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?
Options
Replies
-
paultireland wrote: »3. The ACA was great, but it didn't work in states where they have Republican governors where they don't want it to work... like Minnesota. It worked very well in states where governors wanted it to work, like California.
I've found it wise to check on facts before making assertations in public. It saves me a great deal of embarassment.
Mark Dayton has been our governor for several years now (since 2011). Last I checked, he was a Democrat, and pro-ACA. The ACA changes have been implemented under both Democrat and Republican majorities in the state legislature.
Mark Dayton very much wanted the ACA to work. The Democrat-headed Department of Health and Human Services is still touting it as a widespread success in this state, mostly on the Medicaid expansion. However, the 50%+ premium increase from 2016-2017, and the widespread abandonment of the individual market by insurers, led even Governor Dayton to say "the Affordable Care Act is no longer affordable" in October 2016.
3 -
Alatariel75 wrote: »... I'm so glad I live in Australia.
I know right, fascinating conversation to witness for an outsider, definitely a cautionary tale though as insurance industry, and private healthcare lobbyists do want this private profit making model everywhere and a population that will argue for it.2 -
animatorswearbras wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »... I'm so glad I live in Australia.
I know right, fascinating conversation to witness for an outsider, definitely a cautionary tale though as insurance industry, and private healthcare lobbyists do want this private profit making model everywhere and a population that will argue for it.
Everyone throws around profit like it's a dirty word. Yet many insurance companies in the USA (including the one that I'm getting my insurance from, and all , by law in my state for a VERY LONG TIME, are not-for-profit.2 -
animatorswearbras wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »... I'm so glad I live in Australia.
I know right, fascinating conversation to witness for an outsider, definitely a cautionary tale though as insurance industry, and private healthcare lobbyists do want this private profit making model everywhere and a population that will argue for it.
Everyone throws around profit like it's a dirty word. Yet many insurance companies in the USA (including the one that I'm getting my insurance from, and all , by law in my state for a VERY LONG TIME, are not-for-profit.
I did have a quick look at none profits and it doesn't take into account salaries of the executives when considering if its a not for profit or not. Listen I don't consider profit a dirty word only what you profit from, a free market cannot exist where someone is forced by need to use a life and death service like any other emergency service. Also the ACA which was mentioned earlier isn't an example of single payer, not even close. Medicaid's the closest thing you have from what I can glean.3 -
paultireland wrote: »1. Nobody should have to pay more for insurance than someone else. The whole concept of insurance is that those who are the least sick pay to help make up the difference for those who are the most sick. Nobody should ever be turned down or charged more for pre-existing conditions and nobody should ever have to choose between their life or the life of their loved ones and their home or business.
The concept of insurance is to pool the risks of those in similar risk categories and charge them appropriately based on that risk. I'm going to assume you are a good driver. Do you think you pay the same for your car insurance as someone with 2 DUIs and 7-8 speeding tickets in the last 5 years? Spoiler alert, you don't.
If you think the annual payment for medical care should be the same for everyone regardless of their situation, that's one thing, that involves subsidizing those that have issues. Not true insurance.3 -
animatorswearbras wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »... I'm so glad I live in Australia.
I know right, fascinating conversation to witness for an outsider, definitely a cautionary tale though as insurance industry, and private healthcare lobbyists do want this private profit making model everywhere and a population that will argue for it.
Everyone throws around profit like it's a dirty word. Yet many insurance companies in the USA (including the one that I'm getting my insurance from, and all , by law in my state for a VERY LONG TIME, are not-for-profit.
Except not-for-profit doesn't mean that they can't take excess money (profit) and plow it back into salaries and bonuses for their principals. Which they do.
http://www.fiercehealthcare.com/payer/health-insurance-ceo-pay-at-big-five-tops-out-at-17-3m-2015
3 -
paultireland wrote: »3. The ACA was great, but it didn't work in states where they have Republican governors where they don't want it to work... like Minnesota. It worked very well in states where governors wanted it to work, like California.
I've found it wise to check on facts before making assertations in public. It saves me a great deal of embarassment.
Mark Dayton has been our governor for several years now (since 2011). Last I checked, he was a Democrat, and pro-ACA. The ACA changes have been implemented under both Democrat and Republican majorities in the state legislature.
Mark Dayton very much wanted the ACA to work. The Democrat-headed Department of Health and Human Services is still touting it as a widespread success in this state, mostly on the Medicaid expansion. However, the 50%+ premium increase from 2016-2017, and the widespread abandonment of the individual market by insurers, led even Governor Dayton to say "the Affordable Care Act is no longer affordable" in October 2016.
PA's governor is also a Democrat who supports the ACA and expanded Medicaid in the commonwealth.
The ACA here? Giant failure. Insurance companies have pulled out of the exchanges because the people signing up aren't actually paying their premiums. Aetna was the latest to go, abandoning the PA marketplace at the end of 2016.4 -
On the idea where ACA fails in states with Republican governor's, correct me if I'm wrong, but the only aspect where state governments have any impact is Medicaid expansion and I assume state insurance boards still approve changes to rates in policies, but that existed pre ACA.0
-
Yes, they do so in Japan and it works there.
The national obesity rate is something like 5% - including sumo wrestlers.
In Japan you get a yearly checkup and pay a tax if you are overweight.
This offsets the cost of obesity-related diseases to their health care system.
People aren't paying more to an insurance company directly but they pay the tax which goes into the government health fund.
The government mandated checkup with a doctor helps prevent people from trying to game the system.
Fit people who eat sensibly and get some exercise should not have to pay for the rising health costs due to other people making bad diet choices.
One could try to lose weight before the checkup but if you receive medical care for a weight-related illness in the meantime then obviously you pay the tax.
You would need to be a real glutton to gain 20 lbs in a year in a society like Japan but it can be done if you mostly eat "Western" foods.
They eat smaller portion sizes anyway and they frequently walk everywhere.
They also eat more slowly.
Sumo wrestlers -national heroes of Japan- pay the tax.
Isn't it interesting that most of the relatively fit people replying think paying more is a good idea while many of the responses from people who may be carrying more weight than necessary seem to disagree?
Not trusting the bureaucracies to implement it efficiently is a different discussion.
Smoking is known to cause health problems so you pay more for health and life insurance and tobacco is addictive as well.
Being overweight is no different except there are no proven-to-be addictive chemicals in foods these days.
You cannot choose your genetics/DNA but you can choose what foods you shove in your mouth and how much of it.5 -
Isn't it interesting that most of the relatively fit people replying think paying more is a good idea while many of the responses from people who may be carrying more weight than necessary seem to disagree?.
While I think a comparison with Japan is insightful, this statement is completely unfounded and prejudiced. I am against viewing obesity as a pre-existing condition and I have never been overweight my entire life despite having exercise induced asthma. I had to overcome this asthma to stay fit and healthy and always resented being charged more because of something I was born with. It is possible to be fit and healthy and disagree. You have no way of knowing the history of the people commenting on this thread.
2 -
Isn't it interesting that most of the relatively fit people replying think paying more is a good idea while many of the responses from people who may be carrying more weight than necessary seem to disagree?
Yes, it's shocking, that the people who would suffer under your plan to tax us to supplement your care object.
Shocking indeed.
2 -
If you aren't caring for your health, you should pay more. If you're diabetic and work with your physician to achieve control, you don't get a surcharge. If you're hypertensive and don't act to reduce your bp - lose weight, exercise, take anti-hypertensives - you get a surcharge.1
-
AnninStPaul wrote: »If you aren't caring for your health, you should pay more. If you're diabetic and work with your physician to achieve control, you don't get a surcharge. If you're hypertensive and don't act to reduce your bp - lose weight, exercise, take anti-hypertensives - you get a surcharge.
This makes sense but it's a slippery slope. What if "caring for your health" extended to not engaging in extreme sports? Free climbing, wind suit jumping, paragliding, mountaineering, bmx trick riding, downhill mountain bike racing, white water rafting/kayaking, sky diving, etc. One could argue that taking risks of injury and death is not really caring for you health. We could all end up being limited to exercise machines indoors like hamsters.4 -
1) I said MOST, not all. Please read more carefully if you want to take offense.
Isn't it interesting that most of the relatively fit people replying think paying more is a good idea while many of the responses from people who may be carrying more weight than necessary seem to disagree?.
While I think a comparison with Japan is insightful, this statement is completely unfounded and prejudiced. I am against viewing obesity as a pre-existing condition and I have never been overweight my entire life despite having exercise induced asthma. I had to overcome this asthma to stay fit and healthy and always resented being charged more because of something I was born with. It is possible to be fit and healthy and disagree. You have no way of knowing the history of the people commenting on this thread.
2) Obesity and Exercise-Induced Asthma (EIA) are not the same thing.
I have EIA also and I get plenty of exercise even though I must manage my medications.
No they are not cheap but I still fought full-contact for 10 years.
3) I was not discussing pre-existing conditions or whether obesity should be classified as such.
Genetics causes EIA and there is little you can do to prevent it.
Eating too much causes obesity and it can be prevented by not eating as much...
2 -
Cqbkaju....Again you don't know if MOST are commenting one way or the other based on their weight status. It is purely an unfounded speculation on your part.2
-
Hmm.. my point is that I -who work hard to remain physically fit and watch what I eat- do not want to pay for the health care costs associated with someone else being obese.stanmann571 wrote: »Yes, it's shocking, that the people who would suffer under your plan to tax us to supplement your care object.
But somehow you imply it means the overweight people would be supplementing *my* care?
You tried to turn the whole thing around. That isn't how a civilized debate or discussion works.4 -
-
This makes sense but it's a slippery slope. What if "caring for your health" extended to not engaging in extreme sports? Free climbing, wind suit jumping, paragliding, mountaineering, bmx trick riding, downhill mountain bike racing, white water rafting/kayaking, sky diving, etc. One could argue that taking risks of injury and death is not really caring for you health. We could all end up being limited to exercise machines indoors like hamsters.
And if extreme sports injuries were contributing to total health care spending to the degree obesity related issues are, then that would be a discussion that would be useful to have.
From the CDC web site: The medical care costs of obesity in the United States are high. In 2008 dollars, these costs were estimated to be $147 billion.8 -
Hmm.. my point is that I -who work hard to remain physically fit and watch what I eat- do not want to pay for the health care costs associated with someone else being obese.stanmann571 wrote: »Yes, it's shocking, that the people who would suffer under your plan to tax us to supplement your care object.
But somehow you imply it means the overweight people would be supplementing *my* care?
You tried to turn the whole thing around. That isn't how a civilized debate or discussion works.
If it's a fit test, fine... if its a 10 second scan of BMI, then I'm not fine.
Arbitrarily associating fitness with BMI is spurious at best. ~39% of "normal BMI" people are overfat and unfit. over 25% of overweight and Obese BMI are fit and healthy range fat.
3 -
I do not disagree with you here in the least. I personally believe that "BMI" is one of the worst bits of BS the medical community has come up with in a long time.stanmann571 wrote: »If it's a fit test, fine... if its a 10 second scan of BMI, then I'm not fine.
Arbitrarily associating fitness with BMI is spurious at best. ~39% of "normal BMI" people are overfat and unfit. over 25% of overweight and Obese BMI are fit and healthy range fat.
BMI was designed to trend populations, not measure individuals.
I am basing my discussion around body fat percentages, not BMI.
Pushing 31% body fat in women and 26% in men is when the proper definition of "obese" starts.
Pro bodybuilders are "obese" if you go by BMI. BMI is crap.
"Healthy ranges of body fat range from between 14-20% for men, a percentage of greater than 25% is considered to be unhealthy and puts the individual at an increased risk of obesity related illness. Healthy ranges for women range between 17-24% where a level of 30% body fat is considered unhealthy and at a level of increased risk." -- https://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/measure_up_body_fat.htm1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 389 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 918 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions