 
|
|
|
|
|
|
sonnylax
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 30 Sep 2003
Posts: 2942
Location: Living in a lollipop and unicorn world
|
| Back to top
|
|
 Posted: 01/26/05 - 17:10 Post subject:
| rtpd113 wrote: | Instead of parity, I say you want to smoke you pay a higher premium. Period.
It works that way for life insurance.
Life insurance also considers life style, ie activities too.
Should Hyper pay more because he skates, which is considered a more dangerous activity? Therefore his risk for an accident thus a claim is higher. |
That is a great point. When we select our current benefits (including health care coverage), they will deduct more from each paycheck if you choose to cover a spouse and/or kids. That is the way I would approach it if I was calling all the shots.
|
|
|
|
|
genie
Master of Prissface
|
|
|
Joined: 14 May 2002
Posts: 16194
Location: Finding serenity one day at a time
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 01/26/05 - 17:31 Post subject:
| Cappy wrote: |
Good point Go, I agree. |
I actually do too, although I notice that alcohol and drug treatment can sometimes be mandated if they interfere with your productivity, and if people refuse, they can be terminated. And I don't just mean if they're caught using on the job. I've seen a couple patients in the past who were mandated for treatment under penalty of job termination. It's a lengthy and tedious process, so it's rarely done, but it does exist.
I agree about the physical health concerns you mentioned (and others) though, and I think the answer to that is what Po Po said: just like we did when I worked for Prudential, smokers paid a higher premium. People with poor health histories paid higher premiums. You couldn't get what they called a "preferred" status policy issued, which is the lowest premium you pay for whole life, if you were a smoker, or engaged in what they deemed dangerous activity, or had a family and/or personal history of high blood pressure, heart disease, etc, were obese.....the list is long and our ratings were carefully determined by mortality rates and liability. Why can't health insurance premiums paid through work be the same way?
|
|
|
|
|
kristin31
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 15 May 2002
Posts: 8045
Location: Caught in the crossfire of childhood and stardom
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 01/26/05 - 21:12 Post subject:
But what if someone, through no fault of their own, was born with or contracts a debilitating disease/condition? Why should they be punished for developing severe rheumatoid arthritis or lupus? Or cancer? Or anything similar? Why add insult to injury? It seems unfair to punish someone who has already been dealt an unfair hand by smacking them with higher premiums.
|
|
|
|
|
genie
Master of Prissface
|
|
|
Joined: 14 May 2002
Posts: 16194
Location: Finding serenity one day at a time
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 01/26/05 - 21:15 Post subject:
| kristin31 wrote: | | But what if someone, through no fault of their own, was born with or contracts a debilitating disease/condition? Why should they be punished for developing severe rheumatoid arthritis or lupus? Or cancer? Or anything similar? Why add insult to injury? It seems unfair to punish someone who has already been dealt an unfair hand by smacking them with higher premiums. |
So instead you and I, who take care of ourselves, should foot the bill for that by paying higher premiums due to increased liability? You worked for an insurance company, you should know the answer to this one.....for them, it's all about mortality & liability rates, i.e. their profits. For the healthy consumer, it's about getting screwed for being healthy.
|
|
|
|
|
kristin31
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 15 May 2002
Posts: 8045
Location: Caught in the crossfire of childhood and stardom
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 01/26/05 - 21:23 Post subject:
| genie wrote: |
So instead you and I, who take care of ourselves, should foot the bill for that by paying higher premiums due to increased liability? You worked for an insurance company, you should know the answer to this one.....for them, it's all about mortality & liability rates, i.e. their profits. For the healthy consumer, it's about getting screwed for being healthy. |
But what if the person in question has a condition is NOT their fault, and they are trying to manage it the best that they can by following medical advice, gettting appropriate healthcare, etc? Why should they be priced out of the ability to do that?
|
|
|
|
|
genie
Master of Prissface
|
|
|
Joined: 14 May 2002
Posts: 16194
Location: Finding serenity one day at a time
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 01/26/05 - 21:26 Post subject:
| kristin31 wrote: |
But what if the person in question has a condition is NOT their fault, and they are trying to manage it the best that they can by following medical advice, gettting appropriate healthcare, etc? Why should they be priced out of the ability to do that? |
I think, in a utopian society where there are enough people to conduct detailed individual case reviews and meter out those who fall into this category, that what you propose might be possible. But I don't see it ever happening. Unfortunately, insurance companies aren't in the business to actually insure anything but their own profits. 
|
|
|
|
|
kristin31
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 15 May 2002
Posts: 8045
Location: Caught in the crossfire of childhood and stardom
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 01/26/05 - 21:28 Post subject:
| genie wrote: |
I think, in a utopian society where there are enough people to conduct detailed individual case reviews and meter out those who fall into this category, that what you propose might be possible. But I don't see it ever happening. Unfortunately, insurance companies aren't in the business to actually insure anything but their own profits. |
Agreed. But it still sucks. And so do insurance companies. I could tell you stories (and believe I have shared a few) that would make you shudder and keep you up at night.
|
|
|
|
|
copteacher
Adjunct
|
|
|
Joined: 08 Jun 2002
Posts: 20588
Location: Teaching in the Halls of Justice
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 01/27/05 - 09:37 Post subject:
Well, let me speak from experience Kristin. Abby was born with numerous birth defects, not really dealt a fair hand, she had no say in the matter. Should I be punished by having to pay more premiums? In all fairness, I should pay more premiums, just like older people pay more for life insurance. The township premiums that the township pays are spread across the board to all 200+ employees, I guess part of it is administrative, it is easier to charge a flat rate to all employees that different rates to different employees.
|
|
|
|
|
brie k
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 15 May 2002
Posts: 5661
Location: where the wild things are
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 01/27/05 - 11:08 Post subject:
| rtpd113 wrote: | | Well, let me speak from experience Kristin. Abby was born with numerous birth defects, not really dealt a fair hand, she had no say in the matter. Should I be punished by having to pay more premiums? In all fairness, I should pay more premiums, just like older people pay more for life insurance. The township premiums that the township pays are spread across the board to all 200+ employees, I guess part of it is administrative, it is easier to charge a flat rate to all employees that different rates to different employees. |
It's probably more to do with law than administrative issues. Group insurance has a different set of guidelines than does individual insurance. I am pretty sure that it would be considered discriminatory were they to charge you more than a policyholder who has a healthy child. Discrimination on this basis I'm sure is unlawful, although I cannot find a statute just now to back me up on that.
Having said that though, when/if your group's rates go up, I'm sure your medical activity plays a part in that increase. That's just part of the insurance thing though. They look at the numbers, see what was spent and what was taken in, and adjust. Even then though, rates can only go up by so much, I'm pretty sure, on group policies. What can change drastically I think is what the employer contributes to the plan.
Oh, and I think the firing of people due to what they do on their own time, if it is a legal activity, is BS. Like was said, fair is fair, and they are not being fair by singling out smokers. I hope those who were fired fight it.
|
|
|
|
|
Gogirlgo
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 25 Jul 2002
Posts: 4777
Location: No deal, stalker.
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 01/27/05 - 11:14 Post subject:
Kristin, that's what I meant by disparity. Once you add others who aren't smokers for being otherwise unhealthy, it's a short jump before you start jacking up the price for people who have some immutable trait like blindness or defective kidneys or whatever. Which isn't a lot different from discriminating based on sex or race.
|
|
|
|
|
marathonrnr262
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 14 May 2002
Posts: 1885
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 01/27/05 - 11:56 Post subject:
The real problem is the rights of the person to do a legal act and then be punished by an employer for doing what they want.
nNext tyear the company policy will be that you must have your cholesterol under 200 and you will have a BMI of no more than 20. if you fail to meet these simple guidlines you will be terminated.
Saturday afternoon I'm hungry and drive through a BK. On Monday the company has a surprise cholesterol check. Oh my, I'm fired. my cholesterol is 201.
A private company has the right to mandate whatever they want, the employees have the right not to work there. At what point does company push its employees out?
Sheldon
|
|
|
|
|
Gogirlgo
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 25 Jul 2002
Posts: 4777
Location: No deal, stalker.
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 01/27/05 - 12:03 Post subject:
It's a good point about going too far. I think a company might not go that far b/c it wouldn't be competitive. If you're a great programmer and there are two companies and your BMI is 25, you might consider working for the less restrictive place.
Until all companies are totally restrictive, of course. 
|
|
|
|
|
marathonrnr262
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 14 May 2002
Posts: 1885
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 01/27/05 - 12:25 Post subject:
| Gogirlgo wrote: |
Until all companies are totally restrictive, of course. |
That quote scares the crap outa me!
Sheldon
|
|
|
|
|
Ms. Jenn
Fresh, Hot & Wild
|
|
|
Joined: 14 Feb 2004
Posts: 7935
Location: Suite 550
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 01/27/05 - 23:50 Post subject: Re: Health insurance.
| marathonrnr262 wrote: | Why should this man that refuses to take care of himself be offered the best medical care available, when their are people that do everything they can; ie, eating right, exercise, not smoking, etc. and cannot afford to eat and take their medication.
I know I'm ranting, but this guy was the poster child for disgusting.
Sheldon |
The cardiologist who treated my mother 3 months ago said pull her off the ventilator today (when she wasnt ready) because she was a smoker and there was no use in trying to save her. It was useless to try and wean her off because she'd never make it out of the hospital, because she was a smoker. If she did get out of the hospital, she'd die of a heartattack within a month anyway because you just can't survive 40 years of smoking. I'm not exaggerating his words for effect here.
He acted as if my mother's life was absolutely meaningless because she had been a smoker. She didn't deserve the healthcare because she had been a smoker.
She got off the ventilator three months ago and is stronger than she was before.
Everyone, regardless of their life conditions and practices, should be given the best medical treatment known for their affliction. Thankfully this gentleman you saw today and my mother have good insurance otherwise there was a good chance they would never have been seen by a doctor.
I'm truly disappointed to learn this line of thinking was not contained to my mother's cardiologist.
|
|
|
|
|
marathonrnr262
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 14 May 2002
Posts: 1885
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 01/28/05 - 07:15 Post subject:
I'm glad your om is ok, but for every stroy you give me that someone survived or lived the the age of 85 and was a 2 pack a day smoker, I'll give you 20 stories of horrific suffering because of smoking.
Your mom has been given a second chance to live, I can only hope that she has learned and STOPPED SMOKING. If she has, she may be with you for a while, if not, She most certainly will not.
I lost my mother at the rip old age of 58. She was a beautiful woman, a caring woman and most of all, my mom. She had asthma and died. She was a 2 cig a day smoker. Did it contribute. 
I beg you to take the smokes from your mother and keep her here as long as possible.
Sheldon
|
|
|
|
| |
All times are GMT - 4 Hours
|
|
|
