7 ms·

No that is a huge failure. That is perhaps the biggest failure of Obamacare. That means I, as someone with healthy lifestyle habits, has to pay largely the sa

No that is a huge failure. That is perhaps the biggest failure of Obamacare. That means I, as someone with healthy lifestyle habits, has to pay largely the same premium as someone who smokes, is obese, and doesn't exercise. And sure enough, life expectancy in the US immediately stalled after the law's implementation: https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/usa/united-states/life-expectancy https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/usa/uni.... Exactly what economics would predict would happen.

orionsbelt 11mo ago
And what if you, despite being healthy, get diagnosed with cancer right one your employer fails, thus becoming uninsurable? This type of thing happened to people. It’s nice the above can no longer happen. You could, at the same time, still allow insurers to charge a premium to smokers and obese and for other lifestyle risks within one’s control. They are not mutually exclusive.
- JuniperMesos 11mo ago
  The entire system of linking health insurance to one's current employer is bad. I should just be able to buy it with money I earn from doing anything that pays me, just like I do with my car insurance or any other type of insurance.
tartoran 11mo ago
How about if that is diabetes, or something else that does not depend on lifestyle choices?
- mlrtime 11mo ago
  You're kidding right? Look up how many people have type 2 diabetes, greater than 90%
  - croon 11mo ago
    Assuming they mean type 1 yields a better dialogue.
pdntspa 11mo ago
I remember being denied coverage after aging out of my parent's healthcare plan. The cited reason was "pre-existing conditions", which were allergies and a congenital cleft lip and palate (I had a number of corrective procedures as a kid). I was a healthy and relatively normal young adult. Life expectancy flatlining could be any number of things. Correlation != causation
grahar64 11mo ago
Yes, everyone on insurance should be young and healthy. Fuck those sick people /s
ZuLuuuuuu 11mo ago
That decline is mostly because of Covid pandemic, no? And it looks like the life expectancy picked back up after 2022. Similar laws existed in EU countries long before US, and EU countries also saw a decline in life expectancy during those years: https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/deu/germany/life-expectancy https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/deu/ger...
lovich 11mo ago
> That means I, as someone with healthy lifestyle habits, has to pay largely the same premium as someone who smokes, is obese, and doesn't exercise. Do you live a healthier lifestyle than every single other person in your insurance plan or are you just a hypocrite who’s decided the line is acceptable when it includes you, but not one inch beyond that?
idiotsecant 11mo ago
Look at this Ubermensch that will never have a stroke, develop cancer, or any number of debilitating conditions. Must be nice! It is the basic duty of every human to do their best to make sure every other living human is afforded a life of simple human dignity. Full stop. We have the resources. Let's just do it.
- thereitgoes456 11mo ago
  Sadly we do not have, and will never have, the resources to help everyone, even to a baseline of human dignity. Surely we can't give people unlimited talk therapy, MRIs, and cancer treatment for free. But some people sorely need these things. Preventative/propylactic care is orders of magnitude cheaper than treatment once a disease has manifested. It makes sense to me to punish people for not doing this care, thereby choosing to impose more strain on an already overburdened system. Note that GP only mentioned things we have control over -- exercise, weight, not smoking. Of course I agree that it would be cruel to disadvantage pre-existing conditions.
  - johnnyanmac 11mo ago
    That's the point of insurance. It's the idea that everyone pools together money and when something bad happens to one person, its finances are mitigated by the input of others. Some will benefit more and others benefit not at all. But no one can predict who is on what end. Yes, if everyone gets cancer at the same time then Health Care is boned. But then again, so is society. So why worry about that worst case scenario? >Note that GP only mentioned things we have control over -- exercise, weight, not smoking. We couldn't pass laws to help control what companies put in food, and failed to subsidize healthier food options. I wish you the best of luck with healthcare trying to pull off that endeavor with punishments for obesity. I'm guessing it wouldn't be poolitically popular.
  - idiotsecant 11mo ago
    Since when do we not have the resources? Nearly every developed country on earth manages it ok.
d1sxeyes 11mo ago
US policies wouldn’t affect the life expectancy in the UK, which has broadly the same trend: https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/gbr/united-kingdom/life-expectancy https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/gbr/uni... This is despite no-one paying (directly) for health care. Would you be willing to submit to invasive investigations into how you live to identify any risk factors you have (both under your control, like choosing to drive, international travel, and not under your control, like genetic predisposition to heart disease) to ensure your premium can be accurately calculated? Blaming people for their illnesses is something we have historically gotten wrong a lot, and regardless, it’s pretty inhuman as a society to leave people to suffer and die because they can’t afford healthcare.
- zimpenfish 11mo ago
  > Would you be willing to submit to invasive investigations into how you live to identify any risk factors you have To be fair, there are insurance policies (at least in the UK) which give you discounts if you drive "safely"[0] or health insurance that rewards you for "being active"[1]. [0] https://www.which.co.uk/money/insurance/car-insurance/how-black-box-car-insurance-works-aDFmm5Y4VGMQ https://www.which.co.uk/money/insurance/car-insurance/how-bl... [1] https://www.vitality.co.uk/rewards/ https://www.vitality.co.uk/rewards/ "you earn Vitality points by getting active or attending your health check-ups [...] rewards, including a reduced excess and lower renewal premiums"
  - d1sxeyes 11mo ago
    Example 1 is car insurance, not health insurance, so not really apples to apples. Being able to drive is not the same as being able to access healthcare. Example 2 is private healthcare insurance, which does exist in the UK, but only about 10-15% of the population have it, and it's mostly about getting access to healthcare provision faster. These private providers can of course do what they like, same as in the US, with the caveat that everybody is entitled to free, comprehensive healthcare through the NHS if they don't have private healthcare insurance. However, folks that can afford to sometimes like to skip the queue. It's worth noting I suppose that the UK has significantly more in the way of 'sin taxes' than the US. For example, tax on cigarettes is 16.5% of the retail price plus £6.69 ($8.73) on a packet of 20, meaning on average cigarettes retail for around £15 (~$20). This compares to the US average of somewhere around $3 tax and retail of around $10 (varying based on state). It's more complicated to calculate for alcohol, but again, the UK taxes alcohol more heavily than the US. This additional tax revenue helps to fund the treatment of those who use those substances (although to be clear, it doesn't cover it fully).
abenga 11mo ago
That's the point of insurance.
randycupertino 11mo ago
The obese and smokers actually cost less because they die early vs healthy people who live a long life and need a lot of care when they're aged. "Smoking was associated with a moderate decrease in healthcare costs, and a marked decrease in pension costs due to increased mortality." https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/2/6/e001678 https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/2/6/e001678 The UK did a study and they found that from the three biggest healthcare risks; obesity, smoking, and alcohol, they realize a net savings of £22.8 billion (£342/$474 per person) per year. This is due primarily to people with health risks not living as long (healthcare for the elderly is exceptionally expensive), as well as reduced spending on pensions, etc..

orionsbelt 11mo ago

And what if you, despite being healthy, get diagnosed with cancer right one your employer fails, thus becoming uninsurable? This type of thing happened to people. It’s nice the above can no longer happen. You could, at the same time, still allow insurers to charge a premium to smokers and obese and for other lifestyle risks within one’s control. They are not mutually exclusive.

JuniperMesos 11mo ago
The entire system of linking health insurance to one's current employer is bad. I should just be able to buy it with money I earn from doing anything that pays me, just like I do with my car insurance or any other type of insurance.

tartoran 11mo ago

How about if that is diabetes, or something else that does not depend on lifestyle choices?

mlrtime 11mo ago
You're kidding right? Look up how many people have type 2 diabetes, greater than 90%
- croon 11mo ago
  Assuming they mean type 1 yields a better dialogue.

pdntspa 11mo ago

I remember being denied coverage after aging out of my parent's healthcare plan. The cited reason was "pre-existing conditions", which were allergies and a congenital cleft lip and palate (I had a number of corrective procedures as a kid). I was a healthy and relatively normal young adult. Life expectancy flatlining could be any number of things. Correlation != causation

grahar64 11mo ago

Yes, everyone on insurance should be young and healthy. Fuck those sick people /s

ZuLuuuuuu 11mo ago

That decline is mostly because of Covid pandemic, no? And it looks like the life expectancy picked back up after 2022. Similar laws existed in EU countries long before US, and EU countries also saw a decline in life expectancy during those years: https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/deu/germany/life-expectancy https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/deu/ger...

lovich 11mo ago

> That means I, as someone with healthy lifestyle habits, has to pay largely the same premium as someone who smokes, is obese, and doesn't exercise. Do you live a healthier lifestyle than every single other person in your insurance plan or are you just a hypocrite who’s decided the line is acceptable when it includes you, but not one inch beyond that?

idiotsecant 11mo ago

Look at this Ubermensch that will never have a stroke, develop cancer, or any number of debilitating conditions. Must be nice! It is the basic duty of every human to do their best to make sure every other living human is afforded a life of simple human dignity. Full stop. We have the resources. Let's just do it.

thereitgoes456 11mo ago
Sadly we do not have, and will never have, the resources to help everyone, even to a baseline of human dignity. Surely we can't give people unlimited talk therapy, MRIs, and cancer treatment for free. But some people sorely need these things. Preventative/propylactic care is orders of magnitude cheaper than treatment once a disease has manifested. It makes sense to me to punish people for not doing this care, thereby choosing to impose more strain on an already overburdened system. Note that GP only mentioned things we have control over -- exercise, weight, not smoking. Of course I agree that it would be cruel to disadvantage pre-existing conditions.
- johnnyanmac 11mo ago
  That's the point of insurance. It's the idea that everyone pools together money and when something bad happens to one person, its finances are mitigated by the input of others. Some will benefit more and others benefit not at all. But no one can predict who is on what end. Yes, if everyone gets cancer at the same time then Health Care is boned. But then again, so is society. So why worry about that worst case scenario? >Note that GP only mentioned things we have control over -- exercise, weight, not smoking. We couldn't pass laws to help control what companies put in food, and failed to subsidize healthier food options. I wish you the best of luck with healthcare trying to pull off that endeavor with punishments for obesity. I'm guessing it wouldn't be poolitically popular.
- idiotsecant 11mo ago
  Since when do we not have the resources? Nearly every developed country on earth manages it ok.

d1sxeyes 11mo ago

US policies wouldn’t affect the life expectancy in the UK, which has broadly the same trend: https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/gbr/united-kingdom/life-expectancy https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/gbr/uni... This is despite no-one paying (directly) for health care. Would you be willing to submit to invasive investigations into how you live to identify any risk factors you have (both under your control, like choosing to drive, international travel, and not under your control, like genetic predisposition to heart disease) to ensure your premium can be accurately calculated? Blaming people for their illnesses is something we have historically gotten wrong a lot, and regardless, it’s pretty inhuman as a society to leave people to suffer and die because they can’t afford healthcare.

zimpenfish 11mo ago
> Would you be willing to submit to invasive investigations into how you live to identify any risk factors you have To be fair, there are insurance policies (at least in the UK) which give you discounts if you drive "safely"[0] or health insurance that rewards you for "being active"[1]. [0] https://www.which.co.uk/money/insurance/car-insurance/how-black-box-car-insurance-works-aDFmm5Y4VGMQ https://www.which.co.uk/money/insurance/car-insurance/how-bl... [1] https://www.vitality.co.uk/rewards/ https://www.vitality.co.uk/rewards/ "you earn Vitality points by getting active or attending your health check-ups [...] rewards, including a reduced excess and lower renewal premiums"
- d1sxeyes 11mo ago
  Example 1 is car insurance, not health insurance, so not really apples to apples. Being able to drive is not the same as being able to access healthcare. Example 2 is private healthcare insurance, which does exist in the UK, but only about 10-15% of the population have it, and it's mostly about getting access to healthcare provision faster. These private providers can of course do what they like, same as in the US, with the caveat that everybody is entitled to free, comprehensive healthcare through the NHS if they don't have private healthcare insurance. However, folks that can afford to sometimes like to skip the queue. It's worth noting I suppose that the UK has significantly more in the way of 'sin taxes' than the US. For example, tax on cigarettes is 16.5% of the retail price plus £6.69 ($8.73) on a packet of 20, meaning on average cigarettes retail for around £15 (~$20). This compares to the US average of somewhere around $3 tax and retail of around $10 (varying based on state). It's more complicated to calculate for alcohol, but again, the UK taxes alcohol more heavily than the US. This additional tax revenue helps to fund the treatment of those who use those substances (although to be clear, it doesn't cover it fully).

abenga 11mo ago

That's the point of insurance.

randycupertino 11mo ago

The obese and smokers actually cost less because they die early vs healthy people who live a long life and need a lot of care when they're aged. "Smoking was associated with a moderate decrease in healthcare costs, and a marked decrease in pension costs due to increased mortality." https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/2/6/e001678 https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/2/6/e001678 The UK did a study and they found that from the three biggest healthcare risks; obesity, smoking, and alcohol, they realize a net savings of £22.8 billion (£342/$474 per person) per year. This is due primarily to people with health risks not living as long (healthcare for the elderly is exceptionally expensive), as well as reduced spending on pensions, etc..