[miley_cyrus]

No that is a huge failure. That is perhaps the biggest failure of Obamacare.

That means I, as someone with healthy lifestyle habits, has to pay largely the same premium as someone who smokes, is obese, and doesn't exercise. And sure enough, life expectancy in the US immediately stalled after the law's implementation: https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/usa/uni.... Exactly what economics would predict would happen.

[orionsbelt]

And what if you, despite being healthy, get diagnosed with cancer right one your employer fails, thus becoming uninsurable? This type of thing happened to people.

It’s nice the above can no longer happen. You could, at the same time, still allow insurers to charge a premium to smokers and obese and for other lifestyle risks within one’s control. They are not mutually exclusive.

[JuniperMesos]

The entire system of linking health insurance to one's current employer is bad. I should just be able to buy it with money I earn from doing anything that pays me, just like I do with my car insurance or any other type of insurance.

[ZuLuuuuuu]

That decline is mostly because of Covid pandemic, no? And it looks like the life expectancy picked back up after 2022.

Similar laws existed in EU countries long before US, and EU countries also saw a decline in life expectancy during those years: https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/deu/ger...

[idiotsecant]

Look at this Ubermensch that will never have a stroke, develop cancer, or any number of debilitating conditions. Must be nice!

It is the basic duty of every human to do their best to make sure every other living human is afforded a life of simple human dignity. Full stop. We have the resources. Let's just do it.

[thereitgoes456]

Sadly we do not have, and will never have, the resources to help everyone, even to a baseline of human dignity. Surely we can't give people unlimited talk therapy, MRIs, and cancer treatment for free. But some people sorely need these things.

Preventative/propylactic care is orders of magnitude cheaper than treatment once a disease has manifested. It makes sense to me to punish people for not doing this care, thereby choosing to impose more strain on an already overburdened system.

Note that GP only mentioned things we have control over -- exercise, weight, not smoking. Of course I agree that it would be cruel to disadvantage pre-existing conditions.

[lovich]

> That means I, as someone with healthy lifestyle habits, has to pay largely the same premium as someone who smokes, is obese, and doesn't exercise.

Do you live a healthier lifestyle than every single other person in your insurance plan or are you just a hypocrite who’s decided the line is acceptable when it includes you, but not one inch beyond that?

[randycupertino]

The obese and smokers actually cost less because they die early vs healthy people who live a long life and need a lot of care when they're aged.

"Smoking was associated with a moderate decrease in healthcare costs, and a marked decrease in pension costs due to increased mortality." https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/2/6/e001678

The UK did a study and they found that from the three biggest healthcare risks; obesity, smoking, and alcohol, they realize a net savings of £22.8 billion (£342/$474 per person) per year. This is due primarily to people with health risks not living as long (healthcare for the elderly is exceptionally expensive), as well as reduced spending on pensions, etc..

[d1sxeyes]

US policies wouldn’t affect the life expectancy in the UK, which has broadly the same trend: https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/gbr/uni...

This is despite no-one paying (directly) for health care.

Would you be willing to submit to invasive investigations into how you live to identify any risk factors you have (both under your control, like choosing to drive, international travel, and not under your control, like genetic predisposition to heart disease) to ensure your premium can be accurately calculated?

Blaming people for their illnesses is something we have historically gotten wrong a lot, and regardless, it’s pretty inhuman as a society to leave people to suffer and die because they can’t afford healthcare.

[zimpenfish]

> Would you be willing to submit to invasive investigations into how you live to identify any risk factors you have

To be fair, there are insurance policies (at least in the UK) which give you discounts if you drive "safely"[0] or health insurance that rewards you for "being active"[1].

[0] https://www.which.co.uk/money/insurance/car-insurance/how-bl...

[1] https://www.vitality.co.uk/rewards/ "you earn Vitality points by getting active or attending your health check-ups [...] rewards, including a reduced excess and lower renewal premiums"

[benmmurphy]

> it’s pretty inhuman as a society to leave people to suffer and die because they can’t afford healthcare.

this is mostly about drawing a line between the tradeoffs of costs and the benefits of increased lifespan and better quality of life. almost no-one actually believes all of societies resources should be committed to healthcare to achieve some small marginal health gain. claiming people are inhuman because they want to draw the line differently is messed up.

[pdntspa]

I remember being denied coverage after aging out of my parent's healthcare plan. The cited reason was "pre-existing conditions", which were allergies and a congenital cleft lip and palate (I had a number of corrective procedures as a kid). I was a healthy and relatively normal young adult.

Life expectancy flatlining could be any number of things. Correlation != causation

[tartoran]

How about if that is diabetes, or something else that does not depend on lifestyle choices?

[mlrtime]

You're kidding right? Look up how many people have type 2 diabetes, greater than 90%

[abenga]

That's the point of insurance.

[grahar64]

Yes, everyone on insurance should be young and healthy. Fuck those sick people /s