Good idea... but i dont think it will happen.. the insurance companies are too money hungry

Posted by: maeghan | November 10, 2008 12:24 PM

How about getting life insurance down to an affordiable point to everyone first?

Posted by: King of Fiji | November 10, 2008 02:58 PM

Smart idea but I doubt it'll be implemented. They probably would fear they'd be blamed for showing preferential treatment, based on diet.

Posted by: lynda downie | November 10, 2008 11:47 PM

This is a noble idea. Too many people are overweight because they eat enormous amounts of meat and meat products. Fast food is a way of life. Animals are suffering everyday to feed people who are basically ignorant to their health and well being. This would be a start in the right direction. For healthy living.

Posted by: Maggie Evans | November 11, 2008 07:31 AM

What about different premiums for people who are athletic and fit with low cholesterol, good blood pressure, etc. even though they are not vegetarians? What about higher premiums for vegetarians who still eat refined sugars and other unhealthy things or who fail to exercise enough? How about basing premiums on family medical history, genetic testing, and so on?

Many insurance companies already deny coverage to obese applicants. Implementing lower premiums for one group based on diet would make no sense without also lower or raising premiums based on many other factors and lifestyle choices.

Posted by: Abby | November 11, 2008 11:50 AM

If insurance companies denied coverage to the obese, I doubt that they would have any trade at all. Most of the people in this country are, unfortunately, overweight. This is due to their diet and unhealthy choices. People who are vegans or vegetarians have a higher regard for their health and their physical well being.

Posted by: Maggie Evans | November 12, 2008 08:12 AM

Ok, I can jump on this badnwagon since I am a vegetarian BUT I have United Healthcare not BCBS. BUT how do you suggets they go about montioring people to make sure they aren't lying? It would be extremely difficult to prove or rather disprove that someone is not a vegetarian and then that just goes into discriminating because that's what meat eaters would say. I do drink regular milk, so would I not be allowed to have lower premiums even though I do not eat any animal flesh? That would be unfair.

Also, can this apply to people who don't smoke or have addictions to drugs/alcohol? I mean it's really unfair that I maintain a healthy lifestyle yet obese people get to be on "disability" (use my tax dollars) because they are too fat to work. We could go on and on about what's wrong with people and also with health insurance coverage. But, I feel ya PETA. Good idea, but it would take A LOT to work out all the kinks. And as one person saud- yes, health insurance companies are very money hungry.

Posted by: BBR | November 12, 2008 12:19 PM

Yeah, if they can increase your rates for smoking, they can decrease it for being a vegetarian, that's for sure. It would probably also increase awareness about food choices and get certain penny-pinching people to consider a vegetarian lifestyle as well.
Good point!

Posted by: Brian Luznak Is Not An MD (or any acronym for that matter.) | November 12, 2008 06:02 PM

Wouldn't this fall under having the "condition" before insurance? Insurance are greedy, they won't do much to help you. I think the poor get first priorities and the people who actually already are sick should get first priority.

Posted by: MMARIN | November 12, 2008 08:17 PM

What's unfair is for a healthy vegan who exercises regularly and does not smoke to bear the cost of everyone else's unhealthy lifestyle. I think they should give lower premiums to vegans.

Posted by: Antigone1000 | November 12, 2008 11:45 PM

The medical insurance business is in need of a serious overhaul, especially Title 19 benefits, and its routine abuse by a portion of that population.

At least those of us who live healthy lifestyles get a break on our life insurance plans...for whatever little consolation that is worth.

Posted by: Derek, MD | November 13, 2008 09:44 AM

Antigone, if you deserve a lower premium then so do I.
I exercise, I smoke on occasion but I am as healthy now than I have ever been.
What about all the other healthy people who have to "bear the cost" as you call it. Why are you singling them out.
Everytime you present a piece of evidence you say it always "linked" to a certain disease.
There is never a direct cause.

Posted by: Kurt K | November 13, 2008 10:25 AM

Well, Kurt K, I don't think I've ever seen a fat vegan, but there are plenty of fat meateaters. While you may not appear fat, studies have shown that the vegan diet is the healthiest. Also--you smoke. I (and all other non-smokers) already pay enough for that bad habit of yours. I don't want to smell your smoke or smell like your smoke but, up until recently, we had no choice. You do not deserve a break on insurance--if you are not unhealthy now, keep up the lifestyle and you will be.

Posted by: Antigone1000 | November 13, 2008 03:42 PM

As kind of a side note, I would like to know other people's thoughts on organ donation. I, personally, will not donate my organs because I cannot know for sure that they will not be used to prolong the life of an animal-abuser. I don't know if it would be possible, but would be interested in knowing if anyone has heard of any vegan-only places to donate organs??? I wrote to pcrm, but they have not heard of any such thing.

Posted by: Antigone1000 | November 13, 2008 03:51 PM

While your organs could go to a dog-kicking, gun-toting, meat-eating recovering alcoholic, they also could be used to save the life of some pretty decent individuals as well.

At what point does an ethical stance become unethical?

I am an organ donor with no stipulations other than I either have to be dead or have two of the same organs (kidney for example...bone marrow sort of fits here as well).

One of my friends was saved through a kidney transplant, and while she eats meat, she is otherwise the nicest and kindest person one could ever hope to encounter...in the world...without a doubt.

Posted by: Derek, MD | November 13, 2008 05:38 PM

well how would they know that the person is really a vegetarian. I mean, anyone can just say that they are vegetarians. I agree, vegetarians are healthier. I have been a vegetarian for a year and never felt healthier. I am so healthy, that I got the BEST rate on my life insurance!

Posted by: marysol | November 13, 2008 07:12 PM

Antigone, what if your family has a history of cancer or a disease that includes a genetic pre-disposition but my family has no such history? Should I pay less than you because it's not fair that I have to bear the cost of your increased risk? If you get to pay less than others because you are a non-smoking, exercising vegan, where is the line? In your insurance plan does a vegan who never exercises still get lower premiums? How about a vegan who drinks alcohol? If I don't own a car and you do, should my health insurance also cost less because I am far less likely to be injured in an accident?

Line drawing always includes a certain amount of "unfairness." Insurance companies don't (and logically, can't) base premiums on every possible factor that affects health.

As for refusing to donate your organs because they might go to a non-vegan, that is terrible. If you see a bleeding person at the scene of an accident, will you make them swear they are vegan before you call 911? If you see someone choke, will you help only if you know they never eat meat but otherwise stand by uncaring and unfeeling?

Posted by: Abby | November 14, 2008 03:43 PM

Abby and Derek: If there were a vegan-only organ donation organization, no one would be precluded from donating to someone they know personally. So, if I choose to donate to a non-vegan, I still can. However, in answer to your question, Abby, I would much prefer that one of the scientists highlighted on this website for their animal torture experiments die the most horrific death imaginable than that I ever do anything to prolong his/her life. I make no apologies to anyone for this. I would not do anything to prevent the death of the slaughterhouse workers shown on these blogs either. If you believe their lives are worth saving, you can save them. I do not.

I also have no desire to give my organs to someone who had perfectly good ones but destroyed them thru poor lifestyle choices. I would much prefer to save the life of someone who, through no fault of his own, was born with faulty organs or was the victim of some other misfortune beyond his control.

I do agree that there is a problem with determing whether or not someone is a vegan but, other than that, I see no ethical issues because, as of right now, my organs will die with me. If there were a vegan donation bank, they might at least benefit someone else.

Posted by: Antigone1000 | November 14, 2008 06:47 PM

marysol, I don't understand what makes you think that if you are a veggie, you are healthier. The reason you are not fat, like you are saying all meat eaters are, is because your body is being starved of the proper nutrition. You have to be careful as to what you say, because I have eaten meat all my life, and will continue to. I am by no means fat. I am 5'6" and weigh 120lbs. It all depends, on the lifestyle people have, and the amount of exercise a person does.

Posted by: tim | November 14, 2008 08:48 PM

Abby
There's a difference between donating one's organs and calling 911 in an emergency. I think it's unfair of you to generalize Antigone's position to a different situation to attack her.
We have the right to choose who we bequeath our possessions to at our death, we should have at least the same right to say what happens with our body at death. I'm with you, Antigone.

Posted by: lynda downie | November 14, 2008 10:38 PM

A bit crazy, if you ask me - a good friend is vegetarian (not Vegan)and is overweight and has some health issues. I know many who eat meat that are in great health and in great shape. It's not just what you eat, it's how much you eat and all the other things you do or not do that keep you healthy.

Posted by: Cathy P | November 15, 2008 04:15 PM

i eat meat but am in tip top shape. i work out everyday, dont smoke, dont drink or put any toxins in my body for that matter. why does a vegan deserve to get lower health care premiums than me? I am against animal cruelty but humans have been eating meet since the beginning of time like god created it.

Posted by: Danny Dee | November 15, 2008 08:25 PM

Lynda,
I really thought you were better than that.
To deny anybody life saving help, whether by refusing to give you organs to a non-vegan or not calling 911, is just wrong. Though they may not be the same, the outcome would be the same.
I find that idea disgusting and I question ones mental health for making such a statement.

Posted by: Kurt K | November 15, 2008 08:52 PM

Abby,
I agree, not all meat eaters are fat or unhealthy. However, the majority of America is obese and it is directly linked to most Americans' consumption of animal products. Also, many of these same Americans are very un-healthy, especially those that smoke, drink, and poison themselves in other ways. Also, marysol did not say all meat eaters are fat. Actually she did not mention that aspect at all. As for your comment that her body is being starved of proper nutrition because she is a vegetarian, it is 100% false. Vegetarians, and vegans for that matter, are lacking nothing. Furthermore, study after study shows that a vegetarian diet is indeed healthier. Sadly it seems you have bought into the protein lie. Are there unhealthy vegetarians? Yes, there are. However, there are many more unhealthy non-vegetarians. As for insurance companies charging less for vegetarians, it is a great idea. They already DO discriminate based on a persons weight, age, gender, smoking status, pre-existing condition status, and many others. Studies prove vegetarians ARE healthier. I am sure there can be a way to ensure that the insured really is vegetarian.

Posted by: ME | November 15, 2008 11:32 PM

My husband and I are living testaments to a healthy veggie lifestyle. We are both sixty, and have excellent health. We have been vegetarians for thirty years. We just don't get sick! I have not been to a doctor in 16 years, and that was for a sinus infection. I can't remember the last time my husband went to a doctor.

I have Blue Cross, and I am thinking they should maybe be paying me. I have saved them hundreds of thousands of dollars over the years.

Posted by: Maggy | November 16, 2008 10:08 AM

This is a great thing! Recently the insurance company that my job switched too has increased rates for smokers and lowered rates for non smokers. Why can't this happen with vegetarians also? We live a lifestyle that promotes healthy living and it should be recognized. I also think if this works out it will save a ton of animals lives with new people going veg to save money!

Posted by: Jeff Jackson | November 16, 2008 10:24 AM

Kurt
I hold a registered card with the anatomy dept of a university for my body to be used by medical students at my death - to benefit humans and spare some animals.
But I stand firmly behind Antigone's right to choose what will happen with her body at her death. I agree with her that, given the choice, I'd rather my organs sustain the life of someone who values animal life than one who destroys it.
And Kurt, if you had the choice to donate your organs to a serial killer or an innocent person- would both be equal candidates to you?

Antigone
I hadn't thought about one's complicity in animal abuse by donating organs to an abuser. Thanks for opening my eyes to that. I ain't dead yet, my estate plans may be in for a bit of a revamp.

Posted by: lynda downie | November 17, 2008 01:22 AM

Abby,

Vegans can also drink alcohol, overdose on Tylenol, smoke, and participate in all sorts of activities for which I have seen the end result be organ transplantation (or on the list).

I understand you have little knowledge on the transplant process, including screening and matching of recipients and donors, but most organ recipients are not on the list because they have eaten meat.

While I see where you are coming from, I do not agree with your choice but will not lose any sleep over it.

Posted by: Derek, MD | November 17, 2008 10:20 AM

Maggy,

I commend you and your husband for living healthy lifestyles, but unless you and your husband are getting appropriate screening tests, you are putting yourself at risk. While vegetarians have, in some studies, been shown to have lower rates of certain types of cancers and other illnesses, I still would make sure that tests (depending on gender) such as a colonoscopy, Pap, mammogram, lipid panel, bone density scan, etc are at least considered or you may be in for a nasty surprise.

In addition to Family Medicine, I did a year of Pathology, and when we would get the slides from the females who had not had a Pap in 10-15 years, we would always cringe in anticipation of the worst.

You may feel good, but that does not mean there are not diseases that could be prevented or treated with appropriate screening.

On another note, you and your husband have not saved your insurance company "hundreds of thousands of dollars" by not going to a doctor for 16 years. Over a lifetime, combined, if you never have a single medical problem or test, the two of you could potentially save the insurance company six figures.

I find it strange and that some people take better car of their cars than they do of themselves (oil changes, certain mile check-ups, new tires, etc.). Not getting annual check-ups and appropriate screening tests should not be looked at as a badge of honor, and certainly should not be considered an intelligent and rational decision.

Posted by: Derek, MD | November 17, 2008 10:38 AM

Lynda: Actually, it is people like you I was trying to gain a response from on this issue. Can you imagine if Dan Matthews' donated organs were used to save the life of Ted Nugent?? It may be an extreme example, but the point is that it would be a grave injustice to use the organs of someone who devoted their lives to saving animals to someone who devoted his life to destroying them. I think it is something all vegans should consider. As I said, this would preclude no one from donating through the regular channels, just provide an option for vegans...

Posted by: Antigone1000 | November 17, 2008 10:43 AM

Jeff: Good point. While I'm sure there are smokers who would argue how healthy they are, the reality is that smokers tend to be unhealthier than non-smokers and insurance companies make that distinction. I think it is exactly the same with veg*ans.

Posted by: Antigone1000 | November 17, 2008 10:45 AM

Kurt K: So--you condemn the families of murder victims who demand the life of the murderer?? Do you?? Doubt it, hypocrite. And, just to be clear--if there were a lab/slaughterhouse fire and I were on-site, my time would be spent in rescuing animals only. Their abusers may live, but it will not be because of me.

Posted by: Antigone1000 | November 17, 2008 10:49 AM

Derek MD, I think you meant to address your message to Antigone. I think that refusing to donate organs based on animal rights beliefs is silly. I also agree with you that eating meat is not the primary cause behind many people's need for a transplant. Vegetarians die while waiting on donor organs, too.

The idea that a supposedly compassionate person will withhold organs when you otherwise would donate, just because there is some chance that the recipient will be a meat eater, means that you would also have to refuse to donate to any non-animal related charity or perform any good or kind act not specifically targeted at only vegans in order to be consistent. If you donate toys to Toys for Tots, you might be enriching the life of a child that eats meat. If you give to the Red Cross, they might have the gall (in your eyes) to actually help meat eaters whose homes have been destroyed by war or natural disasters! If you call 911 for a meat eater, you are possibly prolonging a life, even though in a very different way than by organ donation. Where do you draw the line in your "only vegans are worthy of any help or the chance to keep living" philosophy?

Posted by: Abby | November 17, 2008 11:21 AM

Antigone,

I would just like to know what your definition of "abuse" is. If my child, who has never abused an animal with her own hands, but still consumes a diet that includes meat, were to contract a disease that had her on the waiting list for an organ, would you have the gall to refuse your organs for her? The truth is, most people who are on the waiting lists are not vegan. If there were no vegans on the list at the time frame in which your organs could be used, would you refuse someone who desperately needs an organ? That is just like me saying I will not give my organs to someone who is not Christian. If you are to give the gift of life to someone, why would you discriminate based on lifestyle? It is better if your didn't waste your time and break the heart of someone who needs an organ but won't get one because of your pretentious rules.

Posted by: Maria | November 17, 2008 06:30 PM

Antigone: I respect your life choices in eating vegen . Yet I do not think you should be pushing what you think onto others. In the case of the insurance you have no right to get any special teatment. I think it horrible that one human would deny another a life saveing donation on the count that he eats meat.

Posted by: kenn | November 17, 2008 06:39 PM

Abby: Mormons stick together, Asians stick together, Catholics stick together, etc. etc. There is nothing wrong with vegans giving first consideration to other vegans. Although I do help humans, I only do so if I am pretty confident I am not hurting animals in the process, which is why I never donate to any research fund or anything like that. Whether or not you like or agree with it, what I do with my organs is not your business. If you feel so strongly, make it your mission to ensure that EVERY person is an organ donor. Otherwise, don't criticize my choice. Although not an organ donor currently, I would be if I could be sure my choice would not negatively impact animals. There are people who don't donate organs with no valid reason for not donating. Target them, why don't you?

Posted by: Antigone1000 | November 17, 2008 07:05 PM

Antigone
I've given considerable thought to this issue since reading your post. I know for sure that I'd feel that I'd betrayed the animals I've committed my life to if I were to facilitate someone's abuse of them by my death.
The idea of a vegan organ donation org greatly appeals to me. And a kind of precedent has already been set with charitable orgs that don't test on animals.
These orgs and your suggestion of vegan organ donation are ideal for those of us who want to ensure that our donations ($ or organs) do harm to neither animals or humans.
Long life true animal advocate!

Posted by: lynda downie | November 18, 2008 12:58 AM

Ok, I can see where eating some meat may be bad for your health, but then are we going to regulate all the vegetarians who eat ho ho's or twinkies too? Making smart choices about your eating habits is the best regulation.

Posted by: Angie | November 18, 2008 11:16 AM

Why should we give vegerterrians discounts?!

Posted by: sam baker | November 18, 2008 06:40 PM

Why should we give vegerterrians discounts?!

Posted by: sam baker | November 18, 2008 06:40 PM

R U sure that this is such a good idea? Wouldent this make the others pay more?

Posted by: sam baker | November 18, 2008 07:06 PM

That is a good idea. I work in a hospital billing to Blue Cross and by doing that insurance will safe more money than paying for years of sick people. The insurance company have to learn that prevent is better an cheaper than cure an ill.

Posted by: Millicent Goti | November 18, 2008 07:58 PM

Lynda, Antigone,
There is no way you can tell if a person will ever intentionally or unintentionally harm an animal. Antigone you said it yourself, you donate to orgs that you are confident will not harm animals. So, you are not 100% sure what they are doing with your money. Hell, you could hit a deer with your car! Therefore, you could someday cause animals harm. That means all people may not be worthy of your organs, because all people could potentially cause animals harm.
Also, your argument that mormons, Catholics, asians, etc. stick together is weak. Catholics do not donate their organs to Catholic only places. We believe in the dignity of all human life. We do not discriminate between people because of others' beliefs or creeds.
You do!

Posted by: Kurt K | November 19, 2008 07:28 PM

Lynda: EXACTLY!! It is the same thing as not donating to charities that test on animals. If I am going to help humans, it is not going to be at the expense of the animal kingdom.

To all those who complain about withholding organs--again, I do not have to donate my organs and can withhold them for ANY reason. A vegan donation bank would only make more organs available. If anyone is concerned about missing out on something by not being vegan, you can either convert or stop whining.

Posted by: Antigone1000 | November 20, 2008 12:56 AM

Kurt K: TRY to expand your thinking. (I know this is hard for you.) Although the groups I mentioned may not have specific organ-donation places, my point in mentioning them was that people naturally tend to first help those most similar to them. There are many law firms in NV that are staffed primarily by mormons. There are scholarship funds set up by certain groups to benefit other members of those groups. Unless you want to cry about that, as well (need a tissue??) I don't see the validity of your argument.

Posted by: Antigone1000 | November 20, 2008 10:07 AM

There is a big difference b/t scholarships and organ donations. If you don't get a scholarship you will still live, however you will surely die without certain organs.
Again, Catholics may associate with Catholics because of the similar beliefs, but we do not, repeat, do not distinguish between people based on beliefs when life is on the line.
As for broadening my thinking, you should be the one to talk. You are walking such a narrow path in life that it is pathetic. You will only associate with people who are vegan and I'm the one who is narrow minded.

Posted by: Kurt K | November 20, 2008 04:28 PM

Kurt
Would you criticize a person, who, because of a belief that there should be unnecessry interference with a dead body and a requirement for immediate burial of a complete body, chose to donate her organs TO NOBODY?
Or a Catholic who, in agreement with the church's recognition of ind'l choice, chose to donate them TO NOBODY?
Or do you save all your criticism for Antigone because she includes the impact on animals in her choice to donate TO SOMEBODY?
I suspect the latter, your antipathy to Antigone and Animal Rights is clear. In your world, only human life is sacred. And yes, your world is narrow indeed.

Posted by: lynda downie | November 20, 2008 11:12 PM

Kurt K: I am really beginning to think you are just stupid because you are completely missing the point that NO ONE is getting my organs as of right now. With my idea, at least someone might benefit. You do realize there is no requirement that organs be donated??? By your argument, every non-donor is causing a death. Well, if you feel that strongly about it, you've got your cut out for you because plenty of people are not donors. Go seek them out and tell them what horrible people they are and how they are depriving someone else of life. While you are at it, try to grow up a little.

Posted by: Antigone1000 | November 21, 2008 12:26 AM

I think is worth it to pursue having insurance companies give vegetarians lower health insurance premiums. Many legal issues would have to be worked out such as how can someone prove he/she is a vegetarian, for how long, etc, etc. I'm for it. I've been vegetarian for only 2 years and my cholesterol went down, my digestion improved, I don't have a big belly any longer, overall I feel 100% better, plus I don't want to contribute to the torturing and suffering of animals.

Posted by: MARIA BRUMBACH | November 21, 2008 09:02 AM

Antigone,

Maybe you, as one who preaches respect for all lifeforms, can grow up enough to have conversation with adults without pulling out the potty names? Is that too hard for you? Or will you find some excuse about how we are all abusers and deserve to be called that? Or it's freedom of speech? Well hey ho, I could say the N word and that's freedom of speech, but I don't do so because I have respect for all others whose lifestyles are within the law.

Posted by: Maria | November 21, 2008 05:34 PM

The idea of having lover insurance premiums makes sense, or even having a specific insurance provider for vegos and vegans :) As for how to tell whether someone is actually vego or vegan i guess they would tell the same way that they tell if someone is a smoker.
However the idea of only donating organs to non-meat eaters is absurd. Do you wish to cause harm and suffering to meat eating animals? I assume not.

Posted by: Jessica | November 21, 2008 10:46 PM

Brilliant idea! I just had to help a friend fill out a health assessment form for medical insurance that asked a lot of questions about personal habits like exercise and smoking. Smokers were required to pay a higher premium. If they can charge more for smokers, they can charge less for people who follow a vegetarian (i.e., healthier) diet.

Posted by: B West | November 22, 2008 08:02 PM

Maria: I'm sorry--what horrible name did I use that so offended your sensibilities??? It makes me laugh that people on here complain about names when you consider the atrocities we are discussing. If you are offended, too bad. I speak up for the animals only--if it bothers you at all, I really do not care.

Posted by: Antigone1000 | November 24, 2008 10:20 AM

Antigone,

I agree that many terrible abuses are committed upon animals, and that is why I support animal welfare; I hope I can help lessen the suffering of animals by doing so. So I don't think we have much to disagree on that.

But I don't agree with the concept of restricting your organs to a certain group of people. Hey, I'm just disagreeing, I'm not out to get you or scare you, sweetheart. So you don't need to talk like a six-year-old. I'm quite a bit older than that, I'm not sure how "oh yeah? Well, I don't like you Kurt! You're a loser! Grow up! I hate you! I don't like meat eaters! They're lunatics!" really gets your point across.

Just because animals are abused doesn't mean you need to pull out names. I don't think acting immature benefits your animals. Actually, why don't you tell me how it does?

Posted by: Maria | November 24, 2008 06:59 PM

Maria said: '...I have respect for all others whose lifestyles are within the law.'
How about including Antigone in that group of others. That'd show the sincerity of your statement. Thank you.

Posted by: lynda downie | November 25, 2008 12:18 AM

Lynda,

I never said I did not respect Antigone, did I? Re-read my statements before you open your mouth again, please. I respect Antigone and she is free to say her opinions, but I an free to disagree if I want. Respecting and disagreeing are two different things. However, Antigone has said repeatedly that she does not respect other people, namely omnivores, in a terrible way, so perhaps you should be calling poo poo on her, if fairness is part of your ideology. She can be insulting all she wants, it is clear I'm not going to be able to stop that kind of immaturity, but she isn't earning any credibility points from grown-ups, vegan and non vegan alike.

Posted by: Maria | November 25, 2008 06:53 PM

Maria: I don't believe I used any of the phrases you attributed to me, except taht I did tell Kurt to grow up, so please refer to my specific posts for the other comments. I did refer to him as stupid, but that's a perfectly legitimate adjective and completely appropriate to his nonsensical arguments.

As for what does and doesn't benefit animals, as an animal welfarist, you couldn't possibly have a clue.

Posted by: Antigone1000 | November 25, 2008 07:40 PM

This is an interesting debate. While I am not a vegan or PETA supporter, I do support good health, healthy choices, eating right and paying your own way. While it is probably feasible to discriminate between meat eaters and those who don't, there are legimate ways to promote good health and have it reflected on your insurance premium. It's called a Health Risk Assessment. The one I am most familiar with is HealthCheck360 (healthchcheck360.com) By taking biometric measurements and a full blood panel, a persons health can be benchmarked and monitored. Those who stay healthy or improve are rewarded. I find the results and explanation I get from the annual healthcheck360 test administered by my employer is beter than that which I get from my doctor. It also puts you on stronger more educated footing to have a real discussion with your doctor about health (using your healthcheck360 report)

Posted by: Jim | December 3, 2008 07:58 PM