WASHINGTON, DC –Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton today reintroduced her landmark legislation to address the continuing pay gap between women and men. The Paycheck Fairness Act would take critical steps to help empower women to negotiate for equal pay, to create strong incentives for employers to obey the existing laws, and to strengthen federal outreach and enforcement efforts. Twenty-two senators have joined Senator Clinton as original cosponsors of the legislation. Representative Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) has introduced the bill in the House of Representatives.And...yet:
In general, insurers say, they charge women more than men of the same age because claims experience shows that women use more health care services. They are more likely to visit doctors, to get regular checkups, to take prescription medications and to have certain chronic illnesses.So, employers are mandated to carry health insurance for their employees. It is a proven statistical fact that women use health insurance more often. And, these proven facts are based on individuals who buy their own health insurance outside of employment. This DOES NOT even take into account the cost of maternity treatment (which is astronomical).
In summary...men pay the same contribution to health insurance when employed, and women use the coverage SIGNIFICANTLY more. Yet, they are entitled to equal pay? It seems to me that if Congress is going to demand equal pay through legislation regardless of performance or the cost of employing that person based on their use of benefits...the legislation is flawed in that it does not take all factors into account.
This legislation only takes cow-towing to a voting demographic into account. When a woman buys health insurance in the form of an individual policy, there is a significant higher cost when compared to men...as it should be. Of course, the advocacy groups are trying to nulify that as well:
Marcia D. Greenberger, co-president of the National Women’s Law Center, an advocacy group that has examined hundreds of individual policies, said: “The wide variation in premiums could not possibly be justified by actuarial principles. We should not tolerate women having to pay more for health insurance, just as we do not tolerate the practice of using race as a factor in setting rates.”Thanks, Marcia...for the set-up. Sooooo...how did that Sub-prime mortgage presented to minorities work out for everyone? Good?
|