Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Keep in mind that a lot of insurance companies use the BMI to determine if someone is obese. I hate to be the one to bring bad news but most of us would fall into the obese catagory you all are talking about.
Any BMI over 25 is obese let me illustrate this for you, an example is a person who is 5'10" and weighs 175 puonds is obese, however if you lose 5 pounds you no longer are. This is the major problem with this type of plan. Where do you draw the line.
Also the BMI never takes into account body fat. if you have a person who once again is 5'10" and 200 pounds but is muscular they are still considerd obese. Even if they have a body fat content of less than 12%. This is why this type of program is useless.
Except you're forgetting that this is a business, not a government agency, and they don't have to use cookie cutter tests to determine obesity. Sure, some will, but they'll lose business from the heavy, but not obese crowd to companies that use more meaningful measurements.
Hoorraay, let's punish all of those stupid smokers. How dare they get addicted to something that they didn't even know was addicting and dangerous until it was too late. Hell, fat people too! Being unattractive and frowned upon by society isn't enough for them, they should pay with their wallets.
Hoorraay, let's punish all of those stupid smokers. How dare they get addicted to something that they didn't even know was addicting and dangerous until it was too late. Hell, fat people too! Being unattractive and frowned upon by society isn't enough for them, they should pay with their wallets.
Hoorraay, let's punish all of those stupid smokers. How dare they get addicted to something that they didn't even know was addicting and dangerous until it was too late. Hell, fat people too! Being unattractive and frowned upon by society isn't enough for them, they should pay with their wallets.
While I agree that paying for other peoples' poor choices is annoying and perhaps something that needs to be revised...I think this does open a dangerous Pandora's Box. We need to consider its possible contents before make changes that will start us down a path that we will regret later.
Every potential illness, every corner of family history, every possible bad habit scrutinized...do you have anything in your family history that might be considered potentially dangerous?
Does this sound like the type of nation we want to live in? Insurance charges more for people with a weight over the accepted norm...businesses in an attempt to save money require their employees to maintain a healthy weight. The government, in an attempt to "help" Americans with their weight problems begin charging more for "bad foods," restaurants stop carrying certain things because the taxes on them are too great...
It sounds a bit overthetop..sure...but when you ask for government the step in (and you will if you allow smoking in public to be illegal and taxes for junk food is a first step) and "protect" you from yourself...we start down a slippery slope.
Maybe we should charge more for risky behaviors in health insurance; smoking, obesity, but where does it stop? Homosexuality, high-risk sexual practices, tatoos and piercings that place you at a higher risk for hepatitis, too many cavities that represent not only poor food choices but a potential risk for mouth problems, etc. etc. etc. But I worry about where this will stop...and what it might bring with it.
I say keep the government out and let private enterprise handle it. If you wanna stuff your face with Crisco dawn till dusk, then go ahead, but good look finding a health plan for less that $20k a month. You could have health insurance companies that do extensive background checks and reward this annoyance with especially low rates to those who have no family history of anything. There's all kinds of stuff we could have if the government would just stay within its constitutionally mandated powers and keep the hell out of private business.
Gem understands what I'm getting at.
-If we promote smokers and obese to get overcharged, then we are on a "slippery slope" leading to people having to pay for their family history. This will obviously lead to exploitation by insurance providers to run up everyones prices. If the obese and smokers are going to be paying more, then eventually EVERYONE will be paying more for their insurance b/c almost everyone is predisposed to some form of genetic disorder.
-
You're forgetting one thing. If the government is forced, by the voters, to keep their grimy hands off of the insurance biz, most of this stuff is handled by competition. Insurance companies have to compete with one another, which is why they have so many commercials. If one company makes excuses to drive up prices, then customers will switch companies. The latter company will make less money per customer, but will make up for it in volume. In a system where all companies must compete with one another for business, no artificial means of keeping prices high can work, as competition will drive the price back down. A few years back, airlines got a huge tax break from the government. They were planning to use this break to recoup a bunch of losses, and it worked for a little while (a few weeks, I think). Then, a small airline that serves only the west coast dropped their prices to undercut the competition and make a killing in volume. Every other airline in the world followed suit within a matter of days, just to keep their business.
I guess the question is; if the gov. goes away from health insurance, then what do we do with the poor? Will Geico be willing to insure them for free?
The poor will do what they do for everything else they get, buy cheap. The 'poor' in America have TVs, internet access, cable, and several other comforts. If they decide they'd rather have that than health insurance (assuming their employers don't give it to them as benefits), well, then, that's why they're poor, poor money management. The poor will be poor because of bad habits. Charities help the poor overcome their plight. The government makes everybody else pay for their bad habits while they suck off the system.
Gem understands what I'm getting at.
-If we promote smokers and obese to get overcharged, then we are on a "slippery slope" leading to people having to pay for their family history. This will obviously lead to exploitation by insurance providers to run up everyones prices. If the obese and smokers are going to be paying more, then eventually EVERYONE will be paying more for their insurance b/c almost everyone is predisposed to some form of genetic disorder.
-
Why should I, who ancestry made good mate choices, be punished for some fat person's ancestry?
Besides, most fat people- the vast majority- just eat too much. There are very few who are fat due to genetics. Yes, there are many who have slower metabolisms, but these people would not be fat if they made more sensible dietary choices.
You undoubtedly have some disorder in your genetics, and the insurance companies can run quick pedigrees to find out what it is.
And those insurance companies would lose his business to another company that isn't so picky. It's how capitalism works.
As for the poor, I can't believe I didn't think of this before. There are free clinics, operated by charities, and paid for with private donations. In places where you can't find one, emergency rooms will always treat somebody for emergency situations, regardless of their ability to pay. If they can't find a way to pay, the hospital usually just eats the cost (another reason hospitals charge so much to people who do pay)
And those insurance companies would lose his business to another company that isn't so picky. It's how capitalism works.
