I've seen many studies that show over the long term, it costs health insurance companies MORE to have healthy people who live into their 70, 80's and 90's than unhealthy people who die off in their 40's, 50's, and 60's. Reason being that once the insured is dead, no more health costs.

So based on that, fat people shouldn't be paying MORE, they should pay LESS. Health insurance isn't LIFE insurance. The more unhealthy the better for health insurance because once the person is dead no more paying health costs, and even healthy people in their 70-90's spend a lot on health care because they need regular doctor visits, procedures, and medications.

Many, many fat people are already priced out of the insurance market simply because they already are charged much, much more (more than most can afford) or flatly denied insurance. As a result, they also cannot afford any preventative care. If they do get sick, they then can't pay for their care. If they manage to survive, we pay.

You can eat a very healthy, balanced diet and exercise several times a week, have great test results and walk around uninsured due simply to your size.

pappy97:

I've seen many studies that show over the long term, it costs health insurance companies MORE to have healthy people who live into their 70, 80's and 90's than unhealthy people who die off in their 40's, 50's, and 60's. Reason being that once the insured is dead, no more health costs.

So based on that, fat people shouldn't be paying MORE, they should pay LESS. Health insurance isn't LIFE insurance. The more unhealthy the better for health insurance because once the person is dead no more paying health costs, and even healthy people in their 70-90's spend a lot on health care because they need regular doctor visits, procedures, and medications.

yeah, but they won't cost *safeway*. Safeway is only paying for working age people, once you get on Medicare you are the taxpayers problem, not theirs. The CEO is doing what businesses do, cut costs. You don't have to believe that his program will work for the country.

People who die later pay premiums for decades more that those who die sooner, Any increased costs are fully covered by the increased revenue. Think of the case where an employee has his expensive heart attack in his first month of work as opposed to his 240th - ie after 20 years of paying premiums.

pappy97:

I've seen many studies that show over the long term, it costs health insurance companies MORE to have healthy people who live into their 70, 80's and 90's than unhealthy people who die off in their 40's, 50's, and 60's. Reason being that once the insured is dead, no more health costs.

So based on that, fat people shouldn't be paying MORE, they should pay LESS. Health insurance isn't LIFE insurance. The more unhealthy the better for health insurance because once the person is dead no more paying health costs, and even healthy people in their 70-90's spend a lot on health care because they need regular doctor visits, procedures, and medications.

This was discussd in an earlier thread. We could only come up with 2 studies that had conflicting findings. The one that showed a decreased cost to obesity was in the Netherlands. The one that showed an increased cost for obesity was in the US. I would say two conflicting studies does not make a definitive scientific answer. If you have access to other studies we missed, I would be happy to see them please.

How many premiums would you have to pay to cover the costs of a triple bypass or recovery time from an age induced massive stroke? How about treatment from Alzheimers?? I'm willing to wager that it is in the decades of premiums. That is - the age difference evens out regardless.

Without more studies, its hard to say. But to me, whether obesity ends up costing the economy more or not isnt the point. Its not ok to save money by having people die earlier. Somehow, we need to come up with better ways of targetting obesity. I dont know what the answer to this, but my first instinct is to target kids. Healthier lunches, gym time, no vending machines selling soda or candy in school. Its hard for adults to lose and sustain weight loss. This is partly physiologic and partly phsycologic. Keeping kids from ever becoming obese should be part of the strategy.

Thanks all the replies. I'm still trying to figure out why a bypass surgery has to cost more than $100,000, sometimes close to $200,000.

Maybe we need to eliminate insurance altogether and force doctors to charge REASONABLE prices for their services. I mean, seriously, the fact that insurance pays out shouldn't set the market. The customers (patients) should be setting the market, like anything else in a capitalistic market. Doctors who charge too much for procedures should be forced to lower prices or change professions.

Over the long haul you are probably right-everybody dies and its expense almost every time.

However the effect of time and inflation and growing pools of the insured in additon to other items brought up in the thread apply-a fat individual will burn through those resources sooner and thus will cost the company right now, as opposed to years down the road. Further, assuming the insurance company has a good growth strategy then there will be more people paying in down the road to cover the older policy holders.

pappy97:

I've seen many studies that show over the long term, it costs health insurance companies MORE to have healthy people who live into their 70, 80's and 90's than unhealthy people who die off in their 40's, 50's, and 60's. Reason being that once the insured is dead, no more health costs.

So based on that, fat people shouldn't be paying MORE, they should pay LESS. Health insurance isn't LIFE insurance. The more unhealthy the better for health insurance because once the person is dead no more paying health costs, and even healthy people in their 70-90's spend a lot on health care because they need regular doctor visits, procedures, and medications.

I think you're combining separate issues (I've seen the studies that say smokers save our country money in the long run, etc.). It may save our economy money in the long run of the obese die off early but it doesn't matter for insurance companies.

Private insurance companies only worry about keeping somebody alive as long as they are under contract and until the insured reaches 65. So, if a young healthy, marathon runner reaches the age of 105, it's the taxpayers who pay the bill from 65-105.

The obese might save overall society money by dying young but will still cost more for the insurance company to cover than his healthy coworkers.

Do these studies factor in a reasonable estimate for the time value of money? Are their projections of future costs likely to be proved accurate, or do they simply project out exponential growth and assume that there's no ceiling to the percentage of the nation's GDP that can be devoted to health care?

Generally, less healthy people will experience similar complications earlier than their healthier counterparts, or they will experience health consequences that occur far less frequently among the general population. So with healthy individuals you basically get a longer stream of payments and the general wear and tear medical visits followed by expensive end of life treatment. With unhealthy individuals you'll generally end up with a shorter stream of payments and maintenance treatments followed with the expensive end of life care.

It seems like lynchpin of which group would cost more, rests on how future cash flows are discounted and future end of life treatment costs are projected. If the growth of end of life care costs exceeds the discount rate by more than a miniscule amount, unhealthy people save the system money. If it's the reverse then healthy people are less intensive users of the system.