Quote :

" RALEIGH -- North Carolina is poised to become only the second state to impose a fat fee on its state employees by placing them in a more expensive health insurance plan if they're obese. Smokers will feel the drag of higher costs, too, as North Carolina state employees who use tobacco are slated to pay more for health insurance next year."

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/health_science/story/129651.html

Now, I know a lot of self-righteous tee-dubbers out there are gonna say "so what, we shouldn't have to pay higher insurance rates for fat smokers."

Maybe. But lets actually put aside the dubious claims about weight and health care costs, as recent studies are shedding some doubt on the more extreme claims (for example, one study find that being overweight or moderately obese has little or no effect on life expectancy: http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/weightloss/2009-08-25-obesity-lifespan_N.htm ).

Let's talk about privacy. Where do you draw the line?

Don't mind health plan officials swabbing your mouth to see if you're a smoker? Okay.

How would you feel about them doing tests to assess how many sexual partners you have (as sluts have higher risk for catching diseases that cost me money)?

10/7/2009 4:54:09 PM

My wife said the questionnaire on her gyn visit asked her how many different sexual partners and how often she does it and shit like that now. She just didn't answer them, but it makes me wonder where that's coming from....

10/7/2009 4:57:53 PM

Im conflicted over this. On one hand this is what you get when other people provide you with something, you get to follow thier rules. On the other hand, you have privacy. But would they have a higher premium if they got their own insurance and were overweight and smoked? You bet.

I supppose they could get their own insurance to avoid the mouth swabs.

My favorite part of this article is the last quote.

Quote :

""If they're going to hold us accountable," Martin said, "pay for a gym membership or part of a membership. Give us an incentive, a way to combat it." "

And there is your problem with america. In the same damn sentence talking about personal accountablility they ask for someone else to provide them with something. hahah. Game over.

10/7/2009 4:59:01 PM

Anyone who disagrees with this must be a fatty

10/7/2009 5:03:12 PM

I don't really have an issue with this. If I'm more at risk, I would expect my homeowners, car, renters or any kind of insurance premium to go up. Why not with health insurance too? At least with fatness or smoking, you can do something about it, usually it's your own decisions that got you there in the first place.

[Edited on October 7, 2009 at 5:09 PM. Reason : ]

10/7/2009 5:09:02 PM

^ A reasonable argument. But what about expectations of privacy? They test for smoking using a swab test. Would you also be willing to submit your self to a similar test that determined how many sexual partners you had (realziing you would be charged more if you slept around)?

Maybe I'm out of touch. I really think most people don't give a hoot about privacy. If you're willing to post pictures on Facebook of you making out with some skank without concern, I doubt you would give two fucks if you were being tested for sexual activity.



[Edited on October 7, 2009 at 5:40 PM. Reason : ``]

10/7/2009 5:38:22 PM

I agree with eyedrb. There is an expectancy of most Americans for someone to provide them with motivation for (or just give them something) something they should be doing on their own.

If I'm obese and there isn't a medical reason why I'm that way (ie thyroid or something like that) then I should cost more. My risk increases for diabetes, heart disease and other similar things.

Not charging smokers or obese people more for health insurance, yet claiming a c-section is a pre-existing condition, is wrong imho.

[Edited on October 7, 2009 at 5:42 PM. Reason : .]

10/7/2009 5:41:23 PM

they'll tone it down as soon as people start bringing lawyers into this

10/7/2009 6:13:55 PM

^^^I can understand what you're saying, but I think obesity and smoking are pretty obvious, and would show up in medical records or every day life. So, maybe it's a standard of "I can answer this question honestly, or get charged a flat rate higher fee." I don't know how well that would work, but it's an idea that would get around privacy. I mean, I get asked every time I go to the OBGYN whether or not my husband is my only sexual partner, so I don't really think it's a matter of privacy to ask a simple question.

My point is, I think it's a fair idea, we'll just have to see if it turns out to be a good implementation plan as well. I mean, you can't lie on an insurance application or it's fraud, so there really doesn't need to be a test that infringes on privacy.


[Edited on October 7, 2009 at 6:18 PM. Reason : ]

10/7/2009 6:17:04 PM

Quote :

"My wife said the questionnaire on her gyn visit asked her how many different sexual partners and how often she does it and shit like that now. She just didn't answer them, but it makes me wonder where that's coming from...."

sexual and reproductive health are the gynecologist's responsibility, and sexual behavior changes the likelihood of pregnancy and STDs. The information helps the doctor decide what to discuss during the visit. I can't believe I have to explain this.

^ same

10/7/2009 7:37:59 PM

Quote :

" Would you also be willing to submit your self to a similar test that determined how many sexual partners you had (realziing you would be charged more if you slept around)?"

There is no such test. Also, it's an apples/oranges comparison. habitual smoking and obesity guarantee health problems down the road. Sexual promiscuity increases the the likelihood of health problems (via STDs), but most promiscuous people never catch anything worse than feelings, and of those that do get infected with STDs, the vast majority of cases can be treated with generic antibiotics. The number of cases of really expensive healthcare (HIV) resulting from promiscuity is tiny compared with smokers and obesity.

There may be a valid analogy to illustrate your point, but I can't think of one. Ultimately, I support this move.

10/7/2009 8:23:50 PM

If one raises one's privacy hackles over a mouth swab for smoking, one should get one's head out of the sand and think about all the various information one has willingly given to a wide variety of companies and organizations.

And then one should promptly stfu.

This is an excellent move. More motivation for folks to maintain healthy weights? A+++ Would...uhm [verb] again.

Being fat costs more money than being a normal weight. It's a fact of life.

10/7/2009 8:47:30 PM

if you are against this, you should state whether you are fat or not

10/7/2009 9:12:41 PM

Quote :

"There is no such test."

Almost makes it sound like a hypothetical scenario then, huh? I will note that it is already possible to test for the presence of seaman inside a woman and to determine how many different individuals it came from. It would not be perfect test, but it isn't like this scenario is totally off the wall.

Quote :

"Also, it's an apples/oranges comparison. habitual smoking and obesity guarantee health problems down the road. Sexual promiscuity increases the the likelihood of health problems (via STDs), but most promiscuous people never catch anything worse than feelings, and of those that do get infected with STDs, the vast majority of cases can be treated with generic antibiotics. The number of cases of really expensive healthcare (HIV) resulting from promiscuity is tiny compared with smokers and obesity."

Ummm are you saying that every single individual that smokes is going to have complications as a result? I don't think so. I think it is more accurate to say that smoking only increases your risk of suffering from lung cancer, heart disease, etc. And that's actually how you will see the effects of smoking described anywhere. That's kinda why its called a "risk factor".

Ditto for promiscuity.

10/7/2009 9:34:55 PM

If you're upset about the privacy issues with this..just imagine the federal gov't in charge of all health care. Rationing will be a given. So be prepared to provide the gov't with all of your medical information.

Currently, we just have to tolerate all of the health advice from the gov't. With gov't-run health care...you will be forced to behave according to politicians' medical whims.

10/7/2009 9:40:29 PM

ambrosia,

Okay, so a cotton swab to test for smoking doesn't upset you. What if a cotton swab of your skootch was able to identify how many sexual partners you've had in the past 6 months? Would you be okay with that too? If not, why not?

Being a slut makes you more at risk for getting an array of diseases. That makes you a more expensive person to insure. That's a fact of life. So it seems like a reasonable analogy.

If you are fine with this "sex test" as well, is there anything you wouldn't mind to keep private?

[Edited on October 7, 2009 at 9:43 PM. Reason : ``]

10/7/2009 9:41:14 PM

I am not entirely against this but if they are going to charge more for obese people then they need to make getting medical treatment for weight as a portion of coverage. Including prescription diet pills and in certain cases bariatric surgery (which under most insurance is considered plastic surgery) Saying pay for my gym membership doesn't cut it but some people need help in losing weight and when the costs of that aren't covered by insurance that you have to pay more for that's bullshit. Insurance companies see an obese person as high risk but they don't want them to get better either.

10/7/2009 9:43:20 PM

Quote :

" What if a cotton swab of your skootch was able to identify how many sexual partners you've had in the past 6 months? Would you be okay with that too? If not, why not? Being a slut makes you more at risk for getting an array of diseases."

The problem with what you're asking is that you're acting as though the risks from promiscuity are just as risky as smoking.

And we all know they are not.

Find an equitable comparison, and try again.

[Edited on October 7, 2009 at 9:55 PM. Reason : fd]

10/7/2009 9:55:26 PM

^ So you're arguing that it's a quantitative difference??? That if the health risks of promiscuity were high enough that you would consider it??

[Edited on October 7, 2009 at 10:08 PM. Reason : ``]

10/7/2009 10:03:46 PM

Quote :

"if they are going to charge more for obese people then they need to make getting medical treatment for weight as a portion of coverage. Including prescription diet pills and in certain cases bariatric surgery (which under most insurance is considered plastic surgery)"

I think this would be a good idea.

I don't get what you^ are trying to argue though. Why are you even talking about a "test" for sexual promiscuity? There's no "invasion of privacy" in a test for obesity. At least not one that I can see. You already have to answer a bunch of questions when you get health insurance anyways. One of which is usually whether or not you're a smoker, so I don't understand the "invasion of privacy" for smoking either.

[Edited on October 7, 2009 at 10:09 PM. Reason : ]

10/7/2009 10:08:18 PM

^ Because sexual promsicuity seems a lot like smoking to me. Its a voluntary behavior that puts one at greater risk of disease than if it was not engaged in. Yet, I would hope most people would be reluctant to be tested for being tested for the number of sexual partners they have had. And if that is the case, I would hope it would make one re-consider their acceptance of testing for smoking.

Of course, I could be wrong. Ambrosia seems to have no problem with a "sex test" in principle, her qualm is that risks are not great enough to make it necessary. Not surprising I suppose. Privacy is probably a thing of the past already.

PS* I do regret making the thread title about the "fat tax" portion. I am actually more upset by the smoking test. At least as far as privacy is concerned.

[Edited on October 7, 2009 at 10:17 PM. Reason : ``]

10/7/2009 10:13:29 PM

Quote :

"I would hope most people would be reluctant to be tested for being a "slut". And if that is the case, I would hope it would make one re-consider their acceptance of testing for smoking."

Why? I don't care if people know I smoke. I care if people think I'm a slut.

(Actually I don't care about either b/c I'm a guy, but just playing along.)

10/7/2009 10:19:34 PM

Quote :

"^ So you're arguing that it's a quantitative difference??? That if the health risks of promiscuity were high enough that you would consider it?? "

Nope.

Quote :

"^ Because sexual promsicuity seems a lot like smoking to me. Its a voluntary behavior that puts one at greater risk of disease than if they are not engaged in."

Except they're not:
- it's very easy to avoid STIs
- a vast majority of STIs are very easily cured, and quickly
- sex with multiple partners is not a 6-20+ a day occurrence (well, for most people At those numbers, I think we're talking about porn stars )
Basically, it's very easy to be "promiscuous" and safe. In fact, that's the only way to be. By the way, at what threshold is one promiscuous?

With smoking, one cannot take a round of pills and undo the damage caused to one's lungs. One cannot effectively and easily negate the risks and negative consequences of smoking. And with smoking, either you smoke, or you do not. Promiscuity isn't so clear-cut.

Like I said: find a more relevant comparison, and try again.

Quote :

"Yet, I would hope most people would be reluctant to be tested for being tested for the number of sexual partners they have had. "

Are the partners that one had 15 years ago relecant? Because that's what you're implying. Someone who quit smoking 15years ago shouldn't be penalized as though they current smoke.

Quote :

"Ambrosia seems to have no problem with a "sex test" in principle, her qualm is that risks are not great enough to make it necessary. Not surprising I suppose. "

I said no such thing. What I said was "ask a meaningful question worth answering, and then I'll answer your question about privacy invasions."

[Edited on October 7, 2009 at 10:22 PM. Reason : fd]

10/7/2009 10:19:49 PM

And how realistic is it to determine how many sexual partners one has had? Yes, you can run a "rape kit" (just because that's what it's called to see if there is fluid) but that's one partner, and if a condom was used, not as useful.

Increased health risk because of smoking does not equal the increased health risk because of number of sexual partners.

10/7/2009 10:25:22 PM

^^ easily cured with doctors visits and drugs that I help pay for with my premiums. And even then that's restricting yourself to stuff like crabs and the clap. How easy is it to cure HIV? Herpes? Both can surely be treated....again with drugs my premiums help pay for.

Again, your entire argument rests on the QUANTITATIVE differences between the two scenarios (you argue that sexually transmitted diseases are rarer and less expensive than those diseases associated with smoking, though I have seen no evidence to the fact).

You have not objected once to the principle of a "sex test". Is it or is it not the insurance company's business how often you have sex with more than 1 partner? How about how often you have "unsafe" sex?

Please help me understand where you draw the QUALITATIVE line. When is the information private?

[Edited on October 7, 2009 at 10:29 PM. Reason : ``]

10/7/2009 10:26:47 PM

I'd argue there's a very simple procedure that doesn't require a "sex test": don't cover STDs. However, this then gets into the externalities that those who are not promiscuous may still fall victim: spouses/partners of wayward/slutty people, accidents, etc.

Still, here's the thing: it's really easy to test if someone smokes or is overweight. It's also a well-established risk profile. Being promiscuous has a lot of factors involved - for example, if one uses condoms, the risk of an STD is in fact very small. It's not such a directly computed risk.

10/7/2009 10:35:37 PM

Quote :

" Let's talk about privacy. Where do you draw the line? Don't mind health plan officials swabbing your mouth to see if you're a smoker? Okay. "

Are they going to be swabbing mouths? I thought you basically just had to sign a sheet saying you didn’t smoke or weren’t overweight...

10/7/2009 10:36:17 PM

Quote :

"^ easily cured with doctors visits and drugs that I help pay for with my premiums. And even then that's restricting yourself to stuff like crabs and the clap. How easy is it to cure HIV? Herpes? Both can surely be treated....again with drugs my premiums help pay for."

Do you not understand the concept of safe sex?

Quote :

"you argue that sexually transmitted diseases are rarer and less expensive than those diseases associated with smoking, though I personally have my doubts"

orly?

Quote :

"You have not objected once to the principle of a "sex test"."

1) Lack of objection != assent
2) I have explained to you repeatedly why I am not answering your question

Quote :

" Is it or is it not the insurance company's business how often you have sex? "

So the parallel you're trying to draw isn't even with promiscuity, but with having a sex life at all?

At this point, I have to admit defeat and conclude I have been trolled

[Edited on October 7, 2009 at 10:37 PM. Reason : note to self: watch TSB more before jumping in]

10/7/2009 10:36:24 PM

What if they used the cotton swab to clone you and then fired/killed the REAL you? (I think you guys are getting a bit off track with the sexual partners route)


And i would disagree that bc you pay more bc you are overweight that your insurance company should cover surgery. Does your insurance company pay to send you to driving school when you get in too many wrecks? NO. At some point the CAUSE has to be addressed, there needs to be consequences to actions, good and bad.

10/7/2009 10:36:43 PM

Quote :

"Please help me understand where you draw the QUALITATIVE line. When is the information private? "

When there is a reasonable expectation of privacy, like who you have sex with behind closed doors. Unlike smoking which is done with a cigarette in your mouth in front of God and everybody.

10/7/2009 10:37:12 PM

ambrosia,

Your objection to the question was that sex is less risky and less expensive than smoking, which has nothing at all to do with what I asking (whether insurance companies should be allowed to collect this type of information).

You either have no problem with the "sex test" in principle or you have a good argument up your sleeve defending your sexual privacy that you're deciding to keep it to yourself.

Either way, you're off topic and not much help to the discussion. If you feel like coming back, I'll be here.

[Edited on October 7, 2009 at 10:42 PM. Reason : ``]

10/7/2009 10:41:22 PM

Haha I think I am seeing a lot of deliberate obfuscation here.

If I had asked a simple question: "should insurance companies be allowed to collect information on the sexual behaviors of individuals", I would probably get people answering the question.

Instead, I'm getting a lot of people explaining how sex is different than smoking (*gasp*), which is not at all a direct response to my simple question. Most likely, its because they see where the answer to each question would lead them. They see that the "smoking test" and "sex test" are the same in principle, so play up the quantitative differences separating them. Which I guess helps them still support the "smoking test" over the "sex test" in practice, if not in principle.

I think this is (in part) because no one actually cares about privacy per se, they care about the virtue and vice of the people involved. And for a lot of people these days, smoking is probably a bigger vice than sleeping around. But that's just some arm-chair psychology to wind down tis thread. I don't expect any descent answers from here on out, so I will probably just pack it in.

[Edited on October 7, 2009 at 10:57 PM. Reason : ``]

10/7/2009 10:54:57 PM

Uh, no. It's that the correlation between smoking and economic costs is very, very clear, and smoking is very easy to detect.

Just because your analogy is completely broken doesn't mean "nobody cares about privacy."

10/7/2009 10:57:32 PM

^ haha "omg its too hard to detect". Like I said, deliberate obfuscation. Normally, people on Tee-Dubb are good with hypothetical scenarios. BUT, in this thread, no one can imagine a world where a test can be conducted that is able to determine how many sexual partners one has. A world imagined for the sole purpose of discussing the ethical implications of these types of tests.

Deliberate Obfuscation.

10/7/2009 11:01:40 PM

Again, let me repeat this for you very slowly:

Smoking and promiscuity are very different.

The risk profiles are different. The detectability is different. These two issues alone make it such that it is not reasonable to compare the two.

This isn't obfuscation to point out that you're making an inappropriate comparison.

Even if we had your perfect "sex test", the risk profile for sexual promiscuity is not fixed. It is highly contingent upon who one chooses as sexual partners and what kinds of practices one engages in. Condoms? Anal sex? Man-on-Man? Sex for money or drugs?

Smoking, on the other hand, is much more direct. It can pretty much be boiled down to whether one smokes, and how frequently.

Again, just because your analogy doesn't work doesn't mean people are obfuscating. And your insistence that they are is a good indicator that you don't understand the problem.

10/7/2009 11:06:29 PM

I actually tried doing a search on whether or not there have been studies on increased health risks and the increased health risks. One that I found showed an increased risk of women contracting HPV, and potentially getting Cervical cancer.

So I thought, ok, that would prove a valid point. Females who are more promiscuous have a higher risk of HPV, therefore, more of a risk of cancer.

BUT

If a woman is having protected sex, that reduces the risk of contracting HPV by a huge percentage, therefore reducing the rate of cervical cancer.

I understand what you're saying about privacy, BUT since being promiscuous doesn't necessarily increase health risks, it wouldn't be something that would be on a top-tier for insurance companies on changing their fees on.

10/7/2009 11:13:08 PM

^^ Again, deliberate obfuscation.

Not everyone is at the same risks of smoking simply based on how much they smoke. The types of cigarettes they smoke may play a factor (filtered or unfiltered?), where they smoke (well ventilated or not), their genetic make-up, etc. The swab test for smoking does NOT gauge one's smoking related health risks perfectly.

So why are you holding up this hypothetical "sex test" to a standard of perfection that the "smoking test" doesn't match?

If you insist on being difficult, we can just change the hypothetical scenario....

"Imagine a test that could be conducted to determine the number of times a person had sex, the sex of the partner involved, and whether protection was used"?

Now, I think the point of my question is very simple--whether there is any information we should deny insurance companies from collection. Do you think you can discuss that...or is the best you can do "OMG man, a sex test!? That's like impossible "



[Edited on October 7, 2009 at 11:22 PM. Reason : ``]

10/7/2009 11:16:25 PM

Quote :

"If a woman is having protected sex, that reduces the risk of contracting HPV by a huge percentage, therefore reducing the rate of cervical cancer."

Reduces to zero I presume? Otherwise there would still be a risk and having multiple sexual partners would still make you a higher risk for insurance companies and would not change the underlying scenario I am discussing.

So the fact that you mention this at all must mean that engaging in protected sex reduces the risk to zero right??? Or else you wouldn't bring it up because it would be irrelevant to the principle of the question?

10/7/2009 11:18:52 PM

Quote :

"deliberate obfuscation."

You're the only one doing that here, dude.

If you're a habitual smoker, you WILL damage your lungs.
If you're a slut, you MAY contract an STD.

Two very different fucking things.

You clearly don't get laid very often, if at all. That's not an ad hominem per se, but your argument about sex is so ridiculous that only way you could arrive at the conclusions you're drawing here is if you have no experience with the subject matter at hand.

Seriously? A sex test to determine how many partners you've had? Are you fucking serious?

10/7/2009 11:23:09 PM

Quote :

"If you're a habitual smoker, you WILL damage your lungs. If you're a slut, you MAY contract an STD."

Smoking WILL make you sick with no variation? Not a stats major I see.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_factor

[Edited on October 7, 2009 at 11:26 PM. Reason : ``]

10/7/2009 11:24:59 PM

FYI, Socks is fat. That's why he started this thread and that's why he is protesting too much

10/7/2009 11:26:53 PM

There's never a 0 risk when having protected sex, and you know that. There's a high risk of contracting different diseases/cancers from smoking. No matter what kind of cigarette you smoke.

You're really just being asinine at this point.

10/7/2009 11:27:05 PM

Quote :

"Again, deliberate obfuscation."

No, just deliberate density on your part. Not being able to comprehend a simple matter of differences is not a problem of me "obfuscating." Fix your analogy and try again.

Quote :

"Not everyone is at the same risks of smoking simply based on how much they smoke. The types of cigarettes they smoke may play a factor (filtered or unfiltered?), where they smoke, their genetic make-up, etc. The swab test for smoking does NOT gauge one's smoking related health risks perfectly."

Actually, and here's the thing - there's a substantial amount of science behind answering just those questions. And guess what? One's risk doesn't change a whole lot based upon many of those factors. Smoking is generally bad for you no matter what kind of cigarettes you smoke. The biggest controlling variable is how often you smoke.

Quote :

"So why are you holding up this hypothetical "sex test" to that standard of perfection that "smoking test" doesn't match?"

Because the "smoking test" actually has some substantial medical science behind it already?

Quote :

""Imagine a test that could be conducted to determine the number of times a person had sex, the sex of the partner involved, and whether protection was used"?"

Here's the thing: if I smoke a pack a day of filtered cigarettes, my risk changes very little from whether I smoke a pack a day of unfiltereds - and this actually has to do with compensating behaviors of the smoker. Without getting into a tangent, the variance between smokers of different types and stochastic effects is actually not that big. At least so compared to say, the risk of STDs from a man who has unprotected sex with other men and a man who has protected sex with women. The variance there is huge. It's not a simple problem to work out.

If the variance was huge for smokers, and highly contingent upon the type of cigarettes smoked and say, what one was doing when they were smoking those cigarettes - in other words, if the statistical science were not nearly so straightforward - I doubt insurers could reasonably get away with the smoking test. Does this make things more clear for you, now? The smoking test, as it stands, only works because smoking generally tracks to frequency of smoking alone to first order. Sexual behavior is incredibly variable.

Basically you're asking, if we had perfect actuarial science, should we therefore charge upon perfect risk? Chances are, if we ever get to that point, it'll be the first thing they call for.

Here's a counter-question for you: should insurance not track by well-correlated risk? Should we not charge differential rates for behaviors that are known to increase risks substantially? Ones that are well-characterized, easy to measure, etc.? Should we just ignore those and charge everybody the same rate?

10/7/2009 11:27:13 PM

you know who wasn't fat...

10/7/2009 11:28:51 PM

^^
Ummmmmm LunaK just posted a description of one study that did indeed find that how often you have sex does impact your risk of contracting cervical cancer. And that risk is apparently still higher even with protected sex.

So I think you kinda posted a 3 paragraph post for nothing. It is a fact of life that having sex with a lot of people puts you at risk for a variety of things.

Is it variable? Sure. But so is everything (thats why they do have actuaries). The point is that having sex with lots of people raises your risks (to some extent) of filing medical claims and if a insurance company could test for it they probably would.

My question is "should we allow it".
Your answer is..."but its like variable man so it probably wont ever happpeennn". I am not convinced and growing tired tired of the discussion.

[Edited on October 7, 2009 at 11:35 PM. Reason : ``]

10/7/2009 11:32:24 PM

Quote :

"Smoking WILL make you sick with no variation? "

There you go with that deliberate obfuscation again.

You know goddamn well the difference between a habitual smoker and someone who's smoked occasionally in his or her life. The only risk factor in question is lung cancer. It's well known that not all habitual smokers will get lung cancer, but the risk factor is increased. There's a whole lot of other fucking health problems that stem from habitual smoking, some of which are much much worse than lung cancer. I'll say it again, if you are a habitual smoker, over time you WILL damage your lungs. Any variation to this is a statistical outlier.

10/7/2009 11:39:50 PM

Quote :

"should we allow it"

no, because unlike smoking and alcoholism, there isn't a direct, proven correlation between number of sexual partners and increased health care costs

/thread



at least that I know of, nor that i could find in googling

[Edited on October 7, 2009 at 11:41 PM. Reason : .]

10/7/2009 11:41:29 PM

Quote :

"Ummmmmm LunaK just posted a description of one study that did indeed find that how often you have sex does impact your risk of contracting cervical cancer. And that risk is apparently still higher even with protected sex."

I never said otherwise. I fail to see how you could draw the conclusion that I implied otherwise. What I said was that the gulf between certain factors - protected and unprotected sex - is very, very large. Which her study also shows.

Quote :

"So I think you kinda posted a 3 paragraph post for nothing. It is a fact of life that having sex with a lot of people puts you at risk for a variety of things."

I posted it for nothing because I'm arguing with a goddamned illiterate retard. So yeah, I did waste my time, apparently.

Quote :

"Is it variable? Sure. But so is everything (thats why they do have actuaries). The point is that having sex with lots of people raises your risks (to some extent) of filing medical claims and if a insurance company could test for it they probably would."

If I use condoms, the risk of multiple partners is much, much smaller than if I don't, or if I have sex with other men (with or without condoms, which is an even bigger difference). It's extremely variable, depends on the types of activity and how often one uses condoms and does not easily boil down to one controlling variable. How many sexual partners one has isn't even the best variable - this is the point I keep trying to make. Other factors, like condom usage, are much more influential.

Quote :

"My question is "should we allow it". Your answer is..."but its like variable man so it probably wont ever happpeennn". I am not convinced and growing tired tired of the discussion."

Actually, no, I didn't say that. Thanks for proving you can't be bothered to read the argument. Quit now before we start thinking you're even dumber.

10/7/2009 11:41:50 PM

Socks, smoking DOES cause damage and it doesnt take much. I think you are arguing that everyone that smokes will get cancer, bc that isnt the case. But there is clearly damage to the lungs as well as the passage.

An aside, a doctor at one of my CEs was telling us who you can almost tell a woman is a smoker bc of thier deeper voice and how it causes their voices to deepen. He mentioned some research on it, but I have yet to find it. But I have noticed that.

10/7/2009 11:41:55 PM

I really got to head out, so I am going to let this thread die. But before I do, I will just repeat:

Quote :

"Haha I think I am seeing a lot of deliberate obfuscation here. If I had asked a simple question: "should insurance companies be allowed to collect information on the sexual behaviors of individuals", I would probably get people answering the question. Instead, I'm getting a lot of people explaining how sex is different than smoking (*gasp*), which is not at all a direct response to my simple question. Most likely, its because they see where the answer to each question would lead them. They see that the "smoking test" and "sex test" are the same in principle, so play up the quantitative differences separating them. Which I guess helps them still support the "smoking test" over the "sex test" in practice, if not in principle. "

And this still stands. Rather than discuss the ethics of a sex test, DrSteveo just spent the past half hour arguing about whether a test on the number of one's sexual partners would be useful in an actuarial model (I think it would, he thinks it wouldn't, neither of us are trained in this shit and it is actually totally irrelevant to the ethical question I am asking).

Again, lots and lots of words, but not much substance. So not much reason for me to hang around. Maybe I should have phrased things better at the start. I don't know. In any case, I am off to bed. Night Night, all.

[Edited on October 7, 2009 at 11:45 PM. Reason : ``]

10/7/2009 11:42:30 PM