[knz]

> And if you're a male, you're subsidizing childbirth

Replace "male" with "child free" and this makes sense but suggesting men are subsidizing childbirth is ridiculous.

> and other women specific costs.

https://www.health.harvard.edu/newsletter_article/mars-vs-ve...

> Men die younger than women, and they are more burdened by illness during life. They fall ill at a younger age and have more chronic illnesses than women. For example, men are nearly 10 times more likely to get inguinal hernias than women, and five times more likely to have aortic aneurysms. American men are about four times more likely to be hit by gout; they are more than three times more likely than women to develop kidney stones, to become alcoholics, or to have bladder cancer. And they are about twice as likely to suffer from emphysema or a duodenal ulcer. Although women see doctors more often than men, men cost our society much more for medical care beyond age 65.

[lotsofpulp]

Yes, it's very likely I am wrong about that statement.

I assumed that because before ACA, childbirth was not covered by insurance and insurance pricing based on gender was allowed, and post ACA, childbirth was mandatory and insurance pricing based on gender disallowed, that it must mean that, in general, healthcare costs more for women than it did for men.

But perhaps that's only true for young men and women, if true at all?