Sex-blind health premiums are a tax on young men.

Women consume more health dollars than men, a lot more. A third more.  Living longer explains only 40% of that. A Michigan study (2000) shows lifetime expense of $361,200 per woman and $268,700 per man. This isn't news to the insurance industry but it's big news for young men in America who are picking up the tab for Obamacare and being punished with a tax if they don't.  In Canada, health is over 40% of provincial budgets.  No wonder health is a woman's issue. The gentler sex has the upper hand and will keep it as long as health premiums are blind to sex. When most people live in families with children, who cares? When instead there are many single working adults taxed to pay health care for strangers, is that fair?

Sharing the load sounds kind of noble until you remember that the young generally have fewer assets and lower wages than those same people when they are approaching retirement.  Why pick on the young.  Just think of the last time you went out for a dinner in an upscale restaurant.  Almost every table has grey haired diners.

James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal:

Because ObamaCare prohibits insurance companies from charging different premiums according to sex, and because women tend to use more medical services than men--a disparity that is greatest among younger policyholders--the "gender averaged" premium increase is greater for young men than for young women.
That means young men are the most disadvantaged by ObamaCare's price controls--and, as a corollary, that they are the group on which ObamaCare's solvency is most dependent.