[Lucky Dog]

What about risky lifestyles of sky-divers, mountain climbers, gay men?

Where there are statistics that can be viewed as reasonably increasing risk, the insurance coverage should be higher. This is especially true where the increased risk is a choice on the part of the individual.

However, where there are no statistics that establish increased risk at the 95 percent confidence level, there should be no increase. Some of your posited examples are not necessarily the best support for your case.

While you may hear or see news reports about those individual participants who come to disaster in the sporting activities you cite (AIDS is an entirely different issue), this alone is an indication that such occurrences are not that common. For example, many more Americans die on the highways than in mountain climbing, skydiving, sport flying, etc., combined. Yet, only the most gruesome or spectacular of these highway events ever make the news. From an insurance risk/cost standpoint, the cost of covering these so-called "risky" sports is very low comparatively speaking.

On the other hand, 80 percent of all lung cancer can be traced to smoking exposure. Similarly, more than 80 percent of AIDS can be traced to homosexual activity. Likewise, the same kinds of relationships can be established for the existance of adult diabetes, heart disease, elder joint problems, etc. and overweight individuals. (Very few overwieght indiviudals are so because of involuntary actions.) Statistically speaking, it would be appropriate to increase the cost of insurance coverage for participants in these activities.

[Smokin' Joe]

100% of cancer can be linked to breathing and consumption of water. Only people who breathe and consume water have been found to die of cancer. Therefore, breathing and consuming water are risky activities and should be banned.

Statistics can be used to 'prove' virtually anything. There are liars, damned liars, and statisticians.

I am not arguing that smoking, or being fat are necessarily good for you, just that at some point, insurance companies can find an excuse to not insure anyone, or at least raise their rates--especially if enough 'studies' are conducted.

The time honored method has been to insure most, risk assess the members of the pool and charge accordingly, and to give premium discounts to those who are less of a risk.

I think anyone who feels obesity should be 'punished' should dig up the BMI numbers and check where they are. When I was 18, I was 6'1" and weighed 240, but there was no way anyone who looked at me would have considered me 'fat'. The BMI chart (ancestor of today's formula) would have had me morbidly obese.

[thinkthenpost]

My opinion here, many of the issues and diseases you cite I believe have become problems because of the fact we are living longer. Basically if you live long enough you have to die of something.

[Old Professer]

"On the other hand, 80 percent of all lung cancer can be traced to smoking exposure"

You're speaking of primary lung cancer, not all lung cancer.

[gogeo]

However, where there are no statistics that establish increased risk at the 95 percent confidence level, there should be no increase.

I don't agree with your standard. For example, skydiving deaths may be uncommon, but the issue IMO is whether the death rate among skydivers is statistically different than non-skydivers.

Of course, I understand the difference between health care and health insurance. I don't smoke or skydive, but I am overweight and I think it's appropriate my rates reflect that.