Fill in the blank.
I'd put more options if there was enough room. If you choose "other", please explain.
Do you think people should pay a set amount, but if someone lives a healthier lifestyle he/she should get discounts on their rates? Or maybe people pay a set amount but the more unhealthy one lives the more they pay? Or maybe some other option? Again, explain.
I personally feel people who live healthier lives should have to pay less, or people who live less healthy lives should pay more. But then, how do doctors gauge someone's overall health. Someone can say they don't smoke but really do. Or say they eat healthy but really don't. Doctors can only work off of what they see once or twice (sometimes less) a year. Not to mention insurance companies never see the patients (to my knowledge), so how do they know the doctor is being honest? And there are so many different ways to live healthy/unhealthy... how would one gauge everything?
Fill in the blank.
I'd put more options if there was enough room. If you choose "other", please explain.
Do you think people should pay a set amount, but if someone lives a healthier lifestyle he/she should get discounts on their rates? Or maybe people pay a set amount but the more unhealthy one lives the more they pay? Or maybe some other option? Again, explain.
I personally feel people who live healthier lives should have to pay less, or people who live less healthy lives should pay more. But then, how do doctors gauge someone's overall health? Someone can say they don't smoke but really do. Or say they eat healthy but really don't. Doctors can only work off of what they see once or twice (sometimes less) a year. Not to mention insurance companies never see the patients (to my knowledge), so how do they know the doctor is being honest? And there are so many different ways to live healthy / unhealthy... how would one gauge everything?
Does this same argument apply to, say, car insurance?Maybe age, but that's not really the purpose of insurance. Insurance is to aggregate risk over a large population. Therefore, everyone pays the same as we are all pooling our resources to aggregate our risk. The insurance companies may loose out on a few, but it will net on many more. If at some point you start charging more for specific behavior and risk, you've broken the model of aggregated risk. At that point, you're just up front charging based on specific risks involved. That's more a market value for that behavior and if we go that route; there's no point in having insurance.
Does this same argument apply to, say, car insurance?
A 19-yr old guy w/ 3 speeding tickets driving a corvette should be charged the same as a 45yr old mother with no tickets for the last 25 years driving a 7-yr old minivan?
The guy with the speeding tickets CHOSE to drive recklessly. No one chooses to get leukemia.
Regarding the other variables that you mentioned (the age and gender of the applicant, and the type of car), ideally that wouldn't play a factor for auto insurance. For what it's worth, it's NOT fair that insurers would assume that someone is more of a risk based solely on their demographics rather than their actions. However, it's simply not that big of a deal since auto insurance costs are considerably lower and less important than health insurance costs. It just isn't worth the hassle of regulating auto insurance more heavily.
Younger make drivers w/poor records are demonstrably a greater risk than older women w/ clean records.Regarding the other variables that you mentioned (the age and gender of the applicant, and the type of car), ideally that wouldn't play a factor for auto insurance.
Actuarial science disagrees.For what it's worth, it's NOT fair that insurers would assume that someone is more of a risk based solely on their demographics rather than their actions.
Maybe age, but that's not really the purpose of insurance. Insurance is to aggregate risk over a large population. Therefore, everyone pays the same as we are all pooling our resources to aggregate our risk. The insurance companies may loose out on a few, but it will net on many more. If at some point you start charging more for specific behavior and risk, you've broken the model of aggregated risk. At that point, you're just up front charging based on specific risks involved. That's more a market value for that behavior and if we go that route; there's no point in having insurance. It's not insurance at that point as much as it is a health "savings account"; which won't pay out without a fight when you need it. Pretty useless. So either we use insurance as it's meant to be used, in some chosen aggregation of risk across a large population; or we don't have it at all and try to do something about health costs so that people can address the situation on an individual basis.
What about people who mismanage their pre existing conditions?
Does this same argument apply to, say, car insurance?
A 19-yr old guy w/ 3 speeding tickets driving a corvette should be charged the same as a 45yr old mother with no tickets for the last 25 years driving a 7-yr old minivan?
Younger make drivers w/poor records are demonstrably a greater risk than older women w/ clean records.
Goobieman said:New sports cars cost more to fix than older minivans.
Goobieman said:Actuarial science disagrees.
I voted for smoking and obesity as examples of situations where insurers should be allowed to charge people more (within reason). Beyond that, it's too difficult for insurers to police people's lifestyles without invading their privacy IMO. If there's a reasonable way to do it, I don't have a problem with insurers checking to see if people are managing their lifestyle well, and rewarding them for healthy lifestyles and punishing people for unhealthy lifestyles. In fact, it could be a good thing if done correctly. Maybe the financial incentive for healthy living would actually encourage people to be more healthy.
But I think it's important to draw a distinction between an unhealthy lifestyle, and an actual preexisting condition that typically RESULTS from that lifestyle. For example, I think insurers should be able to charge more for smoking, but not for having lung cancer as a preexisting condition. I think insurers should be able to charge overweight people more, but not people who have type II diabetes as a preexisting condition.
I voted for smoking and obesity as examples of situations where insurers should be allowed to charge people more (within reason). Beyond that, it's too difficult for insurers to police people's lifestyles without invading their privacy IMO. If there's a reasonable way to do it, I don't have a problem with insurers checking to see if people are managing their lifestyle well, and rewarding them for healthy lifestyles and punishing people for unhealthy lifestyles. In fact, it could be a good thing if done correctly. Maybe the financial incentive for healthy living would actually encourage people to be more healthy.
But I think it's important to draw a distinction between an unhealthy lifestyle, and an actual preexisting condition that typically RESULTS from that lifestyle. For example, I think insurers should be able to charge more for smoking, but not for having lung cancer as a preexisting condition. I think insurers should be able to charge overweight people more, but not people who have type II diabetes as a preexisting condition.
Personally I disagree. I feel that someone with diabetes or many other previous conditions should pay more than someone without them. I'm not saying they should pay an extreme amount more... I'm just saying they should pay more in general.
As I said - actuarial science disagrees. Older women are, statistically, less of a risk then younger men.The poor driving record is a lifestyle choice that the applicants can control, and should of course be a factor in determining premiums. No one can control their age or (with rare exceptions) their gender. So yes, ideally it isn't fair.
Its the same thing. An argument for one applies to the other.But I'm not about to crusade for equal opportunity auto insurance, because frankly I don't care that much.
Good.Oh I thought you meant from the perspective of the drivers being more likely to be reckless. If you're just looking at it from the cost of repairing the vehicle, I agree that insurers should take that into account.
As I said - actuarial science disagrees. Older women are, statistically, less of a risk then younger men.
Why should they be charged the same?
Then why have insurance? Why not just do something about the market price of medical treatment and allow people to reap the repercussions and consequences of their actions or circumstances?
I saying that, if a person has lung cancer and still smokes.
In some cases, diabetes can be controlled through diet.
What about for things like that?
If they're still smoking and/or overweight, by all means charge them more. I'm saying that their particular conditions shouldn't be a factor at all, because it would be too complicated to label specific conditions as resulting from lifestyles and other conditions as unpreventable.
No... the point is to aggregate the cost, as you said.Because that's the point of insurance.
You think that's not the eventual plan?Just curious.
If we're going to have heavily regulated insurance and all that jazz, we should be heavily punitive to lifestyles that don't benefit the health of a person.
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?