Cancer survivors want the right to be forgotten when it comes to mortgages and life insurance

TomEdison said:
The longevity risk was pooled across the entire population of annuity-holders.
Click to expand...
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 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.
 
Purple said:
I don’t see why other people should have to subsidies us because of that.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Sister Sara said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.

ClubMan said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Purple said:
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.
Click to expand...

Is there any evidence that this is a factor in lifestyle to any significant extent?
 
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?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top