Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.

Do you think obese/overweight people should pay more for health insurance?

1535456585975

Replies

  • wmd1979
    wmd1979 Posts: 469 Member
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    Yes, obesity greatly increases the risk of developing a wide range of expensive diseases. It's fair that overweight/obese people pay more. Smokers pay more for the same reason. This is no different.

    This is not true smokers pay the same. I know my dad was a heavy smoker his plan is actually cheaper than mine. It really comes down to the carrier you are always paying for others.

    This is most definitely not true across the board. There is a 50$ charge per pay period for smokers under my employers plan and I know that this is starting to become the norm across most plans nowadays. Just because your father's plan was cheaper than yours, that doesn't mean that smokers aren't paying more in general for their premiums, because they most certainly are.
  • Packerjohn
    Packerjohn Posts: 4,855 Member
    edited March 2018
    blinxmarps wrote: »
    should alcoholics pay more for alcohol, should drivers pay more for road tax, should daily commuters pay more for travel. List goes on and on and I see no difference between obese and many other issues so no they should not pay more.

    Look at the amount of taxes on alcohol (which are paid by anyone buying alcohol, not just alcoholics) and the taxes on a gallon of gas (needed by commuters). In both those case, the consumers that use more of the items pay more than those who use less.

    Going by your logic, you are saying the obese should pay more for insurance.
  • kristingjertsen
    kristingjertsen Posts: 239 Member
    Our insurance company has a $500 surcharge per adult family member if we fail to get an annual wellness assessment (waist circumference, weight, cholesterol level). Company offers incentives to encourage wellness--online health information, nurse practitioner may call to discuss support services for chronic conditions like asthma or diabetes, access to weight loss services, or mental health services. From my personal experience and years of watching friends and family deal with health issues, obesity, etc., you can't light a fire under someone to get healthy. People work to improve their health when they realize that they absolutely must (or, as my brilliant mother says, "People choose to change when the consequences of not changing become too painful to live with."). I have family members who are morbidly obese and they are very aware that they are obese--from the painful embarrassment of having chairs collapse beneath them, cramming into airline seats and having to ask for a belt extender (and seeing the disgusted looks of their seatmates who aren't thrilled to lose 1/3 of their seat to someone else's bulk), rubbing holes in their pants and splitting the seams of their trousers, and dealing with chronic digestive issues like heartburn because of excess eating. I don't think a surcharge would be an incentive for change--just another humiliation on top of many others.
  • Packerjohn
    Packerjohn Posts: 4,855 Member
    Our insurance company has a $500 surcharge per adult family member if we fail to get an annual wellness assessment (waist circumference, weight, cholesterol level). Company offers incentives to encourage wellness--online health information, nurse practitioner may call to discuss support services for chronic conditions like asthma or diabetes, access to weight loss services, or mental health services. From my personal experience and years of watching friends and family deal with health issues, obesity, etc., you can't light a fire under someone to get healthy. People work to improve their health when they realize that they absolutely must (or, as my brilliant mother says, "People choose to change when the consequences of not changing become too painful to live with."). I have family members who are morbidly obese and they are very aware that they are obese--from the painful embarrassment of having chairs collapse beneath them, cramming into airline seats and having to ask for a belt extender (and seeing the disgusted looks of their seatmates who aren't thrilled to lose 1/3 of their seat to someone else's bulk), rubbing holes in their pants and splitting the seams of their trousers, and dealing with chronic digestive issues like heartburn because of excess eating. I don't think a surcharge would be an incentive for change--just another humiliation on top of many others.

    But it would at least help pay for the medical consequences of those who choose to do nothing about their weight.
  • cc102296
    cc102296 Posts: 57 Member
    im 21 and i pay A LOT more for car insurance. So definitely YES, smokers, drinkers, overweight and obese people should pay a lot more than non obese people do.
    but also, i feel as if you can run a mile in a certain time, lift a certain amount of weight, and show youre in good shape you should get charged less.

    but then again, i dont know anything about anything lol
  • k8andchr1smom
    k8andchr1smom Posts: 72 Member
    _emma_78 wrote: »
    One of the cons is that employers could say they don't want to hire people based on weight because of health insurance costs. Many employers do this with smokers already though.

    I don't think that's a con at all.

    My employer doesn't hire smokers.
    They also have a surcharge on insurance premiums to any "grandfathered" smokers that were employees prior to this policy being enacted.

    With the % of Americans that are considered obese the backlash would be far and wide (is that a pun...no offense).

    I see how this could be construed as a "surcharge" or penalty against employees that are obese. I think the litigation that followed directly after (and likely prior too) would vastly outweigh any cost savings benefits of an "obesity surcharge" on the premiums. When looking at the number of Americans that are obese...It's a pretty big hornets nest to kick and expect little repercussions.

    nla5d4fxxb5u.jpg

    Lol yeah they do its easy to lie about not smoking. Vapes make it impossible to control since smell no longer a factor. This is just a nonsense policy that makes people feel good and wastes resources. Nanny state indeed. I laugh at people who don't want the government in their business, but then are okay with companies and governments telling you what to do outside of nonworking hours. It's still a nanny state just with companies. Welcome to your government.

    Former smoker--they blood test us at our company when they do our cholesterol and blood sugar annually and we do/did pay more
  • wmd1979
    wmd1979 Posts: 469 Member
    Our insurance company has a $500 surcharge per adult family member if we fail to get an annual wellness assessment (waist circumference, weight, cholesterol level). Company offers incentives to encourage wellness--online health information, nurse practitioner may call to discuss support services for chronic conditions like asthma or diabetes, access to weight loss services, or mental health services. From my personal experience and years of watching friends and family deal with health issues, obesity, etc., you can't light a fire under someone to get healthy. People work to improve their health when they realize that they absolutely must (or, as my brilliant mother says, "People choose to change when the consequences of not changing become too painful to live with."). I have family members who are morbidly obese and they are very aware that they are obese--from the painful embarrassment of having chairs collapse beneath them, cramming into airline seats and having to ask for a belt extender (and seeing the disgusted looks of their seatmates who aren't thrilled to lose 1/3 of their seat to someone else's bulk), rubbing holes in their pants and splitting the seams of their trousers, and dealing with chronic digestive issues like heartburn because of excess eating. I don't think a surcharge would be an incentive for change--just another humiliation on top of many others.

    Is someone who is paying the same amount for a seat as the person next to them supposed to just be happy about the fact that they are having to forfeit 1/3 of their seat because their neighbor is obese? I would think that all of the humiliation that you have listed would provide enough incentive to want to change. The extra surcharge is not to add humiliation, but rather because an obese person's health care costs are on average far higher than a person of normal weight. If you take a third of another person's seat, you should have to pay for that extra third. The same logic can definitely be applied to health care costs as well.
  • amusedmonkey
    amusedmonkey Posts: 10,330 Member
    Do you think night shift workers should pay more for health insurance?
  • sommerrosee2
    sommerrosee2 Posts: 31 Member
    _emma_78 wrote: »
    My mom and I were discussing this today and I thought it would be a great topic for this forum, especially with all the politics surrounding health care these days.

    So do you think people who are overweight and/or obese should have to pay more?

    Do you think this would be a deterrent to gaining weight for people that are not in this category?

    Should people with medications/medical conditions that cause weight gain be exempt?

    I know that with obamacare/ACA there are wellness programs available, do you think these are all that helpful if you've been to one?

    this to me goes along the same lines of them wanting to charge more/make it possible for health insurance companies to turn away people who are chronically ill. I gained a lot of weight because of my illness, so this means that because of something that is entirely out of my control, i am being punished? i realize that you asked if people on medication/illnesses should be exempt, however to me it is really all the same. i do also understand entirely that people who are obese end up causing their own health issues 90% of the time. i do think that there should be way more of a push to find people help. while there are people who just eat their life away, there are also people who do not have control over it via mental illness, etc. Instead of screwing everyone over like they already do, why not actually try to put something together that is worth their time? Now, this is a very dumb question and all too hopeful because all of us know that they don't care about anyone, and really at the end of the day all that is cared about is how much money they take home. But still, it would be nice to see something change.
  • sommerrosee2
    sommerrosee2 Posts: 31 Member
    This is already in place for our insurance. Smokers pay more as well, and staring next year those with bad blood work numbers will also pay more. We'll pay higher premiums for my husband with the new rule next year and I don't have a problem with that-he's a higher risk for needing costly medical care. Getting an insurance policy through the company is optional so if someone doesn't agree with these policies they don't need to participate.

    edit: grammar

    yes and no. for example, i am chronically ill and because of this, my insurance will now go through the roof. For something that is entirely out of my control. Now yes, taking health insurance through work is a choice, but do you really have much of a choice when your only other option is to be covered through the state? and there is absolutely no assistance offered with anything because you make just over the allowed salary? now, i am not talking about a full ride here. but why is it fair that i am stuck paying hundreds and hundreds of dollars in medical bills, tests and prescriptions when health insurance is supposed to help with that? as an example, my mom has RA. now, she makes just about the same amount every year as i do, and because of that she has to pay 100% out of pocket for chemo infusions as this is the only thing left out there that actually helps. How do you think people can actually be ok with that?
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    edited March 2018
    I do not think that anyone should pay more for health insurance. That's kind of a rotten way of thinking.

    Not if it's insurance. (I personally think insurance should not be the primary way we finance health care in the US.)

    Do you feel this way about people paying different prices for home owner's insurance or car insurance?

    Should a family with 5 children pay more than a single person or couple?

    Even if health care or health "insurance" is all tax funded, people will pay different prices.
  • JMcGee2018
    JMcGee2018 Posts: 275 Member
    wmd1979 wrote: »
    Gisel2015 wrote: »
    JMcGee2018 wrote: »
    hud54014 wrote: »
    Assigning premiums based on lifestyle choices that can change at any time for any reason sounds like a pretty big overhead expense to me... and overhead costs are ultimately absorbed by consumers anyway. Sounds like a waste of time and money, but what do I know...

    I think a mandatory yearly physical should be put in place, and at that time the doctor can calculate your BMI, which you would then submit as part of your taxes in return for a tax credit if you are in a healthy BMI range or no tax credit (or at least a reduced tax credit) if you are in an unhealthy range.

    Wishful thinking. The government in the US is limiting tax credits and tax deductions and do you think that Congress will change the tax code again to accommodate for incentives for a healthy BMI? I think NOT!

    Besides, we all know that BMI is a relative measure of fitness. A very fit person doing a lot of exercise and developing a nice muscular physic will weigh more and have a higher BMI that somebody leaner but probably not so healthy. So the ripped guy will pay more while the not so healthy one will be rewarded with a tax refund, credit or what ever? Not a good idea.

    I am not advocating for a BMI-based tax credit system, but it's likely that the very fit person who has developed a muscular physique and the leaner person who is not so healthy will both fall into the healthy BMI range. BMI being thrown off my muscle is only an issue for more serious bodybuilders, not people who are just fit and developing muscle.

    I understand the point that you are trying to make, but I don't believe the bolded is accurate. I am 6'2" 196lbs right now and I would fall into the overweight category(barely) and I am not a bodybuilder. When I bulk though I easily top 200lbs(still within 10-12% bodyfat) which puts me squarely into the overweight category. I understand I am an outlier, but I also don't believe that someone needs to be a bodybuilder or an elite athlete to fall outside of the normal range for BMI.

    The new BMI does a better job of accounting for taller people and might solve your problem. But this is why my proposition was not that overweight people are penalized through taxes, just that they don't receive a tax credit, just like people who don't have kids don't receive a tax credit. It isn't a punishment.
  • fionawilliamson
    fionawilliamson Posts: 110 Member
    Wow interesting question. I can see both sides, but to be honest I agree with what others are saying, if we start down that road where will it end. Often there is just as much 'research' stating there are no risks and there are risks if you are overweight; don't get 8 hours sleep; drink coffee; etc. So what would they base the additional cost on. But wait what am I saying, insurance companies can set any rules they want.
    I did find the comment interesting that a company will not hire smokers and grandfathered existing employees that smoke. I assume this is in the US, I have never heard of this happening in Canada. In fact I would think employers aren't allowed to ask potential employees if they smoke or not or what they smoke :)
  • Packerjohn
    Packerjohn Posts: 4,855 Member
    edited March 2018
    I don't see why ANYBODY has to pay a dime for healthcare to begin with, but that's a different discussion, I suppose.

    I assume you're talking about some sort of government paid plan, which BTW, you will pay for. Judging from your picture (younger female), unless you're destitute, you will be paying more than you are now. Also, I wouldn't bet my house, but pretty close. Any government funded program will have somewhat punitive taxes on whatever is considered junk food at the time. Both to raise revenue and the perception at least to keep costs down by "encouraging" people to limit those items.
  • Motorsheen
    Motorsheen Posts: 20,493 Member
    I don't see why ANYBODY has to pay a dime for healthcare to begin with, but that's a different discussion, I suppose.

    Probably because it's a commodity (like it or not), and not a right.