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

Skip to comments.

Many Americans Back Higher Costs For People With Unhealthy Lifestyles
Wall Street Journal ^ | July 19, 2006 | WSJ ONLINE/HARRIS INTERACTIVE HEALTH-CARE POLL

Posted on 07/20/2006 4:35:25 AM PDT by 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.

(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society
KEYWORDS: addiction; costs; govwatch; health; lifestyle; nannystate; taxes
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220221-240241-260 ... 281-283 next last
To: Gabz; 2nd amendment mama
I don't have health insurance budgeted for EVERY employee. If I had to do that, I would not offer it to any of them.

And if I was going to put more money in the budget for heath insurance premiums, I would lower MY OWN deductible, which is $5,000.
221 posted on 07/20/2006 12:41:28 PM PDT by Mr. Brightside
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies]

To: 2nd amendment mama

If I was greedy, I would give myself the best insurance available and not provide it for anybody else.


222 posted on 07/20/2006 12:42:52 PM PDT by Mr. Brightside
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: GOPJ

I agree. If gays don't have the most dangerous lifestyle, I don't know who does. If there are economic consequences for risky and unhealthy behavior, start with them.


223 posted on 07/20/2006 12:43:36 PM PDT by Enterprise (Let's not enforce laws that are already on the books, let's just write new laws we won't enforce.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 196 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Brightside

It just gets worse.

A woman with one child who's physically disabled -- legitimately -- gets a set amount of SSI-D for herself and the first child. If she has a second child either before or during her disability, the amount for the first is cut in half.

If a woman on welfare has more than one child, the benefits are NOT cut the way they are for disability.

The liberal cries of "taking care of children!" are totally bogus.


224 posted on 07/20/2006 12:48:36 PM PDT by Kieri (Dump "Dangerously Incompetent" Debbie, Support Keith Butler for Senate)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: bfree

Targetted taxes, and nanny state interference.........they go hand in hand.


225 posted on 07/20/2006 12:48:43 PM PDT by Gabz (Taxaholism, the disease you elect to have (TY xcamel))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 220 | View Replies]

To: Gabz

I am surprised that there has been no outrage about the article I linked to you. Having the health dept. knocking on your door to inspect and test people is Orwellian.


226 posted on 07/20/2006 12:58:51 PM PDT by bfree (Liberalism-the yellow meat,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 225 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Brightside
A friend of mine just totalled her car while DUI. She said, "At least I got my car paid off."

How about this? No car insurance benefits for you or your property if you are driving under the influence.

The lender wouldn't like that, and we've opened up another can of worms.

227 posted on 07/20/2006 1:20:33 PM PDT by gogeo (The /sarc tag is a form of training wheels for those unable to discern intellectual subtlety.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: 2nd amendment mama
Technically you are totally incorrect. That cost is figured into the compensation package you are offered when accept a position so the employee is paying it!

Incorrect? The salaries are paid by the employer also.

228 posted on 07/20/2006 1:27:19 PM PDT by gogeo (The /sarc tag is a form of training wheels for those unable to discern intellectual subtlety.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Brightside
And some of us want less regulations so that health insurers can charge risky people more money and bring down costs for the rest of us.

Technically, you're asking for less regulation, right?

229 posted on 07/20/2006 1:28:20 PM PDT by gogeo (The /sarc tag is a form of training wheels for those unable to discern intellectual subtlety.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: Lucky Dog
However, you must also factor into the equation something called risk exposure for the insurance company.

Risk exposure doesn't address whether the premium is appropriate for a given client. Of course, if two skydivers died nationwide last year, then the cost of crunching the numbers would exceed the premium gain.

Insurance is a complicated business...you're aware of the principle of 'moral hazard?'

230 posted on 07/20/2006 1:35:52 PM PDT by gogeo (The /sarc tag is a form of training wheels for those unable to discern intellectual subtlety.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 216 | View Replies]

To: gogeo

Yes.


231 posted on 07/20/2006 1:41:26 PM PDT by Mr. Brightside
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 229 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

"I'd bet that after having paid the taxes and the additional insurance premiums for years they'd still be in favor of denying smokers coverage for smoking related illness if it meant it would keep their own premiums down."

I wholeheartedly agree.


232 posted on 07/20/2006 1:41:36 PM PDT by 383rr ((those who choose security over liberty deserve neither; GUN CONTROL=SLAVERY)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: bfree

What's there to debate? It is you who showed up with hostility (examine back a bit to your initial post). There is no point in debating you due to your attitude. Why even endulge? Thanks.


233 posted on 07/20/2006 1:42:28 PM PDT by AmericanInTokyo (A few clever bones tossed on gay unions, flag burning & Iraq still don't absolve GWB over BORDERS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 219 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Brightside

How will the insurance company enforce that?

Does an agent get to follow the guy around to make SURE he's put on that helmet or that seat belt, or isn't smoking or overeating?


234 posted on 07/20/2006 1:44:11 PM PDT by Xenalyte (Anything is possible when you don't understand how anything happens.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: RichRepublican
Straw man argument.

Sorry.

Getting old is inevitable, and is not an element of human choice, something that not one of us will not go through.

The same cannot be said for those who simply cannot resist the uncontrollable urge to stuff their pie hole with every manner of unhealthy food, and in huge amounts (accordingly become tubs of lard) and then chosing not to exercise....bringing about increased cost and social problems for all of us. The costs are well documented. We are the laughing stock of the world in terms of the hideous, widespread nature of obesity by choice (OBC). People should be made to pay more for their poor choices. Higher costs will force many of them to cut off the Taco Bell binging and couch potato sedentarism.

235 posted on 07/20/2006 1:47:15 PM PDT by AmericanInTokyo (A few clever bones tossed on gay unions, flag burning & Iraq still don't absolve GWB over BORDERS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 215 | View Replies]

To: doc30
Correct, to a point. There is, in theory, no relationship to the hurricanes and our insurance in other states. You are right that the homeowners in Florida, Alabama, etc. will take a high increase.

Increases are controlled by the State Insurance Commissioners. Increases have to be applied for and approved by that department. This is where the wrinkle comes in. The departments of insurance are consumer advocates and generally do not allow massive increases. This means the carrier must slowly recover loss over a period of years. That sucks because investors want profit from the company now (to state the obvious, insurance is a business and that business has only one duty, make money).

If the State that kicked their butt in the last few years cannot take a deep enough increase to offset that in the next 36 months, then the carrier will have a net loss for that period when it comes to profit projections. The companies will make up that shortfall on all policies across the country to ensure the investors get the most bang for their investment. They will make up various excuses for this increase, none of which will be the hurricanes. High cost of employment, high cost of energy, property values are going up, hail, domestic water losses, litigation, mold. They have a zillion excuses to get your money.

The big boys:

Allstate
State Farm
Nationwide
Travelers
Farmers

Trust me, they will get into our pockets and they will make a profit, no matter where the hurricane strikes. It will never be written that our rates jumped from hurricanes, even if they did.

236 posted on 07/20/2006 1:47:59 PM PDT by jammer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: bfree; Gabz

"I am amazed at how many people on FR believe in targeted taxes"

Socialists and elitists come in all shapes and sizes.
Some just think they're conservative.


237 posted on 07/20/2006 1:52:43 PM PDT by 383rr ((those who choose security over liberty deserve neither; GUN CONTROL=SLAVERY)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 220 | View Replies]

To: Xenalyte

If you are in an accident, the officer will ask you if you were wearing a seat belt. (I told the truth one time and got a ticket for not wearing mine)

And if you wreck your motorcycle, the officer or the doctor will be able to tell if you were wearing a helmet from the skid marks on your skull.


238 posted on 07/20/2006 1:55:08 PM PDT by Mr. Brightside
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 234 | View Replies]

To: Enterprise
If gays don't have the most dangerous lifestyle, I don't know who does. If there are economic consequences for risky and unhealthy behavior, start with them.

I agree.

239 posted on 07/20/2006 1:56:47 PM PDT by GOPJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 223 | View Replies]

To: GOPJ

How about this:

"Studies" have shown that people who are negative and can't laugh are not as healthy as people than are positive and can.

Surveys have also shown that conservatives are much more positive and happy than liberals.

Ipso facto, liberals should pay more for health insurance because it's not fair for conservatives to subsidize their unhealthy lifestyles.


240 posted on 07/20/2006 1:58:09 PM PDT by ChildOfThe60s (If you can remember the 60s...you weren't really there.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 196 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220221-240241-260 ... 281-283 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