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.
Fat Acceptance Movement
Replies
-
-
The Sunday-Go-To-Meeting dinners on the grounds that I used to attend as a child were far from "optimally healthy". If it wasn't swimming in grease (mostly lard)...or half a pound of sugar in each dessert...it didn't go on the table.
Some people might also believe that treating one's body nicely is giving it what it craves.
As a society...trying to impose "rules"...could lead to a world we don't want.
I agree...health issues pertaining to obesity are out of control. I just don't think that we can arbitrarily decide for someone else how they live their lives.
Assigning weight management to the "moral" category...I am not sure I agree with that though I do understand why someone might.
My inner libertarian shudders at society attempting to impose rules like this. No endeavor more foolish than implementation of a law you cannot possibly enforce. The business world is moving away from the stick and moving towards the carrot. Incentives for good behavior always produces greater results.
Let people have the freedom to decide for themselves...and to enjoy the benefits and suffer the consequences of their actions.
2 -
My inner libertarian shudders at society attempting to impose rules like this. No endeavor more foolish than implementation of a law you cannot possibly enforce. The business world is moving away from the stick and moving towards the carrot. Incentives for good behavior always produces greater results.
Let people have the freedom to decide for themselves...and to enjoy the benefits and suffer the consequences of their actions.
For a Libertarian, would it be fair to charge the obese more for medical assistance when the cause of the illness can be linked to their weight?
2 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »My inner libertarian shudders at society attempting to impose rules like this. No endeavor more foolish than implementation of a law you cannot possibly enforce. The business world is moving away from the stick and moving towards the carrot. Incentives for good behavior always produces greater results.
Let people have the freedom to decide for themselves...and to enjoy the benefits and suffer the consequences of their actions.
For a Libertarian, would it be fair to charge the obese more for medical assistance when the cause of the illness can be linked to their weight?
As a libertarian I would allow the medical practitioner to decide.1 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »My inner libertarian shudders at society attempting to impose rules like this. No endeavor more foolish than implementation of a law you cannot possibly enforce. The business world is moving away from the stick and moving towards the carrot. Incentives for good behavior always produces greater results.
Let people have the freedom to decide for themselves...and to enjoy the benefits and suffer the consequences of their actions.
For a Libertarian, would it be fair to charge the obese more for medical assistance when the cause of the illness can be linked to their weight?
As a libertarian I would allow the medical practitioner to decide.
This.
And yes, they would likely be charged more. Dealing with the obese is more labor intensive, most drug effective dosages are weight based, they require more sturdy structures to hold them up and move them, etc.4 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »My inner libertarian shudders at society attempting to impose rules like this. No endeavor more foolish than implementation of a law you cannot possibly enforce. The business world is moving away from the stick and moving towards the carrot. Incentives for good behavior always produces greater results.
Let people have the freedom to decide for themselves...and to enjoy the benefits and suffer the consequences of their actions.
For a Libertarian, would it be fair to charge the obese more for medical assistance when the cause of the illness can be linked to their weight?
Would it be fair to charge someone more for choosing to drive a car too fast and crashing? Or how about someone that chose not to be vaccinated for a disease and then they came down with that disease?
What about alcoholics...sky divers...skiers...etc...etc???
They all chose to engage in habits that potentially could cause harm.
I might agree that maybe their health insurance premium should be based on their life style if that same criteria was applied to other risky behaviors.4 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »My inner libertarian shudders at society attempting to impose rules like this. No endeavor more foolish than implementation of a law you cannot possibly enforce. The business world is moving away from the stick and moving towards the carrot. Incentives for good behavior always produces greater results.
Let people have the freedom to decide for themselves...and to enjoy the benefits and suffer the consequences of their actions.
For a Libertarian, would it be fair to charge the obese more for medical assistance when the cause of the illness can be linked to their weight?
I would have to think about this but my knee jerk reaction is that there would be no stopping point at who you charged more to (alcoholics, anyone in a high risk job) and you would end up charging everyone the same again:).4 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »My inner libertarian shudders at society attempting to impose rules like this. No endeavor more foolish than implementation of a law you cannot possibly enforce. The business world is moving away from the stick and moving towards the carrot. Incentives for good behavior always produces greater results.
Let people have the freedom to decide for themselves...and to enjoy the benefits and suffer the consequences of their actions.
For a Libertarian, would it be fair to charge the obese more for medical assistance when the cause of the illness can be linked to their weight?
Would it be fair to charge someone more for choosing to drive a car too fast and crashing? Or how about someone that chose not to be vaccinated for a disease and then they came down with that disease?
What about alcoholics...sky divers...skiers...etc...etc???
They all chose to engage in habits that potentially could cause harm.
I might agree that maybe their health insurance premium should be based on their life style if that same criteria was applied to other risky behaviors.
If your asking me, then yes. For drivers, if they show a history of poor driving their insurance rates are higher. I'm quite happy to see doctors charge extra, or refuse service for the anti-vaccers.
Only issue with health insurance is I'm Canadian and the Province is in charge of the billing, so I get nervous if the government is charging different rates for different people (although our auto insurance is provincial as well and they do).
2 -
leanjogreen18 wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »My inner libertarian shudders at society attempting to impose rules like this. No endeavor more foolish than implementation of a law you cannot possibly enforce. The business world is moving away from the stick and moving towards the carrot. Incentives for good behavior always produces greater results.
Let people have the freedom to decide for themselves...and to enjoy the benefits and suffer the consequences of their actions.
For a Libertarian, would it be fair to charge the obese more for medical assistance when the cause of the illness can be linked to their weight?
I would have to think about this but my knee jerk reaction is that there would be no stopping point at who you charged more to (alcoholics, anyone in a high risk job) and you would end up charging everyone the same again:).
This is why doctors have historically charged fees based on services rendered. Sick people use more services and thus pay more. People who engage in risky behaviors need more medical services sagely and therefore paid more as a group, though any individual may have any experience. But they never said "you're an alcoholic so I'll charge you twice s much for this than I'd charge a nonalcoholic"
Insurance divorced this direct experience for everyone. Now people want to punish others because they don't feel being sick is enough punishment.3 -
-
leanjogreen18 wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »My inner libertarian shudders at society attempting to impose rules like this. No endeavor more foolish than implementation of a law you cannot possibly enforce. The business world is moving away from the stick and moving towards the carrot. Incentives for good behavior always produces greater results.
Let people have the freedom to decide for themselves...and to enjoy the benefits and suffer the consequences of their actions.
For a Libertarian, would it be fair to charge the obese more for medical assistance when the cause of the illness can be linked to their weight?
I would have to think about this but my knee jerk reaction is that there would be no stopping point at who you charged more to (alcoholics, anyone in a high risk job) and you would end up charging everyone the same again:).
This is why doctors have historically charged fees based on services rendered. Sick people use more services and thus pay more. People who engage in risky behaviors need more medical services sagely and therefore paid more as a group, though any individual may have any experience. But they never said "you're an alcoholic so I'll charge you twice s much for this than I'd charge a nonalcoholic"
Insurance divorced this direct experience for everyone. Now people want to punish others because they don't feel being sick is enough punishment.
It's the nature of anything communal. Eventually those who are carrying the dead weight become resentful. It's the reason I refuse to carry insurance. I do not, have not and will not utilize services that I cannot afford on my own. As such, I am not going to pay into a pot so everyone's granny Bessie can go to the doctor every time she gets a head cold. I already pay state and federal taxes to help cover those most helpless. Not doing it twice.3 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »My inner libertarian shudders at society attempting to impose rules like this. No endeavor more foolish than implementation of a law you cannot possibly enforce. The business world is moving away from the stick and moving towards the carrot. Incentives for good behavior always produces greater results.
Let people have the freedom to decide for themselves...and to enjoy the benefits and suffer the consequences of their actions.
For a Libertarian, would it be fair to charge the obese more for medical assistance when the cause of the illness can be linked to their weight?
Would it be fair to charge someone more for choosing to drive a car too fast and crashing? Or how about someone that chose not to be vaccinated for a disease and then they came down with that disease?
What about alcoholics...sky divers...skiers...etc...etc???
They all chose to engage in habits that potentially could cause harm.
I might agree that maybe their health insurance premium should be based on their life style if that same criteria was applied to other risky behaviors.
Of course - the entire legal system and insurance system is based upon all such controlled variables.
I would happily expect an increased fine if driving 30 mph over the limit vice 5 mph. I would expect to be charged more if acting recklessly, driving by a school, endangering lives of passengers, etc.
Insurance is a fear driven industry. No one needs insurance, but fear is one exceptional motivator. Medical costs have historically trended along with all other consumer goods....until insurance was introduced.
But hey, what results would you expect deliberately inserting a middleman into a process.0 -
leanjogreen18 wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »My inner libertarian shudders at society attempting to impose rules like this. No endeavor more foolish than implementation of a law you cannot possibly enforce. The business world is moving away from the stick and moving towards the carrot. Incentives for good behavior always produces greater results.
Let people have the freedom to decide for themselves...and to enjoy the benefits and suffer the consequences of their actions.
For a Libertarian, would it be fair to charge the obese more for medical assistance when the cause of the illness can be linked to their weight?
I would have to think about this but my knee jerk reaction is that there would be no stopping point at who you charged more to (alcoholics, anyone in a high risk job) and you would end up charging everyone the same again:).
This is why doctors have historically charged fees based on services rendered. Sick people use more services and thus pay more. People who engage in risky behaviors need more medical services sagely and therefore paid more as a group, though any individual may have any experience. But they never said "you're an alcoholic so I'll charge you twice s much for this than I'd charge a nonalcoholic"
Insurance divorced this direct experience for everyone. Now people want to punish others because they don't feel being sick is enough punishment.
The insertion of insurance into medical care, especially mandatory insurance is a perfect example of the ultimate failure of socialism.3 -
leanjogreen18 wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »My inner libertarian shudders at society attempting to impose rules like this. No endeavor more foolish than implementation of a law you cannot possibly enforce. The business world is moving away from the stick and moving towards the carrot. Incentives for good behavior always produces greater results.
Let people have the freedom to decide for themselves...and to enjoy the benefits and suffer the consequences of their actions.
For a Libertarian, would it be fair to charge the obese more for medical assistance when the cause of the illness can be linked to their weight?
I would have to think about this but my knee jerk reaction is that there would be no stopping point at who you charged more to (alcoholics, anyone in a high risk job) and you would end up charging everyone the same again:).
This is why doctors have historically charged fees based on services rendered. Sick people use more services and thus pay more. People who engage in risky behaviors need more medical services sagely and therefore paid more as a group, though any individual may have any experience. But they never said "you're an alcoholic so I'll charge you twice s much for this than I'd charge a nonalcoholic"
Insurance divorced this direct experience for everyone. Now people want to punish others because they don't feel being sick is enough punishment.
Even with insurance, co-pays are higher for those who use more medical services and goods (prescriptions, medical supplies, etc.). Even with the current system of insurance, those who use more pay more.
That is especially true for those of us who have unpreventable illnesses requiring daily treatment for the rest of our lives. Even though the existing system punishes those who make poor lifestyle choices resulting in higher medical costs, it also punishes those who do not deserve it.2 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »leanjogreen18 wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »My inner libertarian shudders at society attempting to impose rules like this. No endeavor more foolish than implementation of a law you cannot possibly enforce. The business world is moving away from the stick and moving towards the carrot. Incentives for good behavior always produces greater results.
Let people have the freedom to decide for themselves...and to enjoy the benefits and suffer the consequences of their actions.
For a Libertarian, would it be fair to charge the obese more for medical assistance when the cause of the illness can be linked to their weight?
I would have to think about this but my knee jerk reaction is that there would be no stopping point at who you charged more to (alcoholics, anyone in a high risk job) and you would end up charging everyone the same again:).
This is why doctors have historically charged fees based on services rendered. Sick people use more services and thus pay more. People who engage in risky behaviors need more medical services sagely and therefore paid more as a group, though any individual may have any experience. But they never said "you're an alcoholic so I'll charge you twice s much for this than I'd charge a nonalcoholic"
Insurance divorced this direct experience for everyone. Now people want to punish others because they don't feel being sick is enough punishment.
Even with insurance, co-pays are higher for those who use more medical services and goods (prescriptions, medical supplies, etc.). Even with the current system of insurance, those who use more pay more.
That is especially true for those of us who have unpreventable illnesses requiring daily treatment for the rest of our lives. Even though the existing system punishes those who make poor lifestyle choices resulting in higher medical costs, it also punishes those who do not deserve it.
It punishes whoever it can to justify the salaries and bonuses of those in the insurance industry. You want a reduction in costs? Remove the middleman.0 -
zeenews.india.com/health/worlds-heaviest-woman-weighing-500-kilograms-to-arrive-in-mumbai-for-bariatic-surgery-1975612
The comments on this article seem over the top to me. As almost 100% of the time she had serious health issues that lead to her current condition.0 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »leanjogreen18 wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »My inner libertarian shudders at society attempting to impose rules like this. No endeavor more foolish than implementation of a law you cannot possibly enforce. The business world is moving away from the stick and moving towards the carrot. Incentives for good behavior always produces greater results.
Let people have the freedom to decide for themselves...and to enjoy the benefits and suffer the consequences of their actions.
For a Libertarian, would it be fair to charge the obese more for medical assistance when the cause of the illness can be linked to their weight?
I would have to think about this but my knee jerk reaction is that there would be no stopping point at who you charged more to (alcoholics, anyone in a high risk job) and you would end up charging everyone the same again:).
This is why doctors have historically charged fees based on services rendered. Sick people use more services and thus pay more. People who engage in risky behaviors need more medical services sagely and therefore paid more as a group, though any individual may have any experience. But they never said "you're an alcoholic so I'll charge you twice s much for this than I'd charge a nonalcoholic"
Insurance divorced this direct experience for everyone. Now people want to punish others because they don't feel being sick is enough punishment.
Even with insurance, co-pays are higher for those who use more medical services and goods (prescriptions, medical supplies, etc.). Even with the current system of insurance, those who use more pay more.
That is especially true for those of us who have unpreventable illnesses requiring daily treatment for the rest of our lives. Even though the existing system punishes those who make poor lifestyle choices resulting in higher medical costs, it also punishes those who do not deserve it.
It punishes whoever it can to justify the salaries and bonuses of those in the insurance industry. You want a reduction in costs? Remove the middleman.
For me, that would equate to an increase in costs. In fact, the costs of paying entirely out of pocket are so un-affordable that it would quite literally kill me.0 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »leanjogreen18 wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »My inner libertarian shudders at society attempting to impose rules like this. No endeavor more foolish than implementation of a law you cannot possibly enforce. The business world is moving away from the stick and moving towards the carrot. Incentives for good behavior always produces greater results.
Let people have the freedom to decide for themselves...and to enjoy the benefits and suffer the consequences of their actions.
For a Libertarian, would it be fair to charge the obese more for medical assistance when the cause of the illness can be linked to their weight?
I would have to think about this but my knee jerk reaction is that there would be no stopping point at who you charged more to (alcoholics, anyone in a high risk job) and you would end up charging everyone the same again:).
This is why doctors have historically charged fees based on services rendered. Sick people use more services and thus pay more. People who engage in risky behaviors need more medical services sagely and therefore paid more as a group, though any individual may have any experience. But they never said "you're an alcoholic so I'll charge you twice s much for this than I'd charge a nonalcoholic"
Insurance divorced this direct experience for everyone. Now people want to punish others because they don't feel being sick is enough punishment.
Even with insurance, co-pays are higher for those who use more medical services and goods (prescriptions, medical supplies, etc.). Even with the current system of insurance, those who use more pay more.
That is especially true for those of us who have unpreventable illnesses requiring daily treatment for the rest of our lives. Even though the existing system punishes those who make poor lifestyle choices resulting in higher medical costs, it also punishes those who do not deserve it.
It punishes whoever it can to justify the salaries and bonuses of those in the insurance industry. You want a reduction in costs? Remove the middleman.
For me, that would equate to an increase in costs. In fact, the costs of paying entirely out of pocket are so un-affordable that it would quite literally kill me.
or, quit building 3 billion dollar battleships and spend some money on taking care of this country's people. Or, give us the health care that the US Congress gets.
7 -
sashayoung72 wrote: »I was morbidly obese. I didn't have high cholesterol, I wasn't pre diabetic, my blood work was great. No one was making fun of me or making me feel bad about myself. But I felt like crap day in and day out. I was in pain from being big. I am down 80 and full of life. I feel like FA is a load of crap being twisted. No we shouldn't make fun but lets be realistic, MORBIDLY OBESE just ain't healthy.
Yes. Eventually the gained fat starts to hurt the internal organs and body mechanism. However one can be little overweight yet fit. I think one should aim for fitness and losing the extra weight is part of it. What I see that it's not only vanity.
Even as someone who is just a few pounds overweight (usually between 5-12 pounds overweight) I can definitely say that it effects my performance with sports. The lighter I am the better I run. And I'm also less hot in the summer. So it drives me crazy when people say I just want to lose weight for vanity because I really do have good reasons for it!1 -
Treasonous wrote: »Denying reality doesn't make it go away. The healthcare system is overburdened, largely because of lifestyle choices. We're not talking about ten or 20 extra
Pounds here. Fat people know they are fat, and of course, schoolyard style taunts are unkind and ridiculous. But making obese a protected status is ridiculous. Also, the risk of "making" your child anorexic is minuscule compared to making him or her obese.
You do realize that among adolescents the rate of anorexia and bulimia are quite high?
What are these stats, and why do you think managing obesity in teens will increase anorexia and bulimia?The percentage of children with obesity in the United States has more than tripled since the 1970s.1 Today, about one in five school-aged children (ages 6–19) has obesity.
https://www.cdc.gov/healthyschools/obesity/facts.htm1 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »leanjogreen18 wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »My inner libertarian shudders at society attempting to impose rules like this. No endeavor more foolish than implementation of a law you cannot possibly enforce. The business world is moving away from the stick and moving towards the carrot. Incentives for good behavior always produces greater results.
Let people have the freedom to decide for themselves...and to enjoy the benefits and suffer the consequences of their actions.
For a Libertarian, would it be fair to charge the obese more for medical assistance when the cause of the illness can be linked to their weight?
I would have to think about this but my knee jerk reaction is that there would be no stopping point at who you charged more to (alcoholics, anyone in a high risk job) and you would end up charging everyone the same again:).
This is why doctors have historically charged fees based on services rendered. Sick people use more services and thus pay more. People who engage in risky behaviors need more medical services sagely and therefore paid more as a group, though any individual may have any experience. But they never said "you're an alcoholic so I'll charge you twice s much for this than I'd charge a nonalcoholic"
Insurance divorced this direct experience for everyone. Now people want to punish others because they don't feel being sick is enough punishment.
Even with insurance, co-pays are higher for those who use more medical services and goods (prescriptions, medical supplies, etc.). Even with the current system of insurance, those who use more pay more.
That is especially true for those of us who have unpreventable illnesses requiring daily treatment for the rest of our lives. Even though the existing system punishes those who make poor lifestyle choices resulting in higher medical costs, it also punishes those who do not deserve it.
It punishes whoever it can to justify the salaries and bonuses of those in the insurance industry. You want a reduction in costs? Remove the middleman.
For me, that would equate to an increase in costs. In fact, the costs of paying entirely out of pocket are so un-affordable that it would quite literally kill me.
Are you sure? You are basing this on the costs with all the players taking their cut - industry, government, insurance and medical professional. The cost of good sold is a fraction of retail.
Fear is a powerful motivator and you are playing right into it.0 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »leanjogreen18 wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »My inner libertarian shudders at society attempting to impose rules like this. No endeavor more foolish than implementation of a law you cannot possibly enforce. The business world is moving away from the stick and moving towards the carrot. Incentives for good behavior always produces greater results.
Let people have the freedom to decide for themselves...and to enjoy the benefits and suffer the consequences of their actions.
For a Libertarian, would it be fair to charge the obese more for medical assistance when the cause of the illness can be linked to their weight?
I would have to think about this but my knee jerk reaction is that there would be no stopping point at who you charged more to (alcoholics, anyone in a high risk job) and you would end up charging everyone the same again:).
This is why doctors have historically charged fees based on services rendered. Sick people use more services and thus pay more. People who engage in risky behaviors need more medical services sagely and therefore paid more as a group, though any individual may have any experience. But they never said "you're an alcoholic so I'll charge you twice s much for this than I'd charge a nonalcoholic"
Insurance divorced this direct experience for everyone. Now people want to punish others because they don't feel being sick is enough punishment.
Even with insurance, co-pays are higher for those who use more medical services and goods (prescriptions, medical supplies, etc.). Even with the current system of insurance, those who use more pay more.
That is especially true for those of us who have unpreventable illnesses requiring daily treatment for the rest of our lives. Even though the existing system punishes those who make poor lifestyle choices resulting in higher medical costs, it also punishes those who do not deserve it.
It punishes whoever it can to justify the salaries and bonuses of those in the insurance industry. You want a reduction in costs? Remove the middleman.
For me, that would equate to an increase in costs. In fact, the costs of paying entirely out of pocket are so un-affordable that it would quite literally kill me.
Are you sure? You are basing this on the costs with all the players taking their cut - industry, government, insurance and medical professional. The cost of good sold is a fraction of retail.
Fear is a powerful motivator and you are playing right into it.
This.
It shouldn't shock anyone that the cost of medical care went from "pay out of pocket for chilbirth" to "holy crap, my life is ruined because I got swine flu and didn't have insurance" as soon as we stuck a bunch of shysters into the payment process.2 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »Even with insurance, co-pays are higher for those who use more medical services and goods (prescriptions, medical supplies, etc.). Even with the current system of insurance, those who use more pay more.
That is especially true for those of us who have unpreventable illnesses requiring daily treatment for the rest of our lives. Even though the existing system punishes those who make poor lifestyle choices resulting in higher medical costs, it also punishes those who do not deserve it.
The initial purpose of health insurance was to share the risk of catastrophic loss. A system with high deductibles should do that, while those who use medical care more pay more. It's not punishment.
But charges in addition to use are punishment. And that's what I see a fair number of people advocating.1 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »leanjogreen18 wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »My inner libertarian shudders at society attempting to impose rules like this. No endeavor more foolish than implementation of a law you cannot possibly enforce. The business world is moving away from the stick and moving towards the carrot. Incentives for good behavior always produces greater results.
Let people have the freedom to decide for themselves...and to enjoy the benefits and suffer the consequences of their actions.
For a Libertarian, would it be fair to charge the obese more for medical assistance when the cause of the illness can be linked to their weight?
I would have to think about this but my knee jerk reaction is that there would be no stopping point at who you charged more to (alcoholics, anyone in a high risk job) and you would end up charging everyone the same again:).
This is why doctors have historically charged fees based on services rendered. Sick people use more services and thus pay more. People who engage in risky behaviors need more medical services sagely and therefore paid more as a group, though any individual may have any experience. But they never said "you're an alcoholic so I'll charge you twice s much for this than I'd charge a nonalcoholic"
Insurance divorced this direct experience for everyone. Now people want to punish others because they don't feel being sick is enough punishment.
Even with insurance, co-pays are higher for those who use more medical services and goods (prescriptions, medical supplies, etc.). Even with the current system of insurance, those who use more pay more.
That is especially true for those of us who have unpreventable illnesses requiring daily treatment for the rest of our lives. Even though the existing system punishes those who make poor lifestyle choices resulting in higher medical costs, it also punishes those who do not deserve it.
It punishes whoever it can to justify the salaries and bonuses of those in the insurance industry. You want a reduction in costs? Remove the middleman.
For me, that would equate to an increase in costs. In fact, the costs of paying entirely out of pocket are so un-affordable that it would quite literally kill me.
Are you sure? You are basing this on the costs with all the players taking their cut - industry, government, insurance and medical professional. The cost of good sold is a fraction of retail.
Fear is a powerful motivator and you are playing right into it.
Yes, I'm sure. I'm basing this off of the price of a single prescription - a prescription that I would die without. That leaves out everything else needed to determine proper dose of that prescription and to deliver it.0 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »leanjogreen18 wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »My inner libertarian shudders at society attempting to impose rules like this. No endeavor more foolish than implementation of a law you cannot possibly enforce. The business world is moving away from the stick and moving towards the carrot. Incentives for good behavior always produces greater results.
Let people have the freedom to decide for themselves...and to enjoy the benefits and suffer the consequences of their actions.
For a Libertarian, would it be fair to charge the obese more for medical assistance when the cause of the illness can be linked to their weight?
I would have to think about this but my knee jerk reaction is that there would be no stopping point at who you charged more to (alcoholics, anyone in a high risk job) and you would end up charging everyone the same again:).
This is why doctors have historically charged fees based on services rendered. Sick people use more services and thus pay more. People who engage in risky behaviors need more medical services sagely and therefore paid more as a group, though any individual may have any experience. But they never said "you're an alcoholic so I'll charge you twice s much for this than I'd charge a nonalcoholic"
Insurance divorced this direct experience for everyone. Now people want to punish others because they don't feel being sick is enough punishment.
Even with insurance, co-pays are higher for those who use more medical services and goods (prescriptions, medical supplies, etc.). Even with the current system of insurance, those who use more pay more.
That is especially true for those of us who have unpreventable illnesses requiring daily treatment for the rest of our lives. Even though the existing system punishes those who make poor lifestyle choices resulting in higher medical costs, it also punishes those who do not deserve it.
It punishes whoever it can to justify the salaries and bonuses of those in the insurance industry. You want a reduction in costs? Remove the middleman.
For me, that would equate to an increase in costs. In fact, the costs of paying entirely out of pocket are so un-affordable that it would quite literally kill me.
Are you sure? You are basing this on the costs with all the players taking their cut - industry, government, insurance and medical professional. The cost of good sold is a fraction of retail.
Fear is a powerful motivator and you are playing right into it.
Yes, I'm sure. I'm basing this off of the price of a single prescription - a prescription that I would die without. That leaves out everything else needed to determine proper dose of that prescription and to deliver it.
Prove it.
I'm not trying to be argumentative, but trying to give you a glimpse into the massive amount of additional charges, taxes, and fees associated with these. Not to mention the additional personnel required to manage all the needless administration and regulation.
What is the drug?0 -
My fat is unacceptable
1 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »Even with insurance, co-pays are higher for those who use more medical services and goods (prescriptions, medical supplies, etc.). Even with the current system of insurance, those who use more pay more.
That is especially true for those of us who have unpreventable illnesses requiring daily treatment for the rest of our lives. Even though the existing system punishes those who make poor lifestyle choices resulting in higher medical costs, it also punishes those who do not deserve it.
The initial purpose of health insurance was to share the risk of catastrophic loss. A system with high deductibles should do that, while those who use medical care more pay more. It's not punishment.
But charges in addition to use are punishment. And that's what I see a fair number of people advocating.
Call it what you want, but I didn't choose to get type 1 diabetes and I didn't get it due to poor lifestyle choices. I still pay way more than everyone else for medical care, even after insurance. Medical insurance isn't just about a 1-time loss, which may not be what you meant by "catastrophic loss," but it could easily be misunderstood. In my case, at 9 years old, the "catastrophic loss" began. The actual loss is ongoing for the remainder of my natural life.
When you say, "Sick people use more services and thus pay more." - those with poor lifestyle choices leading to obesity usually end up using more services and thus paying more. Yes, that is a way that such people are punished (or whatever word you want to use) for making poor lifestyle choices. That is also a way those of us who are sick without having made a choice are punished.2 -
For many years, my dad was just sorta fat. Not like morbidly awful fat, you know...that 250 pound "bigger, rounder" guy. He ate very poorly in his 40s and 50s due to work related stress eating. Mostly sugar, high fat, and refined carbs. He's 70 now.
In 2012, blockages were found in his heart. Stents were added and all was okay. He changed his eating habits and lost 50 pounds.
Despite changing his eating and lifestyle, it was just too late. Yesterday, he had a double bypass. More blockages were found last week via an angiogram and stents were not an option this time due to the location and severity of the blockages. You CANNOT tell me 20 years of eating awfully did not cause this. He was not super big, but he was unhealthy.
This is why I decline to partake in the body acceptance movement. A healthy lifestyle is a medicine, the opposite is a death sentence or a ticket to expensive medical bills, but most likely both. Now that we are accepting fat at even younger ages, who knows where we will be in 20 years. I can tell you one thing though, doctors and big pharma will be RICHER!
5 -
So what needs to be done people? We can talk of "punishments" for the overweight and obese but does that or will that solve the problem of weight management?
Instead of punishments should we be talking of incentives? Should we have more education available? Should we encourage the government to have more health mandates or should we approach this at the community level?
In my mind at least I think the "fat acceptance" movement has veered from its original intentions. There are always extremists in every group. They soon suck the life out of a group of people and in the end something completely different than intended emerges.
While I am no longer obese I have been there though I still have weight to lose. At least to my face I never suffered the "ugliness" as others have. I think the majority of us here at MFP have all been there at some level. If we take a look at ourselves...an honest look...we should have some empathy for those that have yet to take the steps for better health. I think for the most part those that are successful at weight loss are those that took control for the right reasons...not because someone threatened them with "punishment".
All of those that are advocating some form of "punishment" what happens if one of us in the future develop health issues that can be tied to our obesity of the past? Should we be punished in some form...even though we have taken steps to improve our health?
While I agree that being overweight and inactive is one of if not the biggest health issues that we face I am not comfortable with the "punishment" solution. What the solution is...IDK...I lean toward community type options though instead of the government placing "punishments" on people. IMO...letting the government (or big business) decide the fate of people can lead us to a place that might be even more "unhealthy" for our society.3 -
So what needs to be done people? We can talk of "punishments" for the overweight and obese but does that or will that solve the problem of weight management?
Instead of punishments should we be talking of incentives? Should we have more education available? Should we encourage the government to have more health mandates or should we approach this at the community level?
In my mind at least I think the "fat acceptance" movement has veered from its original intentions. There are always extremists in every group. They soon suck the life out of a group of people and in the end something completely different than intended emerges.
While I am no longer obese I have been there though I still have weight to lose. At least to my face I never suffered the "ugliness" as others have. I think the majority of us here at MFP have all been there at some level. If we take a look at ourselves...an honest look...we should have some empathy for those that have yet to take the steps for better health. I think for the most part those that are successful at weight loss are those that took control for the right reasons...not because someone threatened them with "punishment".
All of those that are advocating some form of "punishment" what happens if one of us in the future develop health issues that can be tied to our obesity of the past? Should we be punished in some form...even though we have taken steps to improve our health?
While I agree that being overweight and inactive is one of if not the biggest health issues that we face I am not comfortable with the "punishment" solution. What the solution is...IDK...I lean toward community type options though instead of the government placing "punishments" on people. IMO...letting the government (or big business) decide the fate of people can lead us to a place that might be even more "unhealthy" for our society.
Is it fair that former smokers will always pay higher rates than those who never smoked? As a current smoker and former fatty, my answer to both is yes.
Both smoking and weight problems have two things in common:
1) they wreck your health, sometimes in irreversible ways.
2) the odds are better that a "former" of either of those will relapse, than to keep on their improved path.3
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions