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 ...
Maybe you could join joeystoy in a new insurance company.
I did until the State of New York made it illegal.
You're not trying to argue that people who smoke don't get lung cancer at higher rates than non-smokers are you?
That picture looks very gay. Like the gay couple on "Big Daddy."
We can treat lots more diseases, cure a lot more ailments and relieve a lot more symptoms. Kind of like comparing an aircraft used in the Vietnam War to one used today in Iraq.
Sure it costs more. But it also DOES a lot more.
Nanny State Ping.
Look at the changes in the percentages.....the unintended consequences of nanny state socialism.
So if I maintain my weight by getting my heart rate up to 145 every day doing strenuous aerobic exercise, does that qualify me for a lower premium or not ?
BUMP
It actually would be easier to provide more of an ala Carte insurance package. The idiot commissions in each state have no standardization, they set up rules that are politically motivated and cause a tremendous amount of unneeded costs to be passed to the policyholders.
We've got a guy here at work that's a running addict. His doctor's already told him that if he doesn't back off he's going to need knee replacements, but he can't give it up.
Better yet lets just charge sick people ......... ;)
If you are over 45 and pushing your heart rate to 145 every day, that may not be good for your heart -- so no.
I think that the title of the article could be written as "Many Americans approve of higher costs for other people than themselves."
Mark
I heard that you were taking a poll as to whether or not you should change your screen name to "Mr. Dimbulb". I side with those who think you should.
You may find tobacco offensive, you may even find data which suggest it is the prime carcinogen, but the fact is the data from basic research into curing cancer (not just hacking out parts, frying the rest with radiation or chemicals, but actually stopping the mechanisms which make cancer progress at the cellular level) has the potential to benefit anyone with cancer, regardless of type or cause.
The people who don't like tobacco because it is stinky have been hornswaggled into tossing time and treasure into a situation with little net gain in the fight against the disease, while being led to believe that something is being done by that.
It is a fraud. It takes away attention and funding from the possibility of basic research into the disease itself, and covers the inadequacies of those who wave the flag of that bromide instead of pursue cutting edge research.
As for smoking, if I ever get lung cancer, the cigarettes will get the blame, not the chemical exposures I have had over the years, not the rock dust I breathed drilling shot holes in the Blue Ridge on a highway project, not ambient exposure to any of a host of other chemicals/dusts, or pollutants. But those stinky cigarettes are such an evil, easy and obvious target that the bar has been lowered by some to include anyone ever exposed to so much as a whiff of 'environmental' tobacco smoke as being at increased risk. As such, breathing and water consumption are little different defining paramters, and in some areas are probably more harmful than a little second hand smoke is in others. That is my point.
And you side with those who want to increase the Welfare State.
Better check to see which genes you have inherited--that is usually what determines what's going to knock you off.
Excellent synopsis of the "health care" mess.
Amazing how many "conservatives" here are drowning in the Kool Aid.
Excellent point, just read some of the posts here.
I wonder how many people who oppose this idea are fat or are smokers.
Not 20 times greater. I do not hold the statements of the Surgeon General in great reverance. It is a ceremonial political appointment. That aside, the 80% figure is pure fantasy.
Yes, there is no question technical advancements have contributed to cost. That is one of the variables of which I spoke.
None of the above changes the reality that we have a health care delivery system that doesn't even vaguely resemble a market forces driven system. This fact dwarfs all other variables. Until such time as that is addressed, other fixes will be cosmetic and temporary.
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.