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 ...
No.
See what I mean?
I'm neither. Which is not relevant. My side of the argument is just as valid if a fat smoker is in favor of it. The fact that the fat smoker may benefit from it does not negate the reasoning.
This approach reeks of the liberal "get even" method, rather than dealing with the hard realities and choices that will make positive changes.
The days of the free lunch in health care are coming to a close.
If people make unhealthy lifestyle choices (and choose to run to the doctor for every minor ailment... another problem with the current sysytem), they should pay more for for health care.
If somebody is a skydiving, motocross riding, racecar driving test pilot for experimental aircraft, he would (and should) pay more for life insurance. Our health care system can afford to do no less for obese, drug addicted prostitutes who smoke.
Like cutting out the cigarettes and Cheetos?
Oh, she is. In ways that make money meaningless.
I really do understand your frustration. I just disagree that the solution lies in that direction.
Sometimes I grind my teeth and wish that liberals and enviro-wackos had to pay more than we do for gas. After all, it is their policies that are directly responsible for the current cost of energy. Not a great analogy, but it has some validity.
You and your little band of liberal whiners are disgusting.
It is not a liberal idea to claim that heath insurers should be able to rate people according to the health risks people put on their own lives.
Like cutting out the cigarettes and Cheetos?
Healthier people won't change the fact that the government pays for a lot of health care & mucks up the market.
Another significant variable we have not discussed is all of the government mandated coverages that most people have to pay for, but will never use.
Maternity coverage was optional when we got married. Now, with grown kids, I have to pay for matenity insurance for people of child rearing age.
There is a long list of things like that. The legislature thinks insurance is a free lunch. A more al la carte approach to coverage would have a noticable effect on your costs.
Gotta run, sorry I have not been more successful in changing your mind. Then again, hardly anyone listens to me anyway /grin
Hey, maybe insurance companies should be allowed to get our DNA from blood work they're paying for. And then charge us according to our pre-dispositions for certain diseases. /sarcasm.
There always is a battle to maintain a balance between actuarial-driven cost modeling and privacy. I think there can be some basic adjustments for behavior, but they need to be very tightly controlled so they don't get out of hand.
I wonder how many who are in favor of it understand that the smokers are going to end up paying twice (or more) because of the already existing taxes that aren't going to to away, but figure it serves them right for smoking anyway.
Or what about those who go fishin for brown trout?
Regards, see you on the next thread.
: )
But what happens if these same people just drop their health insurance all together? That leaves MORE people that we, who have insurance, have to pay for.
If anyone is paying for health insurance today, I say 'that's better then nothing!' At least they are trying and easing the weight on me!
Where does this end? Do we force all people to take blood tests to see what diseases they're genetically predisposed to? What happens to all the people who can't get insurance because of familial traits that indicate a high probability of disease? Once the insurance industry has used technology and invasion of privacy to eliminate those with risk, where will these people (without insurance) get their healthcare? The taxpayers.
"Amazing how many "conservatives" here are drowning in the Kool Aid."
The good Madame summed it right up. Short and sweet and true.
"I think that the title of the article could be written as "Many Americans approve of higher costs for other
people than themselves."
MarkL's post #72 above is also spot-on.
Surreal, isn't it?
The life insurance industry was able to handle those questions. And so did the auto insurance industry.
Why not let the health insurance industry do the same?
What about risky lifestyles of sky-divers, mountain climbers, gay men?
You think that is bad?, try driving on I-95 or I-66 in Virginia and working in DC
The question is what kinds of behaviour? I'm one of those admittedly rare people who can eat pretty much anything I want, and my weight never changes more than a pound or two. I love my bacon and cheeseburgers, and the blood results from my last physical came back with my cholesterol 2 points above the bottom of the "normal" range. Do you start charging more for engaging in behavior that might make you fat, or for actually being fat?
Thank you tacticalogic, in addition to the items you sited, smokers, the obese, etc,.... generally don't live as long therefore don't tax the system nearly as much as those with chronic old person diseases. Hell, rather than lower their benefits why not give them a refund.
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.