Page 7 of 12 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 112

Thread: Firms to charge smokers & obese more for healthcare

  1. #61
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    05-17-17 @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,935

    Re: Firms to charge smokers & obese more for healthcare

    Quote Originally Posted by StillBallin75 View Post
    Didn't think we'd actually agree on something like this, but hey
    I bet there are a lot of things we agree on, even if there are still a lot we don't.

    My philosophy in life is as much fairness as possible, with good doses of both compassion and responsibility thrown in there. As long as people are trying to do what they can for themselves, I am all about helping them as much as possible.

    Quote Originally Posted by StillBallin75 View Post
    It's no secret that insurance today takes risk factors into account. I just think that doing so kinda defeats the purpose of insurance.
    I don't disagree. Trust me, I honestly wish we paid less for that insurance. And it really sucks that when I finally do get my license, it will increase auto insurance for us by quite a bit. I hate insurance overall.

    Of course, when talking about driving, I hate no-fault states even more. This goes back to the whole responsibility thing. I see very little reason why people should not have to pay for another person's expenses, bills, lost work, repairs, etc., if they are responsible for an accident.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  2. #62
    Sage
    lpast's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Fla
    Last Seen
    05-21-16 @ 10:12 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    13,565

    Re: Firms to charge smokers & obese more for healthcare

    Quote Originally Posted by Thunder View Post
    Insight: Firms to charge smokers, obese more for healthcare - Yahoo! News


    Like a lot of companies, Veridian Credit Union wants its employees to be healthier. In January, the Waterloo, Iowa-company rolled out a wellness program and voluntary screenings.




    It also gave workers a mandate - quit smoking, curb obesity, or you'll be paying higher healthcare costs in 2013. It doesn't yet know by how much, but one thing's for certain - the unhealthy will pay more.


    LOVE IT!!!

    smokers, the obese, and folks who participate in other very unhealthy lifestypes should TOTALLY pay higher premiums and co-pays.

    why? because their lifestyle costs the rest of us healthy people.


    How about skiers that are always getting hurt and part time middleaged softball players...and skydivers and bungee jumpers and motorcycle riders or anyone that engages in high risk activities that are proven to tax healthcare payers....how about anyone caught using weed paying higher health care costs...and drinkers, if you have high cholesterol...high blood pressure...and and and and and and and....get the picture...this is bs
    Last edited by lpast; 11-01-11 at 12:47 AM.

  3. #63
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    Re: Firms to charge smokers & obese more for healthcare

    Quote Originally Posted by MaggieD View Post
    The mere fact that you have insurance spreads risk. "Natural statistics" show that, overall, smokers get sick more than nonsmokers. They get lung, mouth, throat, bladder, gum, head and neck cancers more than the population at large. Having them pay a bit more for their insurance only makes sense. How is that not obvious.
    It spreads risk if you aggregate a section of the society and pool the risk through the group. That's how it works. You don't buy based on your personal probabilities; the risk is shared within the group who then bets against those probabilities. Once that aggregation includes the entire populace, the probabilities become 1. You will realize the natural statistics in that case. If in that senario you then charge premium rates based on those statistics and probabilities you have consolidated the risks back onto the individual. They are now essentially paying market price for their "insurance", which is in essence a "savings" plan then. But not one of pooled risk, the risks are associated with certain probabilities and premiums are adjusted accordingly. That is not insurance. That's market valued "care" in the functional form of a "savings" account. Except that you'll never get back out what you put into it...so it's a ****ty savings account.

    Now with "smokers paying their share", I cannot stress this enough. THEY ALREADY DO!!! That's the extra taxes on tobacco products. Over half the cost of tobacco products are taxes and the taxes were levied in order to offset the additional healthcare costs that smokers generally cause the system. Making them pay higher premiums means that you are charging them more than ONCE for their extra costs.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  4. #64
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    Re: Firms to charge smokers & obese more for healthcare

    Quote Originally Posted by Thunder View Post
    I see nothing wrong with charging people more for health insurance if they refuse to cease very dangerous behavior.

    and yes, if they stop the bad behavior, their premiums go down.

    what could be a better incentive to getting healthier...than more dinero???
    Except that everyone has to have insurance now, and thus you are ultimately using government force to make everyone fit a prescribed form. It's not something I see as rightful. Particularly because specifically with smokers, they already pay the cost of increased health care through exorbitant taxes on their product. So you're really talking about charging them again for the same thing.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  5. #65
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,356

    Re: Firms to charge smokers & obese more for healthcare

    Quote Originally Posted by Thunder View Post
    Insight: Firms to charge smokers, obese more for healthcare - Yahoo! News


    Like a lot of companies, Veridian Credit Union wants its employees to be healthier. In January, the Waterloo, Iowa-company rolled out a wellness program and voluntary screenings.

    It also gave workers a mandate - quit smoking, curb obesity, or you'll be paying higher healthcare costs in 2013. It doesn't yet know by how much, but one thing's for certain - the unhealthy will pay more.


    LOVE IT!!!

    smokers, the obese, and folks who participate in other very unhealthy lifestypes should TOTALLY pay higher premiums and co-pays.

    why? because their lifestyle costs the rest of us healthy people.
    Yeah! What do those fat bastards think this is? A free ****ing country?!?

    I mean, this is America, where everyone we don't agree with has to pay more, for everything.
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  6. #66
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:40 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,102

    Re: Firms to charge smokers & obese more for healthcare

    Quote Originally Posted by Thunder View Post
    Insight: Firms to charge smokers, obese more for healthcare - Yahoo! News


    Like a lot of companies, Veridian Credit Union wants its employees to be healthier. In January, the Waterloo, Iowa-company rolled out a wellness program and voluntary screenings.

    It also gave workers a mandate - quit smoking, curb obesity, or you'll be paying higher healthcare costs in 2013. It doesn't yet know by how much, but one thing's for certain - the unhealthy will pay more.
    excellent. market discipline, baby. too bad Obamacare is trying to limit or end stuff like this.

  7. #67
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:27 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,336

    Re: Firms to charge smokers & obese more for healthcare

    I'm not sure I am following you here. I agree that the purpose of insurance is to pool risk, but it does not follow that therefore all must be admitted to the pool. Pools can be as small as 1 person, or as large as millions. Lloyds has made a specialty of small risk pools, insuring such things as singers voices, actresses boobs, and so on. On the other hand,
    you stress that participation in a pool should be voluntary. I agree. Should those that opt out because of the opportunity to lessen their cost due to a less risky lifestyle then not have the right to obtain insurance at a cheaper rate? That is the point. All insurance is based on risk, or at least it should be.

    The statement you make, that "Once insurance starts pricing risk into premiums, it ceases to function the way insurance is meant to function, and instead you have a market-based pay-go system in all but name" is incorrect. It was always meant to function in the market. Is this bad? If insurance is not meant to function in the market, what is it supposed to do.

    Quote Originally Posted by StillBallin75 View Post
    Agreed, the primary goal of an insurance system is to POOL risk.



    I don't agree entirely here, and now we are coming up on precisely what's wrong with what insurance has become in practice, rather than what it should be. As Ikari said earlier, the goal of insurance is to pool risk. In an ideal insurance system, participation would be completely voluntary (this is important) and everyone who chooses to participate would be paying the same rate. Under such circumstances, people still have the economic incentive to live healthier lives, or engage in less risky driving behavior, because curbing such behavior would lower everyone's premiums no matter who they are.

    Once the insurance starts pricing in risk into premiums, it ceases to function the way insurance is meant to function, and instead you effectively have a market-based, pay-go system in all but name only.

    Now, this is purely my opinion about how an ideal insurance system should actually work. My opinions on how the ideal healthcare system should work are an entirely different matter.

  8. #68
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Last Seen
    01-05-17 @ 02:11 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    1,479

    Re: Firms to charge smokers & obese more for healthcare

    Quote Originally Posted by Thunder View Post
    Insight: Firms to charge smokers, obese more for healthcare - Yahoo! News


    Like a lot of companies, Veridian Credit Union wants its employees to be healthier. In January, the Waterloo, Iowa-company rolled out a wellness program and voluntary screenings.

    It also gave workers a mandate - quit smoking, curb obesity, or you'll be paying higher healthcare costs in 2013. It doesn't yet know by how much, but one thing's for certain - the unhealthy will pay more.


    LOVE IT!!!

    smokers, the obese, and folks who participate in other very unhealthy lifestypes should TOTALLY pay higher premiums and co-pays.

    why? because their lifestyle costs the rest of us healthy people.
    My place of employment is taking a different approach (basically same) ... those of us with low LDL, normal BMI, normal A1c and vital signs and non smoking, drug free get a discount on our health premiums.
    Last edited by Turin; 11-01-11 at 03:39 AM.

  9. #69
    Klattu Verata Nicto
    LaMidRighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Louisiana
    Last Seen
    07-21-17 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    30,534

    Re: Firms to charge smokers & obese more for healthcare

    Quote Originally Posted by Temporal View Post
    I have no problem with this, as long as it doesn't get out of hand and they start labeling other non-related things as "higher risk".

    Insurance companies will do anything to leech that extra dollar right out of you.
    Not true. I am an agent currently but moving out of the business because I have lost my passion for it, still licensed. Insurance is a risk business, when your behavior costs more it is because it is more likely that your behavior will result in more frequent usage of the product, this means you consume more of the pool so you are on the hook for more of the cost. In Life insurance you pay more because you are more likely to die than someone who doens't engage in the behaviors and thus your beneficiaries more likely to use the money in the pool before your premiums have had a chance to fully mature, in other words you contribute less to the pool than you take, so you pay on the front end.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  10. #70
    Klattu Verata Nicto
    LaMidRighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Louisiana
    Last Seen
    07-21-17 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    30,534

    Re: Firms to charge smokers & obese more for healthcare

    I'll clarify something, a lot of people take jobs instead of starting a business to get access to group insurance because either they cannot attain it in an individual policy or it is extremely expensive. Group insurance by law must accept people in the group and many healthy people take the group policy because it is there and thus easier than shopping the individual market. Individual policies can be less expensive for prime candidates because group policies are weighted to the overall health of the group thus they absorb higher risk, not bad if you need your insurance to be affordable and attainable, not preferable if you can get a cheaper policy that you have control over. The group owns the policy so I believe that they are trying to get a better premium and are probably paying the bulk of the cost for tax considerations, don't have full information so I couldn't say if that is the case.

    Here's where I stand. I hate and love this, I hate the fact that people are attacking others using a legal product on every front that they can because that is so unAmerican to do so. We are a country of rights and liberties and that comes with putting up with annoyances. However there is a silver lining here in that maybe it will teach some of our citizens about the way that health insurance actually works and we will start to get some things fixed, I don't know but at least that would be my hope. The biggest problem with the group benefits market is that most people never see the process in total and because they never see the true costs it is impossible for them to understand exactly what's going on and the problems therein.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

Page 7 of 12 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •