Higher Insurance Premiums For Obese and Smokers?

[klah]

Most favor penalty for smokers, overweight

The idea of charging more for risky behavior is well grounded in American insurance practice. Auto insurers charge more for reckless and drunk drivers, and insurers offer good-driver discounts as well. Life insurers routinely adjust their rates - or refuse to offer coverage - based on factors like smoking, age, dangerous occupations and medical history.

But the notion of charging more for risky living is controversial when applied to health care coverage.

With rare exceptions, corporate and government health plans do not charge extra to obese people, smokers or those who engage in unhealthy behaviors. Nor do many plans offer anything beyond a token discount for safe and healthy living.

 

[Infohawk]

A lot more fat people are going on disability these days. I think this is a big problem. People need to take responsibility for things they can control. Except for a few % of obese people, people can control their weight. If being unattractive and unhealthey isn't enough to deter people, then they should have to deal with higher premiums too.

 

[digitalsm]

Anything but Major Medical insurance is a farce, and not really "insurance"

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

It depends . . . you cannot penalize a people with polycystic ovary disease or hypothyroidism. Then again the person with a family history of Alzheimer that smokes like chimney may be doing the insurance company a favor.

As for digitalsm's minor rant . . . providing consistent, timely, expert care for a diabetic PRECLUDES the need for major medical intervention. Traumatic injuries are one thing but the vast majority of healthcare expenses come from chronic illnesses (cardiovascular disease, lung disease, diabetes, etc) that can be dramatically mollified through early, efficacious interventions.

Many health insurance companies do not reimburse doctors that give nutrition or exercise consultations but are paying through the nose for medications and clinic visits required to monitor said medications.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

It depends . . . you cannot penalize a people with polycystic ovary disease or hypothyroidism. Then again the person with a family history of Alzheimer that smokes like chimney may be doing the insurance company a favor.

As for digitalsm's minor rant . . . providing consistent, timely, expert care for a diabetic PRECLUDES the need for major medical intervention. Traumatic injuries are one thing but the vast majority of healthcare expenses come from chronic illnesses (cardiovascular disease, lung disease, diabetes, etc) that can be dramatically mollified through early, efficacious interventions.

Many health insurance companies do not reimburse doctors that give nutrition or exercise consultations but are paying through the nose for medications and clinic visits required to monitor said medications.

 

[Martin]

In general it is a good idea. But an insurance company knowing who leads a healthy life and who doesn't would be kinda hard.

 

[Coquito]

I would love for something like this to happen, but considering how easy it is to convice you doctor that you need medication, it'll be just as easy to convince the doc that your healthy.

I know I would be for this. Being one of the few in my family that can climb a flight of stairs without complaining, this could help prolong their lives long enough to see their own grandchildren.

 

[dmcowen674]

It depends on how many Thugs in the Insurance Scam Industry especially those closest to the top are Fat lazy slugs before they will start cutting off their own gravy train that is at the expense of the healthy.

BBD, looks like you showed that the new software hasn't stopped double Post's.