I’m feeling a little blog-verklempt. You’ll have to give me a few days.
Talk amongst yourselves. I’ll give you a topic: injury-prone distance runners, insurance companies and couch potatoes.
“Jennifer Frighetto is not a marathoner, but it is not for lack of trying. Had she crossed the finish line at this year’s race in Chicago, it would have been her first successful attempt at the 26.2-mile distance. But just as at the 2008 and 2009 Chicago Marathons, Frighetto was unable to finish because of injury.” (“Distance Runners Are a Paradox for Insurers,” The New York Times, Erin Beresini, 10/24/2010)
Read the entire New York Times article HERE.
Discuss.
PS: Thanks for Maria at Banana Blossom Press for sharing the link on Facebook.
13 comments
all I really have iswow.WOWWOW!Well I have a lot more than that but that's all that is suitable for writing.
I read this article last night. Health care is obviously very different here in Canada, but I was a little shocked…
It's shocking when you look at health insurance from a business model perspective… it's a wonder anyone with the slightest issue gets insurance. I'd have to think that the benefits of running and the low expense for treatment of common running issues outweigh the downside of choosing to not be active at all.All around I've been very happy with our health system here in Canada, especially over the last few years when I've had cause to rely on it personally and through family members.
Hmm, interesting article. Running injuries are cheaper and usually 1 or 2 time things. Obesity related illnesses are chronic, far more costly and often 1 thing leads to another.Running related injuries are typically bc of overuse and over training and more times than not, running injuries are highly preventable. Injuries dont have to be part of running and often times the body will give an “i'm getting close to injury, please stop” warning that runners all to often ignore or overlook. Some running injuries are very stupid and ARE to be expected(ie, i've been running for 1 month total and i tried to run 20 miles) and yes, many are preventable. Most accidents are very stupid and prevenatble too, those r all covered. I can see where the people in the article are trying to come from,but no. Its about THE LIFESTYLE. With the running comes the healthy eating etc etc. I have an idea, let's all build bubbles and live inside and never take risks, get sick or have fun so that way we can keep our insurance companies happy.
I feel like there should be lifestyle tiers for insurance. For example: Active Adult, Average Adult, Smoking Adult, etc. I know of insurance companies who charge more for smokers, why couldn't they charge less for runner/people who exercise 3x a week?
Well coming from someone who is never sick (knocks on wood) I have been to the doctor many times in the last year as a result of running injuries. Tendonitis, PT, broken/sprained ankle, PT, xrays, etc.If you are a smoker you pay more for life ins. Seems to be a one way street…right to the insurance companies' bank accounts.
Insurance companies would just love to insure 100% healthy people who don't move out of their houses because they might get injured in car accidents, tripping or by a falling tree branch.
Some of those comments on that story irritated me more than the actual story itself. Grr…
I read this article last night and it really got me thinking. I'm glad that you posted this. I've been dealing with health insurance issues lately, so this article really hit home. When I applied for health insurance, I had to provide all kinds of information about my medical history – basically anything that could and ever has gone wrong – but I didn't have to provide information about the aspects of my life that could improve my health or that might be indicators of good health. There is something to the idea that being active causes injuries, but I don't think that a few trips to a PT, for example, really increases the big picture cost of medical care. I would guess that insurance companies' costs from chronic illnesses are much greater.
Hmm…interesting article and not something I'd thought of but can see the point. Coming from someone who will virtually never go to a doctor and isn't injury prone, I still say runners are going to be healthier overall. I think in many cases injuries are isolated cases and certainly less issues than you will see with your typical couch potato.
Hmm…interesting article and not something I'd thought of but can see the point. Coming from someone who will virtually never go to a doctor and isn't injury prone, I still say runners are going to be healthier overall. I think in many cases injuries are isolated cases and certainly less issues than you will see with your typical couch potato.
Interesting article. I've been hurt more – my feet and my knee – but I'm in such better shape it doesn't compare. I'd rather deal with a bum foot than poor health due to inactivity. Oh, and I like your tier idea. Winks & Smiles,Wifey
Being a runner is still better compared to a couch potato. Problems start to appear when it comes to insurance. Ruling on insurance cases differ from one country to another but the fact that a runner is healthier compared to someone who is a couch potato can't be ignored. Insurance companies must balance their views based on this premise. Speaking of insurance, my sister got a fair coverage in one of the best life insurance Indianapolis-based company. I must say, she have been planning to have a life insurance. Indianapolis, Indiana is the place where she wants to spend the rest of her life with family and friends, so having a life insurance coverage is essential.