No, they need their own risk pools. Separate the pools by risks and rates should be set accordingly.
I still think the bigger picture of cost of care is not being addressed here. If it didn't cost so much to go to the Dr. or hospital, it wouldn't be as big a problem. Congress won't tackle that problem though, they would rather everyone subsidize the insurance industry's profits. Vote NO this mid-term for those whose top donors are finance or insurance industries.
So should African Americans be charged higher premiums than Caucasians?
Why Are African-Americans at Greater Risk for Heart Disease?
Lifestyle risk pools. You can't control and predict cancer. Why are people this obtuse?
If smokers are required to pay more for health insurance, obese people should be required to pay more, and it will happen. They should have started charging obese people more before smokers, as obesity is a much larger expense to our health care system than smokers are. The cost of smokers to our health care system is miniscule compared to obese people, and that's not to mention the obese people who also smoke.
My company charges smokers an extra $100/month for health insurance. They don't charge obese people anything extra, and there are a whole lot more obese people at my work than there are smokers, and they cost more to the health system than smokers do. To charge smokers more, but not obese people, is illogical.They did, until this year under Obamacare (for individual policies; for employer provided group policies, individual behaviors don't come into play). I agree that obesity is the #1 health concern in our country. It causes all sorts of things. It's not "if," but "when" they'll get diabetes, high blood pressure, etc. I've actually seen on the internet & on tv stories about really old people, where an occasional one is a smoker! But NONE of them are obese. There are no old obese people.
I think smokers were unfairly targeted. Yes, it's a health concern. Yes, it is linked to some bad health issues (it doesn't necessarily cause those things in all people, though, like morbid obesity does). And the second hand smoke causes harm to others. Not saying it shouldn't have been banned in the work place. But they went after smokers like they were Satan, while giving a pass to morbidly obese people and applauding the sale of more and more fast food, bacon, Twinkies, doughnuts, cake, pizza, beer, etc.
My company charges smokers an extra $100/month for health insurance. They don't charge obese people anything extra, and there are a whole lot more obese people at my work than there are smokers, and they cost more to the health system than smokers do. To charge smokers more, but not obese people, is illogical.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think anyone should be charged more, but if they are going to, it makes no sense at all to single out smokers.
Obesity and smoking are likely the two leading health risks associated with lifestyle. If people can be encouraged to change their lifestyle and reduce the numbers of smokers and obese people, why not? If the idea of charging them more is not acceptable, then give the non obese non smokers a discount.
Obesity and smoking are likely the two leading health risks associated with lifestyle. If people can be encouraged to change their lifestyle and reduce the numbers of smokers and obese people, why not? If the idea of charging them more is not acceptable, then give the non obese non smokers a discount.
What other groups should we target? Just smokers and obese people? How about promiscuous people? How about people, like construction workers, who have a higher on-the-job risk of injury? It's a TERRIBLE idea IMO.
No, I'm suggesting we target people who keep their weight at a normal level and who refrain from smoking. Give them a discount, just like insurance companies give good drivers a discount on their insurance.
My company charges smokers an extra $100/month for health insurance. They don't charge obese people anything extra, and there are a whole lot more obese people at my work than there are smokers, and they cost more to the health system than smokers do. To charge smokers more, but not obese people, is illogical.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think anyone should be charged more, but if they are going to, it makes no sense at all to single out smokers.
If you read the link, you would see that just one of the reasons African Americans are at higher risk for heart disease is because they tend to be "overweight." So a simple yes or no. Do you think African Americans should have to pay higher premiums? Also, the poor are considered higher risk for poor health. Should they pay higher premiums?
The whole POINT of the health insurance overhaul was so that EVERYONE can afford to be insured.
Blah! This totally negates anything GOOD that would come from the health care overhaul. This leaves us in EXACTLY the same situation as before with things like "preexisting conditions" etc.
If you read the link, you would see that just one of the reasons African Americans are at higher risk for heart disease is because they tend to be "overweight." So a simple yes or no. Do you think African Americans should have to pay higher premiums? Also, the poor are considered higher risk for poor health. Should they pay higher premiums?
The whole POINT of the health insurance overhaul was so that EVERYONE can afford to be insured.
That may be the POINT of the ACA, but the effect has turned out to be that many middle class, hard working people are struggling to afford what they could easily afford last year. For no fault of their own. Higher premiums, less coverage. Why? So that someone else can have not just the same coverage that they do, but better coverage...
Well, you can't hide your obesity, but you can CERTAINLY hide the fact that you smoke, if you have no current health issues.
That may be the POINT of the ACA, but the effect has turned out to be that many middle class, hard working people are struggling to afford what they could easily afford last year. For no fault of their own. Higher premiums, less coverage. Why? So that someone else can have not just the same coverage that they do, but better coverage.
The effect: If Bob has diabetes type II, that means he lived an unhealthy lifestyle (it's lifestyle induced). It's a chronic condition that is very expensive over the long run. Sure, it's possible to cure it by lifestyle changes, esp in the early stages, but that's too hard. Bob would rather take insulin. Bob could get ins. last year, but the premium was really high, since it was based on what Bob would cost the company. NOW, he can get ins. at a much reduced rate...the same as anyone else (except people over 50 & those who smoke). Bob can even get a subsidy, so can get a silver policy with low deductible. Yay. Bob is happy.
Person B, who lives a healthy lifestyle and will never get diabetes type II, could get a reasonable policy at a reasonable rate last year, even if s/he was over the age of 50. That's because although they took into account her age, they also took into account her health and lifestyle and the likelihood of her turning in high dollar claims. But NOW, because of Bob and others, Person B's premiums have increased significantly, to the point that she must pull money out of her food budget to pay for them. The coverage is less than she had before, and the deductible is higher (over $6k), so it won't pay for normal medical concerns. That's if she doesn't get a subsidy, and she may not. She cannot afford anything more than the bottom of the bronze plans. Because she has to pay for Bob's claims that he will not be paying for.
All that pizza that Person B turned down, all the exercise that she does (that Bob won't do), all that is rewarded with UNAFFORDABLE BAD COVERAGE, because she has to pay for the sins of others, who no longer have to pay for their own unhealthy lifestyles.
The new system is patently unfair and promotes an unhealthy lifestyle. It means that one no longer has control in lowering his/her premium. Whether you turn in zero ins. claims or $1 million dollars in claims makes no difference any longer. Living healthy, staying well, not going to the dr for every little sniffle - none of it matters. Everyone can NOT afford these expensive policies that cover very little.
Well, maybe. It's difficult to hide the smell.
and, should you get a disease brought on by smoking while enjoying a non smoker's discount, it could be pretty costly.
Er...dudes....smokers ARE charged more for health insurance in the individual market under Obamacare, I believe. That's why that question is asked when you sign up. Your AGE and whether you SMOKE. The ins cos are allowed to charge you more for either thing.
I've heard that some people are lying about whether they smoke. Bad idea. If they get sick, the ins. cos. will know the person smokes (it's in his medical records), and can legally deny the claims because of fraud. And it is fraud to lie about that.
Are you serious? Who's to say a person doesn't LIVE with a smoker. Speaking of which, should THEY be charged more for insurance too? Second hand smoke risk factor after all. :roll:
According to the actuaries, no. It's a complex set of rules. The actuaries determine the level of risk by group. The insurance commissions and the law tell the insurance companies who they can/cannot charge more for more risk and when. Secondhand smoke doesn't add risk to the insurance companies.
Are you serious? Who's to say a person doesn't LIVE with a smoker. Speaking of which, should THEY be charged more for insurance too? Second hand smoke risk factor after all. :roll:
Please post a link. I think you are very wrong.
On the individual market, or the exchanges, smokers are definitely charged more. And it is spreading to employers' group health plans as well. What I don't understand though is, smokers on Medicare and Medicaid are not charged more.
Yes, it is.
I'm not sure we want to encourage them to move out, but maybe. If the smoker has no more consideration that to smoke inside the house, we could be doing the non smoker a favor.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?