Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A: Would you have Done it to Yourself if you weren't Sick Already?
B: Probably Not.
Very little is someone's "fault", as such. No one chooses disability and illness.
I think the answer would be to educate people. Some people ARE making themselves sick. Those who consume large amounts of soda and fast food, for instance. We have an epidemic of diabetes as well as an epidemic of obesity.
All these illnesses cost the taxpayer money. I feel sorry for people who were born with Type I diabetes and have it through no fault of their own. I realize that some people also develop type II though no fault of their own. But so many diseases are caused by life style choice that it does seem unfair for the rest of us to be paying for their own laziness in taking care of their health.
But what can you do?? It's impossible to police people and to decide who caused their own illness and who didn't. That's not going to happen. The only thing I can think of would be public service announcements on tv and other media that would teach people how to keep themselves healthy. Maybe some of them would pay attention. It would be like the anti-smoking campaign of years past that has reduced the number of smokers. We need something like that.
Yes, some people do not take care of themselves, many employers have moved to biometric screenings as a way to "penalize" those that are in that category. Those that are healthier get a discount on their insurance premiums. They usually screen for weight, BMI, glucose, cholesterol and smoking.
I would then also ask the OP, as an outdoorsman, what if you fall down doing an activity and break your leg, that would also be self-inflicted, should we pay for that?????? Where do you draw the line?
That seems like a different thing then what the op was talking about as pregnancy is not a health issue. That said, pre aca people who purchased plans on their own did have the option to pay an additional amount to cover maternity care. If they didn't want it they cold get a cheaper plan.
On that same note though it is true that maternity care is expensive in this country. We really should look to how other countries handle maternity care and that is via the use of midwives vs OB's for normal pregnancies and birthing centers or homes vs hospitals. So much money could be saved.
I wonder why birthing centers aren't available here. I would have much rather had my children in a maternity-only facility.
Yes, some people do not take care of themselves, many employers have moved to biometric screenings as a way to "penalize" those that are in that category. Those that are healthier get a discount on their insurance premiums. They usually screen for weight, BMI, glucose, cholesterol and smoking.
So how is it "legal" for employers to reduce the price of health insurance for healthy employees, when that has been taken away from those of us who buy individual policies? We used to get discounts based on our health, now we are charged the same price as unhealthy people.
That's a huge reason why we've been against the ACA.
Maybe there should be certain requirements beyond income for people who get their care for "free". ie. funded by the taxpayers. Maybe it's too big of a can of worms to open but it's worthy of discussion.
I like that idea, though the details could become a bog of squabbling.
The insurance I used to get from my former employer included a touch of your principle, but approached it from the other direction. By registering for and participating in a documented exercise routine, we got monetary amounts applied to a spending account that we could apply towards medical care before our deductibles were met. The amounts drawn were treated as if we had paid towards the deductible.
The documenting device was a digital pedometer from which we uploaded our data at specified intervals. It was a crude system and did not account for aquatic exercise or anything that did not lend itself to the pedometer. But it was at least something. I earned a few hundred dollars each year for participating.
So we still paid the same premiums but could earn "good behavior" dollars.
Unfortunately, now that we have to buy individual health insurance, we get no credit for trying to improve our health. Meanwhile, every bum that gets hauled into the hospital for drug-abuse reasons pays nothing.
I recently priced a procedure (MRI) from the hospital vs. done at a non-hospital facility. The former charged $2000 more for the same thing! They tack on fees to cover the costs of giving free care to other people. The hospital cannot legally turn anyone away, so they cover those losses by taking it from other people.
That seems like a different thing then what the op was talking about as pregnancy is not a health issue. That said, pre aca people who purchased plans on their own did have the option to pay an additional amount to cover maternity care. If they didn't want it they cold get a cheaper plan.
On that same note though it is true that maternity care is expensive in this country. We really should look to how other countries handle maternity care and that is via the use of midwives vs OB's for normal pregnancies and birthing centers or homes vs hospitals. So much money could be saved.
Yeah! I also think that insurance coverage for breeding-related expenses should max out so as not to keep paying for those who have more than 2 kids per lifetime, including through multiple marriages. They could still have those big families, but the insurance would cost them more per kid after the second one.
So how is it "legal" for employers to reduce the price of health insurance for healthy employees, when that has been taken away from those of us who buy individual policies? We used to get discounts based on our health, now we are charged the same price as unhealthy people.
That's a huge reason why we've been against the ACA.
This is not new to the ACA and it is legal because they offer the opportunity to everyone. There are various screenings, testings, etc. that companies use to qualify and you get a discount based on your health, same with smokers, many employers give a discount for those employees that do not smoke, usually as part of the same or similar program. It's about containing costs for everyone on the group plan, the healthier your population is, the lower your premiums are. Get a group plan and you can offer the same...
Yes, some people do not take care of themselves, many employers have moved to biometric screenings as a way to "penalize" those that are in that category. Those that are healthier get a discount on their insurance premiums. They usually screen for weight, BMI, glucose, cholesterol and smoking.
I would then also ask the OP, as an outdoorsman, what if you fall down doing an activity and break your leg, that would also be self-inflicted, should we pay for that?????? Where do you draw the line?
Good point. What if they exercise themselves into a heart attack? Self inflicted, as well as, a showing of poor judgement - didn't know when to stop!
Good point. What if they exercise themselves into a heart attack? Self inflicted, as well as, a showing of poor judgement - didn't know when to stop!
Yeah.
Like that ever happens in this country.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
