Should Vegetarians Pay Lower Insurance Premiums?

We've discussed how people at the right weight and non-smokers pay less in insurance premiums because they are generally more healthy than those over weight and people who smoke. Seems fair to me -- you have less of a chance of needing insurance, so you should pay less for it, right?

So when US News asks if vegetarians should pay lower insurance premiums, it's a valid question. Of course there are issues like how to enforce such options, but if it's true that vegetarians are less likely to need insurance, shouldn't they pay lower rates? Personally, I'm ok with it (though I'm not a vegetarian). What do you think?

BTW, I'm not going into it in this post, but the issue of people who choose to lead less-than-healthy lifestyles and the cost of their medical care/insurance is a HUGE issue to consider as the U.S. looks at national health care. I'm fine with people doing whatever they want to do (smoke, eat like pigs, etc.) as long as they're paying for it. But if I'm going to pay for it, I think it's reasonable to ask them to do their part and maintain their weight, stop smoking, etc. I'll talk more about this issue as Obama gets into office and we start seeing his specific proposals for health care reform.

Comments

[Kaitlyn]

My ex was a vegetarian. He ate nothing but pasta with alfredo sauce, and other such carb-tastic meals. He was seriously overweight and never exercised. I'm a carnivore, but I exercise on a regular basis. He is far more likely to have health problems than me.

The idea that vegetarianism is inherently healthier is a myth.

I agree with Kaitlyn. There is no proof that being a vegetarian makes you healthier. They tend to eat a much less varied diet, consume too much carbs, and rarely get the recommended amount of protein. And like the previous poster, many of them use "being a vegetarian" as an excuse to eat chips and processed foods all the time. If you happen to be a vegetarian that still manages to be healthy, then your weight, blood pressure, and cholesterol will reflect that, just as they will if you choose to include meat as part of a healthy diet. I think that to base insurance rates on things like your diet or even habits like smoking or exercise is not a good idea. They should be based on the only conclusive evidence there is, and that is the results from a physical exam. Make them mandatory for all employees and base the annual rates on them. That will encourage healthy habits and not allow for "cheating"

[pharmboy]

I'm all for it, assuming my personal beef is fixed too: I pay more for auto insurance since I'm young, but I don't pay less for my health insurance.

Higher rates!!

People need the nutrition in meat.

[rwh]

Pharmboy:

If you are under 30 and buying your own health insurance you are definitely paying less than someone over 50 like me. I know of several 20 somethings with no work place coverage that pay less than $100/month for health insurance. No way a 50 something like me would get that price, even with the same high deductible.

It may be different for group coverage. But there is the rub; the larger the group the greater the risk pool. That's the whole point of health insurance. The young and/or healthy have to participate in sufficient numbers to cover the ones that get sick more often, or, in the case of younger or healthier people, have a bad accident or get something unexpected like cancer.

[J. Chachula]

Good points about using measurable criteria to base rates. I do wish more people thought of their own choices in relation to the rest of the country. Certainly taking poor care of ourselves--both physically and emotionally, has an impact on our immediate family and friends, but there is a bigger world out there that is also affected by our irresponsibility. I of course understand how difficult it is to make these changes; I'm just calling for a greater awareness of our responsibility to the "outside" world as well.

[Mark]

I agree with previous posters about there not really being a connection to vegetarianism and being fit. I have two friends who are vegetarian and they are both overweight...not obese, but overweight.

Also, people on vegetarian diets can be deficient in protein and certain vitamins which could lead to more visits to the doctor.

[Kenny Johnson]

Isn't the whole point of group health insurance that the healthy people are paying for the sick people, which isn't unfair, because (most likely), one of us will be unhealthy/sick in the future?

Charging higher rates because you're not healthy seems silly to me. That means that the time I most need my insurance, it's going to to cost me the most and the times it's least needed, I pay less. So, if my physical examine comes back and I have diabetes, I now have to pay a higher rate?

I think the original argument, was that if you're doing something intentionally unhealthy, then your rate should be higher. But is it true that a meat diet is unhealthy? How do you prove someone has an unhealthy diet?

Not everyone that eats unhealthy, has symptoms. Not everyone who has symptoms eats unhealthy. Some of this is genetic.

[cb]

"I agree with previous posters about there not really being a connection to vegetarianism and being fit."

Overall there very likely is. The commenters are using specific examples about their friends. I have a friend who smokes but runs 5 miles a day.

[Miss M]

As a vegetarian I would prefer a carbon tax or other environmental tax be imposed on meat eaters. While you may dispute that vegetarian = healthy, you can't dispute that cows are a huge contributor to green house gases and that the factory farming methods practiced in the US do environmental damage. Also, most americans eat way more protein than they need. The argument that veggies don't get enough protein is generally bunk, you're just eating too much!

[rwh]

In the specific case of vegetarians vs meat eaters, if there is to be lower premium for vegetarians they should have to prove their level of health with the appropriate lab tests and physical exams.

But if you are in great shape and get a lower premium, that messes up the actuarial tables and makes the insurance model unworkable.

[Sarah]

It's kind of astonishing how poorly the connections between obesity (especially the milder and more common forms) and illness have actually been documented. But it appears to scientifically confirm a prejudice, so...

[Sarah]

(And I do think it's hilarious that people who scream about government intrusion on their liberties when, say, cities ban transfats, would be comfortable with their employer giving them physicals and basing vital insurance decisions on them, thereby exercising remarkable invasive powers over their private lives in a way that is much less legally checked and for which you would have much less recourse for arbitrary or stupid decisions.)

[Rod Ferguson]

As both a vegetarian and a smoker, I say that neither should be used as a basis for deciding a premium. But, since actuarial tables decide rates, if an actuarial table is developed for vegetarians, I'll accept the discount as I now pay the penalty for being a smoker.

[Todd]

I agree with Rod. It is all a crap shoot. To claim a relationship between being a vegetarian and being more healthy is not really based in reality nor is there going to be any way to prove it. I don't know if I even favor the smoking vs. non-smoking. It seems that the greatest factor would be genetics in most ilnesses. Should you charge someone more who has a history of breast cancer in the family? That is a greater indicator of future health than someone who does not dine on animal.

Miss M: carbon tax on meat eaters or a tax on the meat? I eat meat but I don't buy it from a store. Why should I pay more?

[JEM]

I have Vegetarian friends who basically only eat chips and cheese. They are not into health, they just don't want to kill animals. This should not be a factor for insurance rates.

[Shorty]

Insurance companies have a simple blood test for nicotine. However, can they easily test for "meat" in one's system?

[matt @ Thrive]

I'm actually rather shocked by the number of people who suggest that we can't figure the relationship between vegetarianism and health. A regression analysis, controlling for factors like amount of exercise, etc. isn't actually that hard, and eating behavior is actually controllable, so we could just take 100 people, assign fifty of them to eat one diet and fifty of them to eat another.

So we can do it and insurances companies can certainly do it in arbitrage. The question is entirely moral, not whether there is or is not a link (which I don't know the answer to, as a scientist) - I think what he is getting is whether it is acceptable to us, as a nation, to discriminate on this particular issue, if it turns out to have an effect on health.

[matt @ Thrive]

I'm actually rather shocked by the number of people who suggest that we can't figure the relationship between vegetarianism and health. A regression analysis, controlling for factors like amount of exercise, etc. isn't actually that hard, and eating behavior is actually controllable, so we could just take 100 people, assign fifty of them to eat one diet and fifty of them to eat another.

So we can do it and insurances companies can certainly do it in arbitrage. The question is entirely moral, not whether there is or is not a link (which I don't know the answer to, as a scientist) - I think what he is getting is whether it is acceptable to us, as a nation, to discriminate on this particular issue, if it turns out to have an effect on health.

[Steven]

The issue goes beyond whether vegetarians get different rates. It's that we THINK we pay for health care under and insurance operative when in fact we (who pay) expect first dollar coverage of all health costs via our "insurance".
I don't expect my auto insurance to pay for my oil changes, the general wear and tear to my brakes and tires. I want pooled-risk for those rare and catastrophic car accidents ... that's what my insurance should cover: the infrequent big ticket items.
Let's face it we're trying to get socialized care using a adjusted risk model (insurance) and it doesn't work.

matt - of course you can prove it if there is a controlled study but in real life you can't control things like that. And you don't know whether a vegetarian is eating chips or vegetables, or even meat when he's at home. The only way to determine the effect is with blood and cholesterol screenings, which should be the basis rather than an arbirtary "I am a vegetarian."

Same goes for exercise. I do not regularly work out, but I am in pretty good shape and all my cholesterol levels are excellent, since I get enough activity in my daily life. So just because someone joins a gym and hangs out around the free weights and sits in the sauna, they should pay less than someone who gets their exercise carrying 2 kids up and down the stairs all day?

The only fair way to measure, if you want to do it, is with medical tests.

[Cyllya]

The term vegetarian just means they don't eat meat. While the optimum diet might exclude meat, there's plenty of unhealthy non-meat foods. So it'd be weird to adjust their premiums based on that. Maybe a raw foodist should get reduced rates.

As for the question of how you prove someone is a vegetarian... everything else about medical insurance is the same, right? (Just because someone says they're a non-smoker on the application doesn't make it true, right?)

[Liz]

When it came time to re-enroll in our health insurance, there were now two forms- smoker and non-smoker. If during the past 12 months, you are (were) a smoker or lived with a smoker, you paid a higher premium. Otherwise, you filled out the non-smoker forms. As a non-smoker, I don't feel that it is out of line, smoking is a choice and our company (a government agency) offers free help to stop smoking. So there is no excuse for not quitting, they are giving you the tools. However, vegetarianism is not always indicative of a healthy lifestyle. But I do believe that health care premiums should be tied to health factors.