Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News The cost of stress

  1. May 28, 2009 #1

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    http://www.webmd.com/balance/guide/effects-of-stress-on-your-body

    Given that we tax alcohol, tobacco, and now even fat, based on the logic that the use of these products have a financial cost to society, it is interesting to note that stress is probably the single greatest cause of health problems, after genetics and aging.

    Do insurance companies have the right to test for stress hormones and adjust insurance rates accordingly? Also, is it possible to somehow tax people who choose highly stressful lifestyles, or who engage in highly stressful activities?

    Can an insurance company identify a person as a Type A personality, and charge for it?

    Edit: Tobacco :rolleyes:
     
    Last edited: May 29, 2009
  2. jcsd
  3. May 28, 2009 #2
    I think they should charge everyone specifically to whichever group they fit into. That way those of us who aren't the big drains on the system get better deals. Why should those who are typically healthier carry those who typically aren't?
     
  4. May 29, 2009 #3

    neu

    User Avatar

    Yeah, why should anyone give a **** about anyone else?
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 29, 2009
  5. May 29, 2009 #4

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    What does caring about people have to do with it?
     
  6. May 29, 2009 #5

    LowlyPion

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    In related news:
    http://rawstory.com/08/afp/2009/05/29/us-army-base-shuts-down-after-rise-in-suicides/ [Broken]
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 4, 2017
  7. May 29, 2009 #6
    I don't think stress is exactly comes under the same category as "alcohol, tobacco, and now even fat" because stress can be an effect of productive work but other things are not related to productivity
     
  8. May 29, 2009 #7
    It's my opinion that stress itself is not the issue. It's how it is dealt with. A high stress life is required to accomplish great things. If you deal with the stress with regular exercise and a decent diet, some form of psychological support (friends, sports, therapy, etc.) I think one can do fine. But if it's dealt with excessive smoking, eating, drugs, alcohol, and other destructive practices, one tends to develop health problems.
     
  9. May 29, 2009 #8
    But, LOL, I'm hardly one to talk.
     
  10. May 29, 2009 #9

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Presumably, productive work already yields financial benefits. So the person has been rewarded for that. But the cost to society from stress due to overwork, for example, still exists [to the tune of one bailout a year, apparently]. There is also the genetic component, which I assume exists at some level. I don't see how charging or taxing for this is any different than taxing people's addictions, or charging more for insurance based on one's health history, age, demographic, etc.

    Also, lifestyle choices are surely a significant factor in determining one's stress levels. A few simple tests might be, the number of hours that one works each week, the number of hours one spends in traffic each week, or even one's debt to income ratio. There must be quantitative methods for determining stress levels. Perhaps a blood test would tell as much as anything? Are stress hormones a reliable indicator? [I have only heard these being referenced. I don't know anything about it]
     
    Last edited: May 29, 2009
  11. May 29, 2009 #10
    Too much stress=Not enough sex
     
  12. May 29, 2009 #11

    1. I am assuming that personal returns are also the returns to the society.
    2. Putting tax would deter people from choosing stressful lives styles so employers would have to pay more or there would be less output from those areas (which is not desirable). This makes me wonder if there would be any difference. Looking from economics perspective, I don't think taxing people with stressful lives would solve the problem.

    One better approach I see is to educate employers about the stress harms and I am sure most know the harms and try to prevent them by providing facilities like gyms/others to its employees.
    e.g.
     
    Last edited: May 29, 2009
  13. May 29, 2009 #12
    I have heard some criticism over referencing combat and multiple tours as a cause of the hiked suicide rate. Specifically the reference in regards to the man at camp Victory who shot several people. He was an engineer, not on combat duty. Soldiers deal with alot of sources of stress being away from home and financial issues that they have little to no control over (being overseas) are just as likely contributing factors. Its quite possible that the same factors being attributed to currently high suicide rates in america in general could account for much of this.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 4, 2017
  14. May 30, 2009 #13

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Perhaps...maybe, maybe not. He might be a crooked used-car saleman. Making a personal profit is no guarantee that one is benefitting society, beyond paying taxes. The tobacco companies make a profit, pay taxes, and create jobs, but I don't hear anyone defending the tobacco industry.

    At 300 billion dollars a year in existing workplace losses, I think it could easily be justified - that is about $1000 a year for every US citizen. For that matter, if there was less stress, we would probably see a reduction in other problems like drinking, smoking, and drug use. Also, as indicated above, 75 to 90% of all doctor's office visits are for stress-related ailments and complaints. Surely this translates into missed work days, reduced productivity, and even unpaid time off for people on very tight budgets. Finally, either punitive taxation works, or not. Part of the rationale for other taxes is that punitive taxes work.

    You are assuming that all stress is the result of productive behavior. It is not. It may result from anything from overspending, to cheating on one's wife, to cheating on one's taxes, and perhaps even genetics [Insurance companies charge other people for diseases related to genetics, I don't see why this would be any different].
     
    Last edited: May 30, 2009
  15. May 30, 2009 #14

    neu

    User Avatar

    What does caring about people have to do with the policy of the health system? I that the question you're asking?

    If you're trying to be clever it's happening the opposite effect
     
  16. May 30, 2009 #15

    cristo

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    In the world of health insurance, if you start charging people more if they find it harder to deal with "stress" (however you wish to define that), then isn't that tantamount to discrimination? After all, to some extent you cannot change your personality.
     
  17. May 30, 2009 #16
    There are already many ways in which insurance companies 'descriminate'. I'm not too familiar with medical insurance but I know car insurance companies charge differently depending on your sex, age, the area you live in, ect. Oddly enough the only variable that I know of that is actively being pursued as illegal descrimination is 'where you live'. Even though if you live in certain areas you are statistically more likely to get in a car accident it is considered racist to descriminate based upon where one lives since you are less likely to get in an accident in nicer (whiter) neighbourhoods and more likely to get in an accident in poorer (darker) neighbourhoods.
     
  18. May 30, 2009 #17

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Yes, that is what I am asking. It is entirely consistent with existing laws. Do you see any special considerations for people with diabetes, for example? How is charging more for insurance for this any different than charging more for people who live stressful lives?
     
    Last edited: May 30, 2009
  19. May 30, 2009 #18

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Again, I don't see that it is any different than existing laws and policies. Many people suffer from diseases that are genetically acquired, like diabetes, and they pay more for their insurance IF they can even afford to get any.

    The standard is that we charge people for their lifestyle choices, as well as genetics and bad luck for that matter.
     
  20. May 30, 2009 #19

    cristo

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    Yes, I suppose that's true. Of course, you could have a nationalised health system which doesn't (to the same extent) discriminate like that. I guess that's a different topic of discussion, though.
     
  21. May 30, 2009 #20

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Or, maybe it is entirely relevant to this discussion. As you probably know, Obama wants to revamp health care. But there is also the issue of taxation for lifestyle choices. For example, smokers pay more for auto insurance, health insurance, and they pay additional taxes for the product they buy.

    Given that some people who have suffered severe health problems from smoking can be found smoking through their trache tube, I'm not even convinced that smoking is a choice in all cases.
     
    Last edited: May 30, 2009
  22. May 30, 2009 #21
    Yes, it is discrimination. Not all discrimination is bad, as if the word itself poisons anything it refers to.

    I don't know that insurance companies will ever get into personality profiles. I don't see that as helping them. They are typically interested in prevention to keep the final bill down and offering better rates if you don't participate in high risk activities. If you play you pay.
     
  23. May 30, 2009 #22
    http://www.cvshealthresources.com/topic/africanstress [Broken]

    I believe that African Americans are significantly more likely to suffer from stress related health problems (what ever the reason) and so any attempt to charge based on stress will likely be challenged as racist. Not that I think that is any more right than charging based on stress indicators to begin with.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 4, 2017
  24. May 30, 2009 #23

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Wouldn't that be true of tobacco and alcohol use as well? Beyond a doubt, alcohol and tobacco taxes hit the poor the hardest.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 4, 2017
  25. May 30, 2009 #24

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Either way you look at it, cost is based on risk. I am only following the existing logic and pointing at the elephant in the room. As I said earlier, stress is probably the single greatest cause of health problems, after genetics and aging. If the system is going to be based on risk, then stress should be the number one consideration - even before activities like smoking and drinking.
     
  26. May 30, 2009 #25
    It goes back to my earlier post. Car insurance companies discriminate based on age which is theoretically illegal except that they discriminate 'against' younger people as opposed to older people and younger people do not have the lobby to protect them that older people do. They discriminate based on sex but 'against' males as opposed to females and males do not have a protective lobby. They discriminate based on where you live which on the surface seems fine and does not actually target a protected demographic except that blacks and hispanics are the ones prodominantly effected and they have quite a lobby so they can fight it even though they are not directly targeted.

    Smoking and drinking impact all demographics. They may effect minorities more so but I think any one would be hard pressed to show discriminatory levels of disproportion in statistics for medical purposes. They are also choices and while one can theoretically choose where one lives it is a choice with far less freedom than whether or not one smokes or drinks. Aswell the lobbies have finite resources and choose to focus their efforts on the tobacco and alcohol companies due to their targeted marketing startegies. I would not be suprised though to find out that there are lobbyists trying to hit medical insurance companies with discrimination over the issue. Its probably just a much smaller effort and in the realm of medical insurance they probably have their hands full just trying to making sure they have insurance to begin with.

    Stress is certainly a multi-demographic issue aswell. The thing is that rich folk in high stress jobs probably pay for premium insurance to begin with and wouldn't even notice much if their payments were a bit higher, just as they probably have premium car insurance would not likely notice a difference there either. The pressure would come from poorer people who work in warehouses and such places where there is high stress and less income and they are less likely to be able to afford medical insurance to begin with. And then there are the union jobs and the unions have quite a voice.

    Medical insurance providers instituting such a policy would suffer great political backlash and I'm sure they know it.
     
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook