I'm trying to understand this: why are we covered by insurance when something bad happens to us, or if we need glasses or special shoes, but we aren't covered when we're proactive about our health?
There have been enough studies by now showing that lifestyle has a considerable impact on our health. Why then aren't our health insurance premiums scaled according to how well we take care of ourselves?
It would work like this: Do you go to the gym three times a week? You pay less. Do you walk instead of drive? Pay less. Do you meditate, do yoga, run, or do something else to manage the impact of stress? You pay less too.
And it would work like this: Prove that you do something active once or twice a week, and that activity is covered by your insurance. Just like your glasses. Or your medication. And don't try to tell me that this system would be rife with fraud. Surely there's an intelligent way to make it work.
Not only would proactive health insurance reward people who are already healthy and active, but it would be a strong incentive for all kinds of people to work harder at staying healthy. Imagine if your gym membership was covered by insurance, provided that you checked in and worked out two days a week?
Or maybe you join AA. Or quit smoking. Health insurance should offer incentives to people who make positive changes that affect their long term well being.
Incentives aside, proactive insurance sends a message. It says: as an industry, an employer, a society, we're not just here when you need extra help, but we place a value on your quality of life and well being.
Posts
Master ChatGPT and AI Automation for just $15
13 hours ago
2 comments:
How do you prove that you go for a run every day?
How do you prove you do something active at all? Define "active".
(I do 90 minutes of yoga a day. No really, I swear. See, I have a yoga mat. So I must do yoga.)
How do you prove you are healthy and doing healthy things? Define "healthy." (Opinions will vary widely.)
What about congenital/inherited/random disorders/diseases? Do they have to pay more? What if someone with Huntington's willingly procreates - or maybe they should be forcibly sterilized if they know they can pass a disease on, because damn, their children might be a burden on the health system.
What about people who get cancer or diabetes due to fluke rather than lifestyle issues? Do they have to pay more because they lost the genetic lottery?
What about mental illnesses that prevent people from being "active" or able to take care of themselves?
AA - and other 12 step programs - are subscribing to a very particular agenda that may not jibe with an individual's recovery - and could actually inhibit recovery. Who decides what programs are "good" and what are "bad"? Whose definition of alcoholism are you going to go by? There are many. Um, not to mention that whole "anonymous" part of 12 step programs.... you truly believe people should register with their insurance provider/govt if they have a substance abuse problem? Holy privacy violation!
What about allergies? Or asthmatic or other lung conditions that prevent people from being "active" (whatever the definition of "active" is)?
Proactive insurance, the way you have described it, sends a message: As an industry, an employer, a society, we are here to control your lifestyle and take away your freedom of choice. We place a monetary value on your life, and you better damn well follow it or too bad for you.
I'm imagining that my gym membership is covered by insurance and I am mandated to "check in" and "work out" (define work out) 2 days a week, and it terrifies me. Creeeeeeeeepy.
Agreed... But I want to get away from this scary, big brother idea of insurance.
And of course, it wouldn't replace the current system nor discriminate against people who are sick. That's what insurance is there for -- to help all of us when we need it.
I just think there's a better way to insure people that takes into account positive lifestyle changes, no matter how small.
Post a Comment