What the hell is this? It's only based on weight and nothing else? What if you're a 5'10" female at 154? Much different than a 5'0" female at 154lbs. 154 and muscular is much different than 154 and mostly fat. In a sense I can understand higher risk clients paying a higher premium, but it has to be based on actual quantifiable measures from health professionals, or a habit like smoking, not an arbitrary number on the scale. I'm surprised there haven't been lawsuits against companies with policies like this.
It is ridiculous to be sure, but who could actually afford to fight such a thing? Insurance companies can afford to hire the best lawyers. It would have to come down to a class action suit and it seems those are largely symbolic even if there is a victory.
At this point, it is doubtful I will have my FT lifted. Seasonal affective disorder along with major changes at work lead to a mini-breakdown and some major binge eating. I gained 20 lbs in three weeks. Today, I feel I may have (hope I have) turned the corner to return to my prior mindset. Trying my best to get back to my previous eating plan and shake 30 lbs before January 1st.
What provider is this? Have you called and asked what the acronym stands for?
The life insurance thing... did you shop around? The amount you have tacked on for the "FT" whatever that is, that's more than my entire yearly premium alone. Granted I'm young and had all good markers on my health exam.
I was an obese child and teenager and was bullied horribly for it - people always had something to say about how grotesque I looked and about what I was eating/drinking/doing or not doing.
In my late teens and early twenties I had disordered eating patterns (probably due to the bullying) and was grossly underweight, yet everyone congratulated me on how thin I was. No one cared that I cut out entire food groups (I was morbidly afraid of potatoes and bread) and was obsessive about food and exercise.
These experiences have led me to believe we as a society value aesthetics over health. I would propose that we should focus not on a person's body shape or size, but on how we can help each person achieve a healthy lifestyle. Telling someone "you're too fat" or "you're so thin now" doesn't give them anything constructive to go on, all it does is confirm to them that how they look takes precedence over their health. I would imagine that anorexia and other eating disorders must have a similar impact on health systems to obesity, alongside other lifestyle induced issues such as drinking and smoking related diseases.
Perhaps it would be better if we focused on giving people factual information and letting them make a choice without judgement? I.e. on mfp we all know how CICO works and choose to implement it in order to manipulate our weight, despite the whole host of other choices available to us.
Of course this is anecdotal and based on my own perceptions, so I appreciate others may not feel the same.
The life insurance thing... did you shop around? The amount you have tacked on for the "FT" whatever that is, that's more than my entire yearly premium alone. Granted I'm young and had all good markers on my health exam.
This is the thing I don't understand about being troubled by one's life insurance in this way: If it's not the lowest price plan that offers adequate coverage, but one that doesn't do the FT thing is adequate and cheaper, it would make sense to buy the competitor (and send the CEO of the original insurance company a polite letter, preferably the old-fashioned paper kind, explaining why weight penalities with no other dimensions are objectively dumb). If it is the lowest-priced adequate plan, how much does it really matter how they structure the baling wire and bubble gum that holds the plan together?
The life insurance thing... did you shop around? The amount you have tacked on for the "FT" whatever that is, that's more than my entire yearly premium alone. Granted I'm young and had all good markers on my health exam.
This is the thing I don't understand about being troubled by one's life insurance in this way: If it's not the lowest price plan that offers adequate coverage, but one that doesn't do the FT thing is adequate and cheaper, it would make sense to buy the competitor (and send the CEO of the original insurance company a polite letter, preferably the old-fashioned paper kind, explaining why weight penalities with no other dimensions are objectively dumb). If it is the lowest-priced adequate plan, how much does it really matter how they structure the baling wire and bubble gum that holds the plan together?
I agree the policy is dumb as stated.
From an economic stand point, I don't think it is so clear they would be objectively dumb. Sure, it is possible for BMI to not track adiposity, but even right at that spot, that doesn't mean BMI isn't predicting health issues regardless of adiposity. Sleep obstruction and knee injury risks are just as bad for people at high BMI's, regardless of their composition.
Though, even then, if composition is the health risk predictor, it could be the case that it would not be worth the insurance company to do the work to review deeper risks to offer a differential rate. Few people with a high BMI are the kinds that have a good composition. The cost of testing or even the cost of having a system that can verify testing might not be worth it to either the insurer or the insured.
And yes, the person talk about weight, without BMI / height involved. I don't know the statistics there, but it might be the case that height offers certain risks so that even being a high weight but tall is still a risk.
The life insurance thing... did you shop around? The amount you have tacked on for the "FT" whatever that is, that's more than my entire yearly premium alone. Granted I'm young and had all good markers on my health exam.
In addition to age and health, major factors in the cost of life insurance are the amount of the benefit (payout if you die) and whether it is term insurance or whole life. Without knowing these details, it's absurd to try to do comparisons.
The life insurance thing... did you shop around? The amount you have tacked on for the "FT" whatever that is, that's more than my entire yearly premium alone. Granted I'm young and had all good markers on my health exam.
This is the thing I don't understand about being troubled by one's life insurance in this way: If it's not the lowest price plan that offers adequate coverage, but one that doesn't do the FT thing is adequate and cheaper, it would make sense to buy the competitor (and send the CEO of the original insurance company a polite letter, preferably the old-fashioned paper kind, explaining why weight penalities with no other dimensions are objectively dumb). If it is the lowest-priced adequate plan, how much does it really matter how they structure the baling wire and bubble gum that holds the plan together?
I agree the policy is dumb as stated.
From an economic stand point, I don't think it is so clear they would be objectively dumb. Sure, it is possible for BMI to not track adiposity, but even right at that spot, that doesn't mean BMI isn't predicting health issues regardless of adiposity. Sleep obstruction and knee injury risks are just as bad for people at high BMI's, regardless of their composition.
Though, even then, if composition is the health risk predictor, it could be the case that it would not be worth the insurance company to do the work to review deeper risks to offer a differential rate. Few people with a high BMI are the kinds that have a good composition. The cost of testing or even the cost of having a system that can verify testing might not be worth it to either the insurer or the insured.
And yes, the person talk about weight, without BMI / height involved. I don't know the statistics there, but it might be the case that height offers certain risks so that even being a high weight but tall is still a risk.
I'm not sure BMI would be objectively dumb. Not great, but I still say absolute weight is objectively dumb, especially in the context I cited: Pricing your product above the competition as a result.
PP said the weight threshold was 154 for women. At 5'7" - not super tall for a woman - 154 is normal BMI. And 174 for men, which is normal BMI at 5'11".
The life insurance thing... did you shop around? The amount you have tacked on for the "FT" whatever that is, that's more than my entire yearly premium alone. Granted I'm young and had all good markers on my health exam.
In addition to age and health, major factors in the cost of life insurance are the amount of the benefit (payout if you die) and whether it is term insurance or whole life. Without knowing these details, it's absurd to try to do comparisons.
Several years ago, my State Farm agent suggested I apply for life insurance so I'd get a mutli-policy discount for my vehicle, so agreed. It was a whole life policy, and even though I had no existing health issues other than my weight, I was denied coverage because I did not meet requirements of the weight table.
Granted, its been something like 14 years ago, so the policy may have changed; I've lost 90 lbs in the meantime but haven't tried again as I have a very good term life policy through my employer that remains mine even if I leave the company, and I'm perfectly happy with that - I have no significant other and no children and thus no beneficiaries that need to be cared for, and my policy is more than adequate to bury me and close out my estate, so I've never seen the need for a whole life policy.
The life insurance thing... did you shop around? The amount you have tacked on for the "FT" whatever that is, that's more than my entire yearly premium alone. Granted I'm young and had all good markers on my health exam.
In addition to age and health, major factors in the cost of life insurance are the amount of the benefit (payout if you die) and whether it is term insurance or whole life. Without knowing these details, it's absurd to try to do comparisons.
Several years ago, my State Farm agent suggested I apply for life insurance so I'd get a mutli-policy discount for my vehicle, so agreed. It was a whole life policy, and even though I had no existing health issues other than my weight, I was denied coverage because I did not meet requirements of the weight table.
Granted, its been something like 14 years ago, so the policy may have changed; I've lost 90 lbs in the meantime but haven't tried again as I have a very good term life policy through my employer that remains mine even if I leave the company, and I'm perfectly happy with that - I have no significant other and no children and thus no beneficiaries that need to be cared for, and my policy is more than adequate to bury me and close out my estate, so I've never seen the need for a whole life policy.
Congrats on the weight loss.
You're lucky you were denied a whole life policy. One of the worst financial products out there from a consumer point of view.
The life insurance thing... did you shop around? The amount you have tacked on for the "FT" whatever that is, that's more than my entire yearly premium alone. Granted I'm young and had all good markers on my health exam.
In addition to age and health, major factors in the cost of life insurance are the amount of the benefit (payout if you die) and whether it is term insurance or whole life. Without knowing these details, it's absurd to try to do comparisons.
Several years ago, my State Farm agent suggested I apply for life insurance so I'd get a mutli-policy discount for my vehicle, so agreed. It was a whole life policy, and even though I had no existing health issues other than my weight, I was denied coverage because I did not meet requirements of the weight table.
Granted, its been something like 14 years ago, so the policy may have changed; I've lost 90 lbs in the meantime but haven't tried again as I have a very good term life policy through my employer that remains mine even if I leave the company, and I'm perfectly happy with that - I have no significant other and no children and thus no beneficiaries that need to be cared for, and my policy is more than adequate to bury me and close out my estate, so I've never seen the need for a whole life policy.
The fact that you don't feel the need for a whole life policy in no way eliminates the possibility that the person who stated what they were paying for an unspecified policy and the person who questioned whether that was an excessive amount were talking about different kinds of policy or policies with different benefits (payouts).
The life insurance thing... did you shop around? The amount you have tacked on for the "FT" whatever that is, that's more than my entire yearly premium alone. Granted I'm young and had all good markers on my health exam.
In addition to age and health, major factors in the cost of life insurance are the amount of the benefit (payout if you die) and whether it is term insurance or whole life. Without knowing these details, it's absurd to try to do comparisons.
Several years ago, my State Farm agent suggested I apply for life insurance so I'd get a mutli-policy discount for my vehicle, so agreed. It was a whole life policy, and even though I had no existing health issues other than my weight, I was denied coverage because I did not meet requirements of the weight table.
Granted, its been something like 14 years ago, so the policy may have changed; I've lost 90 lbs in the meantime but haven't tried again as I have a very good term life policy through my employer that remains mine even if I leave the company, and I'm perfectly happy with that - I have no significant other and no children and thus no beneficiaries that need to be cared for, and my policy is more than adequate to bury me and close out my estate, so I've never seen the need for a whole life policy.
Congrats on the weight loss.
You're lucky you were denied a whole life policy. One of the worst financial products out there from a consumer point of view.
as someone who had to bury someone and deal with the mess after, i would have appreciated the financial assistance of a life insurance policy.
The life insurance thing... did you shop around? The amount you have tacked on for the "FT" whatever that is, that's more than my entire yearly premium alone. Granted I'm young and had all good markers on my health exam.
In addition to age and health, major factors in the cost of life insurance are the amount of the benefit (payout if you die) and whether it is term insurance or whole life. Without knowing these details, it's absurd to try to do comparisons.
Several years ago, my State Farm agent suggested I apply for life insurance so I'd get a mutli-policy discount for my vehicle, so agreed. It was a whole life policy, and even though I had no existing health issues other than my weight, I was denied coverage because I did not meet requirements of the weight table.
Granted, its been something like 14 years ago, so the policy may have changed; I've lost 90 lbs in the meantime but haven't tried again as I have a very good term life policy through my employer that remains mine even if I leave the company, and I'm perfectly happy with that - I have no significant other and no children and thus no beneficiaries that need to be cared for, and my policy is more than adequate to bury me and close out my estate, so I've never seen the need for a whole life policy.
Congrats on the weight loss.
You're lucky you were denied a whole life policy. One of the worst financial products out there from a consumer point of view.
as someone who had to bury someone and deal with the mess after, i would have appreciated the financial assistance of a life insurance policy.
Sorry for your loss. Of course insurance is important but a term life insurance policy is much lower cost for the same death benefit.
The life insurance thing... did you shop around? The amount you have tacked on for the "FT" whatever that is, that's more than my entire yearly premium alone. Granted I'm young and had all good markers on my health exam.
In addition to age and health, major factors in the cost of life insurance are the amount of the benefit (payout if you die) and whether it is term insurance or whole life. Without knowing these details, it's absurd to try to do comparisons.
Several years ago, my State Farm agent suggested I apply for life insurance so I'd get a mutli-policy discount for my vehicle, so agreed. It was a whole life policy, and even though I had no existing health issues other than my weight, I was denied coverage because I did not meet requirements of the weight table.
Granted, its been something like 14 years ago, so the policy may have changed; I've lost 90 lbs in the meantime but haven't tried again as I have a very good term life policy through my employer that remains mine even if I leave the company, and I'm perfectly happy with that - I have no significant other and no children and thus no beneficiaries that need to be cared for, and my policy is more than adequate to bury me and close out my estate, so I've never seen the need for a whole life policy.
Congrats on the weight loss.
You're lucky you were denied a whole life policy. One of the worst financial products out there from a consumer point of view.
as someone who had to bury someone and deal with the mess after, i would have appreciated the financial assistance of a life insurance policy.
Sorry for your loss. Of course insurance is important but a term life insurance policy is much lower cost for the same death benefit.
Precisely.
The cost savings is substantial and one could use the funds to invest into anything else and get a better rate of return.
The life insurance thing... did you shop around? The amount you have tacked on for the "FT" whatever that is, that's more than my entire yearly premium alone. Granted I'm young and had all good markers on my health exam.
In addition to age and health, major factors in the cost of life insurance are the amount of the benefit (payout if you die) and whether it is term insurance or whole life. Without knowing these details, it's absurd to try to do comparisons.
Several years ago, my State Farm agent suggested I apply for life insurance so I'd get a mutli-policy discount for my vehicle, so agreed. It was a whole life policy, and even though I had no existing health issues other than my weight, I was denied coverage because I did not meet requirements of the weight table.
Granted, its been something like 14 years ago, so the policy may have changed; I've lost 90 lbs in the meantime but haven't tried again as I have a very good term life policy through my employer that remains mine even if I leave the company, and I'm perfectly happy with that - I have no significant other and no children and thus no beneficiaries that need to be cared for, and my policy is more than adequate to bury me and close out my estate, so I've never seen the need for a whole life policy.
Congrats on the weight loss.
You're lucky you were denied a whole life policy. One of the worst financial products out there from a consumer point of view.
as someone who had to bury someone and deal with the mess after, i would have appreciated the financial assistance of a life insurance policy.
Sorry for your loss. Of course insurance is important but a term life insurance policy is much lower cost for the same death benefit.
Precisely.
The cost savings is substantial and one could use the funds to invest into anything else and get a better rate of return.
I'm glad to hear that - gives me more reason for why I chose to stick with the term instead of pushing for whole life. My aunt works for State Farm and said earlier this year that I ought to have whole life but I never really saw the benefit. I once had a whole life policy through modern woodmen, but when I changed agents when I moved out on my own and she looked at the policy, she told me that the way it was set up, it was actually going to be losing money over time and not making it.
I think I'd rather continue to use the difference to sock into my 401k.
Course, I'm single with no dependents, so all I really need is enough to close out my estate and bury me. I'm sure its a different thing all together if you have family you'll be leaving behind.
In any case, my post was just to say that I understand what the person above was talking about in saying that because of their weight, they were paying a higher rate or being denied coverage - I've experienced the same.
Obesity is "normal" in our present society due to the very large number of people who present as obese. However, there needs to be a happy medium between glamorizing and calling it a moral failure, unattractive, gross, etc. Yet, I have so much freedom at the gym as a 240# woman - no unwanted attention or stares - I contrast this with my size 0 daughter who feels the need to work out before 6 AM to avoid the "creepers" staring at her behind. Hey, I know, let's stop objectifying bodies & sizes, period.
I think there should be a balance between being kind to people and also not spreadin BS when it comes to health and fitness.
If you are 60-100lbs over weight you are not healthy, period. You simply may not have had it catch up to you yet but very few people that are 60+ over weight have zero health related issues. Also, statistics show that when you are obese you don't live as long. I think this "healthy at any size" crap is detrimental, it's simply not correct and could be having a negative impact on society.
I think you can be body positive without idolising fat. I saw a documentary where some of the people on it idolised fat and were in denial about how being overweight effected their health.
I am body positive but I want to lose weight because I want to be healthy and live a long healthy life
For the I don't even know how many'th time, body positivity is about so much more than weight.
I grew up as a black child in predominantly white schools and was made fun of because of various facial and other bodily features, none of which were about weight (I was thin until my early 20s and muscular as a teenager). My lips, my nose, my hair, my skin, etc. You know what I could have used a large dose of? Body positivity. There's a recent episode of the NPR show Code Switch that talks about this in more depth.
I consider myself to have a fairly healthy body image in that I understand that I'm fat. And under the fat is not a 5'11" B cup model. What's under the fat (Based on family members of various sizes and ages) is the sort of body guys liked to paint on airplanes. Even when we lose weight, we have a lot of T & A. We're muscular, not sleek. And I'm good with this, because I like being strong and powerful.
BUT. I don't want to be 100 pounds over weight. And I don't want to have all this hanging skin on my front (courtesy of three large babies). I can love the fact that I'm a powerful curved brick house of a woman, while disliking the excess and wanting to not have to dress like I'm six months pregnant due to all the loose skin.
The problem I see with the social disapproval issue is that if you smoke and you don't like the social disapproval, you can stop today. Wash your clothes, and no one in public will know that you smoked, the day after you quit. It will take me most of a year before people see me as somewhere closer to acceptable size, and I guarantee because of my build, even when I get my body to where I want it, people will think I should still lose 15 pounds.
Replies
What provider is this? Have you called and asked what the acronym stands for?
I was an obese child and teenager and was bullied horribly for it - people always had something to say about how grotesque I looked and about what I was eating/drinking/doing or not doing.
In my late teens and early twenties I had disordered eating patterns (probably due to the bullying) and was grossly underweight, yet everyone congratulated me on how thin I was. No one cared that I cut out entire food groups (I was morbidly afraid of potatoes and bread) and was obsessive about food and exercise.
These experiences have led me to believe we as a society value aesthetics over health. I would propose that we should focus not on a person's body shape or size, but on how we can help each person achieve a healthy lifestyle. Telling someone "you're too fat" or "you're so thin now" doesn't give them anything constructive to go on, all it does is confirm to them that how they look takes precedence over their health. I would imagine that anorexia and other eating disorders must have a similar impact on health systems to obesity, alongside other lifestyle induced issues such as drinking and smoking related diseases.
Perhaps it would be better if we focused on giving people factual information and letting them make a choice without judgement? I.e. on mfp we all know how CICO works and choose to implement it in order to manipulate our weight, despite the whole host of other choices available to us.
Of course this is anecdotal and based on my own perceptions, so I appreciate others may not feel the same.
This is the thing I don't understand about being troubled by one's life insurance in this way: If it's not the lowest price plan that offers adequate coverage, but one that doesn't do the FT thing is adequate and cheaper, it would make sense to buy the competitor (and send the CEO of the original insurance company a polite letter, preferably the old-fashioned paper kind, explaining why weight penalities with no other dimensions are objectively dumb). If it is the lowest-priced adequate plan, how much does it really matter how they structure the baling wire and bubble gum that holds the plan together?
I agree the policy is dumb as stated.
From an economic stand point, I don't think it is so clear they would be objectively dumb. Sure, it is possible for BMI to not track adiposity, but even right at that spot, that doesn't mean BMI isn't predicting health issues regardless of adiposity. Sleep obstruction and knee injury risks are just as bad for people at high BMI's, regardless of their composition.
Though, even then, if composition is the health risk predictor, it could be the case that it would not be worth the insurance company to do the work to review deeper risks to offer a differential rate. Few people with a high BMI are the kinds that have a good composition. The cost of testing or even the cost of having a system that can verify testing might not be worth it to either the insurer or the insured.
And yes, the person talk about weight, without BMI / height involved. I don't know the statistics there, but it might be the case that height offers certain risks so that even being a high weight but tall is still a risk.
In addition to age and health, major factors in the cost of life insurance are the amount of the benefit (payout if you die) and whether it is term insurance or whole life. Without knowing these details, it's absurd to try to do comparisons.
I'm not sure BMI would be objectively dumb. Not great, but I still say absolute weight is objectively dumb, especially in the context I cited: Pricing your product above the competition as a result.
PP said the weight threshold was 154 for women. At 5'7" - not super tall for a woman - 154 is normal BMI. And 174 for men, which is normal BMI at 5'11".
Several years ago, my State Farm agent suggested I apply for life insurance so I'd get a mutli-policy discount for my vehicle, so agreed. It was a whole life policy, and even though I had no existing health issues other than my weight, I was denied coverage because I did not meet requirements of the weight table.
Granted, its been something like 14 years ago, so the policy may have changed; I've lost 90 lbs in the meantime but haven't tried again as I have a very good term life policy through my employer that remains mine even if I leave the company, and I'm perfectly happy with that - I have no significant other and no children and thus no beneficiaries that need to be cared for, and my policy is more than adequate to bury me and close out my estate, so I've never seen the need for a whole life policy.
Congrats on the weight loss.
You're lucky you were denied a whole life policy. One of the worst financial products out there from a consumer point of view.
The fact that you don't feel the need for a whole life policy in no way eliminates the possibility that the person who stated what they were paying for an unspecified policy and the person who questioned whether that was an excessive amount were talking about different kinds of policy or policies with different benefits (payouts).
as someone who had to bury someone and deal with the mess after, i would have appreciated the financial assistance of a life insurance policy.
Sorry for your loss. Of course insurance is important but a term life insurance policy is much lower cost for the same death benefit.
Precisely.
The cost savings is substantial and one could use the funds to invest into anything else and get a better rate of return.
I'm glad to hear that - gives me more reason for why I chose to stick with the term instead of pushing for whole life. My aunt works for State Farm and said earlier this year that I ought to have whole life but I never really saw the benefit. I once had a whole life policy through modern woodmen, but when I changed agents when I moved out on my own and she looked at the policy, she told me that the way it was set up, it was actually going to be losing money over time and not making it.
I think I'd rather continue to use the difference to sock into my 401k.
Course, I'm single with no dependents, so all I really need is enough to close out my estate and bury me. I'm sure its a different thing all together if you have family you'll be leaving behind.
In any case, my post was just to say that I understand what the person above was talking about in saying that because of their weight, they were paying a higher rate or being denied coverage - I've experienced the same.
If you are 60-100lbs over weight you are not healthy, period. You simply may not have had it catch up to you yet but very few people that are 60+ over weight have zero health related issues. Also, statistics show that when you are obese you don't live as long. I think this "healthy at any size" crap is detrimental, it's simply not correct and could be having a negative impact on society.
I am body positive but I want to lose weight because I want to be healthy and live a long healthy life
I grew up as a black child in predominantly white schools and was made fun of because of various facial and other bodily features, none of which were about weight (I was thin until my early 20s and muscular as a teenager). My lips, my nose, my hair, my skin, etc. You know what I could have used a large dose of? Body positivity. There's a recent episode of the NPR show Code Switch that talks about this in more depth.
BUT. I don't want to be 100 pounds over weight. And I don't want to have all this hanging skin on my front (courtesy of three large babies). I can love the fact that I'm a powerful curved brick house of a woman, while disliking the excess and wanting to not have to dress like I'm six months pregnant due to all the loose skin.
The problem I see with the social disapproval issue is that if you smoke and you don't like the social disapproval, you can stop today. Wash your clothes, and no one in public will know that you smoked, the day after you quit. It will take me most of a year before people see me as somewhere closer to acceptable size, and I guarantee because of my build, even when I get my body to where I want it, people will think I should still lose 15 pounds.