Should fat people, LGBT and women pay higher insurance premiums?

[TheDude]

Smokers are often charged higher premiums due to health risks. Somehow a few other health risks are missed:

Fat people are less healthy than smokers. Why shouldn't they be charged higher premiums?

LGBT are more likely to have mental issues. Why shouldn't they be charged higher premiums?

Gay males are more prone to physical disease. Why shouldn't they be charged higher premiums?

On topic, women are more likely to require medical services. Why shouldn't they be charged higher premiums?

 

[Moonglow]

Smokers are often charged higher premiums due to health risks. Somehow a few other health risks are missed:

Fat people are less healthy than smokers. Why shouldn't they be charged higher premiums?

LGBT are more likely to have mental issues. Why shouldn't they be charged higher premiums?

Gay males are more prone to physical disease. Why shouldn't they be charged higher premiums?

On topic, women are more likely to require medical services. Why shouldn't they be charged higher premiums?

Are you petitioning the underwriters?

 

[the_human_being]

Smokers are often charged higher premiums due to health risks. Somehow a few other health risks are missed:

Fat people are less healthy than smokers. Why shouldn't they be charged higher premiums?

LGBT are more likely to have mental issues. Why shouldn't they be charged higher premiums?

Gay males are more prone to physical disease. Why shouldn't they be charged higher premiums?

On topic, women are more likely to require medical services. Why shouldn't they be charged higher premiums?

It is my understanding that the underwriters have already addressed these issues by spreading the increases in insurance premiums over everyone's costs. As far as fat folks and homosexual males, they have already reduced their life expectancy tables accordingly.

 

[emilynghiem]

Smokers are often charged higher premiums due to health risks. Somehow a few other health risks are missed:

Fat people are less healthy than smokers. Why shouldn't they be charged higher premiums?

LGBT are more likely to have mental issues. Why shouldn't they be charged higher premiums?

Gay males are more prone to physical disease. Why shouldn't they be charged higher premiums?

On topic, women are more likely to require medical services. Why shouldn't they be charged higher premiums?

Dear TheDude
have you thought of other ways to cut the costs so this doesn't happen

1. what if victims of rape, crime trafficking etc received credits towards recovery
that are held to the wrongdoers to pay back these debts and damages.
could that credit be applied to offset costs of health care for all

since some of these crimes are against society and cost taxpayers
why not require the charges be absorbed by wrongdoers instead of penalizing victims and public made to pay for them?

2. what if spiritual healing and other cost effective
treatments could be applied to cut costs of disease and crime?

Why reject the very methods that could help stretch resources
and afford universal care for all people?

Does it seem fair that over-secularization of medical and health treatment,
based on rejecting Christian and other faith based methods that can be proven to work,
leads to increased problems and costs, and then charge this to taxpayers?

Why not give taxpayers a choice?
If spiritual healing can be shown to reduce costs and save lives,
why not offer that option if it allows lower costs and greater populations to be covered
with the resources already spent now on justice and mental health systems that are failing
and costing billions?

 

[TheDude]

'Dear" Emily

You probably shouldn't sport people as victims. It dumbs us down and is the primary reason we're a mess today.

Sure, spiritual healing is great.

 

[Syriusly]

Smokers are often charged higher premiums due to health risks. Somehow a few other health risks are missed:

Fat people are less healthy than smokers. Why shouldn't they be charged higher premiums?

LGBT are more likely to have mental issues. Why shouldn't they be charged higher premiums?

Gay males are more prone to physical disease. Why shouldn't they be charged higher premiums?

On topic, women are more likely to require medical services. Why shouldn't they be charged higher premiums?

Hmmm really want to go there?

For instance- should we charge fertile couples higher insurance premiums because they are likely to get pregnant?

Should we charge those of Nordic origin more because they are much more likely to develop skin cancer?

White people drink more than black people- and higher rates of drinking is associated with both illness and higher rates of injury.

Oh what fun we can have as we identify every target group to charge higher tax rates.

 

[FA_Q2]

AFAIK, fat people ARE charged more. Or at least they were before the ACA - that changed the rules in this regard.

 

[FA_Q2]

Smokers are often charged higher premiums due to health risks. Somehow a few other health risks are missed:

Fat people are less healthy than smokers. Why shouldn't they be charged higher premiums?

LGBT are more likely to have mental issues. Why shouldn't they be charged higher premiums?

Gay males are more prone to physical disease. Why shouldn't they be charged higher premiums?

On topic, women are more likely to require medical services. Why shouldn't they be charged higher premiums?

Hmmm really want to go there?

For instance- should we charge fertile couples higher insurance premiums because they are likely to get pregnant?

Should we charge those of Nordic origin more because they are much more likely to develop skin cancer?

White people drink more than black people- and higher rates of drinking is associated with both illness and higher rates of injury.

Oh what fun we can have as we identify every target group to charge higher tax rates.

That is exactly what they used to do (and still do for things like car insurance).

Does anyone here actually know how insurance rates are calculated?

 

[TheDude]

Hmmm really want to go there? Sure, I like honesty.

For instance- should we charge fertile couples higher insurance premiums because they are likely to get pregnant? Sure, on the condition the goal is extinction.

Should we charge those of Nordic origin more because they are much more likely to develop skin cancer? Sure, on the condition we charge say African Americans more because innate health risks, such as high blood pressure.

White people drink more than black people- and higher rates of drinking is associated with both illness and higher rates of injury. Same applies to black people using drugs.

 

[emilynghiem]

Smokers are often charged higher premiums due to health risks. Somehow a few other health risks are missed:

Fat people are less healthy than smokers. Why shouldn't they be charged higher premiums?

LGBT are more likely to have mental issues. Why shouldn't they be charged higher premiums?

Gay males are more prone to physical disease. Why shouldn't they be charged higher premiums?

On topic, women are more likely to require medical services. Why shouldn't they be charged higher premiums?

Hmmm really want to go there?

For instance- should we charge fertile couples higher insurance premiums because they are likely to get pregnant?

Should we charge those of Nordic origin more because they are much more likely to develop skin cancer?

White people drink more than black people- and higher rates of drinking is associated with both illness and higher rates of injury.

Oh what fun we can have as we identify every target group to charge higher tax rates.

Syriusly so why not let people organize their own terms of service, conditions and exchanges?

If people who believe in charity offer free health care PROVIDED that clients agree
to go through spiritual healing to cut the costs to bare minimum, in order to maximize use of resources,
why not?

If others only believe in taxpayers paying for Vets, then why not focus on VA funding and reform?

If some believe prisons should treat all people for sickness instead of punishing them for it,
why not focus there?

If everyone focused on the angle they believe will solve the funding problem, why not?

Then from there, we could organize what is the most COST EFFECTIVE way to
include and treat all sectors equally. If spiritual healing working on addictions
and criminal illness, then use that. If changes to carb or sugar in the diet
helps reduce or prevent the most problems with diabetes or obesity, then
whatever groups are most successful in addressing that would take that on.

If green groups promote environmental clean up and preservation to
stop cancer causing chemicals from polluting air water and land,
then let that group help in assessing restitution for past cases
and invest in the prevention and reduction of cancer in the future.

 

[there4eyeM]

As overweight is purely self afflicted, like smoking or drug abuse, perhaps so.