TheAgitator.com
Promote Thyself
Sunday, October 24th, 2004I’m quoted in this BBC piece on public health, though they once again see fit to label Cato “right-wing.” That’s particularly frustrating when a media outlet is quoting me, given that my issues — legalization of illicit drugs, gambling and prostitution, relaxation of alcohol control laws, and civil liberties — are about as removed from right-wing as it gets.
But the cool thing is that the BBC used my suggestion of allowing health insurers to reward fitness and penalize poor habits in a nationwide survey of Brits on various public health issues. According to the survey, a “sizeable minority” of respondents agreed with that idea, but the article doesn’t provide the actual numbers.
Good stuff. It’s nice to see the british public are gradually coming to their senses, even if it takes a shady right-wing organisation to educate them.
On the question of how far insurers should be free to base premiums on actuarial risk (or, ideally, any criteria they choose) I recall a survey from same time ago in which female college students were asked a series of questions including the two which were specifically planted for results gathering. The first was:
‘Do you think motor insurers should be allowed to gender discriminate in calculating premiums?’
And, later in the survey:
‘What do you think of the fact that female motorists under the age of 25 are statistically safer than their male counterparts but receive no discount in their insurance premium on this basis?’
It was inevitable, but still amusing how many were enraged by the idea of insurers discriminating on gender but even more enraged by the fact that young women weren’t offered a discount.
The conclusion?
Gals may look nice, but critical analysis isn’t their forte.
Sorry Radster. In Europe, anyone who isn’t an anti-war socialist is ‘right-wing’. Did you see the Guardian article suggesting someone should assasinate Bush (http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguide/columnists/story/0,,1333748,00.html).
I rest my case …
Yeah, this is typical, Bernard. People don’t know the true meaning of “discrimination”. The term has become an absolutely negative one, which is rediculous.
You could do the same thing with health. Ask someone “do you think that health insurance companies should be able to discriminate against fat people”, and most normal fools would answer “oh, god no, that’s horrible, they’re just big-boned, it’s glandular, leave them alone!”. But then you ask them what they think of the fact that healthy people are basically subsidizing the unhealthy folks’ privelege to go out and eat big macs all day, while the healthy people get NO discount for thouse thousands of hours they’ve spent on the stairmaster, and well, they would be outraged. It’s logic vs. emotionalism.
People don’t like to “discriminate”, because “discrimination” is supposedly universally evil. But when they hear a logical justification for discrimination, they change their tune. They simply cannot tell the difference between discrimination and prejudice. Sad but true.
Also, someone please clear this up for me. I know Radley wrote about the confusion @ HHS earlier this year, and there was recently some legislation regarding it, but I want to know, straight up: in the United States, can an insurer evaluate premiums based on any health-related variable they want? Or are the limited by law? Why, for instance, do I not get a discount for being in excellent bodybuilding shape? My fiancee’s parents are in insurance, and even she can’t answer me with confidence on this one.
Evan – It really depends on the state. An insurance company can evaluate premiums for any health-related variable that they want as long as it’s not protected by the State Insurance Board in that state. For instance, CA has a bunch of regulation regarding end stage renal failure, HIV, pregnant women, and low income applicants.
And your excellent bodybuilding shape would actually in most cases work against you. Insurance companies do not find a person’s body fat percentage in determining their rates. Mostly, because to do this would be time consuming, tedious, and costly. But they try to remain as objective as possible with rates. Otherwise, everyone who thought they were in supreme physical condition would be suing because the company accepted Evan and not him/her, even though they might just be fatties. Therefore, it comes down to height and weight.
Now, you probably are more dense than the rest of us, making you heavier per inch. But it doesn’t matter. On the height/weight chart we use for our underwriting, someone who is 5’6″ is a standard risk under 193lbs. (I work for a large health insurance company. I used to be an underwriter, a few years ago.) After that, your premium increases 25% for every 9lbs or so and you are a decline at 254. I don’t know how big you are, but I just thought I’d give an example.
And just to let you know, we get a lot of fights over this from applicants. We have multiple rebuttals that underwriter trainees are taught. But it all comes down to objectivity. First, we’d be getting body fat tests, then bone density scans, water consumption questionnaires, letters from doctors saying that everyone is okay.
Evan,
What do you bench?