Why are harmful drug addictions a choice acceptable to discriminate against, but not a harmful food addiction I wonder? Probably because of the huge number of overweight making it socially and politically expedient to have their costs subsidized by others, whereas smokers are a much smaller minority so it's easy to discriminate against them.
I think its a bit apples and oranges. Smoking is a choice, and obesity is (quite often at least) the outcome or symptom of choices. It should be even easier to charge more for obese insured, they already have the symptoms! But that symptom is a preexisting condition which can't be considered. Also, thyroid disorders (1 in 5 women) can also cause obesity with otherwise healthy diets by dramatically lowering metabolism. So can some gut disorders. I think a way around that would be to self certify that I haven't used tobacco, alcohol, or non whole foods in the last 24 months to get my healthcare credits for each. Of have had no added augar (that gets tricky) or haven't eaten in excess of some number of calories based on my height and age.
No I think it's still hypocritical and inconsistent in spirit.
There are reasons why a smoking addiction is not a simple choice in all cases, and conversely if smoking is a choice then obesity is also a choice in most cases being caused by food addiction.
But isn't overeating the choice, not obesity? That is like saying decreased lung capacity, low blood oxygen or lung cancer are choices. Those are symptoms of choosing bto smoke, and insurers absolutely cannot discriminate based on them or emphysema. They discriminate based on the choice, and I agree it is hypocritical that they only ask if I have used tobacco and not high fructose corn syrup, but that is the question they should ask, not my bmi if they want to be consistent.
Employers have indirect ways of approaching that, like giving discounts on health insurance to employees who track how often they work out, eat healthy, and get regular physicals.
