• 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:
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 shape people's behavior.
Click to expand...

wait...so paying $350 a month for insurance rather than $250 a month for insurance, is a poorer choice than paying $50,000 for surgery?

how does that work?
 
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...

Actually, I hope it raises rates on those who work in energy, construction, chemical factories because that way businesses will be pushed to provided safer and healthier work environments, especially for employer-based health care systems.
 
StillBallin75 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the point of insurance is to pay small manageable sums of money for the guarantee that, in the rare event of a catastrophe happening to you, you will have access to a very large sum of money to help solve said catastrophe. For example, 50 people pay for health insurance during May, and 2 people actually needed it that month, so the costs of monthly payments is based on the average cost of care for those 2 people split amongst the 50, plus a bit for profits. If so, then the people rarely benefiting from their health insurance are using the system properly.

If you drive your car into a tree while drunk, will your car insurance pay for a replacement? I'm of the opinion that insurance in general should not cover harm that came about due to one's own actions. Health insurance should be for instances entirely out of the beneficiary's control, not chronic conditions that came about as a result of a failed lifestyle. In Thunder's scenario, the going rate for health insurance should be reduced, and the people benefiting from it disproportionately should either not be covered for health problems related to their lifestyle/actions or sign up for a different policy that specifically includes coverage for lifestyle diseases but costs significantly more.
 
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...

Personally, I think we should just go with a NHC system.

But... most insurance now days does take into account risk factors. For example, my husband and I have renter's insurance. We moved from Raleigh, NC to San Diego, CA. We had to answer questions about the places that our property was in both upon starting the insurance and changing it to the new residence. Some of these included having smoke detectors, burglar alarm and in use, sprinkler system, other alarms. Despite having more safety measures in this new home, we are paying at least twice as much than in NC just because of the city we are in. If not for all the things military housing provides, we would probably be paying 3X as much.
 
Boring Bob said:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the point of insurance is to pay small manageable sums of money for the guarantee that, in the rare event of a catastrophe happening to you, you will have access to a very large sum of money to help solve said catastrophe. For example, 50 people pay for health insurance during May, and 2 people actually needed it that month, so the costs of monthly payments is based on the average cost of care for those 2 people split amongst the 50, plus a bit for profits. If so, then the people rarely benefiting from their health insurance are using the system properly.
Click to expand...

Agreed, the primary goal of an insurance system is to POOL risk.

If you drive your car into a tree while drunk, will your car insurance pay for a replacement? I'm of the opinion that insurance in general should not cover harm that came about due to one's own actions. Health insurance should be for instances entirely out of the beneficiary's control, not chronic conditions that came about as a result of a failed lifestyle. In Thunder's scenario, the going rate for health insurance should be reduced, and the people benefiting from it disproportionately should either not be covered for health problems related to their lifestyle/actions or sign up for a different policy that specifically includes coverage for lifestyle diseases but costs significantly more.
Click to expand...

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.
 
roguenuke said:
Personally, I think we should just go with a NHC system.
Click to expand...

Didn't think we'd actually agree on something like this, but hey :)

But... most insurance now days does take into account risk factors. For example, my husband and I have renter's insurance. We moved from Raleigh, NC to San Diego, CA. We had to answer questions about the places that our property was in both upon starting the insurance and changing it to the new residence. Some of these included having smoke detectors, burglar alarm and in use, sprinkler system, other alarms. Despite having more safety measures in this new home, we are paying at least twice as much than in NC just because of the city we are in. If not for all the things military housing provides, we would probably be paying 3X as much.
Click to expand...

It's no secret that insurance today takes risk factors into account. I just think that doing so kinda defeats the purpose of insurance.
 
StillBallin75 said:
Didn't think we'd actually agree on something like this, but hey :)
Click to expand...

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.

StillBallin75 said:
It's no secret that insurance today takes risk factors into account. I just think that doing so kinda defeats the purpose of insurance.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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...



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:
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...

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.
 
Thunder said:
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???
Click to expand...

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.
 
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...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

excellent. market discipline, baby. :( too bad Obamacare is trying to limit or end stuff like this.
 
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.

StillBallin75 said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
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...

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:
Temporal said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
These guys are a little late to the screw the smokers party, aren't they?
 
LuckyDan said:
These guys are a little late to the screw the smokers party, aren't they?
Click to expand...
It's a natural end here. Businesses cannot absorb the cost increases that are coming with Obamacare and so more of them are getting on the bandwagon of offsetting against behavior. It is starting where it always does, the most hated group, smokers, and it's going to get worse, like Goshin said, next are going to be the obese, then the the rock climbers, sky divers, eventually it will get down to the power walkers, and speeders.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
There was a study done that showed, on aggregate, that smokers do not incur more medical costs.

Pretty screwed up to charge them more.

Posted from my phone
Click to expand...

They actually cost a little less, overall. But only because non-smokers, on average, live about 10 years longer.

MMS: Error
Do smokers cost society money? - USATODAY.com

But, in that case, you would have to take into account that most of the medical costs for those non-smokers are going to be near the end of life, most likely after retirement age, or at least after reaching Medicare age. So, as far as insurances that are offered as worker plans, within that time frame, the smokers are more likely to cost insurance companies more in health care costs, especially older smokers.

Basically, those insurance companies that are providing health care for workers are not interested in the overall costs of a lifetime smoker compared to a lifetime non-smoker, since the increase in cost of a non-smoker is likely to come after the person no longer has that particular insurance.
 
Are not these intrusions into peoples lives the very thing we formed our own country over?

j-mac
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom