Higher insurance premiums for the overweight

David · I dare you to try Joined: 27 Jul 2003 Location: Andromeda

I must have missed this proposal in the Commission of Audit. I know some on here will probably support it, but I find it completely abhorrent:

http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/overweight-people-could-pay-more-for-health-insurance-nib-chief-mark-fitzgibbon-20140504-zr4b6.html

As if weight is merely a "lifestyle choice". This sort of discrimination is only going to further penalise people from lower socio-economic backgrounds and stigmatise people struggling with weight issues (as if they aren't already thoroughly disadvantaged in so many other areas).

If you want a particularly sinister, Darwinist defence of this proposal, look no further than the one provided by the CEO of NIB:

Wokko · Come and take it. Joined: 04 Oct 2005

If insurers can decide statistically to charge men higher premiums than women for car insurance, then I sure as hell aren't going into bat for the portly members of our community on this one. Additionally, the vast, vast majority of the overweight ARE making lifestyle choices that lead to that condition. That's not a judgement, it's just a fact. If you input more energy than you output then it is stored for future use. Of course some people store more efficiently than others, but to argue that they're not eating more than they're exercising off is physically impossible.

Being overweight causes health problems, and in a socialized medical environment that costs everyone to fix. I've recently packed it on a bit and am now starting the painful, labourious process of getting rid of it. Losing weight is hard work, and too many want to blame anything but themselves for finding that pot belly one morning in the mirror.

1061 · Joined: 06 Sep 2013

Will this apply to the Treasurer?

AKA

think positive · Side By Side Joined: 30 Jun 2005 Location: somewhere

Proud Pies · Joined: 22 Feb 2003 Location: Knox-ish

it's really very simplistic to say 'most overweight people......' without looking at why they really are overweight. (I know you gave a disclaimer TP, so it's not an attack on you, but this is for all the generalisations from everyone)

For me, I packed on heaps of weight because of my diabetes and the fact that the 'specialists' insisted I use insulin, which they have now agreed that I am allergic to and all it did was put on weight and leave my blood sugar levels at ridiculously high levels. If you look at the weight gain for people who are on cortisone based medications, they are in the same boat (in fact, my weight gain looked like cortisone weight gain).

Medications play a very high role in people being overweight.

And then lets look at the super skinny people who do not lead healthy lifestyles but through genetics don't put on weight. They may also have higher medical issues.

*End note: Even after losing 20kg via lapband (paid for wholly by myself via my superannuation), they again tried me on insulin and immediate 10kg weight gain. No longer go anywhere near insulin at all and I'm finally in a healthy weight range with normal BMI..... and 2 weeks ago I bought my first ever pair of size 6 jeans!!!

Culprit · Joined: 06 Feb 2003 Location: Port Melbourne

This is just the start for insurance companies to make even more money. Next will be DNA tests along with a full genetic history. Social Exclusion is on the agenda with the Born to Rule Party. You will have to be a perfect human specimen with blues eyes and blonde hair to be able to have private health insurance.

Tannin · Posted: Tue May 06, 2014 1:36 pm

HAL · Posted: Tue May 06, 2014 1:38 pm

You may be wondering if this is a person or a computer responding.

Culprit · Joined: 06 Feb 2003 Location: Port Melbourne

watt price tully · Joined: 15 May 2007

Tannin · Posted: Tue May 06, 2014 2:32 pm

swoop42 · Posted: Tue May 06, 2014 6:10 pm

So thin drug addicts are exempt but someone genetically predisposed to being overweight isn't.

Tannin · Posted: Tue May 06, 2014 6:25 pm

Correct. Insurance is like that. You pay more for insurance of a fire-prone house with old wiring than you do for a brick one. Some wooden houses are better fire risks than some brick ones, but actuarial tables are, and can only be, blunt instruments. Drug addicts, like fat people, are high-risk, but it would be difficult to identify them for insurance purposes. You will never get insurance 100% fair, but you do the best you can.

stui magpie · Posted: Tue May 06, 2014 8:10 pm

Lets see, according to the BMI I'm over weight. My ideal weight is something ridiculous I haven't been at since I was in my 20's. I've given up smoking but would still have that held against me for years. Basically I look at all this selection and "discrimination" as simply described.

"Shit Happens - deal with it"

Sulking about whether certain conditions should or shouldn't be counted against you and when are pointless. I've you're seriously over weight, you're a health risk regardless of how you got there and you willl pay for it.

David · I dare you to try Joined: 27 Jul 2003 Location: Andromeda

The worst thing for me here is the use of blame and 'desert' to work out who gets what premiums. For me, you can't have it both ways: either take a fully consequentialist view (that is, discriminating fully on the basic of predispositions and likely health issues without any kind of moral judgement) or don't discriminate at all. If a moralistic view must be taken, it's utterly craven to recognise some causes and not others. What about sportspeople and fitness freaks who are prone to injury? People who travel to tropical countries? People with high cholesterol? the list goes on.

If this proposal is followed, it will just mean that those with a history of mental illness, disease, genetic issues and poverty�and yes, there is a strong correlation�get a financial kicking just so that someone else can indulge their feelings of moral superiority. It's totally indefensible in my view.