Oh I don't believe that my costs will be reduced. Not in the least. I'm not paying less next year.

Speaking only for myself, I initially questioned BF's comment based on the way it was worded. He asked if he "needed to explain to me" the costs of having children. I then laughed to myself because he was probably pretty proud about his post, being all smarmy and whatnot, yet didn't realize that its phrasing didn't make sense in terms of the thread topic. I almost picture it as him getting extremely excited about posting his witty comment on the board and couldn't wait to get it out for everyone to see, but those damned fingers got in the way again, so instead his thoughts just ejaculated all over his keyboard and screen and I was left to clean up.

After reading through the points presented by both Rick and you, however, I better understand the point that BF was attempting to make.

At this point the bigger concern is not having my rates raised more. This would certainly help mitigate that. My rates wouldn't go down but they would be much less likely to go up if I was put into a different grouping than a 400 pound guy driving around Wal-Mart on a Rascal scooter.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

The entire concept of punishing smokers, fat people, etc. within a pool of insured is really nothing more than another way of the corporation to subordinate the individual, for the employer to put the worker further under his thumb. The canard is that there is some benefit to society and that it will save the relatively healthy money. In reality it is hugely profitable for the insurance company, provides great savings to employers, and tosses a pittance in marginally lower insurance costs at workers in exchange for their personal privacy.

It won't stop with smokers and fatties either. The next step will be for insurers and/or employers to comb Facebook and various message boards seeking out evidence of risky behavior by workers. So be careful what you post in that "What's Up For Lunch" thread. Your professed affinity for McDonald's might one day cause your premiums to rise.

_________________
Freedom is our Strength.

Agree with JORR

Where does it end?


What if someone has a bad temper? More likely to road rage? Higher rates?


I understand the smoking one and would make an exception for that because it is soooo unhealthy and sooo obviously bad for you.

And Im a smoker.

But extending it to obese and other things is a slippery slope.

Obesity is one of the major reasons why insurance costs are so high, and that wouldn't change if a not for profit system was created either.
Hasn't that slippery slope already started with the concept of smoking having higher life insurance and in some cases health insurance?

Once again, I'll state that I've probably been to McDonald's once in the past year, and that was to get a sundae. I even missed out on the McRibs.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

Why did you think that was directed at you? I was talking about Spaulding.

_________________
Freedom is our Strength.

Posts like this are why I can't hate you.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

A lot of companies have wellness programs. We recently switched our health insurance...
The new ins. company sends mailers once a month to get you to sign up on their website to meet goals to potentially lower premiums.

I would guess that premiums for insurance companies vary greatly with age, medical history, smoker, etc...
I can't fathom insurance companies pricing a 5'8" 150 lb 37 year old the same as a 5'10" 280lb 50 year old heart attack candidate.

_________________
@audioidkid

JORR knocking it out of the park right here. Slippery-slope / Mission Creep is in full effect and a lot of indignant pricks have no idea that they will be next.

_________________
Power is always in the hands of the masses of men. What oppresses the masses is their own ignorance, their own short-sighted selfishness.
- Henry George

Neither would be doug league.

_________________

I'm totally confused here. There are two different arguments being melded together here. If insurance companies are just greedy and want to double their profits, they can just double everyone's premiums across the board. Then double them again, and so on. It will get to a point where it doesn't make sense to even own a policy, in which case, people will just stop having them..... OH, WAIT!! NO, that's right, it's MANDATED now!! Oops...

But anyway, I thought the argument was, what should one person's premium be compared to someone else's. Is the argument being made that everyone should pay the same, regardless of risk factors? Or is the argument that it's not the insurance company's business, or healthy person's business, what risks someone else might be taking? I'll disagree with that - if you want to keep your private business private, that's fine, but then you can't oblige me to pool my health coverage with you. Fair enough? I don't see how you have the right to do what you want, but I don't have the right to not pay for your health care when you maintain poor habits.

And anyway what we're talking about here is nothing - the technology already pretty much exists where a DNA test can find out with pretty damn good accuracy what diseases you're going to get and at what age. When these tests become legal/mandated/commonplace, then the entire concept of insurance disappears. Then shit gets real interesting.

I don't think you're understanding how an insurance pool works. As it is, I'm likely to be paying for your kids. I've been to the doctor exactly twice in the last 27 years and to the ER once for stitches. I certainly don't want to pay for your kids running wild on risky athletic fields each weekend supervised only by the inexperienced amateur coaches living vicariously through them. If everyone were to pay their own exact cost, there would be no need for insurance. It seems you want the smokers and obviously fat people to pay extra for their risks while you want a healthy, strong, and fit motherfucker like me to help subsidize your McDonald's eating family of four. Fuck that!



I'm sure if employers/insurers have their way, they'll be able to extract DNA from workers to benefit themselves. I say shame on anyone who would allow that. Personally, if a person/corporation demands that from you as a quid pro quo to maintain your job, I consider extreme violence an appropriate and righteous answer. You have heard the term "good war", I suspect.

_________________
Freedom is our Strength.

No, I definitely don't expect that. That's what I mean that several arguments have gotten intermingled here. It should work both ways. Ideally common risk pools would be shared. I don't think the workplace is the ideal way to group those risks. It's an antiquated idea. True health care reform would have resolved that.


Understandable. But let me ask you this. What if the individual is allowed to have their DNA tested privately, and then decide whether or not to get health insurance based on the results? Surely you can see how anti-selection would destroy the concept of insurance that way, equally as it would the other way around.

I understand what you're saying, 24_guy. The larger question of how we provide for our sick as a society is an extremely complicated question.

I think it's easy for people to look at a fat guy or a smoker and demonize that person as "costing them money", but they rarely examine the needs of their own family and how those costs are being covered. The family is viewed as the "backbone of America", thus it doesn't go over well if, let's say, bigfan and IMU and Frank and me and a bunch of other single guys started complaining about how we're bearing the brunt of covering the costs for families that use a ton of medical services. We'd be looked at as douchebags. Even though our point would be just as germane as a skinny guy saying he didn't want to foot the bill for the fat guy or the non-smoker saying he didn't want to foot the bill for the smoker.

Also, I understand trying to affect behavior with carrots and sticks. I'm not sure how well it really works, but I do understand it and how a wellness program works. But we have already seen some draconian results with employers ordering workers to change certain behaviors or lose their jobs. That's possibly illegal and certainly immoral.

I think equating smokers with fat people isn't a fair comparison. Smoking is a behavior. Being fat is a condition. Some people are more disposed to gaining weight than others. Telling them they just have to work harder to stay slim isn't really a fair solution. And it opens up a whole can of worms. For example, black males are more likely to suffer from certain diseases than other demographics. There would be a hue and cry if an insurance company/employer attempted to charge black men more because of that. How about gay men? They obviously have a much greater risk for AIDS and certain other diseases than other demos. I don't even think it's legal to ask someone their sexual orientation.

Finally, all of the risks are simply based on actuarial tables and probabilities. There are fat guys that don't use many medical services at all and skinny guys that use them all the time. People need to look at themselves. Somebody has to pay the freight.

_________________
Freedom is our Strength.