Wife dropped intrusive insurance coverage today

[watwill79]

we have heard rumors of this as well at my work. But as of yet have not seen anything but I am sure it is something that is to come . sad but true.

 

[HICKMAN]

I'm a fat bastard because I love to eat too much

 

[Sailor]

I'm a fat bastard because I love to eat too much

No we are in Indiana its Biscuit Poisoning.

 

[EvilBlackGun]

I have news for somebody:

As a near-perfect human specimen at age 29, a mandatory 3-year "working vacation", courtesy of my Uncle, to Southeast Asia, has endowed me with the following: Coronary heart disease, 5 stents and pace-maker/defib. unit; Type 2 diabetes, with insulin dependence; various skin-cancers; Hypertension (high blood pressure); Dyslipidemia (for example, high total cholesterol or high levels of triglycerides); strokes in my eyes; rotting feet; Sleep apnea (besides the nightmares); respiratory problems; osteoarthritis; vertigo. And I have never been obese. There's another cause in there, someplace.

 

[cwillour]

Sure an insurance company would like your DNA profile to find out the exact risk, but they are stuck using a broad brush. BMI..

My problem is that the studies reporting correlation are often using a broader brush by utilizing BMI ranges to qualify their findings instead of the "broad brush" of BMI.

IMO, sloppy science leads to sloppy results and range-based correlations typically reflect either sloppy science or insufficient data (i.e. a score of 24.5 is considered equivalent to a score of 20 in most of the studies I can find, but the score of 25 is grouped with a 29.5 so the correlated risk determined by the research is over the range and does not necessarily project accurately for individual scores nor does it indicate the shape of the risk curve.)

If your point is that more weight (beyond a certain point) typically leads to more health problems then we probably agree. My problem is that studies based upon BMI groupings inherently fail to give an accurate picture of the risk curve and hence the actual statistical relevance of a specific BMI to a potential risk (and most public information does not include important statistical information such as the actual level of variance, distribution of the data, and the degree of correlation.)

Without publicly available studies on the shape and volatility of these curves or actual density and costs associated w/ the data points, it is easy for the insurance companies to "market price" the premium associated with non-normal BMI groups for extra margin.

FWIW, I see the problem as more of an issue w/ the quality of statics produced by the researchers than the actual insurance companies. If the insurance companies wanted to release actual cost/BMI correlation statistics to justify the numbers, I would have much less of a problem (similar to the 17yr old driver, where we have more publicly available age/incident statistics.)

 

[hornadylnl]

Government Socialism = Bad
Insurance Socialism = Good

My employer has been doing Health Risk Assessments for about 3 years now. Currently, you just have to fill it out to receive a $20 a week premium discount. If you fall into a certain risk category, you may have to speak to a health counselor on the phone for several weeks to counsel you on your health risks, be it smoking, overweight, etc. Stop smoking medications and other long term health medications are mostly free. The idea is that if they spend a little to keep you in better health, they'll see the savings in the future.

My employer currently offers several plans. You can get single coverage, single plus one (single mom with one kid, married couple with no kids, etc) or the family plan. We also have different premium tiers based on what co pays and deductibles are. Is it fair that I pay the same weekly premium with myself, wife and 1 child as another employee with a family of 5+?

As of yet, my employer isn't charging more for smokers or obese people but I believe that day will be coming. After all, we bellyache about government socialism, shouldn't we be doing the same about insurance socialism?

 

[ATOMonkey]

As a near-perfect human specimen at age 29, a mandatory 3-year "working vacation", courtesy of my Uncle, to Southeast Asia, has endowed me with the following: Coronary heart disease, 5 stents and pace-maker/defib. unit; Type 2 diabetes, with insulin dependence; various skin-cancers; Hypertension (high blood pressure); Dyslipidemia (for example, high total cholesterol or high levels of triglycerides); strokes in my eyes; rotting feet; Sleep apnea (besides the nightmares); respiratory problems; osteoarthritis; vertigo. And I have never been obese. There's another cause in there, someplace.

Sounds like you ate too much goat.

 

[Denny347]

But for some people who are overweight, it is not because of lifestyle choices or anything they have or haven't done that caused them to be overweight. People should not be punished because of things they can't control. Should a person who is predisposed to cancer have to pay more for insurance because they might have health problems down the road? They could not help their DNA. Just sayin.

Youth pay WAY more in car insurance because statistically they are a higher risk. Same with health insurance. I get a discount by getting a complete blood work up and full health screening every year. It's a win/win for me. Then again, I don't drink caffeine, smoke, and I work out .

 

[Zoub]

Don't try to "pull one over" on an insurance company. Multi-billion dollar industries don't get to be multi-billion dollar industries by letting things slide.

-J-

Most don't comprehend the power of the Actuary or that math is in fact organic.

They ignored them in the 80's and OH...............LOOK we really are broke and Social Security is unfunded, just like they said 25 years ago it would be.

It didn't break in the Reign of Obama and he is no mesiah capable of fixing it either. It will be a slow road to recovery on the best of days. Insurance companies PLAN way ahead for all contingenices, inlcuding todays.

 

[Denny347]

My problem is that the studies reporting correlation are often using a broader brush by utilizing BMI ranges to qualify their findings instead of the "broad brush" of BMI.

IMO, sloppy science leads to sloppy results and range-based correlations typically reflect either sloppy science or insufficient data (i.e. a score of 24.5 is considered equivalent to a score of 20 in most of the studies I can find, but the score of 25 is grouped with a 29.5 so the correlated risk determined by the research is over the range and does not necessarily project accurately for individual scores nor does it indicate the shape of the risk curve.)

If your point is that more weight (beyond a certain point) typically leads to more health problems then we probably agree. My problem is that studies based upon BMI groupings inherently fail to give an accurate picture of the risk curve and hence the actual statistical relevance of a specific BMI to a potential risk (and most public information does not include important statistical information such as the actual level of variance, distribution of the data, and the degree of correlation.)

Without publicly available studies on the shape and volatility of these curves or actual density and costs associated w/ the data points, it is easy for the insurance companies to "market price" the premium associated with non-normal BMI groups for extra margin.

FWIW, I see the problem as more of an issue w/ the quality of statics produced by the researchers than the actual insurance companies. If the insurance companies wanted to release actual cost/BMI correlation statistics to justify the numbers, I would have much less of a problem (similar to the 17yr old driver, where we have more publicly available age/incident statistics.)

BMI is BS!!!!!!

I'm 38, 6'2" 235lbs. My BMI is 30.2 which is Obese. Panic time!!!!! However, my actual body fat is around 13%, about 205lbs of muscle and 30lbs of fat...FAR from obese. In actually I have an athletic build. BMI is trash.

 

[Zoub]

As a near-perfect human specimen at age 29, a mandatory 3-year "working vacation", courtesy of my Uncle, to Southeast Asia, has endowed me with the following: Coronary heart disease, 5 stents and pace-maker/defib. unit; Type 2 diabetes, with insulin dependence; various skin-cancers; Hypertension (high blood pressure); Dyslipidemia (for example, high total cholesterol or high levels of triglycerides); strokes in my eyes; rotting feet; Sleep apnea (besides the nightmares); respiratory problems; osteoarthritis; vertigo. And I have never been obese. There's another cause in there, someplace.

They told my Dad his fungus was "Psychosomatic."

One day in the Jungle, he had a couple guys hold him down while he ripped the roller top off bottles of...............I forget what the hell it was, we sent it to him...........and poured it all over himself. It worked.

 

[Sailor]

The correct BMI level for each person will vary. May be a better way would be to combine BMI with a body measurement factor.

 

[Zoub]

BMI is BS!!!!!!

I'm 38, 6'2" 235lbs. My BMI is 30.2 which is Obese. Panic time!!!!! However, my actual body fat is around 13%, about 205lbs of muscle and 30lbs of fat...FAR from obese. In actually I have an athletic build. BMI is trash.

When I was a teenager, I would hit any and all "guess your weight booths" at fairs, amusement parks, you name it. They would guess within a 1/4lb on most people, then I would walk up and they would guess 14lbs UNDER on me. I WIN!

They always made me prove my shoes were not loaded with lead etc. I just told them the Doc's always said I had some serious bone structure.

BMI is crap.

 

[hooky]

You are a 44 year old man, 6ft 3in / 191cm tall, with a current weight of 240.0lbs. You lead a somewhat active lifestyle.
[edit]
Body Mass Index (BMI)

Your BMI
29.8
BMI is a standardized ratio of weight to height, and is often used as a general indicator of health. The "normal" BMI for an adult man of your height is 18.5 to 24.9. This translates to a healthy weight range of 149 to 200 lbs.However, BMI does not take body composition into account. A weight above this range could still be considered healthy if your percentage body fat is less than average. For more accurate determination of body fat levels, consider using a body fat caliper.


Read More NutritionData BMI & Calories Burned Calculator

So at 150 lbs and 6'3" I'd be considered normal on the BMI index scale. I was 6'2" and 170 when I graduated high school and looked like I had been found living in the wilderness for all my life. I feel best and have been told I look best between 210 and 220.

BMI=BS

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Consider the various "studies" over the past 30 years. First caffeine was bad for us; then they discovered that it was good for us, in moderation. Alcohol was bad for us; then the French showed it helped prevent some heart disease, and I think a more recent study showed hard liquor had some beneficial effects. The definition of "high blood pressure" and "overweight" has changed downward over the past 20 years, as the availability of drugs to combat such conditions has materialized. Those are just the things I can think of at the moment.

As a society, we're getting over-medicated, over-diagnosed, and over-treated for the things that ail us - and for some things that don't ail us. If insurance companies want to lower costs, I don't see how mandating a bunch of medical tests does this. I'd like to be able to buy a catastrophic medical policy and leave the rest of the "coverage" alone. I especially don't want to be in a insurance pool where my premiums pay for someone else's birth control or abortion - which I cannot support as a matter of religious belief. I'm guessing that getting off the medical insurance merry-go-round is the only way I'm going to be able to get away from that nonsense, now or in the future.

 

[HICKMAN]

all kidding aside, I know I need to get my weight back under control. Combo of painful arthritis, no tissue in the lower back and having my miniscus removed from the left knee leaves me not wanting to do much. But, the added 80 pounds makes it even worse.

Plus the 99% clogged heart arteries a couple of times have been a warning I haven't taken seriously enough.

 

[Sailor]

Consider the various "studies" over the past 30 years. First caffeine was bad for us; then they discovered that it was good for us, in moderation. Alcohol was bad for us; then the French showed it helped prevent some heart disease, and I think a more recent study showed hard liquor had some beneficial effects. The definition of "high blood pressure" and "overweight" has changed downward over the past 20 years, as the availability of drugs to combat such conditions has materialized. Those are just the things I can think of at the moment.

As a society, we're getting over-medicated, over-diagnosed, and over-treated for the things that ail us - and for some things that don't ail us. If insurance companies want to lower costs, I don't see how mandating a bunch of medical tests does this. I'd like to be able to buy a catastrophic medical policy and leave the rest of the "coverage" alone. I especially don't want to be in a insurance pool where my premiums pay for someone else's birth control or abortion - which I cannot support as a matter of religious belief. I'm guessing that getting off the medical insurance merry-go-round is the only way I'm going to be able to get away from that nonsense, now or in the future.

I have chosen a deductible over $5000. I pay all the small stuff for the family and myself out of pocket. We are healthy. The money I save is set aside for when we need it.

 

[hooky]

I have chosen a deductible over $5000. I pay all the small stuff for the family and myself out of pocket. We are healthy. The money I save is set aside for when we need it.

We've done the same thing. Have you set up an HSA?

 

[Sailor]

Yup, going to move it though. Have not researched where yet.

 

[hooky]

I set one up through a previous employer at Wells Fargo because it was easy. I'm probably going to be looking at options later this year.