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.
On the point No_Recess is making about lifestyle vs profitability for insurers, he's absolutely right, but again, only if the insurer can set rates according to the model.
The healthy person who will live to be 95 and be a drain from age 90-95 should have progressive increases in their health insurance premiums as they age, since anything that will kill them prior to those advanced years will likely be sudden and not all that costly. It's at the end when they are a constant drain on resources that prolong life by months, even weeks....that's where the premiums should go ballistic.
The morbidly obese person, on the other hand, should have their premium revenue front loaded, but be less progressive, since risk analysis says they are going to die early, and you want to get your payday before that. Whatever kills them will likely be sudden as well, but far more predictable from a statistics perspective, so grab the premium cash while you can.
Now, in the world where the state controls all this according to how easily it keeps the powerful entrenched in that power, go figure the odds of allowing insurers to set rates according to the ugly realities of probability & statistics.
You said it much better than I could.
I've done end-of-life care for my father and aunt. It's a fascinating look into the State's health care system and how up is down and down is up.
I will never blame or fault anyone who does whatever they can to survive and live without pain in this...dare I say...uncivilized system (because as an anarchist I'm considered the "uncivilized" one).
I'd point out that a free market with no regulations and no licensing by an involuntary 3rd party would make all this moot but people insist on living under draconian collectivism and lie to themselves that they need permission to be free...and permission to be treated for medical issues.
My aunt, and especially my father, finally understood this at the very end when I went over their options with them. The State, no matter how much it taxes you/makes you feel protected cannot and will not save you. The State's subsidiaries, known as insurance companies, cannot and will not save you no matter how much or how little you paid in or what medical direction it steered you in. You have your free will and own yourself. Choose wisely folks. Natural law is real and wins in the end. Your social contract doesn't stand a chance against it when the chips are down on your final hand.
I've heard this before where eating healthy = expensive. This is absolutely not true.
Potato is cheap. Oatmeal (NOT instant) is cheap. Rice is cheap. Vegetables like lettuce are cheap.
My lunch yesterday was a bowl of old fashioned oats + slices of bananas. I guarantee you, that was a lot cheaper than a double cheeseburger meal at mcdonalds.
That will get old pretty quickly for most people.
My wife is an excellent cook. She put herself through college cooking and then managed a couple of restaurants.
She can go into a kitchen which, I swear, has nothing in it to eat and come out in 30 minutes with a full, delicious meal.
She makes her own baking powder from scratch. I don't even quite know what baking powder is for, but I she makes her own from scratch.
Also fat, fluffy biscuits from scratch.
My wife makes cooking shows--particular competitions--interesting. She does "color commentary," such as "Oh, he started that sauce too late. He's not going to get that finished in time. And that oven was too hot for her meringue. That's not going to end well." Well, gee, now I have to watch to see what happens.
She points out Bobby Flay's mistakes.
In a couple of months, I'll be helping her put out a YouTube cooking channel on healthy eating.
She will tell you up front that eating healthily is much more than three meals a day of old fashioned oats and bananas. And cheap lettuce literally won't even keep a guinea pig alive.
There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. It is more time consuming all around to eat healthy than to eat processed fast food, particularly if there are children to feed. One must know what to shop for and one must know how to cook. And one's kitchen needs to be set up for cooking. It's more than a notion.
And: Good--Cheap--Fast. You only get two.
You can eat "good" and "cheap," but it won't be fast. It's going to take much more time shopping and cooking.
You can get "good" and "fast"--eating only at health-oriented restaurants. But that won't be cheap.
You can get "fast" and "cheap"--eating at MacDonald's. But that won't be good.
There just ain't no such thing as a free lunch. As things are going right now, in about 15-20 years, there is going to be an incredible epidemic of diabetes and heart disease in the US that may come close to wiping out the African-American population and a large percentage of the Caucasian population as well.
Last edited by Ralph_Kirk; 06-27-2019 at 11:58 AM..
But it's not. I'm just telling you how the world works on a macro level.
You're accepting involuntary collectivism therefore you can't complain about the outcome based on a lone individual's preferences/practices. Sorry, once you accept the legitimacy of the paradigm you are at the mercy of it.
You could have easily started a thread in the same vein as the following...
1. Why don't local government jurisdictions only tax people with children for funding of schools?
2. Why don't auto insurers only insure non-drinkers?
Sure, we could debate these things but what it really comes down to is the fact that the provider is also the final decider and his edict is backed by gunpoint.
My husband and I have almost perfect driving records. And because of that, our auto insurance is lower than typical.
We are health freaks. We workout at the gym almost everyday of the week. We are very mindful of what we eat. We are both very active adults. Our blood tests always come back exactly what a healthy adult should be. His body fat percentage is 10-12% while mine is 13-14%.
So, why do we pay the same premiums for our health insurance as people who are morbidly obese?
Don't get me wrong. I'm not putting down fat people at all. I believe in freedom of choice. If people want to be fat, then more power to them.
But how come insurance companies never put one's healthy lifestyle (or the lack thereof) into account?
Because there's so much confusion on what is even healthy.
There are ridiculous people out there who honestly think that a diet of bacon, butter, and meat and cheese casseroles is the ultimate way of health ("keto").
Then you have other people (like my husband's extended family) who think it's better to eat kraft dinner than plain steamed rice because "rice has chemicals."
Until there's a way to teach silly people like that the facts about health and nutrition, few people will know how to achieve the motivation to save money.
Also, there are some physical activities that can cause health costs in the long run that may come close to cancelling out the potential savings in costs from chronic diseases...like running (joints and knees) and skiing (literally every single serious skier I've known, myself included, has gotten badly injured from it at least once).
My husband and I have almost perfect driving records. And because of that, our auto insurance is lower than typical.
We are health freaks. We workout at the gym almost everyday of the week. We are very mindful of what we eat. We are both very active adults. Our blood tests always come back exactly what a healthy adult should be. His body fat percentage is 10-12% while mine is 13-14%.
So, why do we pay the same premiums for our health insurance as people who are morbidly obese?
Don't get me wrong. I'm not putting down fat people at all. I believe in freedom of choice. If people want to be fat, then more power to them.
But how come insurance companies never put one's healthy lifestyle (or the lack thereof) into account?
Because the insurance companies know your health freakness is trumped by genetics.
How would a health insurance company "police" people for healthy lifestyles?
I’m pretty sure health insurance companies know which one if their clients have diabetes and heart disease and which ones don’t, hence the difference in premiums.
Much like the State itself the insurance industry has incentive to keep you alive. Unlike the State though, which wants all of us to pay in for 30+ years and never collect (by dying), the insurance industry wants us to live longer to collect on those end of life costs.
That makes no sense. Insurance companies maximize profit by decreasing costs.
So, why do we pay the same premiums for our health insurance as people who are morbidly obese?
You can thank your State legislature, FDR, Unions, Congress and the Supreme Court for screwing you over relentlessly.
Back in the day, when health plan coverage first became available, it was you, not your employer, who chose your healthcare plan. The only thing your employer did was agree to pay all or part of it in lieu of wages, thanks to FDR.
FDR stupidly levied a Wage & Price Freeze to combat Wage Inflation instead of just a Price Freeze as common sense dictates.
So, employers could not give employees pay raises without first obtaining prior written consent from the National Labor Board.
Since the National Labor Board always said, "Hell, no!" your employer was forced to offer to pay all or part of your health plan coverage as part of your benefits in lieu of wages.
Then, because the MAFIA controlled unions and used union pension plans to launder money, the MAFIA saw healthcare plans as just another vehicle to launder even more money, so they pushed the unions to get control of the health plans and the Supreme Court stupidly like idiots said "A-Okay!" in the 1949 In Re: Inland Steel decision.
The good news is your government can fix all of the many mistakes and errors it made.
Congress can eliminate the tax subsidies for employers, and even tax employers who offer health plan coverage. Your employer always chooses the health plan that benefits them, which doesn't necessarily benefit you, and may not benefit you at all.
If Congress had the guts to do that, then you could choose your own plan on the market and choose a provider that gives discounts for healthy living, and then your employer would pay part or all of the cost depending on whatever arrangement you have with your employer.
Fixes to your healthcare nightmare are very easy, it's just that your State legislators and Congress-critters are gutless spineless wonders who really don't give a damn about you.
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.
