Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Great Britain: Life insurers to impose 'fat tax' on the obese, costing up to 50 per cent more
The Daily Mail (U.K.) ^ | February 22, 2008 | BECKY BARROW

Posted on 02/23/2008 7:39:57 AM PST by Stoat

Life insurers to impose 'fat tax' on the obese, costing up to 50 per cent more

By BECKY BARROW - More by this author » Last updated at 22:37pm on 22nd February 2008

  A "fat tax" is to be imposed on the obese by life insurance firms, it emerged last night.

 

Around 50 per cent extra could be charged on new premiums - and the threshold at which the higher rate starts will be lowered.

The increased charge can be up to 400 per cent if you fall into other high risk categories, such as being a smoker or having previous medical conditions.

Scroll down for more...

bmi graphic

For a 55-year-old man who is a healthy non-smoker with no weight problems, life insurance should cost about £1,000 a year for £150,000 of cover. If he were obese, the annual premium on a 25-year policy could cost an extra £500.

Britain is in an epidemic of obesity, which can lead to cancer, heart problems, liver disease and diabetes.

Nearly one in four adults and 16 per cent of children have weight problems that threaten their health.

More than a million prescriptions for obesity drugs were written by doctors last year, compared to just 127,000 in 1999.

Yesterday Britain's biggest life insurer, Legal & General, said 13 per cent of new applicants face paying the higher premiums - which start on anyone with a body mass index of 30.

Scroll down for more...

fat people

Overweight: 24 per cent of women in Britain are classified as obese

A BMI of 30 or more is now one of the most common reasons for the price hike. The threshold used to be nearer 40 but has been lowered as the full scale of the obesity crisis has been revealed.

Russ Whitworth, L&G's director of underwriting and claims, said: "Most people understand that poor diet and lack of exercise can lead to health problems but they might not realise that being significantly overweight would also make their life insurance more expensive.

"Although it is not an exact science, we find that BMI is the best indicator of the risk of being overweight, so it pays to stay in shape."

One problem is that judging people by their BMI could discriminate against the superfit - as rugby players or athletes often have a high weight-to-height ratio by building up the muscles required for their sport.

Other insurers also confirmed last night that they charge fat people at least 50 per cent extra.

At Norwich Union, the second largest life insurer, premiums start rising once the BMI hits 35.

Friends Provident, the third largest insurer, begins "loading" premiums when BMI is over 33.

A spokesman for the Association of British Insurers said: "If you are obese, you are at greater risk of contracting certain diseases. It is just the same as increasing the premium for a smoker or somebody with previous medical conditions."

All life insurance applicants are asked for endless details, including their exact height and weight.

Lying is a false economy, because the insurer may not pay of women in Britain are classified as obese out on a claim.

The Financial Ombudsman Service, which settles disputes between customers and companies, says it regularly has to reject complaints for this reason.

In one recent case, a 37-year-old man told his insurer he was 6ft and weighed 16st. Just five months later, he died from a blood clot - but the claim was rejected after discovering he was actually 5ft 9in and 21st.

If it had know the truth, the insurer said it would have increased his premium by 275 per cent.

The Financial Ombudsman concluded: "The disparity between his actual weight and height and the information he gave on the form was so great that it was difficult to accept that he had been unaware of it."

In September, the insurance giant Prudential started offering free gym membership and a 2.25 per cent discount if you go to the gym at least twice a week.

Matt Morris, a policy adviser at Life Search, a specialist financial adviser, said: "In an ideal world, insurers want the healthier clients. There is an element of cherry picking. They don't want the burden of the heavier clients."

Official figures revealed this week that a quarter of children are overweight before they have even started school. By secondary school entry of 11, the figures rises to one in three.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; News/Current Events; United Kingdom
KEYWORDS: bmi; bodymassindex; discrimination; doublestandard; fattax; foryourowngood; health; healthcare; insurance; insurers; junkscience; lifeinsurance; nannystate; obesity; pseudoscience; socialistmedicine
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-22 next last
Translation Assistance:

stone - definition of stone by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

pl. stone Abbr. st. A unit of weight in Great Britain, 14 pounds (6.4 kilograms).

******************************************

Here's a convenient BMI calculator for us Yanks...just type in your height and weight and press "compute BMI"

Calculate your BMI - Standard BMI Calculator

1 posted on 02/23/2008 7:40:00 AM PST by Stoat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Stoat

I would assume they always factor weight into their premiums. Along with smoking, blood pressure, pre-existing conditions, etc.


2 posted on 02/23/2008 7:41:19 AM PST by neodad (USS Vincennes (CG 49) "Checkmate Cruiser")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #3 Removed by Moderator

To: Stoat

4 posted on 02/23/2008 7:44:27 AM PST by DaveMSmith (Nothin' worse than a leaky dame)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Stoat

Seems perfectly reasonable to me for a PRIVATE business to base their rates on risk. My problem is when government gets involved.


5 posted on 02/23/2008 7:46:48 AM PST by BruceS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BruceS
My problem is when government gets involved.

Mine too, and we may be looking toward exactly that scenario if HillaryCare or Hussein-ObamaCare gets shoved down our throats.

6 posted on 02/23/2008 7:49:34 AM PST by Stoat (Rice / Coulter 2012: Smart Ladies for a Strong America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: BruceS

Perfectly reasonable to me, too, for a business to base their rates on risk.
Anyone heard what they’ll now be charging admitted gays for life insurance?


7 posted on 02/23/2008 7:50:31 AM PST by flowerplough ( Obama smokes!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Stoat
How much longer before being fat becomes a protected class?

An American Expat in Southeast Asia

8 posted on 02/23/2008 7:52:36 AM PST by expatguy ("An American Expat in Southeast Asia" - New & Improved - Now with Search)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BruceS
My problem is when government gets involved.

The way the government usually gets involved in situations like this is to require that the insurance company charge the same rates for everyone, and to sue companies like McDonalds and Frito-Lay.

9 posted on 02/23/2008 7:56:02 AM PST by Wissa (I despise the liberal media.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: neodad

Try factoring risks like same sex sodomy or frequent anonymous sexual encounters while using drugs and no condoms. The Lavender Mafia will tell you that is forbidden.


10 posted on 02/23/2008 7:57:36 AM PST by weegee (Those who surrender personal liberty to lower global temperatures will receive neither.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Stoat

and what about smokers and homosexuals, anorexics, people who engage in sex with multiple partners? Does their lifestyle pose no additional risk?


11 posted on 02/23/2008 8:04:22 AM PST by ThisLittleLightofMine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: weegee

There’s all kinds of things they could factor into their rates. Simple things like working the night shift vs working 8 to 5 make a difference. THen there is race and gender and religion and ethnicity.


12 posted on 02/23/2008 8:05:25 AM PST by mamelukesabre (Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: neodad

Indeed. I applied for insurance through healthinsurance.org and thought I had a really good premium for an excellent plan with great coverage.

Well, I get my brochure and info and they are charging me like 20 bucks more. I was told that I rated as obese for being 217 lbs (I’m no bodybuilder but I put on a significant amount of muscle and would appear to be in relatively good shape to any casual inspection.) The rep had no ability to change anything and since then I’ve not had insurance because I’m not paying extra money because I’m in BETTER shape and stronger than I was before.

By BMI standards the entire NFL, damn near, is obese or overweight. Stupid. I believe even Darrell Green would have qualified at 5-8 for being overweight (185 lbs)


13 posted on 02/23/2008 8:08:59 AM PST by Skywalk (Transdimensional Jihad!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: weegee

Imagine that. A Fag tax.


14 posted on 02/23/2008 8:09:15 AM PST by BBell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: BruceS

It SEEMS reasonable but as I stated to neodad in my reply to him, the BMI measurement without a visual confirmation is absolutely stupid to use as a metric for obesity.

I’m 220 lbs and even if I lost weight and looked ripped, I’d still be above 200 lbs and 5-10 or so. By that standard I’d be overweight or even obese if I was still around 208, I think.

Should someone built like a linebacker or with denser bones (my mom’s side of the family has very dense bones and I believe I was heavier even when I was VERY skinny because of that) be charged more even if they’re LESS fat than people who weigh less?

They should either require someone to get a body fat measurement or allow agents to do a visual verification in case they’re dealing with Lou Ferigno, not Fat Lou from the delicatessan.


15 posted on 02/23/2008 8:12:41 AM PST by Skywalk (Transdimensional Jihad!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: BBell
Imagine that. A Fag tax

img20/6135/haveafaggm3.jpg

16 posted on 02/23/2008 8:13:09 AM PST by Stoat (Rice / Coulter 2012: Smart Ladies for a Strong America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Skywalk

Wait until they tax, er assess you more for having a gun in the home.


17 posted on 02/23/2008 8:21:15 AM PST by weegee (Those who surrender personal liberty to lower global temperatures will receive neither.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: ThisLittleLightofMine

If you reread the article you will see that smokers already ar charged more, so please do not put them in the same category as homosexuals or those who are promiscuous who are not included.


18 posted on 02/23/2008 8:27:24 AM PST by Gabz (Don't tell my mom I'm a lobbyist, she thinks I'm a piano player in a whorehouse)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Stoat

Oh, no! I’m 18.8. I don’t wanna be average, I wanna be thin. I gotta lose 4 lbs to be under 18.5! Noooooooooooo!


19 posted on 02/23/2008 8:35:06 AM PST by Verloona Ti
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Skywalk
Don’t know about the Brits, but when I was selling insurance 40 years ago they charged rates based on height and weight and employment, and some health questions. For larger policies they asked a LOT of health questions. If they didn’t like the answers, or for older people and larger policies they sent you for a medical exam. Sometimes two exams with different doctors. They did credit checks, too. For really large policies they sent out folks to ask previous employers and neighbors about the applicants life style. All of this information would go back to the home office underwriters, who would accept or decline the application, and charge the expected premium or ‘rate it up’ (charge more). If the reason for rating up or declining to issue was health related, the reason would be sent to the applicant’s personal doctor. If it was ‘lifestyle’ they wouldn’t say what the reason was. (One agent in my office lost a huge commission, and by persistence at the home office found out that his client was a Mafia member). If someone lied on his application the policy is 'incontestable' after two years, even for fraud, and the company has to pay.
20 posted on 02/23/2008 8:35:23 AM PST by Lucius Cornelius Sulla (Mike Huckabee: If Gomer Pyle and Hugo Chavez had a love child this is who it would be.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-22 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson