Should fit people pay a bit less in health insurance?

The academic Hobo wrote:

Kind of a slippery slope. Do you drink? there's an added charge. Do you eat fast food (even if you're skinny)? Another charge. Do you run marathons? Oh there evidence that might lead to heart stress, add some more on. Oh you like to ski? well people that ski have a greater risk of injury so you should pay more. I would be carful in this area. Im not sure how old you are but you may stop running or get an injury and gain weight and then you are paying more.

That's another area. How do you price high risk hobbies? What if you're very healthy by whatever matrix but participate in a high risk hobby? Running marathons = higher risk of stress fractures. Skiing = higher risk of ACL injuries.

codger wrote:

Conundrum wrote:

If you take steps to lead a healthy life style, including regular exercise, you are likely to be less of a liability to insurance companies. Shouldn't you pay less.

How should fitness be measured though?

Do you really think this will happen in this PC world we live in?

Too many "in"s in your question

do you know how many joggers flock to the doctor's office because they have the slightest twinge of pain?

bangalangadanga wrote:

do you know how many joggers flock to the doctor's office because they have the slightest twinge of pain?

I admit I'm one of them (although my 2:45 marathon status at least makes me a fast jogger I hope!). I just had an orthopedist's visit, x-rays, an MRI, and multiple trips to a physical therapist, all for a knee I injured while running. In the past, I've also been to a chiropractor for a running related problem. I also get an annual physical because I care about my health. All covered by my employer's health insurance carrier. Meanwhile, I have inactive coworkers who haven't seen a doctor in years. Who should be paying more again?

Your MRIs and PT are pocket change compared to the bills your inactive co-workers will rack up when they are diagnosed with diabetes and heart failure.

Bum Knee wrote:

bangalangadanga wrote:

do you know how many joggers flock to the doctor's office because they have the slightest twinge of pain?

I admit I'm one of them (although my 2:45 marathon status at least makes me a fast jogger I hope!). I just had an orthopedist's visit, x-rays, an MRI, and multiple trips to a physical therapist, all for a knee I injured while running. In the past, I've also been to a chiropractor for a running related problem. I also get an annual physical because I care about my health. All covered by my employer's health insurance carrier. Meanwhile, I have inactive coworkers who haven't seen a doctor in years. Who should be paying more again?

right. the govt is saving the consumer from the evil, greedy insurance companies that would otherwise 'over charge'? If that ridiculous marxist fantasy were true, why does the lack of regulation in less regulated industries result in companies fiercely competing for your business by offering the most competitive product possible?

Why are you people so f'n retarded when it comes to the way health insurance works? How did you get this way?

health care costs are not driven by healthy people getting checkups. health care inflation comes from serious illnesses that require expensive treatment, i.e. open heart surgery, repeated bouts of chemo/radiation/hospitalization.. Another source of health care inflation is ridiculous liability exposure from out of control ambulance chasing lawyers and a broken court system..

My name is Lance wrote:

right. the govt is saving the consumer from the evil, greedy insurance companies that would otherwise 'over charge'? If that ridiculous marxist fantasy were true, why does the lack of regulation in less regulated industries result in companies fiercely competing for your business by offering the most competitive product possible?

Why are you people so f'n retarded when it comes to the way health insurance works? How did you get this way?

Agreed. If anything, Obama is throwing the insurance cos a bone with the ACA.

I say open up competition like other types of insurance.

Let Lance compete for your policy with Harry Smith from Washington State. That is when we'd see rates drop.

No, I don't think fit people should pay less for insurance.

Too hard to prove, for one.

You start looking for discounts based on risk and you might as well just have everyone self insure. Healthy people pay less that way.

It's risk pooling. A seemeingly healthy person could get cancer.

Another advantage of a single payer system is that it would free us from these endless debates about who is worthy of cheaper health insurance and who is immoral enough that they should be charged more. But in the context of this discussion, I would suggest that people who use their health insurance less frequently should be given lower rates or possibly rebates than those who use it more frequently. If someone can smoke a couple packs of cigarettes a day, drink a fifth of whiskey a day, never get any exercise yet not have ailments that require frequent care why should s/he have to pay a higher premium?

It would be similar to discounts you receive in auto insurance for having passed drivers ed and good grades.

But what does that tell you? Not much. Most years I have 0-200 dollars in medical expenses (i.e I see the doctor once a year for antibiotics). But then I had the one year with a 17k surgery. Or the family with 2 kids. Most years are

My name is Lance wrote:

health care costs are not driven by healthy people getting checkups. health care inflation comes from serious illnesses that require expensive treatment, i.e. open heart surgery, repeated bouts of chemo/radiation/hospitalization.. Another source of health care inflation is ridiculous liability exposure from out of control ambulance chasing lawyers and a broken court system..

^This. Also, health expenses rise with weight. Obese adults have roughly 67% higher annual medical expenses. For severe obesity, it's 100%. When you consider that about 34% of adults are obese, it would seem that we are having to pay more to cover their medical expenses.

We should cancel Obamacare, still make fit people buy insurance, then to increase profits cancel the insurance if the fit person gets cancer, so that the corporations can thrive and make money.

HRE wrote:

Another advantage of a single payer system is that it would free us from these endless debates about who is worthy of cheaper health insurance and who is immoral enough that they should be charged more. But in the context of this discussion, I would suggest that people who use their health insurance less frequently should be given lower rates or possibly rebates than those who use it more frequently. If someone can smoke a couple packs of cigarettes a day, drink a fifth of whiskey a day, never get any exercise yet not have ailments that require frequent care why should s/he have to pay a higher premium?

This makes a lot more sense for auto insurance. You cause a crash, your premium goes up.

Not so simple for health insurance. While some ailments are preventable, some are not. You don't want to penalize those that have to go to the hospital. Also, in some cases if you discourage people to go to the doctor they may end up with a worse condition and then be forced to go to the hospital.

To the above guy, PPACA is designed to help those without insurance. In general, everyone else is slightly worse off (both insurance carriers and consumers with insurance). It is actually not a very big deal in the large group market, moreso for small groups and individuals.

might be wejo wrote:

To the above guy, PPACA is designed to help those without insurance. In general, everyone else is slightly worse off (both insurance carriers and consumers with insurance). It is actually not a very big deal in the large group market, moreso for small groups and individuals.

LOL

We'll see.

fisky wrote:

^This. Also, health expenses rise with weight. Obese adults have roughly 67% higher annual medical expenses. For severe obesity, it's 100%. When you consider that about 34% of adults are obese, it would seem that we are having to pay more to cover their medical expenses.

Fisky brings up a good point. I think obesity would actually be a good way to tier insurance rates. Unforunately, there are a few snags to this:

-First, you would have to measure everyone. This would cost money.

-What measure do you use? BMI is stupid because if you are jacked but lean, your BMI is high. Body fat % is not easy to measure, and if cash money is on the line you can't really use the skin fold test.

-Point of fact, this would be a political nightmare. "Fat shaming" is very un-PC.

-We are generally moving toward less strict medical underwritting

I think Japan actually does this using waist size. If your waist is too big, you have to pay a tax.

yeah, underwriting people based on their health is crazy. If it were simple & easy, you'd see life insurance companies doing it.

oh, wait...

right - much better to nationalize entire industries, rather than have to listen to people debate or discuss. Great point. You're euro, correct? Let's follow europe on this & see just how far we can fall off the cliff & become a 3rd rate, has-been, weak nation with our best days long behind us..