JayB

Democratic congressman in any state with extensive hurricane/flood risk and their constituents. Notable exceptions to the rule being the idiot Governor of Florida and Trent Lott.

If you like this, you'll love paying to rebuild Florida after the next hurricane rolls through. Prevent insurers from pricing risk in an actuarially sound fashion, and guess what happens - they decline to underwrite it. Part II comes when - after they drive the insurers out of the state - the state government creates an "insurer of last resort" which charges rates that are substantially below those needed to underwrite the risk. Last I saw, Florida had something like $5-10 billion in reserves standing against something on the order of half a trillion in potential liabilities. Part III will come when the next Hurricane rolls in, bankrupts the state in one push, and you get to pay for the damage to their property instead of private insurers. Way to stick it to the corporations! Had they not interfered in the insurance market, people who own or are considering owning homes in those areas would have to price the cost of insurance into their decisions about whether to stay in their homes, or to buy them in the first place. The most likely outcome would be a decline in the value of the homes that was commensurate with the increase in the premiums. People who couldn't afford to pay the premiums would have to sell. That's tough - but there's no right to home ownership, much less in a hazardous area - and far more people have been forced out of their homes by property tax levies than insurance premiums. One of the greatest ironies about this situation is that those who are agitating most vocally for action on climate change are those who are typically arguing on behalf of rate-caps like these that have the effect of enouraging ever greater development of the very same coastal/floodplain areas that will be hardest hit by more intense hurricanes, severe weather events, etc.

Yes, I'm sure the Northwest would waltz through an equally severe deviation from historical precipitation levels completely unscathed... "Although rain is due today across parts of the region, it will barely dampen the 16-month drought. Through September, it is the region's driest year in 113 years of record-keeping. In five of the six worst-hit states, rain totals this year are close to a foot below normal. It is the driest year on record for North Carolina and Tennessee, second-driest in Alabama and third-driest in Kentucky. A tree-ring study this summer of Tennessee's rainfall history shows this is the third-driest year for the state in at least 350 years, behind only 1839 and 1708."

$58 a day still seems like a bargain for Crystal. Could be much worse. You could be paying $45/day for this: http://www.crystalmountain.com/images/File/Winter2006_07/downhilltrailmap200607.pdf

CzrUD-5hf1A

Yeah, I agree it's thier business, but I don't want to pay for it. I want points or a price break on my health insurance for having a normal BMI and exercising and not smoking, etc., just like I get a discount on my car insurance for safe driving. I don't want to pay for someone else's adult onset diabetes and high blood pressure and quadruple bypass. Ditto. A matter of virtue? No. A matter of responsibility? Yes. Many life threatening conditions have an overwhelmingly genetic component. It's not all "personal responsibility" (not even half or a quarter, an a lot of cases). Are you saying that you want a price break (or you want others to pay more, same thing) for your/their genetics? If one accepts the proposition that one has as little control over or responsibility for their behavior as they do their genetic inheritance, then this line of argument might have some merit. There are untold millions of people in this country who have probably inherited traits that make it more challenging for them to avoid harming others in some fashion, yet they enjoy no special exemptions from the expectation that they will do so, unless their impairment is so severe that they are deemed insane and granted a separate legal status whereby they are no longer held responsible for their actions. There may be a certain number of persons who have inherited traits such that society cannot reasonably expect to control the quantity of food that they consume, and they would be afforded exemptions from the expectation that they do so. For everyone else - the fatter they get, the more they should pay for their health insurance. THis is a formula for an even more invasive society. Levy a health care tax on fatties and, faster than you can add curly fries to that shake, they'll class action sue or lobby for legislation and levy a tax on risky behavior that might result in traumatic injury. Remember, the fatties are in the majority. You'll also have to somehow separate out and weigh (no pun intended) the genetic component of disease. That means genetic testing for everyone...and the rampant wholesale denial of insurance that would undoubtedly result. And privacy issues? Pshah! Finally, you'll have to have a system for monitoring behavior (what did you eat today, Mr. JayB?) as part of enforcement. This would undoubtedly result in a health care system many times more expensive due to the aforementioned overhead than the one we have now; hardly a change in the positive direction for anyone. I don't know about you, but pay the same as the two tone tillies so as to enjoy the resultant benefits of a simpler, less expensive one size fits all health care system, and fight obesity through public education: the only method that really works to produce widespread, substantive change in personal behavior. These are good points. As things stand now, the insurance companies can't price risk by simply looking at your age, sex, and driving record and as an effective proxy for your driving habits, and instead had to implement systems to continuously monitor every moment of everyone's driving. It's also true that there's no price competition in this market, so the costs associated with doing so have no bearing on the enthusiasm that any particular company might have on engaging in such monitoring, and if consumers had the option of submitting to continuously surveilance or basing their risk-pricing on their driving record, this would be a matter of indifference to them. The notion that we can distinguish between behaviors that mentally competent adults are capable of regulating, and those that they cannot, and that we can make the distinction between those adults who are capable of performing the mental operations required to do so, and those who can't is the basis of quite a few of the principles that society is organized upon. It's rather odd to observe people arguing so passionately against the same principles that - outside of such a debate - govern their expectations concerning how other people conduct themselves and what they are responsible for. If people can't be expected to govern what they eat, and in what quantities - then they can't be expected to control whether they smoke or not, and the list goes on. I don't think that anyone who argues that the vast majority of people have no control over their weight actually believe such an absurd proposition. So why defend such a specious argument? Why is the idea that there are elements of one's existence that one has substantial control over so threatening? You're much younger than I am, and so you're accustomed to a much more regulated (particularly by unaccountable corporations) world. I'm used to a freer society where privacy means something. Fair enough. It's all about the environment we were brought up in. So it was this environment that's responsible for your oft-stated desire to nationalize a massive sector of the economy and supplant voluntary interactions with control by a massive centralized bureaucracy, grant the government control over everyone's health care, and your desire to have the same entity micromanage all facets of human activity beyond simple respiration that generate C02 emissions?

Because there is plenty of evidence to show regulation of such procedures is not a simple matter? Merely saying it is simple does not change the substantial amount of data showing for the population as a whole it is not simple. Continue trying to change human nature to fit your system JayB, it worked so well for the Soviets Who is talking about changing behavior? I don't climb, ski, or paddle any less because I pay more for life and disability insurance - but people who choose not to assume these risks pay less than me. I could care less if people choose to gorge themselves all day long - if that's how they want to live, that's fine with me. I do think that it's high time that we drop the absurd pretense that mentally competent adults have zero control over what and how much they eat, and increase the rates for people who eat their way into a high-risk BMI, just like we do for people who smoke.

Any guesses as to which party they tend to vote for?

Yes - that about sums it up.

Yeah, I agree it's thier business, but I don't want to pay for it. I want points or a price break on my health insurance for having a normal BMI and exercising and not smoking, etc., just like I get a discount on my car insurance for safe driving. I don't want to pay for someone else's adult onset diabetes and high blood pressure and quadruple bypass. Ditto. A matter of virtue? No. A matter of responsibility? Yes. Many life threatening conditions have an overwhelmingly genetic component. It's not all "personal responsibility" (not even half or a quarter, an a lot of cases). Are you saying that you want a price break (or you want others to pay more, same thing) for your/their genetics? If one accepts the proposition that one has as little control over or responsibility for their behavior as they do their genetic inheritance, then this line of argument might have some merit. There are untold millions of people in this country who have probably inherited traits that make it more challenging for them to avoid harming others in some fashion, yet they enjoy no special exemptions from the expectation that they will do so, unless their impairment is so severe that they are deemed insane and granted a separate legal status whereby they are no longer held responsible for their actions. There may be a certain number of persons who have inherited traits such that society cannot reasonably expect to control the quantity of food that they consume, and they would be afforded exemptions from the expectation that they do so. For everyone else - the fatter they get, the more they should pay for their health insurance. THis is a formula for an even more invasive society. Levy a health care tax on fatties and, faster than you can add curly fries to that shake, they'll class action sue or lobby for legislation and levy a tax on risky behavior that might result in traumatic injury. Remember, the fatties are in the majority. You'll also have to somehow separate out and weigh (no pun intended) the genetic component of disease. That means genetic testing for everyone...and the rampant wholesale denial of insurance that would undoubtedly result. And privacy issues? Pshah! Finally, you'll have to have a system for monitoring behavior (what did you eat today, Mr. JayB?) as part of enforcement. This would undoubtedly result in a health care system many times more expensive due to the aforementioned overhead than the one we have now; hardly a change in the positive direction for anyone. I don't know about you, but pay the same as the two tone tillies so as to enjoy the resultant benefits of a simpler, less expensive one size fits all health care system, and fight obesity through public education: the only method that really works to produce widespread, substantive change in personal behavior. These are good points. As things stand now, the insurance companies can't price risk by simply looking at your age, sex, and driving record and as an effective proxy for your driving habits, and instead had to implement systems to continuously monitor every moment of everyone's driving. It's also true that there's no price competition in this market, so the costs associated with doing so have no bearing on the enthusiasm that any particular company might have on engaging in such monitoring, and if consumers had the option of submitting to continuously surveilance or basing their risk-pricing on their driving record, this would be a matter of indifference to them. The notion that we can distinguish between behaviors that mentally competent adults are capable of regulating, and those that they cannot, and that we can make the distinction between those adults who are capable of performing the mental operations required to do so, and those who can't is the basis of quite a few of the principles that society is organized upon. It's rather odd to observe people arguing so passionately against the same principles that - outside of such a debate - govern their expectations concerning how other people conduct themselves and what they are responsible for. If people can't be expected to govern what they eat, and in what quantities - then they can't be expected to control whether they smoke or not, and the list goes on. I don't think that anyone who argues that the vast majority of people have no control over their weight actually believe such an absurd proposition. So why defend such a specious argument? Why is the idea that there are elements of one's existence that one has substantial control over so threatening?

If the costs associated with any given person's risk were all equal, and no individual had any control whatsoever over the said risks, this would make sense. Kind of like if the transcript on an individual's driving record were determined by pulling citations out of a lotto machine and assigned to particular persons at random, then it would be both fair and rational to charge every driver the same rate irrespective of the documented evidence of their driving habits.

I thought we were charging every individual for the risk they incurred? You can stay perfectly healthy with negligible injury risk riding the stationary bike and using the stairmaster And...?

So really what you and JayB are saying is you want people to be charged by risk as long as your premiums aren't affected. Typical I have no issue whatsoever in paying more in those cases where I'm a higher risk on account of my actions or choices. This is already the case when it comes to life and disability insurance, and I have yet to hear anyone wailing over the gross injustice of this situation.

Perhaps it's who I know, but I know more athletes who've required extensive, expensive, knee surgery than morbidly obese. If there's one thing that has policymakers and actuaries in a tizzy these days, it's how to contend with the costs associated with paying for all of the knee-repair bills for amateur athletes. It's actually kind of flattering when people who can't address an argument intelligently, let alone refute it, elect to respond in this fashion. True - that argument that everyone in the country participating in regular exercise that carries some risk of injury would be far more costly than the the present and future prevalence of obesity had a lot going for it.

Perhaps it's who I know, but I know more athletes who've required extensive, expensive, knee surgery than morbidly obese. If there's one thing that has policymakers and actuaries in a tizzy these days, it's how to contend with the costs associated with paying for all of the knee-repair bills for amateur athletes.

So by that same logic bulimics and anorexics should receive free care? No, I think the logic is that if you are unhealthy in any way, you don't get insurance. Insurance is permitted only for people who don't need it. It would please big business immenseley to enact this change. There's a certain irony in the fact that the word "logic" was incorporated into either post. It's actually kind of flattering when people who can't address an argument intelligently, let alone refute it, elect to respond in this fashion. Bravo.

Yeah, I agree it's thier business, but I don't want to pay for it. I want points or a price break on my health insurance for having a normal BMI and exercising and not smoking, etc., just like I get a discount on my car insurance for safe driving. I don't want to pay for someone else's adult onset diabetes and high blood pressure and quadruple bypass. Ditto. A matter of virtue? No. A matter of responsibility? Yes. Many life threatening conditions have an overwhelmingly genetic component. It's not all "personal responsibility" (not even half or a quarter, an a lot of cases). Are you saying that you want a price break (or you want others to pay more, same thing) for your/their genetics? If one accepts the proposition that one has as little control over or responsibility for their behavior as they do their genetic inheritance, then this line of argument might have some merit. There are untold millions of people in this country who have probably inherited traits that make it more challenging for them to avoid harming others in some fashion, yet they enjoy no special exemptions from the expectation that they will do so, unless their impairment is so severe that they are deemed insane and granted a separate legal status whereby they are no longer held responsible for their actions. There may be a certain number of persons who have inherited traits such that society cannot reasonably expect to control the quantity of food that they consume, and they would be afforded exemptions from the expectation that they do so. For everyone else - the fatter they get, the more they should pay for their health insurance.

How would you feel about all drivers paying the same rates irrespective of their driving history?

Yeah, I agree it's thier business, but I don't want to pay for it. I want points or a price break on my health insurance for having a normal BMI and exercising and not smoking, etc., just like I get a discount on my car insurance for safe driving. I don't want to pay for someone else's adult onset diabetes and high blood pressure and quadruple bypass. Ditto. A matter of virtue? No. A matter of responsibility? Yes.

Really?

Who is talking about virtue here? What anyone chooses to do to their own body is their business, whether that's inhaling smoke or five helpings of curly fries and washing it down with 64-oz Slurpee.

Anything that clearly assigns both the agency and responsibility away from inanimate objects that are eaten, to the people who choose to eat them in quantities that result in obesity would be a welcome step. The fact that we've taken some steps towards transferring agency away from the people putting food in their mouths, and towards the food itself is not a terribly good sign.

Bump. Indeed. I've sucked it up. Friday's ride home sucked ass. The crosswind on the I-90 bridge was fierce and I had to slow to half my normal pace. I've thrown off my sissy ways and am back to loving the suffering of fall/winter riding. I rode today as well, but NO RAIN. WTF? Bring it on, beyotch! Get any new gear?

IMO Watson's views are unfortunate, but they have no bearing on the quality or the significance of the work for which he was given the award. Seems like the case for partitioning the work from the individual is more defensible in technical vs humanitarian awards.

Heh.