BMI charts and insurance

[GoVanGogh]

Someone posted the following on the curriculum side:

The "obesity epidemic" is just bunk. The BMI standards were arbitrarily changed and thus, literally overnight Americans who were not obese the day before suddenly were at death's door. Fraudulent studies that purported obesity as a "leading cause of death" in anyone who happened to be overweight when they died (in car crashes or homicide or old age, no less) were bantered about by the news media to an unsuspecting public. Despite the new BMI standards that throw the "obesity net" over too many people, obesity has been declining in children (link). See this page for a critical look into the outrageous claims made about obesity (and who profits from them).

 

My DH runs 3.6 miles three times a week, benchpresses 340 pounds, does 80 push-ups per day, and 60 sit-ups per day (his career mandates staying fit). He is considered morbidly obese by the BMI standard. Not overweight, not even "just" obese -- morbidly obese. I exercise on an elliptical machine for an hour four times a week and stay active in general (intermittent trips to the swimming pool, nature hikes, etc.), but according to the BMI, I'm obese. Give me a break.

I have actually wanted to post a rant about the BMI charts and insurance for the past two weeks and was prompted to after reading the above...

 

DH's company went out of business the end of June. The company paid up insurance through July, but then we will be w/o coverage.

We have been trying to get private insurance and have been denied because I am morbidly obese.

Like the gentleman mentioned above, I am 'fit' by all standards except the BMI charts. I run/walk 3-4 miles most days of the week, lift weights, mountain bike, hike, garden... My measurements are all good -- excellent blood pressure and blood sugar levels. My waist is a decent size. Cardio stress test was awesome.

Depending on brand, I wear between a size 12 and a size 14.

According to my doctor, I could lose 15-20 pounds max for my body size/frame.

But - according to the insurance company's doctor - who has never even met me -- I need to lose "at least 85 pounds." My doctor blew a gasket when I took in the paper work and showed him. He said there was no way imaginable that I could lose anywhere near that amount of weight and be healthy.

I've been crying for the past two weeks because I am too fat for us to get medical insurance and trying to decide if I want to live on celery sticks for the rest of my life or if I want to go bury my sorrows in a pint of Ben and Jerry's ice cream. :tongue_smilie: Biggest Loser is in town, seeking applicants for next season. I'm thinking about trying out.

Rant over...

Anyone else struggle with the BMI charts?

[southcarolinamom]

Sympathy hugs to you :grouphug:... my husband has not been able to get health insurance for the last 10 years b/c of his weight....

 

I hold my breath and pray for him every day at work, that nothing happens requiring major medical attention. We would be financially wiped out.

[*********]

Um, yeah. I've been wondering where my Wii Fit Plus gets its 'ideal weight' for me. It tells me my ideal weight is 129 lbs. Now, my dsd, who is 16 and a size 6, weighs more than that. And she and I are the same height. Good night, if I weighed 129, I'd look emaciated.

 

I've got more weight to lose before I get to my personal goal weight. But even then, the Wii Fit will tell me I'm overweight. I'm ok with that. :tongue_smilie: I eat healthier and exercise more now that I have any other time since I got married. I care more about my *overall health* than what the scale says.

[ChiMomNP]

I've been crying for the past two weeks because I am too fat for us to get medical insurance and trying to decide if I want to live on celery sticks for the rest of my life or if I want to go bury my sorrows in a pint of Ben and Jerry's ice cream. :tongue_smilie: Biggest Loser is in town, seeking applicants for next season. I'm thinking about trying out.

Rant over...

Anyone else struggle with the BMI charts?

 

How ironic that you posted this! We were just notified by my DH's company that all employees and family members who participate in the insurance plan have to get physicals and that we will have a year to bring ourselves in line with the insurance companies BMI charts by participating in the insurance company's "disease management program" or we will be surcharged $680/year. My DH is more concerned that his company will begin to "target" employees who do not meet the new BMI standard they have put out for layoffs, of course they would never give that for the reason but it is something they would do to try to cut costs. I guess the company will get a a big reduction in rates if they lower the number of employees who are obese/overweight that participate in the plan. I'm in the same boat as you, I just started a very low carb plan to get myself under the new BMI before I have to get the physical. Good luck, I'd love the Ben & Jerry's too!

[Renee in NC]

I have with my dc. I had a nutritionist lecture me about my overweight then 4yo (he's 7 now) without even setting eyes on him. She kept going on and on about not giving him too much juice, etc. I called him into the room and made her look at him. She agreed that he was not overweight (he has wide shoulders and muscular arms, but is skinny at the waist.)

[runmiarun]

We are having that ongoing battle now with our local health department. According the BMI used by the health department, my 4 yo is obese. He is too tall for his age so I must stop giving him milk to drink (their words). He's 4'4' tall, which is the average height of a 1st grader and weighs 52 pounds. When the nurse told me he was obese, I literally laughed at her. I thought she was kidding. I lifted up his shirt so she could count his ribs since they show no matter how much he eats. He's just a tall, skinny, growing boy, just like his granddaddy who is 6'4".

 

Recently, we've had to pay extra for our insurance since DH and I are both considered overweight. When we were looking at the charts for how much we are "supposed" to weigh, we were shocked. I'm supposed to weigh 115 pounds for my height (5'5"). I'm pregnant so I don't have a "true" weight at the moment but it isn't anywhere even remotely close to that. I haven't weighed 115 pounds since I left high school 20 years ago.

 

Where are the insurance companies and health-related industries that come up with these obscene numbers actually get them? Barbie doll conventions?

[momtothreeboys]

I have a 7 year old who is classified morbidly obese by the bmi charts. He is so short (not on the growth chart in height) and just barely hit 1% on the growth chart for weight. I just don't get how that can make you morbidly obese. Our ped when the chart said that started laughing. He said there is something seriously wrong with these charts when a child who is so skinny his ribs stick out and you can see all the bones on his back is considered morbidly obese. He refuses to use the bmi charts now.

[dani3boys]

Um, yeah. I've been wondering where my Wii Fit Plus gets its 'ideal weight' for me. It tells me my ideal weight is 129 lbs. Now, my dsd, who is 16 and a size 6, weighs more than that. And she and I are the same height. Good night, if I weighed 129, I'd look emaciated.

 

I've got more weight to lose before I get to my personal goal weight. But even then, the Wii Fit will tell me I'm overweight. I'm ok with that. :tongue_smilie: I eat healthier and exercise more now that I have any other time since I got married. I care more about my *overall health* than what the scale says.

 

 

We must be the same height because that is my ideal weight according to Wii Fit.

[GoVanGogh]

he has wide shoulders and muscular arms, but is skinny at the waist

That's how I'm built. Wide shoulders and very muscular arms. (And legs.) I wouldn't say 'skinny' waist, but I do have a defined waist - which one wouldn't expect if they are truly "morbidly obese." :glare: I asked the insurance doctor, "So, if I'm really morbidly obese, how can I go out and run four miles w/o trouble?? How can I bend over at the waist and put my hands flat on the floor? How can I do 100 push-ups?" No answer. They don't care about one being 'fit,' only how low the scale number.

Thing is - I can't even get down to where the BMI charts say I should be. Fifteen years ago, I wore a size 4 and - using current BMI charts - was still overweight! Not morbidly obese, but still overweight.

[Donna A.]

Follow the money.

 

We now have *required* insurance for *everybody*. This is going to cost the insurance companies (and employers) a lot more money, so they've got to make up for it somewhere. Putting you and me into an insanely inaccurate BMI category gives them a way to charge more money... regardless of our actual health. :angry:

 

And yeah, we're being charged an extra $20 a MONTH on my life insurance because of my BMI. I am overweight, and I know it... but hardly "morbidly obese". You can't tell me that a 200 lb person is in the same risk category as a 350 lb person without taking a whole lot of other factors into consideration. BUT:

 

1. I was pregnant when I first got this insurance, and that's the # they're STILL going by. They've never once sent any kind form or made a phone call asking what I weigh NOT pregnant.

 

2. My bloodwork has ALWAYS come back normal when I've gone to the doctor... cholesterol, blood sugar, thyroid, everything. Normal. And yet, the insurance company has never asked for bloodwork or any evidence that I'm healthy.

 

They told my dh when he called and asked about it that if I get down to 150 lbs, they'll reduce my premium by $10 a month. If I reach my goal weight (the # I'm "supposed" to be according to their BMI chart), they'll reduce it another $10/month. That's $240 a year they're charging a HEALTHY person!

 

Have never asked for a physical, doctor's report, lab reports, nothing. They don't care. They just want a reason to charge more money. Heck, they haven't even asked whether I had the baby I was carrying when I first signed up and got this policy! Isn't it possible that I *might* weigh less than I did then? :001_huh:

 

I've often thought of filing a formal complaint for discrimination. Not sure who I'd file it with, though. I think something would have to come from the top down, but that's not going to happen, since the one at the top is one of those who wanted mandatory insurance for everybody in the first place. (See my first paragraph in this post.) I guarantee that even overweight, I'm a lot healthier than that person, who's a smoker. But I bet his insurance premium is a lot less than mine. :glare:

[plansrme]

Where are the insurance companies and health-related industries that come up with these obscene numbers actually get them? Barbie doll conventions?

 

:lol::lol::lol:

[GoVanGogh]

Originally Posted by runmiarun

Where are the insurance companies and health-related industries that come up with these obscene numbers actually get them? Barbie doll conventions?

:lol::lol::lol:

:iagree:

But...

Obviously those Barbie dolls have booKs full of air, as "The Real Thing" weigh too much for any BMI chart. :tongue_smilie:

[Mrs Mungo]

After poking around on the internet, it looks like some companies are not using the normal range. Some insurance companies start charging some people more (if they smoke, are diabetic or have high blood pressure) once they hit mid-range of normal. This practice started well before the health care bill was implemented.

 

According to this bmi calculator, a normal weight for my height is 101-136 and I'm only 5'2". A normal weight for a woman who is 5'6" would be 115-154. I don't think anyone would be emaciated on the upper end of that scale.

 

runmiarun said:

Recently, we've had to pay extra for our insurance since DH and I are both considered overweight. When we were looking at the charts for how much we are "supposed" to weigh, we were shocked. I'm supposed to weigh 115 pounds for my height (5'5"). I'm pregnant so I don't have a "true" weight at the moment but it isn't anywhere even remotely close to that. I haven't weighed 115 pounds since I left high school 20 years ago.

A normal weight range for a woman who is 5'5" would be 111-150 lbs according to the cdc. If you don't have other health problems, I would be asking what standard they are using. Edited July 28, 2010 by Mrs Mungo

[i.love.lucy]

This is frustrating to me at the moment too. I have been wanting to change our insurance. DH has it at work, but I haven't added myself and the kids because it was too expensive. Recently I decided to add the kids to his policy so we'd have better coverage for them and I would simply find something cheaper for me since I was the main cost on ours. I have been denied by a few companies, but just picked up by Celtic. And yes, it's crappy and expensive coverage. But here I am this overweight person with ZERO health problems. No issues whatsoever. But I'm costing as much as both my children combined and they go to the doc all the time for colds/flu/asthma, etc. It's so not fair, but just the way it is. I wish they'd look at your health and not just BMI to decide if you are worthy of coverage.

[LisaKinVA]

runmiarun said:

A normal weight range for a woman who is 5'5" would be 111-150 lbs according to the cdc. If you don't have other health problems, I would be asking what standard they are using.

 

This is still really difficult for me to attain. BMI simply does not take into account body type. I am 5' 5" tall in shoes. At my most fit (we're talking less than 18% body fat for a woman, and much less than that I would have ceased menses), I weighed 143 pounds.

 

Body builders who have even lower % body fat would be considered obese. I have very broad shoulders, narrow waist/hips (think inverted triangle). At 143# (before children) I wore a size 4 skirt or pants, but a size 8 dress or blouse was usually on the "tight" size due to the width of my shoulders (I was a competitive swimmer, and butterfly was my stroke... my mom blames swimming for my shoulders). I am a dress maker's dream (couldn't buy anything without having it altered).

 

As a side note, I was only able to maintain a weight under 150# with the aid of an eating disorder, on top of exercising TWO hours a day six days a week. One of my college friends who saw me at that weight counseled me about being anorexic. I wasn't anorexic...but what I was doing was still dangerous to one's health.

 

At my age (41), having borne six children... I'm not sure how I could ever be 150# again, let alone UNDER 150.

[Mrs Mungo]

This is still really difficult for me to attain. BMI simply does not take into account body type. I am 5' 5" tall in shoes. At my most fit (we're talking less than 18% body fat for a woman, and much less than that I would have ceased menses), I weighed 143 pounds.

 

Body builders who have even lower % body fat would be considered obese. I have very broad shoulders, narrow waist/hips (think inverted triangle). At 143# (before children) I wore a size 4 skirt or pants, but a size 8 dress or blouse was usually on the "tight" size due to the width of my shoulders (I was a competitive swimmer, and butterfly was my stroke... my mom blames swimming for my shoulders). I am a dress maker's dream (couldn't buy anything without having it altered).

 

As a side note, I was only able to maintain a weight under 150# with the aid of an eating disorder, on top of exercising TWO hours a day six days a week. One of my college friends who saw me at that weight counseled me about being anorexic. I wasn't anorexic...but what I was doing was still dangerous to one's health.

 

At my age (41), having borne six children... I'm not sure how I could ever be 150# again, let alone UNDER 150.

 

This is why BMI shouldn't be the only measure. The military has height/weight standards based on BMI. If you don't meet the standard, you are "taped" in order to find out your body fat composition. It's not THE most accurate method, but it's better than a simple height/weight. Females over 40 are allowed to have 36% body fat.

[MamaJo]

Ugh this chaps my hide. I am about 20 pounds over weight but according to the BMI (expletive deleted by author) I am 40 to 50 pounds over weight. If I lost 50 pounds I would look like a famine victim!

[GoVanGogh]

A normal weight range for a woman who is 5'5" would be 111-150 lbs according to the cdc. If you don't have other health problems, I would be asking what standard they are using.

That is my height. The first company flat out denied us, no appeals allowed. The doctor w/the second insurance company we applied to told me I needed to weigh "under 120." (Absolutely no health problems to take into consideration.) I tried to question him about their standards but he said he wasn't authorized to discuss their policies.

 

Can your dr. write the ins. dr. a letter informing him about your health?

I asked our agent about this and she said they don't allow any appeals. It's either accepted or denied. :glare:

 

At 143# (before children) I wore a size 4 skirt or pants, but a size 8 dress or blouse was usually on the "tight" size due to the width of my shoulders

Same here. When I was a size 4 many moons ago, I weighed ~145 and looked terribly thin - worked out 2+ hours a day and bordered on having an eating disorder.

But - like someone mentioned - muscle weighs so much more than fat! I'm not going to stop lifting weights just so I can get my weight under 120 pounds. And I have the shoulders of a linebacker - no amount of dieting is going to make me petite. :lol:

[Mrs Mungo]

That is my height. The first company flat out denied us, no appeals allowed. The doctor w/the second insurance company we applied to told me I needed to weigh "under 120." (Absolutely no health problems to take into consideration.) I tried to question him about their standards but he said he wasn't authorized to discuss their policies.

 

Honestly, I can understand companies charging more for people who fall into the "obese" (not overweight) category. It *does* raise your risk of diabetes, heart disease and so forth. However, there is ZERO research that says the same of being in the "overweight" category. I have no idea how they would justify denying someone in the normal BMI range. You'd have to be over 180 lbs in order to fall into the obese category, according to the CDC's calculator. It doesn't make sense to deny people who are within the normal range for BMI. Under 120 lbs isn't the normal range, under 150 is.

[GoVanGogh]

That was my point exactly. What research are they using to justify? It is private insurance, they set their own standards, period, is what I was told. But if that is the case, how does anyone qualify for private insurance? Using whatever standards they have, I would speculate that the majority of the population is too obese for insurance.

And to be honest and open - my husband was also denied. Because he is on acne medicine. :confused: Ironically, our old insurance didn't even cover acne at his age (45+) so we were paying out of pocket for the meds.

So I feel terrible that we were denied because I am morbidly obese, but at least I have lovely complexion. :lol:

[Mrs Mungo]

That was my point exactly. What research are they using to justify? It is private insurance, they set their own standards, period, is what I was told. But if that is the case, how does anyone qualify for private insurance? Using whatever standards they have, I would speculate that the majority of the population is too obese for insurance.

 

By private you mean covering yourself, not through a company or anything? It's a problem, for sure. My uncle had a mild stroke at 40. He is in great health, he's been a vegetarian his whole adult life, he had a test that showed he had 0% blockages, etc. He can't get insurance at all.

 

May I please take a moment and say, "Thank goodness I am Canadian".

 

So how do you go about finding out the about of body fat a person has?

 

There are various ways, they have their pros and cons. Measuring is one way that is pretty simple.

http://www.healthcentral.com/cholesterol/home-body-fat-test-2774-143.html

[Donna A.]

That was my point exactly. What research are they using to justify? It is private insurance, they set their own standards, period, is what I was told. But if that is the case, how does anyone qualify for private insurance? Using whatever standards they have, I would speculate that the majority of the population is too obese for insurance.

And to be honest and open - my husband was also denied. Because he is on acne medicine. :confused: Ironically, our old insurance didn't even cover acne at his age (45+) so we were paying out of pocket for the meds.

So I feel terrible that we were denied because I am morbidly obese, but at least I have lovely complexion. :lol:

 

Exactly, and this was my point earlier. Follow the money. If more and more people are being denied by PRIVATE insurance, and it's mandatory that everyone HAVE insurance, where are those people with a high BMI and other issues that are "cause for denial" (such as acne meds) and no insurance going to go? The government. They/we won't have a choice.

[Donna A.]

By private you mean covering yourself, not through a company or anything?

 

Well, even if one has insurance through a company (I assume you mean an employer), there's always the risk of being denied in the future or having a current policy canceled, as one pp explained earlier. If they don't get in line within a year.... :confused:

[Mrs Mungo]

Exactly, and this was my point earlier. Follow the money. If more and more people are being denied by PRIVATE insurance, and it's mandatory that everyone HAVE insurance, where are those people with a high BMI and other issues that are "cause for denial" (such as acne meds) and no insurance going to go? The government. They/we won't have a choice.

 

And without the health care bill? They have no place to go. So, why bash on the health care bill? If you're "following the money" it does not stand to reason that private insurers would be pushing people toward socialized medicine. That makes zero sense.

[Mrs Mungo]

Well, even if one has insurance through a company (I assume you mean an employer), there's always the risk of being denied in the future or having a current policy canceled, as one pp explained earlier. If they don't get in line within a year.... :confused:

 

I meant private company style employer. A lot of the people I know are state or federal employees, that's a whole other ball game.

[dirty ethel rackham]

Recently, we've had to pay extra for our insurance since DH and I are both considered overweight. When we were looking at the charts for how much we are "supposed" to weigh, we were shocked. I'm supposed to weigh 115 pounds for my height (5'5"). I'm pregnant so I don't have a "true" weight at the moment but it isn't anywhere even remotely close to that. I haven't weighed 115 pounds since I left high school 20 years ago.

 

 

 

HUH? What chart are they using? I looked at three different BMI calculators and they show 115 lbs is at the low end of the normal range for someone 5'5". that just doesn't make any sense. Are you sure they didn't look at 5'1"? I looked up some insurance charts and a weight of 115 would only be appropriate for someone with a small frame.

[Audrey]

May I please take a moment and say, "Thank goodness I am Canadian".

 

So how do you go about finding out the about of body fat a person has?

 

 

My sentiments (almost) exactly. I would say "Thank goodness I am Canadian... now."

 

I used to be on the other side of the border and I really feel for americans who are struggling with health insurance issues. I've seen (with my parents) how medical issues can be financially disastrous even if you DO have good insurance. It's all so very wrong.

[Donna A.]

And without the health care bill? They have no place to go.

 

It's my belief that it wouldn't be an issue (or not as big of one, at least) if government weren't taking over and regulating private industry as much as they have in recent months.

 

So, why bash on the health care bill? If you're "following the money" it does not stand to reason that private insurers would be pushing people toward socialized medicine. That makes zero sense.

The mere image that obesity projects is considered "dangerous", whether an obese (or even remotely so) person has any health problems or not. When one is considered "morbidly obese" 8 years after getting the policy (at which time she was pregnant) and has never been contacted or asked if she still weighs the same as she did when pregnant 8 years ago, either somebody's not doing their job, or they just simply don't care because they can charge higher rates for that "morbidly obese" person. Based on all the examples that have been shared in this thread, I'd say it's the latter.

 

When DOCTORS are telling their patients that they're FINE, and all the numbers prove it (except that dreaded BMI number), but the insurance companies are charging outrageous amounts OR denying the individual coverage altogether, something's not right about that. As you know, even the military -- who are REQUIRED to be in shape in order to effectively do their job -- has a backup method of determining whether one is truly out of range or not. (My dh had just explained that to me right before you posted it. LOL)

 

Pushing a supposedly obese person out the door via an inaccurate measurement such as BMI eliminates risk (real or perceived), and therefore that company just doesn't have to deal with it. We all know that obesity projects a bad image... whether one voices that bias or not. Think of the example of a thin, attractive woman getting a job for which an overweight woman interviews and was equally (or even more) qualified. Now, whether that's due to image and aesthetics, the cost of insurance, or both, it's still discrimination. No one has determined whether that person has any health problems or not. They've decided just because of the person's weight and nothing more.

 

Re: the health care bill... government is regulating private insurance companies (and many other industries) far more than they used to, and some of that is the direct result of new rules laid out in the health care bill. Why wouldn't an insurance company otherwise take the opportunity to charge higher premiums for a person with a high BMI provided there's no evidence of disease? Why would they "threaten" cancellation if you don't fall in line within a certain amount of time, regardless of ALL other health factors considered?

 

There's got to be some reason insurance companies aren't wanting to touch obesity with a ten-foot pole, and/or are knowing using only ONE possible way of measuring that obesity, despite the protests and evidence of its inaccuracy. And I do NOT believe it's just because of high risk. Not when there are so many other ways to determine whether a person is healthy or not. I think it has more to do with control of the population: http://consumerfreedom.com/news_detail.cfm/h/4221-theres-overweight-and-then-theres-overweight

 

And my comment about "following the money" wasn't directed primarily at the insurance agencies... it was directed at the government. It's not just about the premiums that an insurance company can charge an individual. It's about how much an insurance company can make by being involved with the government (think public schools).... or simply, not get fined by the government... and how much power the government has in the end.

[Mrs Mungo]

It's my belief that it wouldn't be an issue (or not as big of one, at least) if government weren't taking over and regulating private industry as much as they have in recent months.

 

This has been problem for years and years. My uncle has not had insurance for 15 years because he CAN NOT get it, not even at a high premium. When people cannot receive health care coverage and the prevalence of health care coverage makes private care nearly impossible, what are people supposed to do? When my son was 4 he was diagnosed with a condition that would have made it impossible for him to secure insurance in the future. The government is stepping in as a RESPONSE to these situations. They aren't being created by the health care bill.

 

I don't disagree that companies should:

 

1. Use a standard measure-if they are using bmi, not covering obese people and/or charging them more makes sense. It does not make sense to refuse to cover and/or charge more to people within or slightly above normal range.

 

and

 

2. Have back-up methods of determining normal weight and health.

[Donna A.]

Example: Our homeowners insurance premium went up by over $300 last year. For what? We haven't had any claims. Dh called to find out why such a steep increase... she said because the government now *requires* that they charge based on what it would cost to rebuild the house today (brand new), not on what the house is actually worth, whether we want to rebuild in this location or not. We cannot just take the money and rebuild a house of the same value as this current house wherever we like (perhaps in a cheaper area, for example). They will rebuild THIS house at TODAY'S cost in THIS location. That was a new rule imposed on them by the government last year.

 

You can't tell me the government's intervention doesn't have anything to do with health and life insurance companies' decisions to either charge extremely high premiums, or completely eliminate, everyone who falls under the obese category on these highly inaccurate BMI charts. :glare:

[A.D.]

Example: Our homeowners insurance premium went up by over $300 last year. For what? We haven't had any claims. Dh called to find out why such a steep increase... she said because the government now *requires* that they charge based on what it would cost to rebuild the house today (brand new), not on what the house is actually worth, whether we want to rebuild in this location or not. We cannot just take the money and rebuild a house of the same value as this current house wherever we like (perhaps in a cheaper area, for example). They will rebuild THIS house at TODAY'S cost in THIS location. That was a new rule imposed on them by the government last year.

 

You can't tell me the government's intervention doesn't have anything to do with health and life insurance companies' decisions to either charge extremely high premiums, or completely eliminate, everyone who falls under the obese category on these highly inaccurate BMI charts. :glare:

 

1.) I am going to go out on a limb and say your husband misunderstood the explanation a bit.

 

2.) Health insurance premiums had been skyrocketing for years prior to the health care bill. Those with certain medical conditions had been denied coverage for years. Insurance companies have been trying to get rid of high-risk customers for years. And you want to blame legislation that isn't even fully in effect?

[Donna A.]

This has been problem for years and years. My uncle has not had insurance for 15 years because he CAN NOT get it, not even at a high premium. When people cannot receive health care coverage and the prevalence of health care coverage makes private care nearly impossible, what are people supposed to do? When my son was 4 he was diagnosed with a condition that would have made it impossible for him to secure insurance in the future. The government is stepping in as a RESPONSE to these situations. They aren't being created by the health care bill.

 

Well, there's some debate about whether that's really the case, which I won't go into here. ;)

 

I understand that there are people who've legitimately had problems getting insurance coverage for a long time.... but that's not what we're talking about in this thread. We're talking about someone who falls into a so-called "dangerous" zone on a chart that's highly inaccurate to begin with, and insurance companies are refusing to consider any other factors. There's some reason WHY they're refusing to do that.

 

Seems to me the problems with health insurance coverage -- and the freedom to choose your own company, even if you're willing to pay -- is becoming a WORSE problem. I don't see us as being "saved" by the government here.

[Mrs Mungo]

Example: Our homeowners insurance premium went up by over $300 last year. For what? We haven't had any claims. Dh called to find out why such a steep increase... she said because the government now *requires* that they charge based on what it would cost to rebuild the house today (brand new), not on what the house is actually worth, whether we want to rebuild in this location or not. We cannot just take the money and rebuild a house of the same value as this current house wherever we like (perhaps in a cheaper area, for example). They will rebuild THIS house at TODAY'S cost in THIS location. That was a new rule imposed on them by the government last year.

 

I can't find a federal law like the one you describe. It looks to me like many states allow for cash value policies instead of replacement value policies.

[Mrs Mungo]

Well, there's some debate about whether that's really the case, which I won't go into here. ;)

 

I understand that there are people who've legitimately had problems getting insurance coverage for a long time.... but that's not what we're talking about in this thread. We're talking about someone who falls into a so-called "dangerous" zone on a chart that's highly inaccurate to begin with, and insurance companies are refusing to consider any other factors. There's some reason WHY they're refusing to do that.

 

I think being morbidly obese is a MORE legitimate reason to deny someone insurance than having a mild stroke 15 years ago and no health problems since. The reason why they are starting to refuse more obese people is because they cost insurance companies so much money. My dad sleeps with a CPAP machine, my MIL is diabetic, obesity is an expensive disease and it's about how much they make off of your premiums v. how much you are going to cost them.

 

Now, that has NOTHING to do with denying someone coverage who is not only healthy but within the normal BMI range. I don't know why they would do that, it makes no sense to me.

 

Seems to me the problems with health insurance coverage -- and the freedom to choose your own company, even if you're willing to pay -- is becoming a WORSE problem. I don't see us as being "saved" by the government here.

You only think it's worse now because it's affecting YOU instead of someone else.

[Donna A.]

Those with certain medical conditions had been denied coverage for years.

 

Yes, but we aren't talking about "certain medical conditions" in this thread... or at least we weren't in the beginning. We were talking about how insurance companies are treating those who aren't even sick.

 

I will be glad to check further to find out if my dh misunderstood about the homeowners insurance, but I'm pretty sure I was told something very similar when I inquired about one particular aspect of our policy a few months. And a $300+ increase in one year is a HUGE jump for not having any claims. Just a normal premium increase? I don't think so. Has anyone else ever had that big of an increase without something triggering it, either a claim, a government-mandated increase in coverage, or something else? Believe me, I'd LOVE to know that I'm wrong about this one. :001_huh:

[Mommyof4ks]

Example: Our homeowners insurance premium went up by over $300 last year. For what? We haven't had any claims. Dh called to find out why such a steep increase... she said because the government now *requires* that they charge based on what it would cost to rebuild the house today (brand new), not on what the house is actually worth, whether we want to rebuild in this location or not. We cannot just take the money and rebuild a house of the same value as this current house wherever we like (perhaps in a cheaper area, for example). They will rebuild THIS house at TODAY'S cost in THIS location. That was a new rule imposed on them by the government last year.

 

You can't tell me the government's intervention doesn't have anything to do with health and life insurance companies' decisions to either charge extremely high premiums, or completely eliminate, everyone who falls under the obese category on these highly inaccurate BMI charts. :glare:

 

We were told something similar with the added line that we were paying for people who don't have insurance to rebuild their houses too. Fun. :glare:

 

My grandmother got a letter stating that if she did not quit smoking and lose 65 lbs that she will be dropped from her insurance supplement. Now that ins. companies cannot keep people from getting ins. due to illness they are taking away ins. because of risk. It will be interesting to see what is next, no coverage if we miss a vax, no coverage if we don't go for an annual physical, no coverage if we don't pick up our script for x,y, or z.

[kahlanne]

Honestly, I have delt with this issue for years, the BMI charts. Back years ago, I went in for life insurance checkup. The guy from the insurance asked my weight and he said no way was that possible. The nurse with him said I had to be wrong. He even went out to get his scale and was suprised to find I was correct. Later when the bloodwork came in, they called to say that my insurance was higher than my husbands. When asked why considering my bloodwork couldn't have been better in any way, yet dh had high cholestorol at the time, they said it was because my bmi was morbidly obese. I laughed. (And paid the increase.)

 

I am still the same weight I was then, within 10lbs range, and am considered even more morbidly overweight than ever before on the new charts. I am 6' or 6'1 and weigh 280lbs. Yes, shocking but according to everyone that I know, they guess my weight much lower even though overweight. The weight itself doesn't bother me. Would I care to be smaller? Sometimes but not always. I have no issue with playing soccer or basketball, sometimes even better than "more fit" parents out there. I don't get winded easily and can easily last 45 min. on the elliptical at the gym. I am not flexible enough to flatten my hands on the ground leaning over at the waist but not far from it. I have a very muscular body that is well padded. LOL. When my friends and I joined the local gym, 4 total, I could outlift and last longer at almost any excersize than them even though they were all skinny and "fit". My percentage of body fat was high but not as high as one of the smaller women btw. The only thing I have a real issue with is lunges, although I can do squats, and running/jogging. I have had 5 kids all without issue. In the last 19 years I have been to the doctor less than 10 times outside of checkups/babies. I have my yearly bloodwork ran and never has it been a problem. Matter of fact, I just recently got back from the ER thinking I was having a heartacttack. Turns out to be muscular from working out. LOL. They did an EKG, bloodwork, monitoring, etc and everything was perfect. The only downside was the BMI. I had started working out using a kettlebell and I guess I overdid it without realizing it. I ended up having chest pains and shortness of breath. After giving it a week to recuperate, I am completely fine. See what working out can do to you. HAA! Anyway, having said all of this, I know you must look at the 280lbs as HUGE!!!! I would if I didn't know any better. I would automatically assume this person is unhealthy, eats constantly, and will die young. However, the reality is I am actually healthier than many with a healthy BMI and not as unfit as you would expect. Btw, I was 130lbs back before I married and model thin. I wouldn't want to be that size again in a heartbeat. I would love to loose a few pounds, 50 or so but honestly I factor my fitness into the equation more than weight to height ratio. I would love to be able to do lunges/running without issue and then I would be good whethere that is 260lbs or 180lbs. Btw, when people see my photos of me at 180lbs they think I was tiny like 125 or so pounds. Oh, and I come from a very tall, muscular family. I am the smallest and shortest of the three siblings. They call me Amazon for a reason.

 

Lastly, it has always annoyed me as much as insurance issues/bmi when "skinny" people make assumptions about a larger person being unhealthy when they just don't know. I have kept a track of what I eat and it is not really that many calories compared to skinnier people. I love vegetables and fruit and am not a big dessert eater. My biggest issue is getting enough activity and having a large frame.

[Moxie]

no coverage if we don't go for an annual physical,

 

Already happening. I couldn't purchase our high deductable policy until I had my 6 week post-partum visit. The funny thing was that my baby was 6 MONTHS old.

[Donna A.]

I think being morbidly obese is a MORE legitimate reason to deny someone insurance than having a mild stroke 15 years ago and no health problems since.

 

"Morbidly obese" in whose definition, though? That's the problem here... the way "morbidly obese" is being defined by the insurance companies. Many others in this discussion have stated something quite different... including their doctors. I don't see "morbidly obese" by the insurance co.'s definition as any different than your relative's situation. Here is this little *remote* thing they can charge high premiums , or completely deny, coverage to, without just cause. We're in agreement on this one, Mrs. Mungo. "Morbidly obese" as defined by an inaccurate BMI chart, with NO evidence of any health problems, is NOT worse than someone who had a mild stroke many years with no problems since. :confused:

 

The reason why they are starting to refuse more obese people is because they cost insurance companies so much money. My dad sleeps with a CPAP machine, my MIL is diabetic, obesity is an expensive disease and it's about how much they make off of your premiums v. how much you are going to cost them.

NOT when the definition of "obese" is coming from an inaccurate measurement tool. Your dad and MIL have diagnosed health problems (and I'm assuming it's because they're obese?).... but thin people can potentially get those same health problems. Sleep apnea doesn't just affect obese people. Diabetes doesn't just affect obese people. Many of us in this thread don't have any health problems. Some have even shared the numbers which you seem to be ignoring... body measurements, clothing sizes, low fat percentages.... You seem to be siding strongly with the insurance companies, while ignoring what so many individuals have shared about their own weight and GOOD health and weight. That's exactly what the insurance co's do.

 

 

You only think it's worse now because it's affecting YOU instead of someone else.

That's a pretty judgmental thing to say! As a matter of fact, WE are still with our company of choice, tyvm! Many others in this thread have stated the opposite. How can you say that *I* only think it's worse because it's affecting me and not someone else? You don't know how many people I know IRL who it's affecting, or in what way! :001_huh:

[Donna A.]

We were told something similar with the added line that we were paying for people who don't have insurance to rebuild their houses too. Fun. :glare:

 

So my dh didn't misunderstand. ;)

 

 

My grandmother got a letter stating that if she did not quit smoking and lose 65 lbs that she will be dropped from her insurance supplement. Now that ins. companies cannot keep people from getting ins. due to illness they are taking away ins. because of risk. It will be interesting to see what is next, no coverage if we miss a vax, no coverage if we don't go for an annual physical, no coverage if we don't pick up our script for x,y, or z.

 

Yep. Control. And I think you hit the nail on the head with the bolded part.

[Mrs Mungo]

"Morbidly obese" in whose definition, though? That's the problem here... the way "morbidly obese" is being defined by the insurance companies. Many others in this discussion have stated something quite different... including their doctors. I don't see "morbidly obese" by the insurance co.'s definition as any different than your relative's situation. Here is this little *remote* thing they can charge high premiums , or completely deny, coverage to, without just cause. We're in agreement on this one, Mrs. Mungo. "Morbidly obese" as defined by an inaccurate BMI chart, with NO evidence of any health problems, is NOT worse than someone who had a mild stroke many years with no problems since. :confused:

 

Because obesity causes problems down the road. Just because there isn't a problem now doesn't mean it won't cause one in the future.

 

NOT when the definition of "obese" is coming from an inaccurate measurement tool. Your dad and MIL have diagnosed health problems (and I'm assuming it's because they're obese?).... but thin people can potentially get those same health problems. Sleep apnea doesn't just affect obese people. Diabetes doesn't just affect obese people. Many of us in this thread don't have any health problems. Some have even shared the numbers which you seem to be ignoring... body measurements, clothing sizes, low fat percentages.... You seem to be siding strongly with the insurance companies, while ignoring what so many individuals have shared about their own weight and GOOD health and weight. That's exactly what the insurance co's do.

 

Sleep apnea *does* affect obese people at a much greater rate and do a greater degree than in normal weight people. Same thing with type 2 diabetes.

 

I'm not siding with anyone. Should there be other ways to measure what is a normal weight for people other than height/weight? Yes. Even the military uses a back-up (because there are quite a few weight-lifter types who are muscular, not fat). However, the military *still* has height/weight standards because being overweight *does* affect your health. My dh has had many, many soldiers go through a weight control program and lose weight. They see a nutritionist, they are checked for underlying physical conditions, etc. They aren't made to starve themselves and most of them DO lose the weight.

 

 

That's a pretty judgmental thing to say! As a matter of fact, WE are still with our company of choice, tyvm! Many others in this thread have stated the opposite. How can you say that *I* only think it's worse because it's affecting me and not someone else? You don't know how many people I know IRL who it's affecting, or in what way! :001_huh:

 

I'm sorry I was judgmental. I know a LOT of people who have been not been able get health care coverage and it's gone on for years and years. I don't see how you can argue that's fine but not covering the morbidly obese is somehow different?

[fairfarmhand]

Example: Our homeowners insurance premium went up by over $300 last year. For what? We haven't had any claims. Dh called to find out why such a steep increase... she said because the government now *requires* that they charge based on what it would cost to rebuild the house today (brand new), not on what the house is actually worth, whether we want to rebuild in this location or not. We cannot just take the money and rebuild a house of the same value as this current house wherever we like (perhaps in a cheaper area, for example). They will rebuild THIS house at TODAY'S cost in THIS location. That was a new rule imposed on them by the government last year.

 

 

 

 

Because of the skyrocketing costs of building materials, many people whose homes burn or are destroyed or whatever may get reimbursed the amount of their policy, but that may not be enough to build the house back the way it was. Alot of this regulation has to do with mortgage companies. They don't want to be out the money it would take to rebuild that home.

 

Off topic I know...sorry OP

[kahlanne]

I wanted to say that I added a photo of myself at 275-280lbs and feeling every bit sexy and healthy! Even better, I KNOW I am both! I wanted to add this for those that "think" weight to height ratio is a good standard to go by. Sometimes a thin person can be very unhealthy and an overweight person can be very healthy. It can also be the reverse. Really the main factor should be bloodwork, history of illness, etc. (Like I said I have been to doc less than 10 times in past 20 yrs other than checkup or baby delivery. I can only remember having a virus twice in the same time frame and never the flu. Occasional sniffle but not bad. No allergies either.)

 

Speaking of which, can anyone see my profile photo without going to my album? It isn't showing up for me. How do I get it to show?

Edited July 28, 2010 by kahlanne
question about pics

[Mrs Mungo]

So my dh didn't misunderstand. ;)

 

Search "cash value homeowners insurance" and you'll find that many states do not require you to have replacement value coverage on your home.

 

And I think you hit the nail on the head with the bolded part.

You realize that BMI tables were originally created FOR the insurance industry to evaluate risk? The equations were put together over 150 years ago and the insurance companies designed the BMI tables based on them in the seventies.

[QueenCat]

I wanted to say that I added a photo of myself at 275-280lbs and feeling every bit sexy and healthy! Even better, I KNOW I am both! I wanted to add this for those that "think" weight to height ratio is a good standard to go by. Sometimes a thin person can be very unhealthy and an overweight person can be very healthy. It can also be the reverse. Really the main factor should be bloodwork, history of illness, etc. (Like I said I have been to doc less than 10 times in past 20 yrs other than checkup or baby delivery. I can only remember having a virus twice in the same time frame and never the flu. Occasional sniffle but not bad. No allergies either.)

 

Speaking of which, can anyone see my profile photo without going to my album? It isn't showing up for me. How do I get it to show?

 

Just saw your pic, you look great!

[Mrs Mungo]

Speaking of which, can anyone see my profile photo without going to my album? It isn't showing up for me. How do I get it to show?

 

I can see it in your profile, but you can attach it to a post by clicking on the little paperclip by the smiley face up above the text box. :)

[Britomart]

While I agree with Mrs. Mungo that the insurance companies should, like the military, have a back-up measurement, I think it's unreasonable to expect them not to take BMI into account. It's like any other statistical risk they take into account: it's not going to make sense in every individual situation.

 

The important thing (to the insurance companies) is that it makes sense in the majority of situations, statistically.

 

It's like auto insurance charging men under 25 years of age a lot more than men over 25. Are all men under 25 bad drivers? Nope. But are the statistically more likely to cost the insurance company money? Yep. My husband cost us a lot of money in car insurance when we were first married, because he was under 25. He never cost the insurance company anything, because he was a good driver. But he was in a statistically risky group, so we paid up anyways.

 

I think it's the same with BMI. Is everyone with a high BMI out of shape? Definitely not. But is it reasonable for the insurance companies to use it anyway? Sure. Because they have to calculate their risks over the entire population, on generalities and not exceptions. Otherwise they go bankrupt.

 

The way insurance works often doesn't seem fair - I've run into this shopping for life insurance, so frustrating! - but usually when you stop and look at the fact that they're basically obligated to make a safe bet or go under, their policies do make sense. Business sense, anyway.

 

 

That said, I do agree that it ought to be used reasonably (e.g., don't overcharge people who fall in the normal range) and have a back-up method of measurement when people contest it (like the military measurements mentioned).

[Mrs Mungo]

While I agree with Mrs. Mungo that the insurance companies should, like the military, have a back-up measurement, I think it's unreasonable to expect them not to take BMI into account. It's like any other statistical risk they take into account: it's not going to make sense in every individual situation.

 

The important thing (to the insurance companies) is that it makes sense in the majority of situations, statistically.

 

It's like auto insurance charging men under 25 years of age a lot more than men over 25. Are all men under 25 bad drivers? Nope. But are the statistically more likely to cost the insurance company money? Yep. My husband cost us a lot of money in car insurance when we were first married, because he was under 25. He never cost the insurance company anything, because he was a good driver. But he was in a statistically risky group, so we paid up anyways.

 

I think it's the same with BMI. Is everyone with a high BMI out of shape? Definitely not. But is it reasonable for the insurance companies to use it anyway? Sure. Because they have to calculate their risks over the entire population, on generalities and not exceptions. Otherwise they go bankrupt.

 

The way insurance works often doesn't seem fair - I've run into this shopping for life insurance, so frustrating! - but usually when you stop and look at the fact that they're basically obligated to make a safe bet or go under, their policies do make sense. Business sense, anyway.

 

 

That said, I do agree that it ought to be used reasonably (e.g., don't overcharge people who fall in the normal range) and have a back-up method of measurement when people contest it (like the military measurements mentioned).

 

:iagree:

[mommaduck]

Mrs Mungo, just quoting you as it's your link that I used. None of this is directed toward you, but rather toward the issue of how limited the BMI is (to the point of inaccuracy).

 

According to this bmi calculator, a normal weight for my height is 101-136 and I'm only 5'2". A normal weight for a woman who is 5'6" would be 115-154. I don't think anyone would be emaciated on the upper end of that scale.

 

 

Here's my husband's information for an example:

Height: 6 feet, 1 inches

Weight: 250 pounds

 

Your BMI is 33, indicating your weight is in the Obese category for adults of your height. For your height, a normal weight range would be from 140 to 189 pounds.

People who are overweight or obese are at higher risk for chronic conditions such as high blood pressure, diabetes, and high cholesterol. BMI 30.0 and Above Obese

Now, if my husband were 160, you would have to wonder if he had cancer. In highschool he was 175 and skinny as a string bean. Muscle weighs more than fat and this is something that the BMI does NOT take into consideration. Add to that build and type of activity. If my husband were not 200-250lbs then he would not be built for doing the types of jobs that he has done (building roads, running a jack hammer, climbing silos, making commercial refrigerators, and working with large hogs). The men you see on these jobs are generally large men, and if they don't start out that way, they quickly become that way. It builds muscle and a lot of it. My husband had one doctor swear up and down he was obese and another doctor laugh when he heard what the previous doctor said. His mother swears by the BMI and you should see her when she diets...she diets down to her "prime weight" and I've been seriously concerned for her health as she gets down to skin and bones...I've been underweight and it's NOT healthy. Now do we really want to have men that can't lift a tackle box building our roads and such? Are we really saying that these men shouldn't have insurance when they put themselves are more on the job risk than the guy sitting behind the desk and only 130lbs?

Edited July 28, 2010 by mommaduck

[kahlanne]

Cathy C, thanks. I wasn't "fishing" for compliments just pointing out that while a weight number or even BMI number can be greatly misleading. My weight at the time of the photo was 275-280 yet when most people hear that number they assume many things such as how that weight looks on people. I know many assume a 300lb person should be almost immobil or close to bedridden. I know I have that image when I think of 400lbs until I realized my younger brother is almost that weight but is 6'7.My other brother is 6'4 and 360. Neither are small by any standards but they also don't fit the "image" of someone in that weight range. They are larger than me but not drastically considering their build. I have an uncle, by marriage, on the other hand that weighed 380 lbs and in the 6'range but is borderline bedridden. He also fits the image that pops in your mind when you say nearly 400lbs. Build is a big factor and should be considered.