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 those 53% realized that they were pronouncing themselves in favor of (gasp!) free enterprise and business deregulation, I'm sure they'd change their votes. They probably think they can get the government to impose higher premiums on people they disapprove of.
I would be very interested to see how genuine risk-based insurance pricing, in all fields of coverage, would shake out in an unregulated environment. The capacity to calculate risks based on a variety of criteria has developed considerably in the last 20 years, but it's largely untapped due to regulation.
The same common sensical tyrants that infringe on the Second Amendment. NRA gallus-snapper recta osculate mi fundament.
I am a lawyer!
ping without commenting i might get banned
Told you guys it wouldn't stop at smoking.
Oh, there are lots more: There are the "provider groups," like chiropractors, "behavior health" counselors, etc., who lobby insurance commissions to require things like inpatient alcoholism treatment. Then there are the ideology groups, who insist every policy cover birth control pills, abortion, AND infertility treatment. There's the gay pressure groups, who don't want underwriters to know whether an applicant is HIV-positive.
In P/C coverage, there are the real estate developers, who insist everyone in the state subsidize owners of mansions on the barrier islands or over the San Andreas fault.
And on and on.
I am a lawyer! -
Your screen name includes the word "character"!? ;>)
Is that internded to be an oxymoron, or did it just happen? Most of us hold lawyers in low regard. My first thought is slimy, sleezy shysters. You know congresscritters, and the like!
How much do insurers compete? They have record profits this year and are exempt from anti trust laws & regulations. They can talk to each other and rig prices.
Not hard to figure out what is sinking our health care system.
It's time we stopped the free lunch.
The taxes on cigarettes were supposed to take care of the additional health care costs. If smoker's are going to pay more for health insurance, should the taxes be lifted? If not, then it's the non-smokers that are looking for the "free lunch" by trying to shift their share of the tax load to someone else.
Why not double the rates for people who's family has a history of cancer or diabetes. Triple them for male homosexuals. Quadruple them for women over 50 who still have their sex organs intact. Quintuple them for Bungee cord jumpers.
The problem here is trusting the government with the money.
The question is, "Why should we subsidize heath care for people who don't take care of their own health?"
Not surprising.........
I have two lawyers and they both have 10 times more integrity than 90% of the doctors I've known.
No, I've never filed a lawsuit of any kind.
Your homeonwers rates have nothing to do with FL. States set rates independently. I doubt your insurance has quadrupled over the last 2 years and is doubling again like ours in FL. You rate increases represent your risk, not ours.
I think most conservatives would agree with charging more for health care for the ones who abuse it the most.
For the same reasons we don't charge more for the idiots that have to circle the DC beltway (or most other daily commutes in other metro areas). They are more likely to be involved in car/truck accidents. they are a higher risk than the farmer riding down that dusty road!
Of course, here in WV, our car insurance is higher due to the larger percentage of UNinsured drivers! It's all just a racket to make money, like everything else in life!
And it's not this.
There does not seem to be much discussion of just what the principle of "insurance" really is. It is "sharing or spreading the risk". It is not the principle of insuring those least likely to use medical care.
Costs for insurance premiums have gone up at least 2,000% in the last 30 years. I find it very hard to believe that corresponds with a proportionate increase in bad living habits.
The subject of this discussion is a red herring. It is a sleight of hand to divert attention from the real causes of expensive health care. There are multiple factors, but THE primary ones are: 3rd party payers and government provided benefits (medicare, medicaid etc.).
These two things, more than anything else, have distorted the health care system beyond any semblence of market driven.
This notion making "them" pay is complete liberal crappola. It's always someone else's fault, make them pay for it.
Seat belts, bike helmets, eating, smoking. None of that has changed in 40 years. But the entire medical care system has changed into a Frankenstein (primarily because of the government). And we rush to blame cigarettes and hamburgers.
We are as dumb and hypocritical as liberals if we believe that our next door neighbor is responsible for this mess.
As one who has worked in insurance most of my adult life, I can tell you emphatically that medical insurance is much more inefficient than property or casualty insurance.
The current medical insurance system has an inherent moral problem.
The logical solution is clear, but would be opposed by both medical insurance companies and those who oppose a culture of personal responsibility. The solution is:
RAINY DAY SAVINGS ACCOUNT
Take all employee and employer costs of Social Security, Medicare, health insurance, sick pay, workers comp insurance, unemployment insurance, 401k, 402b, etc. Include that total number in the GROSS PAY column of the pay stub. The first step is TRUTH IN PAY STUB.
Then, require that that amount of money be witheld from the NET PAY and be a DIRECT DEPOSIT to the account designated by the employee and owner of the acocunt. That DIRECT DEPOSIT could go to Vanguard/Fidelity or Bank of America/HometownBank or wherever the employee chooses.
The employee owner of the account would then be given a cafeteria of choices of where to put the money. A minimum amount would be required to be put in major medical coverage and in long term savings. But a large portion could be at the owner's discretion to put in high or low risk mutual funds, etc.
Then, when the owner becomes unemployed he is personally responsible for his unemployment comp, and for how aggressively he looks for a new job. When the owner's family member becomes sick, he is personally responsible for the medical bill.
A DEBIT CARD on the owner's account could be used ... but only to pay a designated list, such as medical providers.
To make it politically palatable, the taxpayers would fund an initial starting amount of money for selected categories of low income workers.
The net result would be honesty in when one takes a "sick day". 80% of people would manage their money responsibly and benefit from the plan. This would include 80% of the poor and oppressed as well as 80% of the rich oppressors.
Probably 10% would be no better off under the new plan than the current system.
Probably 10% would "invest" their money at the casino and be no worse off than now, when the nanny state takes care of them. That is their problem of lack of personal responsibilty.
Why should the 80% who would benefit be punished for the sins of the 10% ?
DING DING DING!!! We have a WINNER!
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.