Posted on 05/14/2018 6:35:57 AM PDT by Kaslin
At some point, if it was deemed legal I imagine insurance companies would look at our family histories and then decide what to charge us. Or maybe even do genetic testing.
But it may not be cost-effective for them to go through all that.
I actually find statistics fascinating. It was my least favorite math class, but they are interesting. So I did a little bit of research on actuarial work. It’s very cut and dried, just numbers. It’s people angry about those numbers that try to put emotion into it. If you look at it logically, and remove any personal impact, it makes sense.
“No, I don’t think insurance companies are trying to control anything other than their bottom line. People have a choice, they can smoke all they want but there are consequences in that there will be a higher payments.”
You are right....they are only after the bottom line. It’s ever so convenient though that they are able to ride the tide of demonizing, stigmatizing, ostracising and political grandstanding against smoking and smokers.
I won’t argue that the routine inhaling of smoke can’t be problematic. However, a very relatively low percentage of smokers actually develop lung cancer or COPD. The question then arises as to whether these unfortunates wouldn’t have developed these maladies had they never smoked. (There is a sizable cohort of never smokers who develop lung cancer and/or COPD). Like every other controversial issue one needs to educate oneself whilst being acutely aware of the political/social agendas at play.
What’s funny is that if I were not a tobacco user, I’d have to pay the penalty.
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.