And now that there's a choice, the insurers deduce that a person opting for an annuity is likely to consider themselves healthy enough to live to get value for money from it.
Cancer survivors want the right to be forgotten when it comes to mortgages and life insurance
- Thread starter Brendan Burgess
- Start date
Cancer survivors don’t get an “all clear”. They get a “no evidence of disease”. I’m not sure when insurance companies are meant to start counting from.
As I said above, I think insurance companies should be allowed to factor in all risk. In my case I’ve a 100% loading because I had a minor brain haemorrhage about 10 years ago and my other half has cancer. I don’t see why other people should have to subsidies us because of that. I’m also glad that they adjust for smoking. It’s just a pity that they don’t adjust for obesity and other lifestyle diseases.
As I said above, I think insurance companies should be allowed to factor in all risk. In my case I’ve a 100% loading because I had a minor brain haemorrhage about 10 years ago and my other half has cancer. I don’t see why other people should have to subsidies us because of that. I’m also glad that they adjust for smoking. It’s just a pity that they don’t adjust for obesity and other lifestyle diseases.
Obesity isn't always a "lifestyle" disease.
They do. BMI is a rating factor in life insurance. You provide your height and weight when you apply.
Last edited:
Sister Sara
Registered User
- Messages
- 23
Hi Purple,
Isn't that what insurance is effectively? Because none of us know for certain when, or if, we may ever need to avail of the financial protection that insurance policies provide, the premium is effectively a collaborative subsidy paid by policy holders.
There are elements of higher risk factors and they may increase the premium for certain matters, but those risks may never materialise with the higher risk policy holder and in fact may instead emerge with the lower risk policy holder.
Social insurance, yes - e.g. PRSI. Individual insurance based on actuarial risk factors, no. Except whether socialism is enforced by the likes of community rating on health insurance for example.
No, Insurance is the equal sharing of risk, not one party with a lower risk paying the same as another party with a higher risk.
The problem with community rated health insurance (and a public healthcare system) is it creates a moral hazard where people behave in a way which is damaging to their health knowing that someone else will foot the bill if things turn out badly for them.
Metaphorically if we knew that the slowest animal in the pack is always going to be eaten by the lions then we'd all do whatever we could to ensure were weren't the slowest animal. Community rating, and a publicly funded healthcare system, forces us all to move at the same speed.
Is there any evidence that this is a factor in lifestyle to any significant extent?
What do you mean?
Is there evidence that health related behaviour at a population level (or sub-population level) changes depending on having health insurance, or access to free health care? Do people generally behave more "responsibly" if they perceive that health care may not be available to them without them paying for it out of pocket?
Brendan Burgess
Founder
- Messages
- 54,439
Great summary
No, that makes them more likely to seek free treatment for the illnesses they have caused to themselves. That's a different point to the one I was making.
If we knew that if we became sick and were unable to work we'd starve then we'd be far more careful about doing things which were likely to make us get suck.
If we knew that we'd have to pay the full cost of cancer treatment we'd be far less likely to smoke or get fat.
If we knew that we'd have to pay the full cost of diabetes treatment we'd be far less likely to get fat.
I'm not suggesting that we should construct our society on that basis, I'm merely pointing out a negative consequence of how we currently have things constructed.
The moral hazard is there because there are two parties in the transaction, the State/taxpayer and the consumer of the healthcare. One party, the State, cannot control the actions of the other party, the consumer of the healthcare. Therefore the State cannot control the amount of healthcare the consumer needs to consume of chooses to consume. Given that there is a limited amount of money and human resources available in any healthcare system the person who becomes unhealthy due to their own actions (smoking, bad diet, lack of exercise, obesity, addiction etc) is consuming healthcare resources that could be consumed by people who are unwell due to factors beyond their control.
In other words if you're diabetic because you're fat and lazy or you've got cancer from smoking then you are partially responsible for the waiting times for operations for children with scoliosis.
Last edited:
BIG-notorious
New Member
- Messages
- 69
I don't know where you live but where i live it takes weeks in most GPs to get an appointment as a private patient, and it's effectively impossible to go an appointment with a GP visit or medical card. It's also extremely difficult to get a GP in the first place. For a lot of people it's Doc on Call or nothing. (We're very lucky with our current GP but the previous one was a disaster).
No. It's mostly to do with wealth which is the single biggest determinant of most health outcomes as the socio- environment predicts behaviour which predicts health. You tend not to get a lot of heroin addicts with hepatitis etc emanating from the yachting families of south Dublin for example. Rich people live longer because they're rich and poor people die younger because they're poor.
There are plenty of twin studies on the nature-nurture subject, but nobody who matters cares about those because they prefers to believe that their little Johnny or Mary is successful because of their natural talent and it's purely coincidental that Johnny and Mary's daddy plays golf with their employers...