01-27-2013, 04:42 PM
I know that everyone hates the "slippery slope" argument, but exactly where would this end? Do we charge more for people with high cholesterol? With family histories of cancer or heart disease?
So if the point is that one can stop smoking or over eating, I would VASTLY prefer that insurance would pay for cessation programs and weight loss programs to encourage and assist people in changing their unhealthy lifestyles. People who never smoked or gained weight find it very easy to justify charging more for these people's insurance but I think it's wrong to have a company in charge of our punitive revenge fantasies. How about helping these people and that will ultimately save more money than giving them scarlet letters. This hating on people with addictions is very 1950s.
In the spirit of compromise I will cede the ability to raise rates if the person refuses all help. I think that might be fair.
So if the point is that one can stop smoking or over eating, I would VASTLY prefer that insurance would pay for cessation programs and weight loss programs to encourage and assist people in changing their unhealthy lifestyles. People who never smoked or gained weight find it very easy to justify charging more for these people's insurance but I think it's wrong to have a company in charge of our punitive revenge fantasies. How about helping these people and that will ultimately save more money than giving them scarlet letters. This hating on people with addictions is very 1950s.
In the spirit of compromise I will cede the ability to raise rates if the person refuses all help. I think that might be fair.