Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Punishing smokers and the obese with higher rates
I watched a recent news report and read a few articles, (I have attached some bloggers talk on it as well) and was appauled initially by the idea that some think it is fair to charge higher insurance rates to the obese and to smokers. (They already have to pay higher LIFE insurance rates.) Then I thought about it and decided, well, it certainly might be a motivating factor to help them "fix" their issues. But then, I thought, no that is ludicris. It certainly might motivate some, but it won't "fix" any ones issues, because smokers and the obese most often have other undlying issues that cause their habits to smoke or over eat. Those kinds of things just don't go away because they will be charged more money. I consider my self in the obese category....and I work on it every day of my life....and it doesn't just go away, and it won't just go away if someone charges me more money. I am paying for weight watchers on-line every month of my own free will...and although I have lost some...and I know how to lose, it's not easy, and some months I use the tool I am paying for strictly as a maintenance program not to gain more...because dang! It's hard and my Wortham heavey weight genes aren't helping me any! Then after reading more, I realize that if you charge the smokers and obese higher rates...why wouldn't you charge drug users, and the sexually promiscuos, because they all chose to do risky behaviors that affect their health and health care costs too. Where do you draw the line before you actually start discriminating groups of people for their choices? And...isn't smoking and obesity and doing drugs and sexually promiscuity all pre-existing conditions? Isn't that something they are trying to do a way with so every one can have coverage? If so...the notion of charging higher rates, contradicts that notion. I vote NO on charging higher rates for higher risk populations. I do believe that it is discriminatory.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
There are innate obese people, but there are no innate smokers.
So smokers should pay more, the obese should not.
Yes, and is the sexually promiscuous also inate? I'd pretty much say they make a choice to do what they do too...so do you tell them to pay more because of their risky behaviors? (They risk all kinds of diseases including HIV.) Probably not,because it seems socially acceptable, and law makers won't want to mess with touching what is now the acceptable social norm. But being obese is not socially acceptable...so it is being targeted. My point....if being obese is a choice because you chose to eat too much and excercise too little, and you raise the insurance rate because one is obese, then one who has a sexually transmitted disease was consequences of choice and that group of people should also have their premiums raised because of their unhealthy or risky lifestyle choices. Where does one draw the line? When does one particular group become a victim of discrimination? Are our social norms dictating what is socially acceptable to raise premiums on now, or is common sence? Because common sense tells me what you said Alan...obesity isn't always a choice....where as smoking, drinking, doing drugs, risky sexual behaviors are almost always a choice. Thus...I conclude that socially acceptable norms are dictating the dicriction of insurance industry, government run, or not.
We could get into a discussion about moral choices, politically correct choices, and even debate whether alcoholism is a disease or not, but you can rest assured that political correctness will win the day. Since obesity is frowned upon (innate or now) and sexual behavior is not to be questioned, you can be sure that fat people will bear an extra burden :)
The public option, to my understanding, would not consider any of your categories. The public option would side step all of the that. One man's addiction is another man's casual pleasure, one woman's choice is another woman's burden. Most misfortune is due to some choice regardless of the morality of the choice.
We have this difficult question precisely because the insurance companies have been allowed to discriminate without regard to what is right. Can anyone disagree? Health insurance reform (a better term than health care reform) is needed because of such existent discrimination. You have contributed to the validity of my argument! Thank you!
I read the opposite Doug. I read that the public option right along with private health insurance can and most likely will impose higher rates for the obese and for smokers. It is legal and was passed by the Democratic majority lead congress just recently.
Post a Comment