Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Booms, Busts, and Recoveries -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Seeker of Truth who wrote (52600)	8/25/2004 4:46:28 AM
From: Taikun	Respond to of 74559

I saw in the UK an insurance company will start offering life insurance at a discount for people who go to the gym. The customers will take a simple run on a treadmill at a certified local gym and if the vital signs show the customer is a couch potato the discount will be denied. I think this should be mandatory for health insurance. Why should my friend wait months for an MRI for a liver scan when my friend does not drink, but cancer is suspected, when the MRI waitlist includes people injured from high-risk sports, high risk activities. I floated this idea by another friend and he said 'never'!! Imagine, though, if smokers paid a higher share of lung cancer treatment, drinkers paid a higher share of treatment for ulcers, AIDS patients paid a higher share of treatment for not using condoms. I see no difference with this than with a safe-driver discount for drivers who don't have accidents. Now I'm not a doctor so I can't say how many AIDS patients might get AIDS even using a condom, or how many non-drinkers might get ulcers etc, but the correlation cannot be zero. Or, is society expected to sacrifice the health of people who take care of themselves to help the lowest common denominator, thereby offering below-average treatment as a whole? This applies to Medicaid and other gov't programs.