Senate proposals put premium on healthy living

[harry_pothead]

Source: MSNBC

That's a message more Americans could hear if the health care reform bills passed by the Senate Finance and Health committees become law.

By more than doubling the maximum rewards and penalties that companies can apply to employees who flunk medical evaluations, the bills could put workers under intense financial pressure to lose weight, stop smoking or even lower their cholesterol.

.....<later>

The incentives could attack a national epidemic of obesity. They also cut to a philosophical core of the health care debate. Should health insurance be like auto insurance, in which good drivers earn discounts and reckless ones pay a price, thereby encouraging better habits? Or should it be a safety net in which the young and healthy support the old and sick with the understanding that youth and good health are transitory?

Under current regulation, incentives based on health factors can be no larger than 20 percent of the premium paid by employer and employee combined. The legislation passed by the Health and Finance committees would increase the limit to 30 percent, and it would give government officials the power to raise it to 50 percent.

Read more: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33336289/ns/politics-washington_post/

---

Good. It's not fair to have to pay the same health insurance premium as someone who never exercises, eats gobs of unhealthy food, smokes, etc. Why should I have to subsidize their behavior? If someone wants to take actions that massively increase their risk of needing medical care, then they should pay for it, not me.

Someone who's a safe driver doesn't have to pay the same auto insurance as someone with 12 tickets, 8 accidents, and 5 DUIs.

[Mass]

1. There are ways to penalize unhealthy behaviour. Having people pay more for healthcare is not one.

Health care should be paid the same way you pay for education, by taxes.

This said, I have no problem on taxing more unhealthy food. However, expect that the food industry will yell murder. It is currently a lot less expensive to buy unhealthy processed food than fresh food.

[MannyGoldstein]

2. Two Points

1. What's being penalized - unhealthy *behavior* or unhealthy *measures*. It's often the case that modifying behavior has little effect on the measure it hopes to change - for example, it's pretty unlikely that an obese person can reach normal weight through dieting (yeah, flame away - then find a study that shows I'm wrong). Will we punish those who try to do the right thing, but cannot succeed?

2. Are these incentives based on actual changes in outcomes (e.g. living longer, costing less to treat) or on happy wishes? Most studies find that healthy habits only marginally cut cost and improve outcomes, although there are exceptions I think, such as type 2 diabetes.

[Johonny]

7. point 3

It only makes sense if unhealthy life styles cost any system more money than a healthy life styles. If they don't, than the measure seems like pointless meanness on the governments behalf. So far studies haven't shown such extra costs actually exist (which is counter intuitive). I don't know the real answer, but so far it doesn't seem like the people writing these bills have tried to find out the real answer either.

(Not that I discourage people from eating a healthy diet and exercising)

[M_A]

3. unlurking to say

this is a slippery slope. the next step will be penalties/ rewards based on the number of children produced, having pets, where you live, genetics, etc...

the next thing will be the question of why we should subsidize health care for people who live past a certain age (80, 90, 100?) or live in a high crime city, or one prone to natural disaster? Maybe it will also start to consider your job description or commute time, the list could go on and on and the insurance industry already looks for reasons to charge more or deny care.

<snip>If someone wants to take actions that massively increase their risk of needing medical care, then they should pay for it, not me.</snip>

So someone who likes to ski, or ride horses, or how about bicycling or deep sea fishing? Athletes also often require increased medical care due to their activities, does this attitude include those people too? This sort of philosophy is similar to the republican who doesn't think maternity care shouldn't be included since he won't "need" it. Very shallow and self-serving.

really, a nationalized cradle to grave program is the only civilized way to deal with the health care crisis in this country. Anything else is just padding the medical industrial complex CEO's wallets.

ok, back to lurk mode for me.

[sinkingfeeling]

6. Welcome and stay 'unlurked'!

[kenny blankenship]

4. America: always on the lookout for new ways to judge and punish people.

[Bluenorthwest]

5. Slippery slopes are really risky behaviors.

Many people engage in dangerous sports and games, thousands are injured, some with lifelong treatments needed. So those selfish jerks can get a thrill. Should I have to pay because some sports freak wants to play football on weekends? I think not. And forget about the skiers, sky divers, even dancers. Risk that is not essential to life must not be allowed.
And let's talk diet. Some say they have a right to eat as they wish. And they eat 'vegan' and then have problems from it. They think it is healthy for them. Most do not agree. Should I have to subsidize their dietary particularities? Many eat too little to remain thin. Underweight people should not be allowed to remain so, all frail and weak, just because they fell better that way! They will need to eat in the manner we all agree is the healthiest way. Or pay the price. Those who refuse to eat their veg, same thing. Produce evidence of broccoli eating, or pay. Many say food cooked over fire can cause cancers. BBQ is a 5% hike, if you wish to eat the char, you should not expect me to pay for it.
Having kids is fairly risky business. I guess I'd go for sharing cost on one of those, but these people who keep making intentional medical expenses via 'procreation' need to be charged for that behavior. We should not all bear the expense of that breeder lifestyle.
And sex in general. Risky! Those who are with one partner or no partners should not have to keep paying for those who have more. Any additional medical care such as treatment of STDs well, why should Sister Mary Virgin pay for your wicked ways, really? I think your lifestyle should fit mine, or you should pay for the risks you take. If a person marries a person with herpes, should I have to pay for both treatments? Of course not, so get ready for lots of testing. Exams. That sort of thing. Because that 'dating' your teenager is doing is not exactly pure, and it might cost money, so the little goat will need to report up, and you will need to pay up. If you don't, we will fine you for allowing unreported medically risky behavior in your child. Prison might be needed, especially if, knock on wood, a long term STD were to occur due to your lousy parenting, and your kid's insurance fraud. Just saying. Why should I pay for such things?
How about these people who drive for pleasure, or commute great distances in dangerous autos in order to afford 'more house' than they could have near work? Highway driving is risky. More of it is more risky. If they hurt themselves because they were driving more than me, and I average 300 miles a month, they should not expect me to chip in for their coma care. They take that risk of driving too much by choice. Not for me to pay for.
Then those folks who live in high crime areas. They get injured more than those who stay in 'nice' neighborhoods. They need to pay for that risky lifestyle they have there. Those who attend urban 'nightclubs' in areas statistically more dangerous than the area where I attend the ballet need to pay for that obvious stupidity of going downtown after dark. If they get mugged, well, they need to cover that cost, as I'd not have been taking that risk, hanging out in such places for mere 'fun'.
If your kid wants to do 'martial arts' and another wants to learn to speak French, one is at greater risk of injury. Your kid needs to learn French, instead of risking other people's money fighting for pleasure. Parents who knowingly allow such 'pleasure fighting' might not be worthy parents, asking others to cover risks that many would not take. Stupid people with their 'activities' and 'habits' should all stay home, in a padded, soft cornered room.....