Comment by ghaff 3 days ago
In general, "society" deciding what activities are too dangerous to routinely allow is a really nasty slope. Yes, there's some special insurance offered through private organizations for things like higher altitude mountaineering. But it's not that big a step to rule that any contact sport, for example, should require special insurance. I'm sure the insurance companies wouldn't mind.
> we'll immediately be at the point where smokers, alcoholics, obese people etc. should pay more, after all, their way of life statistically causes higher costs.
Wait, do they not? I genuinely assumed they did. I remember when I got private insurance through my work I had to fill in some questionnaire. It was "free", but it was a taxable benefit so you knew how much you were costing the company and me and my friends had different rates.
I wonder what the actual statistics are when it comes to costs with active people that are more likely to be injured vs obese people that are less likely to be injured but more likely to suffer obesity related illnesses.
Health insurance premiums used to be different based on whether or not you smoked; maybe they still are. It would still be nice if you could lower your health insurance premiums by losing weight or buying a policy that didn’t cover mountain bike injuries or whatnot.
At a former company, there was some trivial discount for an annual health care screening which I stopped doing because it was trivial and something that wasn't between me and my doctor. I would absolutely not sign onto a screening that invasively wanted to know about specific athletic or other activities of that sort. (Which would probably also give the insurance company untold levers to deny your claim.) "Oh, you said you don't rock climb, well that 'hike' looks like a rock climb to us."
>> we'll immediately be at the point where smokers [...] should pay more, after all, their way of life statistically causes higher costs.
> Wait, do they not?
Why should they? It's not obvious at all that smoking causes higher costs; a smoker who gets lung cancer is a smoker who never needs the medical care we give to the elderly.
Health insurance can't ask about this since ACA (I think).
Life insurance can and often requires an actual physical exam. And can exclude specific activities such as flying on small private aircraft from coverage.
I don't know about alcoholics, but smokers and obese people actually cost less in medical care because they usually die before age-related diseases takes hold which are the most expensive, they most often die of heart attack and stroke which are the cheapest deaths, and being fat or a smoker disqualifies you from many procedures and operations that they otherwise would do without hesitation.
On top of that for smokers, the amount of sin taxes they pay on cigarettes over their lifetime almost always exceeds their entire life-time medical costs.
insurance companies already buy up information from data brokers and use that to jack up people's rates according to whatever they happen to find to justify it. They won't tell you when they do it, you'll just be offered a very different price than you would have been given if you didn't buy as much alcohol, spent more time at the gym, only drove your car in the daytime, or lived in a different zip code.
I play recreational hockey. All of the rinks around here (and most of the US) require membership to USA Hockey which, among other things, provides some kind of insurance to both the rinks and the players.
Hockey Canada is similar.
Paid out a lot of $$$ to quietly settle numerous sexual abuse claims/lawsuits.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_Canada_sexual_assault...
One thing which comes to mind is - why should we stop at sports, then? we'll immediately be at the point where smokers, alcoholics, obese people etc. should pay more, after all, their way of life statistically causes higher costs.
(i don't think either of those things should result in higher insurance prices, just continuing the thought.)