Many Americans Back Higher Costs For People With Unhealthy Lifestyles

Wall Street Journal ^ | July 19, 2006 | WSJ ONLINE/HARRIS INTERACTIVE HEALTH-CARE POLL

[rdax]

A new WSJ.com/Harris health-care poll indicates growing U.S. support for charging higher insurance premiums or out-of-pockets medical costs to people with unhealthy lifestyles.

The online survey of 2,325 U.S. adults found that 53% of Americans think it is fair to ask people with unhealthy lifestyles to pay higher insurance premiums than people with healthy lifestyles, while 32% said it would be unfair. When asked the same question in 2003, 37% said it would be fair, while 45% said it would be unfair. Healthy lifestyles were described as not smoking, exercising frequently and controlling one's weight.

[vikingvx]

I wonder how many people who oppose this idea are fat or are smokers.

And in a perfect world being a smug, arrogant jerk would be an unhealthy lifestyle.

Don't bother with a reply. This is a drive-by observation.

[dirtboy]

And that's the other side of the debate - behavior does not always equate to risk. Which is why, IMO, any such process needs to be tightly controlled.

[thinkthenpost]

My opinion here, many of the issues and diseases you cite I believe have become problems because of the fact we are living longer. Basically if you live long enough you have to die of something.

[dirtboy]

I wonder how many people who oppose this idea are fat or are smokers.

A neighbor I had as a kid ran 5 miles every morning and was rail-thin. He keeled over from a heart attack at a younger age than I am now, and my lifestyle is nowhere near as "healthy" as his supposedly was.

[Mr. Brightside]

smokers, the obese, etc,.... generally don't live as long therefore don't tax the system nearly as much

Brilliant! Why didn't we think of that before?

If we can get more people fat and increase the amount of smokers in this country, think of how much money we could save!

Our health care system would be rescued!

/sarc

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[Mr. Brightside]

I guess I hit a nerve, huh?

[thinkthenpost]

Bravo, Standing O

[jiggyboy]

How do you prove it?

The good old health exam. Body fat percentage, cholesterol test, STD tests, drug screening (including nicotine addition via hair samples &c), etc.

I don't know why insurance companies don't do that as a matter of course. Maybe it's pricey to do all those tests, but I'd bet it's more likely the same stupid socialist reasons imposed on them forbidding them to "discriminate" for car insurance based on sex.

[bfree]

In my ideal world, smug people would be stoned in the public square. Guess we all don't get what we want.

[Mase]

Why not let the health insurance industry do the same?

We have a true market in the life insurance and auto insurance industries. As long as we have allow a third-party to pay in healthcare, it will always be a false economy without incentives.

With enough people arguing like you are, the life insurance industry could ask big brother to allow them to test your gene pool to assign a risk to your policy. Is this what you want? Technology can now offer the insurers all kinds of information about you that wasn't available years ago. How much do you want the insurance companies prying into your life to determine your risk for disease and how long you might live? Some risk assessment is acceptable and necessary. Where does it end though? How far do you go to protect those who feel they live a more healthy lifestyle than their neighbor and should be rewarded for it?

[jiggyboy]

Is bungee jumping unhealthy lifestyle? And how do the insurers find out my hobbies? And for the ladies, is jabbering about absolutely nothing on your cell phone while driving... is this an unhealthy life style?

Good one. I know that some professions and hobbies (pilot's license mentioned above, also scuba-diving for example) are specifically asked about. It seems to me that at least a couple of years ago they were able to ask if you were an "antique dealer" or "interior decorator" for example as code for "are you a homo full of AIDS?".

In a more ideal world, the insurance company would have a database of all these kinds of things, including requesting a statement that you either don't have a cell phone or you have one and here's the bill for the last three months. You could either voluntarily give that information to that insurance company or harrumph about intrusiveness and pick another one.

[Madame Dufarge]

Surreal indeed.

[ichabod1]

I tell you what if you're privately insured and you ever use that alcoholism benefit they'll drop you like a hot potato as soon as your policy expires.

[Mr. Brightside]

Some risk assessment is acceptable and necessary.

Agreed.

Question one: "Do you have an elevated level of nicotine in your blood?"

Question two: "Are you obese?"

Question three: "Do you test positive for illegal drugs?"

Question four: "Have you been convicted for driving under the influence?"

I would be satisfied if we stopped there. (... Possibly one more question as to how many Venerial Diseases you have been diagnosed with.)

[Mr. Brightside]

I will assume you are so edgy because you are either on the Atkins Diet or trying to quit smoking.

[oldbrowser]

Healthy lifestyles were described as not smoking, exercising frequently and controlling one's weight.

Some people have longevity in their genes, they all live into the 90's and 100's, other family groups tend to die in their 50's and 60's.

And it tends to break down into racial, ethnic, or economic lines.

Also, some people are so healthy that they physically live well beyond their mental health life. Nursing homes are full of people that are unable to function mentally but are still functioning physically. These are the most expensive people I would think.

We all have to die sometime. Maybe we should charge the healthy people more because they tend to drag out the dying for years.

[Truth-The Anti Spin]

Ugh. The worst part is, this is not top down authoritarianism.. this is We the People embracing the worst aspects of socialism..

[metesky]

Red herring bump!

[Lucky Dog]

Basically if you live long enough you have to die of something.

The point is not so much that you get sick and die, but, rather, it is what you get sick and die of as well as when. If you die at the age of 120 of heart failure, few would say that it was untimely or that the cause was un-warranted. On the other hand, if you are a smoker and die at 30 of lung cancer, then it is a different issue.

The health insurance and life insurance risks for a non-smoking 30 year-old are statistically much lower than for a 120 year-old. That is a fact of actuarial mathematics. Consequently, a non-smoking 30 year-old pays a much lower premium in recognition of the lower risk of potential pay out by the insurance company.

The original idea in this thread was merely to carry the same idea to its logical conclusion. All life style elements of risk should be statistically considered when determining premiums and coverage. If an individual wishes to smoke, remain obese or otherwise intentionally increase his or her risk to the insurance company of a pay out, then it is logical for that individual to pay an appropriately higher premium.