California May Restrict Use of HIV Status in Life and Disability Underwriting

[Northeast Agent]

California May Restrict Use of HIV Status in Life and Disability Underwriting | ThinkAdvisor

California state Sen. Lena Gonzalez, D-Long Beach, Calif., has introduced a bill, Senate Bill 961, that could forbid insurers from rejecting life and disability applicants solely because they have antibodies to the human immunodeficiency virus, or HIV.

 

[DHK]

While HIV isn't the death sentence it was before... I personally believe that IF one is taking preventative medications... that may be enough. And California already passed that law regarding Truvada.

Department warns insurers against discriminating over HIV prevention medication

However, considering that Commissioner Lara is also openly gay... I bet we'll see this be pushed through.

Which means that EVERYONE will pay more when we reduce the insurance company/industry ability to underwrite and discriminate.

 

[suranceman]

Why not just make it so all life insurance is guaranteed issue.

DISCRIMINATION IS BAD DON'T YA KNOW!!!

We all pay the same rate regardless of gender and health.

Heck, why not make us all pay the same rate and have the same amount of coverage. Why should rich people be allowed to buy more than poor people? That's just not fair. In a just society, we'll all have the same life insurance protection.

I swear leftism is such a fucking mental disorder. How do people actually think this shit is a good idea??????

 

[Allen Trent]

I swear

You can say that again

BTW, I agree with you

 

[DHK]

Why not just make it so all life insurance is guaranteed issue.

DISCRIMINATION IS BAD DON'T YA KNOW!!!

We all pay the same rate regardless of gender and health.

Heck, why not make us all pay the same rate and have the same amount of coverage. Why should rich people be allowed to buy more than poor people? That's just not fair. In a just society, we'll all have the same life insurance protection.

I swear leftism is such a fucking mental disorder. How do people actually think this shit is a good idea??????

Be careful what you wish for. Don't give them any MORE ideas.

Commissioner issues regulations prohibiting gender discrimination in automobile insurance rates

 

[theleadingagent]

Not seeing what the big deal is.

HIV Not much difference from Diabetes and what not.

Well controlled of course.

Also from what I understand there are gay people who take the drug but don’t have HIV so either they should be educated on getting insured before being prescribed/taking the drug or the drug itself shouldn’t be a disqualifier for insurance.

We could say the same about insurers that accept marijuana and vaporizer use. A little difference but similar in that as the culture evolves, insurance must also adapt and evolve.

There are segments of the population who want to buy insurance and if insurers can find a way to effectively get them covered while still maintaining their bottom line then ....

Why not?

They leave money on the table if they can’t adapt.

 

[suranceman]

Not seeing what the big deal is.

HIV Not much difference from Diabetes and what not.

Well controlled of course.

Also from what I understand there are gay people who take the drug but don’t have HIV so either they should be educated on getting insured before being prescribed/taking the drug or the drug itself shouldn’t be a disqualifier for insurance.

We could say the same about insurers that accept marijuana and vaporizer use. A little difference but similar in that as the culture evolves, insurance must also adapt and evolve.

There are segments of the population who want to buy insurance and if insurers can find a way to effectively get them covered while still maintaining their bottom line then ....

Why not?

They leave money on the table if they can’t adapt.

So you clearly don't understand how insurance risk works.

HIV risk pools are RADICALLY different than diabetes risk pools.

I can't believe you said there "isn't much difference between the two". Controlled or not, the mortality of these groups is not comparable in the least.

Insurers take on folks with diabetes, marijuana or vape use because when they assess the mortality of those risks, they can predicatively charge an appropriate amount for the insurer to make a profit.

Now life insurance with HIV is possible (with underwriting), so it's not as if it can't be done. Granted, it's costly but that's because the risk of this group is very high so they must charge more to cover that high risk.

The difference is the free market determined on it's own if and how to offer life insurance to folks with HIV.

The government mandating that insurers can't "discriminate" against folks with HIV will simply result in the HIV risk pool being bundled in with all other risks (since insurers won't know who does and doesn't have HIV). That means everyone else will pay more because the HIV risk must be included when they price their products.

Lastly, HIV is 99.999% preventable (the cases of blood transfusion infection are incredibly rare relative to the overall infection cause).

All you have to do is not have intravenous drug use or have unprotected gay sex. If you can't abide by those two principals and you get HIV, you deserve the consequences. One of which is either being unable to get life insurance or having to pay a lot of money to get it.

 

[Northeast Agent]

suranceman said:

All you have to do is not have intravenous drug use or have unprotected gay sex.

This is not necessarily true. There are a lot of men who are either "bi" or identify as "straight" running around having unprotected sex with women. And they also practice an act called "sodomy," or some other terms too crude for a woman to mention.

 

[suranceman]

suranceman said:

All you have to do is not have intravenous drug use or have unprotected gay sex.

This is not necessarily true. There are a lot of men who are either "bi" or identify as "straight" running around having unprotected sex with women. And they also practice an act call "sodomy," or some other terms too crude for a woman to mention.

Do you not understand statistics? Your anecdotal example is true, but it represents an incredibly small single digit percentage point when looking at the aggregate.

Again, 99% of the time it's due to sharing needles or gay sex. HIV is entirely preventable accept for the rare circumstance where someone gets it via a blood transfusion which is obviously no fault of their own.

 

[Life Hawk]

So you clearly don't understand how insurance risk works.

HIV risk pools are RADICALLY different than diabetes risk pools.

I can't believe you said there "isn't much difference between the two". Controlled or not, the mortality of these groups is not comparable in the least.

Insurers take on folks with diabetes, marijuana or vape use because when they assess the mortality of those risks, they can predicatively charge an appropriate amount for the insurer to make a profit.

Now life insurance with HIV is possible (with underwriting), so it's not as if it can't be done. Granted, it's costly but that's because the risk of this group is very high so they must charge more to cover that high risk.

The difference is the free market determined on it's own if and how to offer life insurance to folks with HIV.

The government mandating that insurers can't "discriminate" against folks with HIV will simply result in the HIV risk pool being bundled in with all other risks (since insurers won't know who does and doesn't have HIV). That means everyone else will pay more because the HIV risk must be included when they price their products.

Lastly, HIV is 99.999% preventable (the cases of blood transfusion infection are incredibly rare relative to the overall infection cause).

All you have to do is not have intravenous drug use or have unprotected gay sex. If you can't abide by those two principals and you get HIV, you deserve the consequences. One of which is either being unable to get life insurance or having to pay a lot of money to get it.

Oh... so you are suggesting that people are to "take responsibility".

What rock did you roll out from under. You are going to punish me for my bad choices. Next I assume you want me to pay for my college debt and then you are going to tell me I need to pay for health care.

Let take a look at this from another direction...

Auto insurance. 3rd time DUI and we say to the insurance companies that they cannot ask the drinking and driving question. That makes total sense, I mean, alcoholism is very treatable.... and insurance companies can move the risk around and have all the law abiding citizens pick up the tab for the bad apples...

AN ASIDE: I have HIV clients and I care about each one of them, though I do know that their issues come mainly from poor choices. We don't need the government messing around with things. They need to focus on their own homeless problem in good ol' Cali
before they start dinking with what has been working for the industry for very, very long time. Do these people wake up in the morning saying to themselves, "What can I screw up (in Nancy's case what can I rip up) today?"