Should hypochondriacs have to pay more for their health insurance?

This is a difficult concept to address, as determining actual hypochondria can be dicey. Your friend sounds like an extreme case, therefore fairly easy to diagnose, but often people (mostly women) have their health concerns dismissed by doctors (mostly male) simply because their presentation comes across as non-credible because of fear and/or basic anxiety.

Maybe, in extreme cases (such as that of your friend), a system could be put into place where after X number of random visits a flag would appear on the person’s record that would require a mandatory visit to a counselor to determine that person’s state of mind. I would hate to see such a system controlled by the insurance company, however, as they are way too quick to deny claims already.

It’s a very hard call to make, there are conditions that are difficult to diagnose, and therefore oft dismissed.

A theoretically interesting approach, @jca, but it would not work. Your friend is an extreme.

How would the ‘system’ decide who is a hypochondriac and is not? And woe to the doctor’s office who turn’s down an appointment from someone, who then ends up with a real syndrome or disease that kills him. Lawyers would have a field day.

I think that hypochondriacs are real and costly but I’m not sure that there’s anything effective that can be done. Labeling someone as mentally ill seems wrong,

I think everyone should pay something every time they use the medical system. I’d suggest on the order of a $50 copay. I’m guessing she pays ‘nothing’ per visit. Of course insurance (you and I) are paying for it but she does not feel it in her pocket. Everyone should feel it.

I used to work on the towns volunteer ambulance. We were supported entirely by donations. We charged nothing to respond for a call. That model worked fine for decades until “drugs” came on the scene and people began calling for all sorts of minor reasons. We could not keep it up. So, much to our chagrin, we started charging for calls other than car accidents. The useless calls stopped. We went out on fewer calls and the calls we did respond to were the ones that needed medical care. Donations remained about the same and the service was improved. Fewer calls also made it easier to get and retain volunteers.

@LuckyGuy: She has the same insurance I have, which has a $20 copay. I am thinking she may put it on her credit card and just run that up.

What got me thinking about this yesterday was when she told me about going to the eye doctor several days in a row and I asked her if she has heard from the insurance company about the current doctor visits. I don’t know how the doctors code the visits but she admits she is sure the doctors think she’s nuts.

Absolutely not!

While I am completely opposed to a non-universal single payer healthcare system, that’s what we have, so I will answer the question in that context.

Should people with cancer pay more for their health insurance? What about people with MS? If your answer is “no” in these cases, but “yes” in your hypochondriac friend’s case, I think you may be actually making a claim about the nature of health and a difference between problems of the body vs problems with the mind. This is a common attitude people have about mental illness, and it’s troubling for a couple of reasons. First, it’s entirely without scientific basis. Try to carve out a good argument why depression isn’t as real as a broken leg, for example. Second, it does nothing to help those who are suffering in ways that are not visible to their friends. It is a position that is destined to destroy a friendship.

Of course, my real answer is that the only people who should be really paying more for health insurance is people who can afford to pay more (via taxes).

I think there are other ways besides cost to deal with hypochondria and that the doctors can probably say there’s nothing wrong with you and I don’t need to see you again for three months. Or her GP could recommend a psych evaluation. Does she not have a referral system fo specialists?

Hard to say.

Nobody (even me) could pin down the issues I was having, and it seemed like a waste of time even to me to mention them after a while. But a seizure followed by a 4-day hospital stay with a few MRIs and CAT scans makes me think that we really need to define “hypochondria” here.

The person would have do be diagnosed as a hypochondriac in order for this to even work. Most are not diagnosed.

Yes, let’s charge people with health anxiety more for health insurance, because they can totally just stop having anxiety disorders if they wanted to. Why don’t they just chill out and see how ridiculous they’re being?!~

Anxiety disorders are medical conditions, you know. Let’s also charge people with cancer more for insurance, because I’m done paying for their expensive treatments that might not even work!

Amazing how people that don’t have anxiety disorders act as if they know what it’s like to live with one. I have health anxiety. I definitely don’t go to the doctor on a daily, weekly, or even monthly basis, but the feelings that go along with this are extremely difficult to deal with. You can’t just make it go away by taking a deep breath. Your friend is clearly an extreme and not the norm, so there are surely better ways to reduce insurance costs for everyone else than denying her coverage without punishing her for having a mental disorder.

@janbb: She sees several eye doctors. One, she told me told her to return in a few months. That was about 3 weeks ago and she’s been there at least once per week since. She has another in the building she works in and she has seen him several times per week for things she considers emergencies (urgent) but apparently they’re not. She’s on medication for anxiety and has a diagnosis of PTSD (probably among other diagnoses).

@livelaughlove21: Nowhere does @jca suggest that anxiety disorders are not medical in nature. In fact, her line of work would suggest that she may know better than most about such things.
I took her question more as a concern about everybody’s rates can. Increase when the system is inappropriately over-used by persons who need entirely different care.

@jca: I’m not trying to speak fir you, just maybe clarify a bit. I apologize if I’m off base.

@canidmajor: “Nowhere does @jca suggest that anxiety disorders are not medical in nature. In fact, her line of work would suggest that she may know better than most about such things.
I took her question more as a concern about everybody’s rates can. Increase when the system is inappropriately over-used by persons who need entirely different care.”

But correct me if I’m wrong – @jca isn’t proposing that people with cancer or other expensive illnesses should be paying more as well, right?

And what specifically is the “inappropriately” part?

I think your question points to a larger issue which is that we have no real system of management for health care in this country. If we had a coordinated system and not a hodge-podge of individual plans, your friend’s PTSD would ideally be factored into the kind of care she is getting. It doesn’t sound like she is getting the help or supervision she needs. That is a shame.

Those of us who have insurance with a high deductible are well aware of the costs of individual visits to doctors.

@canidmajor Well then read the rest of my response.

Who’s responsibility is it to get these people the care they need? Doctors. How is overcharging them for healthcare going to help them? It’s punishing them for having a mental illness – period. Perhaps if doctors did a better job identifying these people and helping them get more appropriate care, this wouldn’t be such an issue. If it even is an issue – as I said, OPs friend is am extreme.

wow! we haven’t had a question take off like this in weeks!

It sounds as though the person has serious psychiatric problems that aren’t being treated effectively or aren’t yet under control. If her anxiety was receiving appropriate treatment, her overuse of other medical services is likely to reduce. I don’t know enough about how your system works but while I could go to general practitioners and doctor shop that way, I can’t visit specialists without a referral.

They couldn’t pay, they probably think they’re bankrupt.

…editing…

ETA: Eh, forget it.

@hominid : @jca was addressing one specific issue. I didn’t see this as a catch-all type of Q. And by “inappropraitely” I was referring to her mentioning what would seem to be an inordinately large number of visits to different specialists in a relatively short amount of time.

@livelaughlove21: The entire tone of your first post was snarky. I was addressing that.

@canidmajor: ”@jca was addressing one specific issue. I didn’t see this as a catch-all type of Q. And by “inappropraitely” I was referring to her mentioning what would seem to be an inordinately large number of visits to different specialists in a relatively short amount of time.”

I suppose the OP would have to explain, but I’ve read the question multiple times, and the most reasonable interpretation I can come up with is that she is specifically talking about hypochondria and not about cancer or some other chronic illness.

But it’s possible that @jca is just talking about how broken the US healthcare system is. I can’t get that from the question, however.

@jca Just to address one part of your question, I would think a red flag would be going up in the insurance company that is paying these claims for your friend soon and the reimbursement for her repeated visits would be ended. It is bizarre that there isn’t more of an external control though.

Hypothetically, yes but not sure how it would be implemented. Who would be responsible for determining who qualified and how much variation a sliding scale would be need? Someone who runs to the clinic or hospital for minor or imaginary illnesses and injuries ends up increasing the costs for all of us. Everyone has to pay the increased co-pays. You could not just charge certain people higher ones because that would be discriminating against them.

My wife works in a medical setting and has worked for the same hospital system for the majority of her adult life. We are aware of several cases of hypochondria that were a major causation in increasing the co-pay amounts in an effort to eliminate some of the frivolous visits these people had. One woman involved her children. Not a week would go by without her and at least one child, usually two, going to the doctor with everything from imaginary broken bones to having the plague and other exotic diseases and this was pre-google so she had to look all this up in books and magazines.

@rojo Munchausen’s Syndrome by Proxy

^^ I often wonder if those children grew up to be hypochondriacs as well. ^^

^^ They probably grew up hating both their mother in particular and doctors in general.

No, we shouldn’t charge them more for insurance, but I think this is another reason why socialized medicine makes more sense (but I won’t go down that tangent) and I also think it is a reason our country (America) needs to have mental health care more available. I want to say that not everyone who thinks there is something wrong with them is a hypochondriac. So many people are sick and are not getting answers, and go from doctor to doctor trying to get well. That’s different than people who just obsess about their health and think they are terminally ill constantly. Both have some similarities though in how the individual handles themselves in medical settings.

I can’t fathom going to the doctor every week, even once a month sounds overwhelming if it’s the same doctor for the same worries. The doctor takes the appointment though (money) is he referring her to a specialist in case he is missing something?

I think your friend very possibly does have some physical problems going undiagnosed. I really doubt it is anything deadly (I hope not) however acute trauma can cause a heart attack and other illnesses. Severe stress literally changes some of the indicators of long life and short life to a predictor of a shorter life.

People say smokers should pay more, fat people should pay more, I’m sure there must be others. Should I pay more? Genetic predisposition for heart disease.

@JLeslie “People say smokers should pay more, fat people should pay more, I’m sure there must be others. Should I pay more? Genetic predisposition for heart disease.”

That is usually taken care of with end-user, or “sin” taxes. When I arrived in Sweden in 1982 I paid $10 for a pack of Marlboros, $7 for their equivalent, “Prince” Cigarettes. Marlboros were $1.25 a pack the night before in NYC. A liter of Absolute Vodka, a Swedish product, was $18 in the States. In Sweden in 1982, it was $66. A single 16oz can of beer from a convenience store cost $10. You play, you pay.

Low fat, low sodium, low cholesterol, diabetic foods and so on are subsidized by the government so their shelf prices are comparable to other products. They’ve found that this is cheaper than paying at the other end. They do what they can.

Fair is fair. In a single-payer healthcare system (or what Americans call “socialized” medicine), the costs for potentially debilitating habits must be covered by those who choose to indulge, otherwise the other taxpayers (voters) will surely freak out.

These programs are not exclusive to Sweden by any means.

As to hyperchondria, I would think the insurer would eventually insist on a psych eval and once the diagnosis is confirmed, the appropriate psych treatment. Also, these people can be monitored for doctor shopping, which is essentially what they are doing when they go for the umpteenth doctor’s opinion.

@jleslie. Where I work smokers and overweight people do pay 800.00 more a year on their premiums. Also those with high cholesterol. Is it fair? I’m not sure. I can get by with having high cholesterol because it is controlled by meds. An overweight person can only lose weight and some people just can not lose the weight.

Such a policy would also discourage people from coming into their doctors with concerns that may or may not turn out to be anything serious, which would reduce preventative medicine and could end up driving costs up higher.

@canidmajor you said, ”...but often people (mostly women) have their health concerns dismissed by doctors (mostly male)...” Interesting observation. I rarely ever used to go to the doctor. Maybe, once every 3 years or so. Then, in the fall/winter of 2012 I had some issues that no one could / would diagnose. I went to the ER. I went to two different doctors. Each time I was dismissed as imagining things. After 2 months of this, and me getting sicker and sicker, my husband took me to another hospital. There they ran some x-rays, took one look and threw me in an ambulance to an urgent care hospital in Wichita, where I under went surgery to drain my right lung which was 80% full of crap.
The really frustrating thing was, my regular doctor had been my dr. for a decade. He knew me. Yet, even he blew me off as imagining things.

Related

I think the person needs alternative help to deal with the deeper issues that are triggering this obsessive behavior the trauma they have gone through seems to have set off some kind of health irrational fear, which is kind of sad really, i don’t think charging extra money would actually help their condition just maybe give them another thing to fixate on and worry about…the root of the problem needs to be properly addressed.

My husband and I do pay extra on our insurance premiums because we smoke. However, I’ve managed to almost quit. Wonder how that’s going to work. When can I tell the insurance company that I’m a non-smoker?

A lot of this has to do with the stigma associated with mental health problems. Many people associate a “hypochondriac” with “the boy who cried wolf.” It’s like the problem would go away of they just stopped “acting crazy” and they blame the person with the mental condition.

How ridiculous would that be if we had the same attitude about someone with a broken arm: “stop complaining, and heal your arm. It would heal faster if you tried harder.” These conditions are very real for the people that have them. They need mental health treatment. As for the cost, I think we should focus on improving diagnosis of these conditions and getting them to mental health providers as quickly as possible. Spending millions of dollars on office visits for psychosomatic illnesses that isn’t doing anything to help the patient’s actual illness is wasteful.

@dutchess_III Most insurance companies do a blood test to ensure there is no nicotine in your system. So you will have to completely quit to get the benefit.

All estimates of “medical costs”, especially in the USA, are a perverse joke due to the leeching of insurance and legal fees and for-profit hospitals and pharmaceutical corporations.

The system profits ridiculously from everyone who uses it.

Hypochondriacs are suffering from a condition which should be treated by appropriate therapy. If the industry ends up gladly prescribing expensive drugs and tests (and racking up the bills and claims for them) it’s the system failing to deal efficiently with a known condition. Trying to focus blame on the hypochondriacs, and punish them by ripping them off even more with the already-perverse insurance system, is not going to help anything except increasing the already-ridiculous profiteering of health insurance companies.

We are all in this together.

@johnpowell Tell that to the Repugs.

I know.. Personally, I am fine with spreading the cost around. I don’t use my insurance much but I know that one day I will get cancer and need others to help.

Mental health issues should not be discriminated against any more than should alcoholism, or smoking or overeating. Everyone has something they could improve on and health care is about care, period. For every hypochondriac that runs to the doctor for every little thing there are others that never go, until it is too late. For every chubby person that has a heart attack there are a dozen more not chubbies that do too. For every smoker that gets lung cancer there is a dozen other non-smokers that get cancer too.

For every drinker that ends up with liver issues there are others that have fatty liver disease that are not drinkers. Health care is about care, regardless of mental health or habits. I’ve smoked in my life and if I come down with cancer I don’t want to be treated like a pariah, so I smoked for some years, I am sick now, treat me now. Insurance is there for us to get CARE, regardless of the issues behind our illnesses. No one issue or condition is any more worthy of treatment than another.

@Coloma “For every drinker that ends up with liver issues there are others that have fatty liver disease that are not drinkers.”...for every chubbie, etc, etc….” Authoritative citations, please.

Insurance is all about spreading out the impact of loss among a given population. Naturally occurring predispositions are factored into the cost. Healthy people pay the same as the young, the pregnant, the ill, and the aged. Those natural predispositions of any population are, thankfully, affordable when things go right. A sudden bloom of disease, such as Ebola or HIV, could bankrupt a country’s health plan. So certain behaviours and precautions must be encouraged.

As stated above, there are incentives to eat better in places like Sweden, and the population, for the most part eat smarter there than in the US. The impact upon the system of detrimental behaviours such as alcoholism and cigarette smoking are dealt with by instituting end user taxes. There is no punishment or denial of healthcare. Like I stated above in my last post: if you play, you pay. It’s fair, rational and necessary.

@Espiritus_Corvus Understood and agreed, however, bottom line, we all have to die of something and I don’t agree with this insane drive to live to be 117 in perfect health. We think insurance is bad now, what are we going to do when there are 50 billion people on this rock all living to be 100+? As far as authoritative citations, I don’t have time to find links and articles but have read that something like only 20% of lung cancers are diagnosed in smokers with the remaining 80% randomly occurring for other and unknown reasons. I have a friend, petite and in good shape with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease that I did some research on and turns out I had no idea how common this is, I always though you had to be a boozer to get liver disease.

I agree, you play you pay, fair enough, but there should not be serious discrimination because while risk factors do play a part, a lot of disease just is, regardless of whether someone eats a burger, has a beer and smokes a cigar afterwards. haha

@Espiritus_Corvus Now you know why other nations generally have higher taxes than the US. However, taxation is a coercive Socialist Fascist plot from the Democrats to convert us all into Muslim terrorist homosexual pedophiles that want to take our guns away, so anything that would lead to increased taxes is more evil than anything Satan could ever dream of.

@chyna Not true; I’ve never had a blood test to check for nicotine.

@jerv It is true where I live.

The though came to me about how many people died because they didn’t act more like hypochondriacs. I am sure everyone has heard of some situation where a person ignored symptoms which were some condition that killed them, and it was preventable, or by the time they did do something, the cancer was too great and they died from it. Sadly there is nothing that works perfectly on this planet. Hypochondriacs just come with the territory like algae comes with having a pool, and poop in the yard comes with the dog.

@chyna :: Do you actually live in China? I’m curious where you live. Continent works. I got obamacare without seeing doctor.

@chyna I am now curious as well. I have had a few different insurance companies over the years, and none have taken blood for nicotine testing. You must live in a repressive police state; someplace like North Korea or Florida.

@Hypocrisy_Central Yeah, it’s a fine line between an apathetic physician and insistent hypochondria. Sometimes you don’t know what you’re looking at.

There’s a gravestone in Key West that reads, ”I told you I was sick!”

I work in a hospital. Nicotine testing is done so you can get a discount on your insurance.
Also, a relative had to take a nicotine test to prove he didn’t smoke or chew tobacco for a life insurance policy.
I live in the United States.

@chyna Are RNs, X-ray techs, orderlies and pharmacists all exempt? I have friends and family in those fields who never took a smoke test either, and if those hospital employees are not exempt, then those tests must be an employer policy or state law rather than anything mandated by the insurance company. I’m not doubting you, merely in shock as mandatory nicotine testing is something I’ve never heard of.

Also, just so you know, “United States” is quite vague given how things vary so much. Washington state has legal marijuana and gay marriage, but you wouldn’t want to get caught with either a joint or a same-sex partner down South as both are illegal. Both Washington and Alabama are in the US, so being in the US doesn’t automatically nullify the possibility of living in a repressive regime.

It’s not mandatory, but if you don’t take the test, your premium is higher.
Since you keep quizzing me about it, it does sound like you doubt me. I don’t really care. Why would I make up something like that?

@chyna Well you do live in a repressive police state. @jerv Made me laugh. Wouldn’t that sound like a progressive state rewarding people for being healthy?

@chyna Have you ever seen something so opposite everything you’ve seen/experienced that it just won’t sink in no matter how much your intellect tells you that it’s true? You have no reason to make it up, and that is why I keep quizzing you.

@Adirondackwannabe A progressive state wouldn’t spend the money on testing; they’d have enough other budget-drainers that they wouldn’t have the funds to spare.

Well I’m sure North Korea spends more than the US per capita on entitlements.~

Yes, but it shouldn’t be limited it to just hypocondricates paying more. Health insurance should operate like auto insurance. If you’re healthy, maintain good health, and have no genetic predispositions to illnesses then you should pay a lot less and if you’re unhealthy, or have an illness, or smoke, or you’re fat, or genetically predisposed, you should pay a lot more.

@slyflux This is tougher than we think. I agreed with your first part, but we’re going to penalize people for their genes?

As an insurance company, you would be crazy not to penalize people for their genes. It isn’t fair to the insurance company and it isn’t fair to the healthy customers. There is no reason others should suffer financial loss because of someone’s health. No reason to spread the pain around.

I really have to disagree with that, but it’s you’re opinion so I have to respect it. The concept with insurance is a big pool of insured people, so the risks get spread out. My family has some crappy genes, so I get hammered for something I was born with? I’ve worked like heck to overcome those genes, but I have to pay more than an overweight smoker with good genes?

The overweight smoker is going to be pay more for smoking and being overweight while you would be paying more because of your crappy genes. Certain predispositions might get you rejected altogether from purchasing insurance. Huntingtin gene comes to mind.

Flip the question the other way around. My family has good genes, and I have no predispositions, so do I get hammered for something I wasn’t born with (your crappy genes)?

I suspect if we start drilling down, and especially if we’re an insurance company looking for ways to charge more, most of us will have some sort of genetic issue. If genetic testing became the norm before we get insured, I think many, many of us will be paying more. Careful what you wish for.

@slyflux That I have to call you on. Bullshit. You want to deny coverage to some people entirely? I’m done. I gave you the benefit of the doubt but that’s done.

@Earthbound_Misfit

Genetic predispositions are not all equal. Some are rare, some are common and some are more likely to occur (percentage wise). Billing should be done accordingly.

@Adirondackwannabe

Of course I would deny coverage if I was an insurance company. I would be the dumbest business owner ever if I were to accept people who are already sick or have a predisposition like Huntingtin. It is an automatic financial loss for the insurance company unless the insurance company stops behaving like auto insurance and shifts its financial burdens from those who are sick on to their healthy customers (me). I would never support that. It no longer runs like auto insurance. Healthy people are being penalized for the crappy genes of those who are sick. The health insurance company and the healthy customers should not suffer financial loss because of someone’s crappy genes. They should pay a lot less for being healthy and having good genes.

@slyflux The problem there is that once you allow billing based on genetics, there really isn’t much stopping us from going full Gattaca. Best to leave genetic out of it completely than risk tying up legislature and courts for decades to defend discrimination in hiring, housing, and everything else. And while we are being arbitrary, why not include religion when considering one’s eligibility for insurance too?

It seems that you have an issue with cost-sharing in general though, so you object to roads, police, military, and any/all insurance period. Seriously, every time you get injured (you are too perfect to ever get sick), you are penalizing all of the people who pay premiums but had the wisdom/intelligence to not wind up in a position where they needed medical attention at all.

But you being a member of The Master Race, I would think that having genes like your’s should increase your premiums. See, there are few enough Scions of Humanity like you that the breeding pool to maintain genetic purity is small enough that you are likely the product of generations of selective inbreeding. Or maybe you are actually lying for the purpose of propaganda (or just trolling), are just as flawed as most of us and thus deserve to pay the same as the rest of us.

@jerv In light of some of their other recent answers, I vote for trolling.

@fluthernutter I’m willing to give benefit of a doubt just because I haven’t seen enough evidence to say for certain. That said, what little I have seen makes @Jaxk look like a flaming Liberal by comparison.

@jerv

It isn’t up to an authoritarian entity or the citizens to allow or not allow what business decisions are made by private owners of insurance companies. It is up to the owner. If they want to bill genetically that is their right. They own the property rights, they have their freedom of choice and freedom of speech. I wouldn’t mind if they discriminate based on religion either. All forms of discrimination should be allowed. In a lot of practical cases, it is absolutely necessary for the survival and thriving of the business.

You don’t need cost-sharing to have roads or police. Have you never driven or seen a private road? Have you never seen or hired private police? I would be more than happy to dissolve the entire government owned monopoly of roads and police and return it back to supply and demand (property owners and customers). Private roads and police already already exist outside of the government monopoly. No need for cost-sharing to benefit from these services.

Lying about what? I was genetically tested before I was born and I just took another test last year. I don’t have any predispositions.

The problem is you guys think in such an egotistically narrow minded view that you cannot imagine a world where people don’t share in your misery and don’t want to spend their hard-earned money supporting your crappy genes. All you can focus on is how to spread your misery and pain on others. You have a “me, me, me” mindset. Very selfish. Seems like you’re doing the trolling here.

Exactly @jerv. Like anyone would trust an insurance company to fairly evaluate genetic disposition when there are $$$ to be made.

@slyflux I don’t think you realize how closely your political ideals mirror the enlightenment of places like Afghanistan or the Congo where there is no effective government to restrict people/businesses.

I value life, prosperity, and justice too much to allow our nation (or even parts of it) to descend to that level. There are already societies that have what you want (I’ve named a couple) and there are a few hundred million Americans who have accepted the compromises of the constraints of a constitutionally mandated Federal Republic, so it would be less harmful and more cost-effective for you to move than to either start a civil war or (more likely) live in misery because society doesn’t share your opinion.

In practical cases, Indiana is losing $50m just for GenCon and who-knows-how-much for the others who either are or are threatening to pull out.

But I’m sure that Indiana taxpayers can meet state expenses without the the revenue that the NCAA, Salesforce, biotech firms (at least 2 have moved their HQ in response to the new law), tourists and others offer. And there is absolutely no risk of us non-Indiana taxpayers having to pick up the slack in the form of higher federal taxes. The feds only give Indiana $1.05 for every dollar in federal taxes collected from Indiana, which is less than the $1.19 from Arizona (a state that tried similar laws) so it’s not like there would be any financial harm to us non-Indiana taxpayers even if Indiana did manage to pay the bills without raising state taxes.

You want supply and demand? Well, you’re about to see it in action… and it will leave a financial crater that will hurt taxpayers across the nation. Oh… and the high likelihood of this being the final term in office for Governor Pence and probably a few state legislators. Free markets are not always your friend ;)

Not everything is about money. Anti-gay folks don’t mind losing business if it means they can discriminate against gays. Property rights, freedom of speech, religious freedom, or personal moralities are more important for some than money.

Besides, remember Chick-Fil-A and Target? The same day the gays tried to boycott the stores, there was a counter response with more than a million anti-gay customers who went to order and shop at these stores. That day, Chick-Fil-A and Target had record breaking sales. By taking a discriminatory stance, Chick-Fil-A and Target were rewarded with much more financial success than if they were to stay neutral.

Remember the gun control, assault bans, and ammo bans scares? Again, record breaking sales.

@slyflux First off, Chik-fil-a is mostly a Southern thing anyways, so the majority of it’s restaurants are in places that have a history of discrimination. I can see how a culture that leans anti-gay anyways may applaud suck discrimination, and thus allow a business that is based in an area that agrees with their agenda may see increased profits. However, if they were a more geographically diverse chain like McDonalds, I am fairly certain that the loss of revenue in places outside of the Bible Belt would’ve offset the increased sales in Dixieland. You also neglect the fact that Chil-fil-A backpedaled quite a bit. If they wanted to open new locations in Chicago or Boston (places outside of the old Confederacy), they pretty much had to.

As for Target, a company that is more geographically diverse, they did a complete 180 so thank you for proving my point about how free market works.

Of course, the company can have a different opinion from it’s founders/leaders anyways, so it’s perfectly plausible to be anti-gay yet run a LGBT-tolerant corporation without compromising their principles. And the First Amendment gives Dan Cathy the right to say what he wants or have any opinion he likes; he just has to do so as a citizen rather than as a CEO.

Citizen or CEO, they should be able to say and do what they want. I told you, not everything is about money. Just because Target changes their mind about gays, doesn’t mean everyone else will too. Besides, Target already milked the market when it took an anti-gay stance. There are no shortages of fascists and the likes that want to reduce individual freedom. If Target wants to now join their ranks by choosing money over principles, then have at it. I don’t agree with Target’s decision and I don’t shop there. I hope the company falls apart. Lucks on my side, “Target said Thursday that it expects about $5.4 billion in fourth-quarter losses from discontinued operations in Canada.”
link

The gains and losses of a company is not your problem. It is the owners. If they want to discriminate, they should be able to. Chick-Fil-A knows it can and it was successful at doing so. Target was successful in being anti-gay and now is trying new alternative ways to milk the market by being pro-gay. Either way, its not your business. It is not up to an authoritarian entity to dictate company decisions. If they want to discriminate they should be able to. It isn’t all about making more money or losing some. For some, principles are more important than money.

@slyflux ” Either way, its not your business.”

It is my business when my taxes go to pay for the consequences of the actions of others. Are you telling me that if someone plowed into your car that you wouldn’t bill them for the repairs? Actually, don’t answer that; your previous posts already told me that you are highly selective about enforcing rights and have zero concept of reciprocity.

It’s also my business because I live in a country founded on the principles of freedom from persecution… or did you forget why our nation was founded?

Most notably, it is also my business because I have principles; ones that place the welfare of humanity as a whole above the individual’s right to hurt whoever they want for any reason they care to invent. And those principles dictate that those who condone eliminating one of the main protections that makes America a better place than North Korea, who oppose the UDHR and place a perverted version of Ayn Rand’s teachings over the desires of our founding fathers, are a grave danger to our nation.

No, it is your business to make sure your taxes don’t go to pay for the consequences of the actions of others. Taxes is your business. It is a public problem. Private institutional problems are not your problems. You have no authority.

Freedom from persecution doesn’t apply to this discussion at all. Persecution means to harass or punish. Opening up a private business and filtering out who you want to service and how much to charge by type is not persecution. The business is not chasing the customer. It is not preventing the customer. It is not threatening the customer with violence. The customer is free to conduct business elsewhere or open up their own private business. The business owner is protected by property rights, religious freedom, freedom of speech and freedom of choice. Also, insurance companies discriminate mostly by health, not race, gender, or religion. None of this fits in with persecution.

Your principles violate other people’s freedoms and they cause a catastrophic financial loss either to the insurance owners or if they shift the burden then it goes to the healthy customers to support those who are unhealthy. You have these wonderful principles but you refuse to put your money where your mouth is and pay for it yourself. Instead, you produce these bright ideas and make everyone else pay for it. No thank you, I’ll pass.

@slyflux Read that first paragraph you wrote. If you cannot see how private institutional problems affect taxes, then you don’t know how our government works, especially when it comes to unemployment, food stamps, and Medicaid; programs that exist in reality even though you probably wish they didn’t.

I won’t even bother with the rest of that post, or any further posts by you, because I now know exactly what type of person I am dealing with, and can see nothing productive coming from any further discussion with a True Believer. While I normally welcome opposing views, I draw the line at sociopathic pseudo-Neitzschean propaganda from someone who doesn’t even realize what they are saying well enough to avoid contradicting themselves totally in consecutive sentences.

I’ll leave the light on for you as I leave, but I wouldn’t expect anyone else to chime in here. If history is any indication, I have a higher tolerance for this sort of thing than most jellies, so odds are that it’s just us two here anyways. Feel free to stick around in case I’m wrong though.

If we were to deny health insurance or charge more for those who have crappy genes, and those people cannot afford it, then we’re either going to have many sick and dying people wandering around or they’re going to be insured by programs like Medicaid where we all end up paying anyway.

^^ Totally agree. That is pretty much what is happening today. The ER costs when these uninsured people finally go into crisis are eating the system alive. And this patchwork of basically faith-based and county-level indigent health care is ineffective and wasteful—and often locally duplicated from one group to another. It’s a fucking joke. It’s one of the most fucked up, expensive systems I’ve ever seen in a first-world country. Its fucking stupid and the Americans are stupid for continuing to allow their taxes to be wasted like this.

And the Affordable Care Thing? That’s a joke, too. Once they took Single Payer off the table, they doomed it to iniquity in the succeeding elections. Next time you’re out and about, ask a homeless person if they’ve signed up yet. I’ll bet you won’t find one homeless signee. Do the same in Germany and you’ll find everyone one of them getting health insurance without signing of for anything. If this Affordable Care Act doesn’t take care of the lowest echelon of our society—the people who need health insurance the most—what the fuck good is it?

The whole point of insurance is a pooling of the risks between high and low risks. The high risks are factored in and the pooling makes it (somewhat) affordable for all. That’s called fairness. Of course, a single payer system would be much better than one based on profit.

I agree with @janbb

@jerv

I get it. In the name of welfare and Medicaid, you’re ready to destroy this country’s freedoms. Once again, you expose your greediness by choosing money in the form of lower taxes over principles. There is nothing left to talk about. You have no problem violating someone’s body and soul just so you can have a few extra dollars in your pocket.

Unlike you, I’m not a sell out. Principles are more important than money. I don’t have a problem paying more if it expands freedom for all who want it.

Give me an example of “crappy genes” @slyflux.

Any genetic predispositions for diseases or illnesses are already considered crappy genes. You can break them down into rarity, commonality, and likelihood. I already provided a specific example, twice. Huntington’s disease. A child who has a genetic predisposition of this disease has over a 50% chance of getting it.

I have a friend who has MS, along with her sister and father. A good example of genetic predisposition. She has chosen to not have children because of the risks and I salute her.

But you can’t charge somebody for something they might get in the future! All of us are prone to having something go dreadfully wrong.

@chyna Sorry for the delay in my response, I haven’t been online much for the past few days. I hope your still following.

I’ve had high cholesterol my whole life and that has never been a factor in my health insurance costs. I’m not doubting that some insurers might look at that regarding premiums, I just never have encountered it and found that interesting in your response. I have had to get cholesterol testing for life insurance.

Someone told me just a week ago that now with Obama’s new rules health insurance has done away with different premium costs for smokers and similar. I don’t know if that is true or not. I don’t remember that being discussed at all with Obama’s health plan was the big news of the day.

My husband’s previous company was self insured and he works in benefits, so I know so unusual facts most people might not. One of the huge expenses that raised premiums one year was two employees had very premie babies that they pulled out all the stops to save. Both lived after months in the hospital. One lives it’s life basically crippled. The doctors want to insert a feeding tube, but the parents refused it. The child is very small, but had made it to age two last I heard. That child’s medical care is like a heart attack every year. The other baby I don’t know as much about, but also very expensive.

The parents of the babies are lovely people, didn’t do anything “wrong,” and are one of the bigger gluts on the health insurance for that company, although of course there are other adults who cost the system a lot too.

I’m just saying you never know who is going to be the sick one.

What a heart ache….. :(

Why should everyone pay more, instead of just continuing to pay what they’re paying now?