Overweight people being charged more for insurance

Packerjohn

Mr_Healthy_Habits wrote: »

Since when did Business Trump being good people...

Yeah insurance companies should help people struggling to lose weight... I don't care what that means for profits and no one else should either...

How is this even debatable...

People just want to deny others something they have so they can feel somehow superior.

Do you own any stock in a 401k? If you do, I'm pretty sure you want to see the companies in your portfolio making a profit. Insurance companies do too.

ThatLadyFromMN

All I have to say is that there are so many free resources online, and I know that our health insurance company pays $20 on each member of my families gym membership as long as we go 12 times a month. Which then for my husband and I is about $20 we each pay a month! Eat home more, do to the gym more, comes out pretty even. Our insurance company also has links in their website for healthy living resources. People need to make the change for themselves and they'll see the rewards.

People just need to take the reigns of their health, people can only tell you what to do so much (dieticians/doctors/ect), you have to want it! You could have a month free with a world renowned dietician but it's not going to matter unless you want it. There's so much on the internet, and people CAN ask their doctors questions at appointments. There are free walking/running/yoga/boxing/whatever groups. People don't need their insurance companies, they need themselves! And if they need someone else, there's ALWAYS people ready to have a workout buddy.

Mr_Healthy_Habits

Call me idealistic then...
Kaiser does offer many free resources to help you lose weight, others should as well...

If you have your choice of providers and one offers this and the other does not, go with the provider that does...

All insurance companies should offer this, it's in their financial interest.

NorthCascades

I wonder whether it's in an insurance company's interest to pay for free weight loss programs for its members or not?

Losing weight can and should be free. All it takes is eating less, which costs less than eating more. This app is a powerful tool to help people do that, and there's no cost.

Weight loss takes work and dedication, and insurance companies can't buy that for people. All the nutritional counselling in the world won't make a person lose weight if they eat too much. Counselors don't work for free.

kshama2001

NorthCascades wrote: »

I wonder whether it's in an insurance company's interest to pay for free weight loss programs for its members or not?

Losing weight can and should be free. All it takes is eating less, which costs less than eating more. This app is a powerful tool to help people do that, and there's no cost.

Weight loss takes work and dedication, and insurance companies can't buy that for people. All the nutritional counselling in the world won't make a person lose weight if they eat too much. Counselors don't work for free.

Yes, prevention does tend to cost less than dealing with a full blown problem. So it is in an insurance company's interests to offer preventative care. I believe they have figured this out in the NHS - UK peeps on this thread have indicated they can get services.

Also, some US insurance companies do offer this as well. Sounds like the OP just doesn't have a lot of benefits.

ahoy_m8

My husband's company does pay for a weight loss program/coach for people over a certain BMI. I'm quite sure it's not altruism but lower claims cost. It's not the insurance provider per se, so it's a little different than OP's proposition, but the idea is the same -- people with healthy BMI cost less. They do the same for smoking cessation.

Since this is a debate board, I'll also throw out birth control. It's a lot cheaper than having a baby, especially for employers. Many insurance providers decided to make birth control coverage easy and cheap because actuaries showed providing BC made the insurer more profitable. That is without the employer requesting it. But employers have even stronger incentive for providing it. (Well, smart employers, anyway.)

NorthCascades

kshama2001 wrote: »

NorthCascades wrote: »

I wonder whether it's in an insurance company's interest to pay for free weight loss programs for its members or not?

Losing weight can and should be free. All it takes is eating less, which costs less than eating more. This app is a powerful tool to help people do that, and there's no cost.

Weight loss takes work and dedication, and insurance companies can't buy that for people. All the nutritional counselling in the world won't make a person lose weight if they eat too much. Counselors don't work for free.

Yes, prevention does tend to cost less than dealing with a full blown problem. So it is in an insurance company's interests to offer preventative care. I believe they have figured this out in the NHS - UK peeps on this thread have indicated they can get services.

Also, some US insurance companies do offer this as well. Sounds like the OP just doesn't have a lot of benefits.

I don't think anybody knows. Certainly if it was as much a slam dunk as you make it sound, all insurance companies would be offering free weight loss and paying people to use it. How many people take this kind of service up? How many of them benefit and how many use the services but don't put what they learned into effect? What's the break even point for this to make sense?

Maybe the people who can benefit from this are people who are highly motivated, and those people will find another way like using MFP if one isn't provided.

I generally agree with the idea that preventing is better than fixing. But that saying is for one person and health insurance is for everybody, so these are very different things. I mean this whole condition is preventable to begin with.

CSARdiver

NorthCascades wrote: »

kshama2001 wrote: »

NorthCascades wrote: »

I wonder whether it's in an insurance company's interest to pay for free weight loss programs for its members or not?

Losing weight can and should be free. All it takes is eating less, which costs less than eating more. This app is a powerful tool to help people do that, and there's no cost.

Weight loss takes work and dedication, and insurance companies can't buy that for people. All the nutritional counselling in the world won't make a person lose weight if they eat too much. Counselors don't work for free.

Yes, prevention does tend to cost less than dealing with a full blown problem. So it is in an insurance company's interests to offer preventative care. I believe they have figured this out in the NHS - UK peeps on this thread have indicated they can get services.

Also, some US insurance companies do offer this as well. Sounds like the OP just doesn't have a lot of benefits.

I don't think anybody knows. Certainly if it was as much a slam dunk as you make it sound, all insurance companies would be offering free weight loss and paying people to use it. How many people take this kind of service up? How many of them benefit and how many use the services but don't put what they learned into effect? What's the break even point for this to make sense?

Maybe the people who can benefit from this are people who are highly motivated, and those people will find another way like using MFP if one isn't provided.

I generally agree with the idea that preventing is better than fixing. But that saying is for one person and health insurance is for everybody, so these are very different things. I mean this whole condition is preventable to begin with.

For certainties - a resounding yes. An obvious example would be the vaccination program.

For weight loss/management there is no certainty as this involves the element of personal responsibility. A large percentage of the population takes no responsibility for their weight and believes their weight is a result of genetics.

Prevention is nearly always a preferred option for many reasons; however the medical community knows that few people will actually take preventive measures.