Replies

Basically if you live long enough you have to die of something.

The point is not so much that you get sick and die, but, rather, it is what you get sick and die of as well as when. If you die at the age of 120 of heart failure, few would say that it was untimely or that the cause was un-warranted. On the other hand, if you are a smoker and die at 30 of lung cancer, then it is a different issue.

The health insurance and life insurance risks for a non-smoking 30 year-old are statistically much lower than for a 120 year-old. That is a fact of actuarial mathematics. Consequently, a non-smoking 30 year-old pays a much lower premium in recognition of the lower risk of potential pay out by the insurance company.

The original idea in this thread was merely to carry the same idea to its logical conclusion. All life style elements of risk should be statistically considered when determining premiums and coverage. If an individual wishes to smoke, remain obese or otherwise intentionally increase his or her risk to the insurance company of a pay out, then it is logical for that individual to pay an appropriately higher premium.

If an individual wishes to smoke, remain obese or otherwise intentionally increase his or her risk to the insurance company of a pay out, then it is logical for that individual to pay an appropriately higher premium

... OR, accept a lower benefit.

The bottom line is this, if you want someone else to pay for your hospital bills, they should have the right to ask you a lot of questions and rate you accordingly.

You completely rejected the half of my post stating the same high risk or at risk folks die earlier thereby relieving the system of supporting them during the really expensive later years.
By the way a 30 year old doesn't die of smoke caused lung cancer very often. Perhaps a 52 year old who had been smoking for 30-35 years would be a more common occurrence. even with expensive cancer treatments I posit the 52 year old or 30 y.o. cost less than the 89 year old who's been in a primary care facility for two years straight and a nursing home for 7 years before that. I don't know why that is so offhandedly dismissed?
Finally, a 30 year old smoker is going to have a MUCH longer life expectancy than a 50 year old nonsmoker who should pay the higher premium?