And now that there's a choice, the insurers deduce that a person opting for an annuity is likely to consider themselves healthy enough to live to get value for money from it.
And now that there's a choice, the insurers deduce that a person opting for an annuity is likely to consider themselves healthy enough to live to get value for money from it.The longevity risk was pooled across the entire population of annuity-holders.
Obesity isn't always a "lifestyle" disease.obesity and other lifestyle diseases.
They do. BMI is a rating factor in life insurance. You provide your height and weight when you apply.It’s just a pity that they don’t adjust for obesity
I don’t see why other people should have to subsidies us because of that.
Social insurance, yes - e.g. PRSI. Individual insurance based on actuarial risk factors, no. Except whether socialism is enforced by the likes of community rating on health insurance for example.Isn't that what insurance is effectively?
No, Insurance is the equal sharing of risk, not one party with a lower risk paying the same as another party with a higher risk.Isn't that what insurance is effectively? Because none of us know for certain when, or if, we may ever need to avail of the financial protection that insurance policies provide, the premium is effectively a collaborative subsidy paid by policy holders.
Social insurance, yes - e.g. PRSI. Individual insurance based on actuarial risk factors, no. Except whether socialism is enforced by the likes of community rating on health insurance for example.
The problem with community rated health insurance (and a public healthcare system) is it creates a moral hazard where people behave in a way which is damaging to their health knowing that someone else will foot the bill if things turn out badly for them.
What do you mean?Is there any evidence that this is a factor in lifestyle to any significant extent?
No, Insurance is the equal sharing of risk, not one party with a lower risk paying the same as another party with a higher risk.
No, that makes them more likely to seek free treatment for the illnesses they have caused to themselves. That's a different point to the one I was making.No, it's the opposite. People with free healthcare are more likely to attend their GP regularly and detect diseases at an earlier stage when it is cheaper to treat.
I don't know where you live but where i live it takes weeks in most GPs to get an appointment as a private patient, and it's effectively impossible to go an appointment with a GP visit or medical card. It's also extremely difficult to get a GP in the first place. For a lot of people it's Doc on Call or nothing. (We're very lucky with our current GP but the previous one was a disaster).People with free healthcare are more likely to attend their GP regularly and...
No. It's mostly to do with wealth which is the single biggest determinant of most health outcomes as the socio-economic environment predicts behaviour which predicts health. You tend not to get a lot of heroin addicts with hepatitis etc emanating from the yachting families of south Dublin for example. Rich people live longer because they're rich and poor people die younger because they're poor.Do people generally behave more "responsibly" if they perceive that health care may not be available to them without them paying for it out of pocket?
There is no evidence that higher healthcare costs reduce obesity. In the USA even with health insurance the out-of-pocket costs are among the highest in the world, and obesity rates are far higher than the UK where healthcare is free.If we knew that we'd have to pay the full cost of cancer treatment we'd be far less likely to smoke or get fat.
If we knew that we'd have to pay the full cost of diabetes treatment we'd be far less likely to get fat.
You really aren't getting the point I'm making.There is no evidence that higher healthcare costs reduce obesity. In the USA even with health insurance the out-of-pocket costs are among the highest in the world, and obesity rates are far higher than the UK where healthcare is free.
Even when controlled for age etc medical card patients are far more likely to present to their GP.I don't know where you live but where i live it takes weeks in most GPs to get an appointment as a private patient, and it's effectively impossible to go an appointment with a GP visit or medical card. It's also extremely difficult to get a GP in the first place. For a lot of people it's Doc on Call or nothing. (We're very lucky with our current GP but the previous one was a disaster).
Correlation does not equal causation. It could just as easily be said that people who plan for the future by concentrating on their education and looking after their health are more likely to be well off and people who don't do so are more likely to be poor and die younger.No. It's mostly to do with wealth which is the single biggest determinant of most health outcomes as the socio-economic environment predicts behaviour which predicts health. You tend not to get a lot of heroin addicts with hepatitis etc emanating from the yachting families of south Dublin for example. Rich people live longer because they're rich and poor people die younger because they're poor.
- Edit- if i recall correctly parental wealth is the biggest predictor which is not the same as individual wealth although they're obviously highly correlated.
If tall people are more likely to have tall children and people with big noses and blue eyes are more likely to have children with big noses and blue eyes it may also be the case that, shock horror, smart people are more likely to have smart children. In the scheme of things the most advantageous unearned privilege to be born with is intelligence. There's no point in little Johnny and Mary's daddy plays golf with their employer if Johnny and Mary are morons.There are plenty of twin studies on the nature-nurture subject, but nobody who matters cares about those because they prefer to believe that their little Johnny or Mary is successful because of their natural talent and it's purely coincidental that Johnny and Mary's daddy plays golf with their employers...
Thus proving my exact point that you don't care about the science on nature-nurture because you prefer to believe that your Johnny and Mary were born with a natural talent which enables their success.In the scheme of things the most advantageous unearned privilege to be born with is intelligence.
You haven't proven anything. I don't know why particular people do well or don't do well in life. As a cohort it's nonsensical to suggest that all people who do well do so because they are born into well off or well connected families, just as it is nonsensical to say that people do well because they are intelligent and hard working. There are a multiplicity of factors which influence such outcomes.Thus proving my exact point that you don't care about the science on nature-nurture because you prefer to believe that your Johnny and Mary were born with a natural talent which enables their success.
What is obvious to me is saying that people die younger because they are poor is a ridiculous claim to make. Their poverty and their life expectancy could both be symptoms of other root causes; low education levels of their parents, low parental IQ's, bad diet as children, addiction, metal health issues etc.Not proving it to you obviously. If you were capable of accepting reasoned arguments you'd have done some googling on twin studies and intelligence before going on about intelligence and eye colour being equally heritable traits.
That doesn't make any sense.But as you don't care about facts or science I'm just not going to bother with the rest of your post.
There's no point in little Johnny and Mary's daddy plays golf with their employer if Johnny and Mary are morons.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?