'Bama proposing obese state emps. pay more for insurance
 

What do you think?

This seems to make sense....as much as paying more for insurance if you are a smoker, but I find myself on the fence about it. Obese people typically have higher helath care costs.

The obvious difference seems to be that one chooses to smoke. Even if addictive, at some point one chose to smoke. But obesity, though it can be ameliorated by choice cannot always be eliminated. There's a strong genetic component to obesity, and I don't think it's right to make people pay higher insurance premiums for bad genes.

I read the tread title to say "Obama....", and thought "WTF???" Oops...

If it is health insurance, it makes sense.

If it is health assurance, then it doesn't make sense.

I think a better way to go about it is offer a healthy living incentive. Instead of offering a discounted rate to a gym, offer a membership and then obtain information of how often the member goes to the gym. If you go to the gym 4-5 times a week (20-25 times a week you get x amount off your insurance) Of course something like this would be an administrative nightmare and a slippery slope to other intrusions.

And what of, say, state employees' spouses, possibly also covered by this plan, who might, for instance, have some sort of degenerative disease with medicine that causes weight gain and side effects that prevent motion?

I'm all for encouraging good choices. But I'm NOT for governmental regulation of what is and is not "healthy" in terms of weight. I know some fat triathalon runners... that 300-pound Olympic weight lifter... some pretty fit chubby people. I know some lazy-ass, junk-food-eating, heart-attack-in-the-making thin people. And vice versa. If they're going to charge more for health risks, then they should be basing that on people's cholesterol numbers, their blood pressure, their general health. Because not being within the average BMI is not a guarantee that you're dying young. And being inside it is not a guarantee that you won't die young.

And what if they're losing weight at a slow, healthy, behavioral-changing and eating-disorder-free rate, but it's too slow for Alabama? Do we then encourage band-aid solutions like medical liquid diets (for which dieters have a large chance of rubber-banding back to their old weight as soon as they stop?) Or gastric surgery, for which mortality rates are high and chance of re-gain after stomachs re-stretch are even higher?

And what is the right rate for the right body, to stop losing weight? If, say, I got to 180 pounds and say "hey, I feel as great as I've ever felt, I am happy with the way I look, I am active and eating healthy and don't wish to lose any more." If I can run faster than the 120-pound anorexic, do I need to pay more for my health insurance?

And obesity - though, indeed, a problem more common today than before, and often the result of behavioral training as much as genes - is only one of a zillion genetically-imposed health problems. What about the children of breast cancer who become breast cancer patients? Do we charge them more up front, knowing that their boob may cost more in the long run?

Then what defines my insurance carrier as an insurance carrier, and not a savings plan for the human body's guaranteed eventual decline?

If the actuarial tables say that a fat person will cost the insurance company more then it makes complete sense for the insurance company to charge the fat person more.

If the children of breast cancer mortalities show a significantly increased chance of breast cancer, then an insurance model should of course cost them more. Just as a $100,000 life insurance policy should cost $100,000/month if I have a cancer diagnosis saying I'll die this month while it will probably only be $40/month for the 20-year-old track star.

That's insurance.

I'm an obese man in his mid-30s with a pronounced history of early male death in his family. I should pay more for insurance.

That's why I get frustrated when people talking about wanting everybody to have insurance. They don't, because then they get upset when the insurance companies act like insurance companies and charge those most in need (or most likely to need) of their insurance the most money.

HA! Funny. Not my intention, but funny. Just trying to shorten the thread title.

I'm glad you cleared that up, because I seriously thought that was indeed your intention.

The only time I've heard Alabama referred to as 'Bama is by someone who is from Alabama.