• 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!

When should health insurance cost more for someone?

(Fill in the blank) People should pay more for health insurance if they _________.

  • Total voters
    33
Jucon said:
And I noticed that many people said smokers should pay more for their health insurance... and I'm curious if anyone has any ideas on how to enforce that? Because like I said, people could lie to their doctors about their smoking habits. Personally I think that it's unfair to gang up solely on smokers. Being a fat ass is more disgusting and more unhealthy than smoking IMO. There are many more complications that come with being overweight. If smokers should pay more, so should fat people.
Click to expand...

Which is why I voted for both smokers and the obese...
 
Jucon said:
And I noticed that many people said smokers should pay more for their health insurance... and I'm curious if anyone has any ideas on how to enforce that? Because like I said, people could lie to their doctors about their smoking habits. Personally I think that it's unfair to gang up solely on smokers. Being a fat ass is more disgusting and more unhealthy than smoking IMO. There are many more complications that come with being overweight. If smokers should pay more, so should fat people.
Click to expand...

Anyone smoking a pack a day, or more, can't lie about it, their odor gives them away.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Statistically smokers don't cost anymore than nonsmokers, so they are paying more because it's unpopular.
Click to expand...

For some people it seems like no matter how much we penalize smokers, it will never be enough.
 
Kandahar said:
Every time I get bored and decide to come back to this forum, one conversation with you and/or Scarecrow Akhbar is enough to remind me of why I'm growing to hate this place. I can feel my IQ dropping whenever I try to engage you in conversation.
Click to expand...
Sorry that the truth bothers you so much that you must revert to personal insults and then run away.
But... this speaks more toward YOUR deficiencies than mine.
 
Last edited:
Kandahar said:
Every time I get bored and decide to come back to this forum, one conversation with you and/or Scarecrow Akhbar is enough to remind me of why I'm growing to hate this place. I can feel my IQ dropping whenever I try to engage you in conversation.

See y'all again in a few weeks, or whenever I get bored. I think I'm done here for now. :2wave:
Click to expand...

Moderator's Warning:
Please don't make personal attacks like this again. Thank you.
 
Jucon said:
Tobacco products... I think they're taxed enough as is, but I really think some of the tax money (if not all) should go towards health care.
Click to expand...

Well that was the purpose of the tobacco taxes. More than half the cost of tobacco products are taxes, those taxes were sold to us under the guise of offsetting the additional cost smokers cause the health care system. Now once government had that money, they probably used it for other things. But things like tobacco are already taxed with the assumption that the additional tax revenue will go into the health care system. So I don't think anyone can have a valid complaint against smokers who already pay more into the system every time they buy a pack of cigarettes.

Additionally, the fact that people do smoke or engage in other dangerous behavior actually helps in terms of pure money in many cases. While they are alive, they may cost more; but statistically they're more likely to die sooner. And when they do, they stop costing health care money. So in the end, they end up costing less since it costs MUCH more to expand the live of a 85 year old for a few months than it did for that guy to smoke and die. It also provides a "subsidy" (for lack of a better word) to pensions since they die earlier on average. If we really used government or insurance companies to force health changes, and lets say it works and everyone lives a healthy life style; we'll end up spending way more on health care because we'll have a ton of old people costing the system tons of money. Or maybe we can jack up the premiums on senior citizens? I mean, people want to make this case that bad lifestyle choices costs us too much money and they should be charged more for it. Well so does growing old, and that one has potential for a more significant impact on the health care system.
 
Ikari said:
Well that was the purpose of the tobacco taxes. More than half the cost of tobacco products are taxes, those taxes were sold to us under the guise of offsetting the additional cost smokers cause the health care system. Now once government had that money, they probably used it for other things. But things like tobacco are already taxed with the assumption that the additional tax revenue will go into the health care system. So I don't think anyone can have a valid complaint against smokers who already pay more into the system every time they buy a pack of cigarettes.

Additionally, the fact that people do smoke or engage in other dangerous behavior actually helps in terms of pure money in many cases. While they are alive, they may cost more; but statistically they're more likely to die sooner. And when they do, they stop costing health care money. So in the end, they end up costing less since it costs MUCH more to expand the live of a 85 year old for a few months than it did for that guy to smoke and die. It also provides a "subsidy" (for lack of a better word) to pensions since they die earlier on average. If we really used government or insurance companies to force health changes, and lets say it works and everyone lives a healthy life style; we'll end up spending way more on health care because we'll have a ton of old people costing the system tons of money. Or maybe we can jack up the premiums on senior citizens? I mean, people want to make this case that bad lifestyle choices costs us too much money and they should be charged more for it. Well so does growing old, and that one has potential for a more significant impact on the health care system.
Click to expand...

Are you a part of Sarah Palin's death panels? lol ;)
 
If someone's ____ is caused by a personal CHOICE which doesn't have an unavoidable, natural MEDICAL cause - it shouldn't cost MORE per month - but what they end up paying *out of pocket* for subsequent medical issues SHOULD be more.

Smoking (someone is choosing to light up or use)
Overweight (in the absence of a medical-issue the majority of those who are obese are so due to their own personal *choices* in life)
Underweight (just like overweight - in the absence of medical-issues . . . )
Don't exercise/Don't eat right (again - person *choice* is the culprit)

If your health problems are caused by your *choices* that you decide to make - then you should cover more out of pocket expenses . . . but monthly cost? I think that shouldn't waiver.

But having someone in your family with a problem - or being born/developing a problem that's natural and not related to these personal-decision issues - that's a different story. You have *no* control over these things . . . just like gender and race.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
But having someone in your family with a problem - or being born/developing a problem that's natural and not related to these personal-decision issues - that's a different story. You have *no* control over these things . . . just like gender and race.
Click to expand...
Ok... but how does that translate to these higher risks not being reflected in higher premiums?
Why should the added risk associated with your 'natural condition' be assumed by others?
 
Last edited:
I voted smoker, not eating a balanced diet, not exercising regularly, and older.

I did not select overweight and underweight because these are not necessarily related to lifestyle factors, but the above factors are.

The cost of maintaining the elderly population is prohibitive so they should pay more, especially if procedures are for life extension.
 
Goobieman said:
If you cannot address what I said, why bother posting?
Click to expand...

I think I am addressing it. If you're saying it's wrong for people to make money from sickness, does that include doctors?
 
Winston Smith said:
I think I am addressing it. If you're saying it's wrong for people to make money from sickness, does that include doctors?
Click to expand...

I said that Some people think it is unfair for people to make money off of other people being sick.
I dis NOT say that I was among those people.
 
Goobieman said:
I said that Some people think it is unfair for people to make money off of other people being sick.
I dis NOT say that I was among those people.
Click to expand...

I know, but after some thought I decided it looked like that was your argument. Is it, or not?
 
Goobieman said:
Ok... but how does that translate to these higher risks not being reflected in higher premiums?
Why should the added risk associated with your 'natural condition' be assumed by others?
Click to expand...

Because that's the entire point of "insurance". And some of those groups, particularly tobacco users, already pay extra into the system. You just want to charge them again for the same thing to extract more money from them. At some point we're going to have to realize we're a free country. And if we're going to have a system of mandated insurance, then that's just that. Consequence of not having throught and action control.
 
When an older person, or someone who smokes buys life insurance, he pays more. That is only right. Should those of us who are healthy pay higher premiums for health insurance because those who smoke or have a previous medical condition are allowed to get insurance at the same price? Because of Obama Care, I am afraid that next year will mean higher premiums for me.
 
Ikari said:
Because that's the entire point of "insurance".
Click to expand...
We've been thru this - your premise is demonstrably flawed.
Charging different premiums based on risk of cost does not negate the aggregating effect of spreading the cost over the group, and so the effect remains.

Further, you didnt answer the questions:
-How does a "natural" condition that creates a higher risk translate to these higher risks being immune from higher premiums?
-Why should the added risk associated with your 'natural condition' be assumed by others?
 
Last edited:
gmeyers1944 said:
When an older person, or someone who smokes buys life insurance, he pays more. That is only right. Should those of us who are healthy pay higher premiums for health insurance because those who smoke or have a previous medical condition are allowed to get insurance at the same price?
Click to expand...
You are exactly correct -- there is no sound argument for forcing me to pay for the risks that you represent.
 
Goobieman said:
We've been thru this - your premise is demonstrably flawed.
Charging different premiums based on risk of cost does not negate the aggregating effect of spreding the cost over the group, and so the effect remains.
Click to expand...

It wasn't demonstrably flawed, you just disagree with me. When you start charging people varying amounts of money on risk, you've moved past an insurance model which mixes the various risk classes into a single, aggregated payment group to a more market based system. That's no longer insurance; that's more like paying your own way. Which in and of itself isn't so bad. The real problem here is that the medical system has become incredibly expensive and normal people can't simply pay out of their pocket in full. But those costs are artificially inflated, particularly by the current dynamics under which insurance operates. But that's an aside on the pricing model.

The main point of insurance is to aggregate risk over a large population. Aggregation of risk does not mean individually assigning risk factors to the individuals who are supposed to make up the aggregated group. There's actually no aggregation in the model under which various risk assessments are made and premiums changed. You charge people market value based on their choices; but if that's the case why have insurance? There are other ways in which we can bring down the inflated medical costs and then everyone is 100% liable for their own personal actions. Not a bad idea. But counter to the idea of insurance.

Goobieman said:
Further, you didn't answer the questions:
-How does a "natural" condition that creates a higher risk translate to these higher risks being immune from higher premiums?
Click to expand...

What is a natural condition? Obesity, diabetes? Things of that nature? Essentially you're looking at various things with various probabilities. Statistically smokers die earlier and have many health problems. Individually, however, it may not be the case. It's possible for an entirely healthy person to get cancer while someone who has been smoking a lot suffers no perceived ill effects. So you want to charge individually on things which occur statistically. Which is market value evaluation, and of which is not insurance.

Goobieman said:
-Why should the added risk associated with your 'natural condition' be assumed by others?
Click to expand...

Because that's the purpose of insurance. It's like this, you wanna bitch about assuming other people's risk. I pay car insurance. I also happen to be a damned fine driver. In my 17 years of driving, I've had 1 speeding ticket. Yet I still pay car insurance. It's a lower premium due to my awesomeness at driving; but it's not zero. So I've been paying for almost 2 decades now for other people's accidents. For other people's behavior. Why should i have paid all that money for something I wasn't using? Even with some amount of mitigation to my premiums, I've been assuming the risk of others.

Now car insurance is a little different than health insurance right now because everyone is required to have car insurance (also, no longer insurance at that point). I can't opt out, so I have to pay. Currently with health care that's not quite the case. But the point is that individually my good behavior hasn't really been rewarded and despite the fact that with car insurance there are floating premiums; I've still assumed the risk of others. Just like in health insurance. Now if it comes to the point where EVERYONE has to have health insurance, maybe I could see good argument for varying premiums; but we'll have to work out all the details. Specifically with tobacco, I would always be against charging them more since the majority of taxes on tobacco were supposed to be used to offset health care costs.
 
Ikari said:
It wasn't demonstrably flawed, you just disagree with me. When you start charging people varying amounts of money on risk, you've moved past an insurance model which mixes the various risk classes into a single, aggregated payment group to a more market based system.
Click to expand...
No. You dont. Yuor "single aggregated payment group" necessarily must include the same market-based evaluation of risk - the only difference is that those who create that risk pay more than those that dont.
This in no way means that the risk is not aggregated over a large population.
Thus, your premise is flawed.

That's no longer insurance; that's more like paying your own way.
Click to expand...
No, Its not. Your costs are still aggregated over a large population.

Aggregation of risk does not mean individually assigning risk factors to the individuals who are supposed to make up the aggregated group. There's actually no aggregation in the model under which various risk assessments are made and premiums changed.
Click to expand...
This is false. If you were correct then your premiums would equal your costs. That they do not indicates that your costs are aggregated over a large population.

You charge people market value based on their choices; but if that's the case why have insurance?
Click to expand...
To aggregate risk over a large population.

What is a natural condition? Obesity, diabetes? Things of that nature? Essentially you're looking at various things with various probabilities. Statistically smokers die earlier and have many health problems. Individually, however, it may not be the case. It's possible for an entirely healthy person to get cancer while someone who has been smoking a lot suffers no perceived ill effects. So you want to charge individually on things which occur statistically. Which is market value evaluation, and of which is not insurance.
Click to expand...
All insurance is based on exactly that; as such you are arguing that insurance does not exist.
And you still didnt answer the question - why does a 'natural' condition get a pass?

Because that's the purpose of insurance.
Click to expand...
No... the purpose is to aggregate risk over a large population.
The discussion here is 'additional risk' posed by a 'natural' condition. You insist that those that do not pose that risk subsidize the costs of those that do, but there's no sound argument for it.

It's like this, you wanna bitch about assuming other people's risk. I pay car insurance. I also happen to be a damned fine driver. In my 17 years of driving, I've had 1 speeding ticket. Yet I still pay car insurance. It's a lower premium due to my awesomeness at driving; but it's not zero.
Click to expand...
That's because you still pose a risk. Just a smaller one than someone with a bad record.

So I've been paying for almost 2 decades now for other people's accidents.
Click to expand...
Yes... because the poit of insurance is to aggregate risk over a large population

For other people's behavior. Why should i have paid all that money for something I wasn't using? Even with some amount of mitigation to my premiums, I've been assuming the risk of others.
Click to expand...
Yes... because the point of insurance is to aggregate risk over a large population.
Given that these people pa a HIGHER premium than you indicates that THEY are paying for that additional risk, not you.

The fact that you think your insurance should go down because you do not pose the same risk as others indicates that you aree that insurance premiums should reflect risk, in dorect opposition to your original premise.
 
Goobieman said:
No. You dont. Yuor "single aggregated payment group" necessarily must include the same market-based evaluation of risk - the only difference is that those who create that risk pay more than those that dont.
This in no way means that the risk is not aggregated over a large population.
Thus, your premise is flawed.
Click to expand...

It does mean that my risk is not aggregated since my risk is calculated specifically for me and my conditions. That's a personal case, not an aggregated case. Aggregation means that you take the average of a large sample set. Individual risk assessment means that you individually assess risk; that is not aggregation. Just because I pay money into a company that a bunch of other people are paying into doesn't mean that I've aggregated my risk. I'm paying for my specific risk, a bunch of people happen to pay into the same company at their specific risk values. It's not aggregation just through coincidence of paying into the same company.

Goobieman said:
No, Its not. Your costs are still aggregated over a large population.
Click to expand...

No, they are not. I pay specifically for my circumstances and choices; that's not aggregation. That's individualistic risk assessment.

Goobieman said:
This is false. If you were correct then your premiums would equal your costs. That they do not indicates that your costs are aggregated over a large population.
Click to expand...

This is false. My premium would not equal my costs. In fact, the sum of all my premiums would have to be greater than my costs, else the company doesn't net a win. If I am charged my individual risk value my premiums are essentially a savings account (not insurance). I pay in every month noting that at some point I'll need that money. My risk isn't aggregated since it's valued for my specific conditions, thus insurance acts more as a health savings account than actual insurance. But a piss poor savings account because insurance tends to do all they can to not pay out. In a savings account, at least I can always withdraw the money.

Goobieman said:
To aggregate risk over a large population.
Click to expand...

But if you charge people for specific, individual risk values, you have not aggregated that risk. You've been charged full amount.

Goobieman said:
All insurance is based on exactly that; as such you are arguing that insurance does not exist.
Click to expand...

The insurance industry in America is hardly real insurance. Particularly auto insurance since it is mandatory for all. Insurance operates more as a saving account at best and a scam at nominal value.

Goobieman said:
And you still didnt answer the question - why does a 'natural' condition get a pass?
Click to expand...

I did

Goobieman said:
No... the purpose is to aggregate risk over a large population.
The discussion here is 'additional risk' posed by a 'natural' condition. You insist that those that do not pose that risk subsidize the costs of those that do, but there's no sound argument for it.
Click to expand...

There's no "additional risk". The aggregated risk value of the system is the aggregated risk value of the system. It's an average of all parts. That's aggregation. If you add in "additional risk", it's no longer aggregated. Not on the risk front. There's no "spreading out" risk. It's been individualized; which is the opposite definition of aggregate.

Goobieman said:
That's because you still pose a risk. Just a smaller one than someone with a bad record.
Click to expand...

I pose minimal risk, yet am not allowed to reap that outcome. I'm not allowed to get rid of my insurance either. So I pay for everyone else. The same thing you're bitching about with health insurance.

Goobieman said:
Yes... because the poit of insurance is to aggregate risk over a large population
Click to expand...

Yes, that is the point of insurance. However, we have individual risk assessment for the individual people and their specific circumstances which is no longer aggregation.

Goobieman said:
Yes... because the point of insurance is to aggregate risk over a large population.
Given that these people pa a HIGHER premium than you indicates that THEY are paying for that additional risk, not you.
Click to expand...

And that means that their risk has not been aggregated over a large population. It's not a tough concept to understand.

Goobieman said:
The fact that you think your insurance should go down because you do not pose the same risk as others indicates that you aree that insurance premiums should reflect risk, in dorect opposition to your original premise.
Click to expand...

No, I think I should be allowed to opt out of insurance all together. However, with car insurance, I have also stated it's no longer insurance since everyone has to have it. At that point, it's just probabilities. X number of people will have accidents, X number of people will have insurance. You're guaranteed at that point to have to pay out. So all that's left is for individual insurance companies to try to play off each other. The goal is to maximize the number of low risk drivers who pay into your system while minimizing the number of high risk drivers. That's why car insurance companies will often give lots of breaks for very good drivers. They know that you're not likely to get in a wreck, so they can just have your money. If everyone has to have it, it's not insurance since the system on the whole is guaranteed to realize all probabilities.
 
Ikari said:
The insurance industry in America is hardly real insurance.
Click to expand...
Aha.
That's all you had to say.
Thanks for playing.
:roll:
 
The young think they are immortal, then they get old.
There are almost no serious illnesses in my family. I can eat what I want, and my cholesterol numbers are good. My blood pressure is that of a much younger man.
My mother had diabetes, but not til she was in her 60's. She died in her mid 80's. My father ignored a warning he got with his union job retirement physical, the doc said he had symptoms of colon cancer. Still, he made it to 75. Probably would have lived another 10 years had he gone to the doctor when he was advised to...
Both my parents smoked a lot, drank a little. All of my siblings smoked a lot, and 2 of them drank too much. They are enjoying much better health than they deserve.

I never smoked and rarely drank alcohol. Never did drugs.
Why am I the one to get Parkinson's? Just plain bad luck, I guess.
Aggregate that!!!:2razz:
 
Goobieman said:
Aha.
That's all you had to say.
Thanks for playing.
:roll:
Click to expand...

Well it's not, not by the actual definition of insurance. It's mostly just a scam; but the base by which is operates is not an insurance base. It's a market price base. Insurance is mitigating risk through aggregation for the individual. Individual risk assessment is mitigating risk through additional charges for the company.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom