Should Fat People Pay More?

[Should body fat percentage influence an employee's insurance premium?]

Should body fat percentage influence an employee's insurance premium?

No, group plans should charge all employees the same premium.

 13 (36.1%)

No, but other things like smoking and drug use should.

 4 (11.1%)

Yes, the fatter you get, the more you should pay.

 16 (44.4%)

Yes, fat people should have to pay less.  They need the money for food.

 3 (8.3%)

Total Members Voted: 36

[jack24]

In many (maybe most) states, non-government group insurance plans can not use physical fitness, body fat, lifestyle, or genetic history as determining factors for insurance premiums.  Is that a good thing?  Is there a privacy concern? Would higher rates for fat people just discourage them from having any coverage at all?
Discuss.

[Matthies]

What about higher rates for people who play sports or engage in athletic activities. Every time I’m skiing I see someone coming down out of the park on a ski patrol meat wagon likely because they screwed up a 20 foot jump trying to land fakie or something.

I’m thinking my premium is paying for that kid, or the guy who does not wear a helmet, or the guy who rides his bike in the street or people who play in the company softball league, or the guys playing b-ball at the school, or the guy who gets on a ladder to empty his gutters, or the person who likes to tan and gets skin cancer.

I think once you start saying people’s actions should be covered or not covered based on what they do/don’t do you can find a reason to deny claims to everyone: if you active no claims your too risky, if you sedentary no claims you should get out and be active. 

[jack24]

What about higher rates for people who play sports or engage in athletic activities. Every time I’m skiing I see someone coming down out of the park on a ski patrol meat wagon likely because they screwed up a 20 foot jump trying to land fakie or something.

I’m thinking my premium is paying for that kid, or the guy who does not wear a helmet, or the guy who rides his bike in the street or people who play in the company softball league, or the guys playing b-ball at the school, or the guy who gets on a ladder to empty his gutters, or the person who likes to tan and gets skin cancer.

I think once you start saying people’s actions should be covered or not covered based on what they do/don’t do you can find a reason to deny claims to everyone: if you active no claims your too risky, if you sedentary no claims you should get out and be active. 

Good point, but body fat is far easier to measure than the level of dangerous activities in a person's life.  The test would also be consistent and almost completely objective.  Skiing/snowboarding, for example, would be almost impossible to measure. How often do you go? How challenging are the resorts/runs you spend your time on? Do you wear a helmet? How safe is your equipment?  Do you ever do inverted tricks?   
Body fat is more consistent.  And body fat can be easily re-measured.  

[This is wrong.]

... or the guys playing b-ball at the school ...

How about the couple of guys who were up to no good?

['blueskies]

Your premium is also based on perexisting conditions...heart disease, diabetes, high blood pressure,etc. I would imagine obese people do end up paying higher premiums

[just some guy]

Isn't it enough that they pay more for sex?

[jack24]

Your premium is also based on perexisting conditions...heart disease, diabetes, high blood pressure,etc. I would imagine obese people do end up paying higher premiums

In my state, pre-existing conditions do not apply to group/employer health coverage.
There is a waiting period of 6 months, so sick people can't just get a job to pay for their medical bills.  (Unless they can tough it out for 6 months)

[Matthies]

What about higher rates for people who play sports or engage in athletic activities. Every time I’m skiing I see someone coming down out of the park on a ski patrol meat wagon likely because they screwed up a 20 foot jump trying to land fakie or something.

I’m thinking my premium is paying for that kid, or the guy who does not wear a helmet, or the guy who rides his bike in the street or people who play in the company softball league, or the guys playing b-ball at the school, or the guy who gets on a ladder to empty his gutters, or the person who likes to tan and gets skin cancer.

I think once you start saying people’s actions should be covered or not covered based on what they do/don’t do you can find a reason to deny claims to everyone: if you active no claims your too risky, if you sedentary no claims you should get out and be active. 

Good point, but body fat is far easier to measure than the level of dangerous activities in a person's life.  The test would also be consistent and almost completely objective.  Skiing/snowboarding, for example, would be almost impossible to measure. How often do you go? How challenging are the resorts/runs you spend your time on? Do you wear a helmet? How safe is your equipment?  Do you ever do inverted tricks?   
Body fat is more consistent.  And body fat can be easily re-measured.  

When are you going to check body fat, every six months, people get fat/skinny all the time. What if the fat guy has not health problems but the skinny guy has a history of heart desease in his family, he should pay less?Why not just deny anyone who gest injured on the slopes on the basketball court, gets ahead injury w/o helemt, drive a car w/o air bags, drinks caffinee, goes to law school and gets stressed. Its never ending, best way is let the system price out general risk in population, bigger probklem is people w/o insurance at all.

[This is wrong.]

What about higher rates for people who play sports or engage in athletic activities. Every time I’m skiing I see someone coming down out of the park on a ski patrol meat wagon likely because they screwed up a 20 foot jump trying to land fakie or something.

I’m thinking my premium is paying for that kid, or the guy who does not wear a helmet, or the guy who rides his bike in the street or people who play in the company softball league, or the guys playing b-ball at the school, or the guy who gets on a ladder to empty his gutters, or the person who likes to tan and gets skin cancer.

I think once you start saying people’s actions should be covered or not covered based on what they do/don’t do you can find a reason to deny claims to everyone: if you active no claims your too risky, if you sedentary no claims you should get out and be active. 

Good point, but body fat is far easier to measure than the level of dangerous activities in a person's life.  The test would also be consistent and almost completely objective.  Skiing/snowboarding, for example, would be almost impossible to measure. How often do you go? How challenging are the resorts/runs you spend your time on? Do you wear a helmet? How safe is your equipment?  Do you ever do inverted tricks?   
Body fat is more consistent.  And body fat can be easily re-measured.  

When are you going to check body fat, every six months, people get fat/skinny all the time. What if the fat guy has not health problems but the skinny guy has a history of heart desease in his family, he should pay less?Why not just deny anyone who gest injured on the slopes on the basketball court, gets ahead injury w/o helemt, drive a car w/o air bags, drinks caffinee, goes to law school and gets stressed. Its never ending, best way is let the system price out general risk in population, bigger probklem is people w/o insurance at all.

I would vote Matthies into office any day.  Sound fiscal and social decision making AND kinky porn recommendations.  Does it GET any better?

[iahurricane]

If people with lower body fat get discounts, I'm all for it.