• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Firms to charge smokers & obese more for healthcare

StillBallin75 said:
Nah, it was pretty much an attempt at levity which you took way too seriously.
Click to expand...

I take everything written upstairs seriously. Humor and sarcasm do not transmit well over the internet.
 
Thunder said:
I'm sorry, car insurance isn't insurance?
Click to expand...

Ikari's point is that car insurance, as it exists now, doesn't really work the way insurance is supposed to work. Read and try to understand what he's trying to say, he makes good points.
 
StillBallin75 said:
Ikari's point is that car insurance, as it exists now, doesn't really work the way insurance is supposed to work.
Click to expand...

car insurance takes into account risks, and those of us who have less risks still pay for the accidents and problems of folks who get into more trouble.

just like with health insurance.
 
I suggest they charge more for stupid people as well.. and risk takers... and soda drinkers... and cake eaters... and pie eaters... and folks who have high stress jobs... and speeders.... and jaywalkers..... and drug abusers.... and ...and....and...and... and...
 
Thunder said:
car insurance takes into account risks, and those of us who have less risks still pay for the accidents and problems of folks who get into more trouble.

just like with health insurance.
Click to expand...

Money quote right here:

Ikari said:
When you start adjusting premiums based on "risk" you no longer have insurance. At that point you're better off getting rid of insurance all together and go with a pay to go system.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
StillBallin75 said:
Ikari's point is that car insurance, as it exists now, doesn't really work the way insurance is supposed to work. Read and try to understand what he's trying to say, he makes good points.
Click to expand...

Despite my inability to grasp humor across the internet, this is exactly the point. Car insurance isn't "insurance". It's fully adjusted for the risks involved and since everyone has it and you realize all those risks; it's more a market price. Which is not insurance. The point of insurance is that if you can aggregate enough people together and POOL risk, you can win against the market. But once it's everyone, once everything is adjusted for risk; it's market not insurance. At that point there is NO POINT in having the insurance system.

Car insurance...you'll never get out what you put in. And the system is now set up for the proliferation of it. Just like Health Care will be thanks to Obama care. Insurance LOVES when everyone is forced to get insurance.
 
Thunder said:
auto-insurance factors in all KINDS of risks, such as the location of the owner, his/her age, if he/she drives to work regularly, his/her driving record.

why is it wrong to also factor in risks when deciding how much a person should pay for health-insurance?
Click to expand...

This. Not only car insurance, but home insurance. Is it in a hurricane area? Wildfire area? Flood plain? Life insurance: How old are you? How healthy? What's your blood pressure? Weight within normal limits? Health history?

Risk is figured in on health insurance right now. Male or female? How old? Health history? Pre-existing conditions?

Completely disagree with Ikari. When you factor in risk (which is already done), you spread the risk more favorably so that a 21-year-old perfectly healthy male isn't paying the same premium as a 64-year-old male. Otherwise, 21-year-olds could never afford health insurance.
 
MaggieD said:
Completely disagree with Ikari. When you factor in risk (which is already done), you spread the risk more favorably so that a 21-year-old perfectly healthy male isn't paying the same premium as a 64-year-old male. Otherwise, 21-year-olds could never afford health insurance.
Click to expand...

No...you don't, you do not spread out risk. You consolidate it to match the natural statistics. How is this not obvious? You're just paying market at that point. There's no point in having the system if everyone is just paying market value anyway.
 
MaggieD said:
This. Not only car insurance, but home insurance. Is it in a hurricane area? Wildfire area? Flood plain? Life insurance: How old are you? How healthy? What's your blood pressure? Weight within normal limits? Health history?

Risk is figured in on health insurance right now. Male or female? How old? Health history? Pre-existing conditions?

Completely disagree with Ikari. When you factor in risk (which is already done), you spread the risk more favorably so that a 21-year-old perfectly healthy male isn't paying the same premium as a 64-year-old male. Otherwise, 21-year-olds could never afford health insurance.
Click to expand...

I agree with Ikari on this. If we're going to adjust individual's premiums according to risk, we might as well just get rid of insurance altogether. You're not "spreading" risk around by factoring it in.

In the scenario above, the 21-year-old could simply choose not to buy health insurance at all.
 
Last edited:
Ikari said:
No...you don't, you do not spread out risk. You consolidate it to match the natural statistics. How is this not obvious? You're just paying market at that point. There's no point in having the system if everyone is just paying market value anyway.
Click to expand...

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.
 
MaggieD said:
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.
Click to expand...

Maggie, it doesn't make sense because that destroys the whole point of insurance.
 
MaggieD said:
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.
Click to expand...

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???
 
StillBallin75 said:
I agree with Ikari on this. If we're going to adjust individual's premiums according to risk, we might as well just get rid of insurance altogether. You're not "spreading" risk around by factoring it in.

In the scenario above, the 21-year-old could simply choose not to buy health insurance at all.
Click to expand...

My Blue Cross hospitalization charges about $50 a month more for a smoker. You would discontinue insurance because of that additional premium? And what say you about homes in hurricane areas? Flood plains? Frame home vs brick home. They pay more. You would do away with home insurance? And car insurance? Premium is based on where you live, the crime rate, accident rate, theft statistics. Having people pay more based on risk is absolutely nothing new. It makes perfect sense to me.

If someone weighs 500#, they should have to pay more for their health insurance than someone who's at his fightin' weight of 175#. In actuality, that 500# person couldn't even buy insurance. BUT BUT BUT if he works for a company that provides GROUP coverage, they have to cover him. So now they're saying, we're going to have to do some upcharging. Don't want the insurance? Don't buy it.
 
Goshin said:
Don't whine when they raise rates for people who skateboard, snowboard, snowski, skydive, rock-climb... or work in energy, construction, chemical factories, or any profession that drives a lot... or owns a sports car or muscle car or or or....
Click to expand...

That is absolutely true.

Once the government gains control over your health care they gain control over your body and your life style. You'll notice the freedoms removed from your life but the next generation won't and the generation after that will be automatons. The bureaucracy rules.

Once freedoms are removed by the government it's a real struggle to ever get them back.
 
the healthcare of smokers is paid for by the premiums of healthy people.

therefore, smokers should pay more for their healthcare. its pretty simple.
 
Thunder said:
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.
Click to expand...

Make it easier just add a tax to any product that is not a staple for healthy living, that way every body who indulges in less then healthy life style choices pays in advance for the health care they will need in the future
 
Thunder said:
the healthcare of smokers is paid for by the premiums of healthy people.

therefore, smokers should pay more for their healthcare. its pretty simple.
Click to expand...

Paying more for healthcare doesn't necessarily = paying more for insurance. It indeed becomes that when everyone is forced to buy insurance, but that's part of the problem.
 
Thunder said:
the healthcare of smokers is paid for by the premiums of healthy people.

therefore, smokers should pay more for their healthcare. its pretty simple.
Click to expand...

Their lives are shortened by smoking so they will receive less in pensions. Perhaps they should pay less in SS payments.
 
Grant said:
That is absolutely true.

Once the government gains control over your health care they gain control over your body and your life style. You'll notice the freedoms removed from your life but the next generation won't and the generation after that will be automatons. The bureaucracy rules.

Once freedoms are removed by the government it's a real struggle to ever get them back.
Click to expand...

You realize that the OP has nothing to do with government, right? It's insurance FIRMS that are doing this.
 
StillBallin75 said:
I don't have a particular problem with this, but it should be noted that one's obesity is not necessarily their own fault.
Click to expand...

But you cant blame anyone but THEM for smoking. My old company would not even hire you if they found out you smoked. I loved it.
 
StillBallin75 said:
Paying more for healthcare doesn't necessarily = paying more for insurance. It becomes that when everyone is forced to buy insurance, which is part of the problem.
Click to expand...

I have GHI.

lets say there are 100,000 members of GHI. the healthy folks rarely see a doctor or get medical treatment. the smokers, frequent drinkers, and poor eaters, see the doc much more often and will eventually require very expensive life-saving surgeries and medical care. where does the money come from to pay for these things? not the premiums of the few unhealthy folks..but from the premiums of the healthy people who rarely need insurance to pay for anything.

this is a fair sysytem. however, there is nothing wrong with giving the unhealthy folks an incentive to get healthier, by raising their premiums. when they get healthier, their premiums should go down. but if they don't get healthier, **** them and let them live with their extra expense.
 
Thunder said:
I have GHI.

lets say there are 100,000 members of GHI. the healthy folks rarely see a doctor or get medical treatment. the smokers, frequent drinkers, and poor eaters, see the doc much more often and will eventually require very expensive life-saving surgeries and medical care. where does the money come from to pay for these things? not the premiums of the few unhealthy folks..but from the premiums of the healthy people who rarely need insurance to pay for anything.

this is a fair sysytem. however, there is nothing wrong with giving the unhealthy folks an incentive to get healthier, by raising their premiums. when they get healthier, their premiums should go down. but if they don't get healthier, **** them and let them live with their extra expense.
Click to expand...

But see, if that's the basis of your argument, you're completely better off without insurance at all, and everyone should just pay the going rate for healthcare if the goal is to incentivize people's behavior.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom