[rdax]

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

[LIConFem]

My pilot's license has already cost me some $$$ on my life insurance.

[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.

[ABG(anybody but Gore)]

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

Private pilots, sky divers, etc. will have a hard time getting life insurance, and if they do find a company that will cover them, they will pay out the wazoo for it. Smokers, heavy drinkers, and other unhealthy habits are already factored into a person's cost of health insurance premiums. You smoke, you pay more.

Why this poll is news is beyond me. Insurance companies have been doing this for years, and it's never been a secret.

[white trash redneck]

You raise a good question, and the unfortunate answer is that the surcharges would be applied without much thought, and in a politically correct (hmmm, is there much difference there?) manner.

For example, I am a technical scuba diver (overhead environments, mixed gases, etc.), accept the fact that my activities place me at higher risk, and understand why my life insurance costs more. On the other hand, there is no data to support raising premiums on ordinary recreational divers, who constitute about 99% of scuba divers, yet these individuals are also subject to a surcharge.

And of course, the same people who rub their hands with glee at surcharging smokers would be up in arms at surcharging gay men, since smoking is not politically correct, while homosexuality is.

[festus]

Better yet lets just charge sick people ......... ;)

[RexFamilia]

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

[eyedigress]

You tell me what kills more on any given day! I'll charge you for that.

[Old Professer]

Not all gay men climb skydivers.

[longtermmemmory]

sky divers already pay extra. Insurance policies routinely exclude sky diving.

This is about "sin taxes" again.

The democrats want to tax happiness.

How about we pass a law that say all people must find happiness in the exact same place.

[DesScorp]

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

Yup. I don't mind paying higher premiums for my habits, as long as other people with dangerous habits have to do the same. But I'll be damned if I'll do it when there are politically correct exclusions to the rules.