Health insurance just for a particular gender? Can a company provide health insurance just for a particular gender? For example by giving different premiums for different genders. I think they can give different premiums for different age groups. Is this legal in USA? I am leaving aside arguments about who is a man and who is a woman. This is a hypothetical question. I was thinking since different genders have different health needs may be some can benefit from low premium.
From healthcare.gov: How premiums are set Under the health care law, insurance companies can account for only 5 things when setting premiums. Age: Premiums can be up to 3 times higher for older people than for younger ones. Location: Where you live has a big effect on your premiums. Differences in competition, state and local rules, and cost of living account for this. Tobacco use: Insurers can charge tobacco users up to 50% more than those who don’t use tobacco. Individual vs. family enrollment: Insurers can charge more for a plan that also covers a spouse and/or dependents. Plan category: There are five plan categories – Bronze, Silver, Gold, Platinum, and catastrophic. The categories are based on how you and the plan share costs. Bronze plans usually have lower monthly premiums and higher out-of-pocket costs when you get care. Platinum plans usually have the highest premiums and lowest out-of-pocket costs. Factors that can’t affect premiums Insurance companies can’t charge women and men different prices for the same plan. They also can’t take your current health or medical history into account. All health plans must cover treatment for pre-existing conditions from the day coverage starts. https://www.healthcare.gov/how-plans-set-your-premiums/
Firstly, this is actually a really good question - The Australian Constitution grants few explicit protections or rights to people, and it does not protect you from discrimination on the basis of age. In any case, you'll find that it is not a violation of the Age Discrimination Act 2004 (Cth) - see s39. This makes an exemption, amongst others, to the Act when acting in compliance with specified Commonwealth laws, or with State or Territory Acts or Regulations, which typically enact minimum drinking ages. In general, governments are able to legislate within the bounds of their powers, usually as enumerated in a constitution, and sometimes limited by a bill of rights. Even where the power to legislate with respect to age is not specifically granted, governments are generally empowered to legislate with respect to other matters where age may be a factor: employment, sale of goods, gambling, etc.
You can’t “mislead or deceive” in “trade or commerce” in Australia It is flat out against the law to mislead or deceive - you can’t lie, you can’t conceal salient facts, you can’t tell half truths, you can’t even tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth if that could be misleading. The fines are huge (for example), plus the contracts are unenforceable, plus the reputational damage is extreme. The types of practice that you describe would result in orders to return the premiums, plus fines plus probably revocation of the licence to be an insurer in Australia if they were systemic. This is particularly true of insurance companies - the legislation that applies to them is enumerated here.
Yes, this is legal in many US states, perhaps most. Search for "adult adoption". For instance, here is the procedure in Colorado. Also, another article on the topic. Before the advent of same-sex marriage, this used to be a technique for a same-sex couple to legally formalize their relationship; one partner would adopt the other. Here is a New York Times Magazine article about the practice. Here is another article, from The Atlantic. They even refer to a case in which the parent was younger than the child.
The federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) may apply to you and provide certain rights. HIPAA does seem to cover part of this, though if it covers you particularly and the lab that performed the test is a separate question. On the Department of Health and Human Services website discussing HIPAA, they outline requirements discussing pre-employment drug tests. Basically, your authorization is required in order to release the results of the drug test to your employer and there is nothing prohibiting the employer from conditioning employment on your provision of that authorization. This seems to indicate that the drug test is a medical record. In another section on the same web site concerning your medical records, it outlines that the Privacy Rule gives you the general right to inspect, review and receive a copy of your medical records if the health care provider is covered by the Privacy Rule. You can read about the privacy rule on yet another section of that web site. Generally speaking, the privacy rule applies to any health care provider that transmits health records electronically. Certain exceptions to the rule apply, however determining what those exceptions happen to be is a more difficult task. You will notice from the hhs.gov web site that any entity that is covered by the privacy act is required to give you a privacy practices notice (with certain exceptions). If you didn't receive a privacy practices notice then the entity conducting the drug test is probably not covered by HIPAA. If you did receive a privacy practices notice then the entity conducting the test is covered by HIPAA and you have a right to review your records.
A doctor can choose their patients A doctor has a professional duty to render aid in an emergency. However, apart from this and assuming the decision is not made for a prohibited or unlawfully discriminatory reason, they can refuse to see whoever they want. What you have here is poor customer relations, not illegally. Find a better doctor.
Generally speaking, no: Sex is a protected characteristic and discriminating between applicants based on a protected characteristic is prohibited so an employer is not free to hire only men or women simply because they would prefer to. But there are exceptions, like “occupational requirements” (which is probably what your athlete example is getting at). And, looking at the example you provided, it might - with a caveat - fall under an exception called “positive action”, as provided in section 158 and 159 of the Equality Act. However, the conditions under which this is allowed are tightly regulated and it would come down to the specifics (e.g. whether the number of women in that activity is “disproportionately low”). The caveat is that the Equality Act specifies that the protected characteristic (i.e. sex/gender in this case) can only be taken into account when choosing between two equally qualified candidates. I don't know whether this was ever tested in court but this would probably preclude advertising a position as “women-only” (as opposed to soliciting applications from both men and women and then selecting a woman with the explicit goal of increasing the number of women in your department). The Government Equalities Office guide on positive action also contains language strongly suggesting that limiting the search to women from the get go might not pass muster: Positive action can be used at any time in the recruitment or promotion process. […] However, it is expected that, in the vast majority of cases, any use of positive action as a ‘tie-breaker’ between candidates who are of equal merit for a particular post will be at the end of the recruitment process, at the actual point of appointment. […] In order to use positive action provisions in a tie-breaker situation, the employer must first establish that the candidates are of equal merit. Note that there is no such “equally qualified” clause in section 158, which deals with everything else than recruitment and promotion. Thus, it is perfectly fine to create a training programme that would be only open to women, if the goal is to increase the proportion of women in an activity where it is disproportionately low (an example provided by the same guide is a development programme “to help female staff compete for management positions”). Incidentally, all this is allowed under EU law (articles 5 and 7 of Directive 2000/78/EC).
There is not enough detail on the plan to say anything yet. But it is important to understand that the Canada Health Act is not an obligatory law but outlines conditions for provinces to receive significant federal contributions to their budget. Even if the conditions are breached, the federal government would be the only one who has the power to do anything, unlike a Charter violation that gives individuala a cause of action. It likely does not breach the prohibition of user charges: 2 [...] user charge means any charge for an insured health service that is authorized or permitted by a provincial health care insurance plan that is not payable, directly or indirectly, by a provincial health care insurance plan, but does not include any charge imposed by extra-billing. [...] 19 (1) In order that a province may qualify for a full cash contribution referred to in section 5 for a fiscal year, user charges must not be permitted by the province for that fiscal year under the health care insurance plan of the province. [...] since the plan is to impose a financial charge on all vaccinated and such charge is not tied to their access to or actual usage of the public healthcare system. The accessibility criterion may be another ground of breach: 12 (1) In order to satisfy the criterion respecting accessibility, the health care insurance plan of a province (a) must provide for insured health services on uniform terms and conditions and on a basis that does not impede or preclude, either directly or indirectly whether by charges made to insured persons or otherwise, reasonable access to those services by insured persons; [...] But again, it is the access or the provision of services that matters, the other side of equation is not directly touched except that any charge or other measures, if there is any, should not impede or preclude reasonable access to healthcare. However, even if it does not violate the letters of the law, it violates, in my opinion and when framed like a tax on unvaccinated, the spirits of a universal, accessible health system underpinned by the Act, which is one of the political arguments against the plan. It would be much harder to argue against the fiscal equivalent, though. A bonus for vaccination would likely be much more politically and legally acceptable and less controversial.