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 ...
If I was greedy, I would give myself the best insurance available and not provide it for anybody else.
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.
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.
Targetted taxes, and nanny state interference.........they go hand in hand.
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.
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.
Incorrect? The salaries are paid by the employer also.
Technically, you're asking for less regulation, right?
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?'
Yes.
"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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
"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.
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.
I agree.
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.
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.