men is discriminatory and should be illegal.'
OK, so why aren't they complaining that men under 25 get charged more for car insurance on average than women under 25, all other factors being equal? Same thing, different sexes. And just how does the health carriers' claim that women under 55 use more health care resources than men in the same age group jibe with the feminist assertion that women are getting the short end of the stick in terms of access to health care? Answer: It doesn't.