I'll be ready for the flaming, as I have to say I don't see anything wrong with this. It's just actuarial. People who get a lot of speeding tickets will pay higher car insurance premiums because they have demonstrated a propensity to engage in risky behavior behind the wheel. Smokers engage in a risky behavior from the perspective of health insurers. Maybe insurers will get around to dinking people who are overweight-- they don't now (as far as I know), but I wouldn't blame them. It's actually already happening in an inverse kind of way, insofar as I get money back on my health insurance premiums for going to my gym at a certain frequency, and I get even more back for doing annual HRAs and getting a flu shot. I think my first colonoscopy a few months back got me a check for $25 (SO worth it!). It's not unreasonable to be a little ticked about it insofar as we all know that occasional cigar smoking is several orders of magnitude less risky than smoking four packs of cigarettes per day, yet the insurance company treats it all the same. But by the same token, I get the same rebate whether I go to the gym 3 days a week, 5 days a week, or every day of the week. Still-- the basic principle remains: embrace risky behavior, pay more for insurance; eschew risk, pay less. Like everything else, it's a cost-benefit calculus. And I am with those who are willing to pay more so as to still be able to enjoy a nice pastime.
