[Tee]

First off, I am an ex smoker who still sneaks a puff from time to time when around other smokers. I agree with smokers right to smoke and in establishments owners have delegated as smoking allowed.

I do think it is appropriate for insurance companies to charge me more on my homeowners insurance if I have a wood burning stove in my home. I would understand why they would charge me more for insuring a semi-truck than for my Volkswagen beetle. It is obvious why a 90 yr old person pays more for life insurance. It's all about risk. Shouldn't they be able to charge more to those in a higher risk group. I realize it is a taboo subject that can be taken too far. For example, would gays pay higher rates because of aids? Would catholics pay higher rates because they don't believe in birth control, therefore they may have more children? Would blacks pay a rate hike because of a higher tendency to die of a violent crime? At what point would we start testing children or adults for the presence of a fat gene or diabetes gene in order to evaluate risk? It's definitely a Pandora's box, but then again, if you are a person who is very health conscience and you work out and stay fit and don't drink or smoke, shouldn't you have the benefit of lower rates due to your lower health risk? Automobile owners enjoy the same benefit from safe driving classes or clean records.... It's a tough call. How do you balance unfair profiling with fair risk assessment?

Is it fair for the employer to pass on the higher rates for those who elect to engage in risky behavoir? I can't answer that, because where do you stop? What about people who play sports or like to skydive on the weekends? I don't proclaim to have the answer.