Insurance Based on Behavior Risks

[MercyBurst]

Personally, I think it is reasonable to assign the appropriate accountability for risky behavior -- that gays should be charged more for health and life insurance based on their preferences. This is already done with the smokers and drinkers though they complain about it.

Smokers and drinkers feel they have no choice. They don't live as long, and you can argue the exact same political excuses for them that gays claim. The fact is these behaviors are health risks that typically shorten a person's lifespan.

From the Oxford International Journal of Epidemiology:

[SIZE=-1][SIZE=-1]International Journal of Epidemiology, Vol 26, 657-661, Copyright © 1997 by International Epidemiological Association [/SIZE]
ARTICLES

Modelling the impact of HIV disease on mortality in gay and bisexual men

RS Hogg, SA Strathdee, KJ Craib, MV O'Shaughnessy, JS Montaner and MT Schechter
[SIZE=-1]British Columbia Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS, St Paul's Hospital, Vancouver, Canada.[/SIZE]

OBJECTIVE: To assess how HIV infection and AIDS (HIV/AIDS) impacts on mortality rates for gay and bisexual men.

CONCLUSION: In a major Canadian centre, life expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 20 years less than for all men. If the same pattern of mortality were to continue, we estimate that nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently aged 20 years will not reach their 65th birthday. Under even the most liberal assumptions, gay and bisexual men in this urban centre are now experiencing a life expectancy similar to that experienced by all men in Canada in the year 1871.
[/SIZE]

The conclusion of the article is the final result of the study. The conclusion is not a political one. It points out that certain behaviors cause a shorter life expectancy. The exact same thing can be said about people that smoke.

It is a KNOWN FACT that AIDS/HIV typically shortens a person's lifespan as well. It is a known FACT that here in North America (where we live), that gay sex is the main cause of AIDS/HIV. The Centers for Disease Control have made this data very very clear. You can find it at the CDC web site.

Many of us in good faith and sound mind, believe the reports from the medical community and government-operated health agencies.

Here is the POLITICALLY and ECONOMICALLY MOTIVATED response from Hogg that came months after the original scientific data was released to the general public.:

http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/co...full/30/6/1499

Hoggs is trying to avert one of the obvious consequences of his own study -- life-insurance and health-insurance based on sexual preference, hence his discussions about actuarial tables, found in the link.

Personally, I think it is reasonable to assign the appropriate accountability for risky behavior.

http://www.finnqueer.net/juttu.cgi?s=80_10_1

As the bible says, the love of MONEY is the root of ALL evil.

 

[Zaac]

Personally, I think it is reasonable to assign the appropriate accountability for risky behavior -- that gays should be charged more for health and life insurance based on their preferences. This is already done with the smokers and drinkers though they complain about it.

Smokers and drinkers feel they have no choice. They don't live as long, and you can argue the exact same political excuses for them that gays claim. The fact is these behaviors are health risks that typically shorten a person's lifespan.

From the Oxford International Journal of Epidemiology:



The conclusion of the article is the final result of the study. The conclusion is not a political one. It points out that certain behaviors cause a shorter life expectancy. The exact same thing can be said about people that smoke.

It is a KNOWN FACT that AIDS/HIV typically shortens a person's lifespan as well. It is a known FACT that here in North America (where we live), that gay sex is the main cause of AIDS/HIV. The Centers for Disease Control have made this data very very clear. You can find it at the CDC web site.

Many of us in good faith and sound mind, believe the reports from the medical community and government-operated health agencies.

Here is the POLITICALLY and ECONOMICALLY MOTIVATED response from Hogg that came months after the original scientific data was released to the general public.:

http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/co...full/30/6/1499

Hoggs is trying to avert one of the obvious consequences of his own study -- life-insurance and health-insurance based on sexual preference, hence his discussions about actuarial tables, found in the link.

Personally, I think it is reasonable to assign the appropriate accountability for risky behavior.

http://www.finnqueer.net/juttu.cgi?s=80_10_1

As the bible says, the love of MONEY is the root of ALL evil.

Because this forum address the debate on homosexuality, I'll address that aspect.

It's reasonable for insurance companies to assign the appropriate responsibility to individuals based upon their risky behavior if it is consistently done across the board.

If the insurance companies are going to assess a higher premium for gay people who engage in i.e, unprotected sex, then they need to also assess a higher premium for straight people who do the same.

This way, we don't open a can of worms.

So I think it would be justifiable to charge a higher premium based upon behavior or acts to be performed rather than on orientation.

 

[UberLutheran]

It is a known FACT that here in North America (where we live), that gay sex is the main cause of AIDS/HIV. The Centers for Disease Control have made this data very very clear. You can find it at the CDC web site.

And here, all this time I thought it was a virus which was the main cause of HIV.

Well, it just shows you what at stupid homosexual I am, hyuk, hyuk, hyuk.

I wonder if drug addicts (including former drug addicts) should be charged higher insurance premiums, noting their tendency to relapse or to progress into other addictive behaviors (including religious addiction).

I vote yes.

 

[MercyBurst]

And here, all this time I thought it was a virus which was the main cause of HIV.

Well, it just shows you what at stupid homosexual I am, hyuk, hyuk, hyuk.

Like smoking doesn't cause cancer, it's cigarettes that cause cancer, hyuk, hyuk, cough wheeze. Can you tell I quit smoking 25 years ago. Yep -- I should pay a premium for it. The cigarettes are to blame, not me, hyuk hyuk. All I did was smoke them, that's what they were made for weren't they -- to smoke?

I wonder if drug addicts (including former drug addicts) should be charged higher insurance premiums, noting their tendency to relapse or to progress into other addictive behaviors (including religious addiction).

Yes, it should be commensurate with the risk. Fatties should pay more for health insurance too.




I vote yes. [/quote]

 

[MercyBurst]

Because this forum address the debate on homosexuality, I'll address that aspect.

It's reasonable for insurance companies to assign the appropriate responsibility to individuals based upon their risky behavior if it is consistently done across the board.

If the insurance companies are going to assess a higher premium for gay people who engage in i.e, unprotected sex, then they need to also assess a higher premium for straight people who do the same.

This way, we don't open a can of worms.

So I think it would be justifiable to charge a higher premium based upon behavior or acts to be performed rather than on orientation.

agreed.

One thing to consider -- the average cost to care for an HIV/AIDS patient is about $400K. They are all going to die. Why should insurance companies be blindsided by the risk of this pre-existing condition?

 

[TheFathersDaughter]

I think anyone who regularly walks out of their houses should pay higher for insurance premium. Since there's just as much danger there as anywhere else.

Also, that study, in uncontrolled. It only tested in ONE center in Canada. Likewise, it doesn't bother to give the number of participants, the name of the center, or any vital information. We only get "a Canadian centre". Therefore, that's a terrible example and I'm not going to take it as fact if it can't even give simple details about it's so-called experiment.

 

[Zaac]

agreed.

One thing to consider -- the average cost to care for an HIV/AIDS patient is about $400K. They are all going to die. Why should insurance companies be blindsided by the risk of this pre-existing condition?

Good grief Charlie Brown! $400K!!! That would be a strain for anybody's pocketbook. ANd with the onslaught of AIDS cases, I gotta think some insurance agencies will stop providing any coverage because they just can't afford to.

 

[MercyBurst]

Good grief Charlie Brown! $400K!!! That would be a strain for anybody's pocketbook. ANd with the onslaught of AIDS cases, I gotta think some insurance agencies will stop providing any coverage because they just can't afford to.

It's worse than that. The cost has gone up. Here's the latest data:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15655257/

HIV patients will spend $600K for lifetime care

Those diagnosed with AIDS expected to live average of 24 years, study says

Riley Aponte, a health center worker in the Bronx, N.Y., observes as a patient swabs his mouth for an oral test for HIV at the center on Sept. 29, 2006. An American who tests positive for HIV today is expected to wrack up about $600,000.


ATLANTA - An American diagnosed with the AIDS virus can expect to live for about 24 years on average, and the cost of health care over those two-plus decades is more than $600,000, new research indicates.
Both life expectancy and the cost of care have risen from earlier estimates, mainly because of expensive and effective drug therapies, said Bruce Schackman, the study’s lead author.

The research found that the average annual cost of care is about $25,200 — nearly 40 percent higher than a commonly cited estimate from the late 1990s.

 

[MercyBurst]

I think anyone who regularly walks out of their houses should pay higher for insurance premium. Since there's just as much danger there as anywhere else.

Also, that study, in uncontrolled. It only tested in ONE center in Canada. Likewise, it doesn't bother to give the number of participants, the name of the center, or any vital information. We only get "a Canadian centre". Therefore, that's a terrible example and I'm not going to take it as fact if it can't even give simple details about it's so-called experiment.

The FACT is, according to the CDC (Centers for Disease Control), the vast majority of AIDS/HIV positive carriers in the USA (where we live) are men that have sex with men (MSM).

Here is the CDC Fact Sheet

In the United States, HIV infection and AIDS have had a tremendous effect on men who have sex with men (MSM). MSM accounted for 71% of all HIV infections among male adults and adolescents in 2005 (based on data from 33 states with long-term, confidential name-based HIV reporting), even though only about 5% to 7% of male adults and adolescents in the United States identify themselves as MSM [1, 2].

Their health care costs will average $600,000 per person over their remaining lifetime.

Who should pay for this? I don't think you should pay for it. I don't think I should pay for it. Isn't this fair?

 

[TheFathersDaughter]

The FACT is, according to the CDC (Centers for Disease Control), the majority of AIDS/HIV positive carriers in the USA (where we live) are men that have sex with men (MSN). Their health care costs will average $600,000 per person over their remaining lifetime. Who should pay for this?

The FACT is, that you're trying to single out ALL gay men.

As Zaac said, ANYONE who acts promiscuously or has sex with multiple people should have to pay for it.

Also, evidence please. I'd like to see this study from the CDC.

 

[MercyBurst]

The FACT is, that you're trying to single out ALL gay men.

As Zaac said, ANYONE who acts promiscuously or has sex with multiple people should have to pay for it.

Also, evidence please. I'd like to see this study from the CDC.

Please look at previous post. 71% of all AIDS victims got it with gay sex. $600K is a lot of money to shuck out to gay men that act irresponsibly.

 

[TheFathersDaughter]

Again, it doesn't give the right to deny all gay men the right to health care.

I should know about the right to health care. I was almost denied because my mother had spina bifeda, despite the fact I'm perfectly healthy. Assumptions or connections with a group prone to health problems should not be the force that denied the care.

 

[UberLutheran]

What about people who have gotten themselves addicted to smoking pot, taking drugs, etc. -- and then stopped without ever entering treatment?

I'd say big-time insurance increases for them -- wouldn't you, MercyBurst?

Especially knowing their tendency to relapse, or to change addictions...

 

[IamRedeemed]

I voted ALL. If there were other high risk categories listed of behaviors that are known
to cause a lengthy and expensive illness and ultimately death, they would have
been included in my answer.

 

[UberLutheran]

The FACT is, according to the CDC (Centers for Disease Control), the vast majority of AIDS/HIV positive carriers in the USA (where we live) are men that have sex with men (MSM).

Here is the CDC Fact Sheet



Their health care costs will average $600,000 per person over their remaining lifetime.

Who should pay for this? I don't think you should pay for it. I don't think I should pay for it. Isn't this fair?

Should I have to pay for the treatment a pot addict needs because I never have used drugs? I think that's fair. In fact, I think the cost should come right out of the addict's pocket!

I think that would be fair, MercyBurst. Don't you?

 

[GwynApNudd]

I think anyone who regularly walks out of their houses should pay higher for insurance premium. Since there's just as much danger there as anywhere else.

Or everyone who spends a a lot more time in their house than average -- as the saying goes, 90% of all accidents happen in the home.

Seriously, though, insurance companies that lose money in exhorbitant claims go out of business. On the other hand, insurance companies that overcharge a population lose that population's business. That is why insurance companies hire people called actuaries to impartially and scientifically assess the the actual risks. They need to take in enough money to cover claims, without charging so much as to drive their customers away. If insurance companies don't see a need to charge gays exhorbitant rates, then that indicates that they don't think they are, on average, going to have to pay out exhobitant claims.

 

[DMagoh]

I think anyone who regularly walks out of their houses should pay higher for insurance premium. Since there's just as much danger there as anywhere else.

I read that most automobile accidents happen within 5 miles of your home.... so I moved!

 

[TheFathersDaughter]

I read that most automobile accidents happen within 5 miles of your home.... so I moved!

 

[UberLutheran]

I voted ALL. If there were other high risk categories of behaviors that are know
to cause a lengthy and expensive illness and ultimately death, they would have
been included in my answer.

Well, women have breasts, cervixes and uteruses, which are all common sites for cancer, including very aggressive cancers.

Perhaps women should have to pay more for health insurance for being high-risk people?

 

[TheFathersDaughter]

Well, women have breasts, cervixes and uteruses, which are all common sites for cancer, including very aggressive cancers.

Perhaps women should have to pay more for health insurance for being high-risk people?

Men can get breast cancer too.