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.
Paying the healthcare costs of obesity
Options
Replies
-
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Let them pay for it themselves. They did it to themselves. Allow hospitals the right to turn away people who cannot afford to pay for their services.
And this is coming from someone who refuses to have health insurance, so yeah, I'd probably get turned away too. Doesn't change the fact that I don't deserve to receive anyone else's labor value for free.
U nfortunately if you pass put on a street and someone calls 911 the hospital will still treat you and if you can't pay it.the hospital eats the cost.
This isn't the old west where you can just go.out back and die in peace. Sack up and get insurance so the rest of us aren't paying for you
You aren't paying for anything. I haven't been to a doctor or hospital (other than for my CDL physicals, which my company pays for) in more than 20 years. I'm not paying in on a "maybe". Not the gambling type. I've been injured several times in that duration, but the fact is, I utterly loathe the medical provider community, and would quite literally rather die than go to a hospital.
And the fact that you are paying for others is your own fault. The day everyone who pays says no at once, it ends.
I never needed health insurance until I needed it. If your username reflects your age, you're about my age. I didn't need coverage for anything until 2015. I needed my gallbladder out. Without insurance, I would have been in the hole for $20,000. Even the most responsible, self-sufficient people don't tend to have that lying around. Without insurance, I wouldn't have had it out. No big deal except that a few years down the road, I would have had more costly complications since it turned out I had a beanbag of small stones capable of passing into ducts and out of whack liver enzymes from it. The more things show up the older you get, even if you treat your body like a temple. Most people don't have health issues in their 20's or early 30's.
My dad was completely disabled suddenly at 40. He biked, lifted weights, didn't smoke or drink, and had a normal BMI. I don't care about those things, but I am pointing them out since others look at this as fault or no fault. He had just bought a house and had 4 kids to support. His medical bills, from then until the end of his life, are unfathomable. He would have simply died without healthcare assistance, and my family would have been in poverty. Instead, I got to grow up in a safe neighborhood with decent schools and have him in my life as a positive influence until he was 65. Multiply our little family unit on a population level. Which impact was better for society? More fatherless kids in poverty or the alternative?
Healthcare is not a black-and-white problem with black-and-white solutions.
21 -
Are you also going to tax smokers? Alcoholics? Motorcycle riders? Race car driver? Equestrians?
People engage in all kinds of activities that increase risk of injury or illness. Choosing one group to tax is called discrimination.
Have been obese for a large portion of my adult life, and I haven't had a single illness or medical expense related to my weight. However, I have had many bills related to my physical activities (all sustained when I was not obese). Obesity is a potential indicator or contributing factor to other health issues, in very few cases does it have medical complications alone.
The people you mention generally have higher health and life insurance premiums1 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »I've always thought that an HSA would be the right solution for the healthcare issue (to include obesity). Individuals would be required to save a portion of their pay (before taxes) for broadly defined healthcare expenses. They could use these funds at their discretion for things like normal health costs, lasik, weight loss surgery, Insurance premiums, almost anything health related. These funds could also be willed or donated.
As people begin working while young, they will likely build up a surplus. This could be coupled high deductible insurance at affordable rates. It could also cause deflation in the lower healthcare market as people will be more judicious with their funds.
I would be fine with that, assuming that there is an opt-out, and that in case of such opt-outs, hospitals are allowed under Federal law to turn said opt-outs away.
Unfortunately in the US opt outs won't be allowed to happen. They will get care and be a leach on society (I am not speaking about those who can't pay, rather those who could pay insurance premiums but don't)1 -
The people you mention generally have higher health and life insurance premiums
Life premiums, yes. Health, no. At least not in the USA where only smoking status, age, and bmi can be used to change rates.1 -
afatpersonwholikesfood wrote: »Even the most responsible, self-sufficient people don't tend to have that lying around.
Not trying to be a dick, but some do. I dropped out of highschool in the 9th grade; I've been working full time (60-70 hours per week) since I was 19. I have no kids, keep my overhead low (yeah, I live in "the hood"), and just generally don't spend money on stupid things. Even after two failed marriages, I am more financially stable than most people in their 50s.
Our spending problem in this country isn't just of a government issue.1 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »afatpersonwholikesfood wrote: »Even the most responsible, self-sufficient people don't tend to have that lying around.
Not trying to be a dick, but some do. I dropped out of highschool in the 9th grade; I've been working full time (60-70 hours per week) since I was 19. I have no kids, keep my overhead low (yeah, I live in "the hood"), and just generally don't spend money on stupid things. Even after two failed marriages, I am more financially stable than most people in their 50s.
Our spending problem in this country isn't just of a government issue.
You're unusual. 2/3 of the US population would have issues paying an unexpected 1000 expense.
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/965e48ed609245539ed315f83e01b6a21 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »afatpersonwholikesfood wrote: »Even the most responsible, self-sufficient people don't tend to have that lying around.
Not trying to be a dick, but some do. I dropped out of highschool in the 9th grade; I've been working full time (60-70 hours per week) since I was 19. I have no kids, keep my overhead low (yeah, I live in "the hood"), and just generally don't spend money on stupid things. Even after two failed marriages, I am more financially stable than most people in their 50s.
Our spending problem in this country isn't just of a government issue.
You're unusual. 2/3 of the US population would have issues paying an unexpected 1000 expense.
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/965e48ed609245539ed315f83e01b6a2
And again, not trying to be a dick, but that's not my problem, and it annoys me when people insist that I should make it my problem. I live within my means. I can't help it that others refuse to do so.9 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »afatpersonwholikesfood wrote: »Even the most responsible, self-sufficient people don't tend to have that lying around.
Not trying to be a dick, but some do. I dropped out of highschool in the 9th grade; I've been working full time (60-70 hours per week) since I was 19. I have no kids, keep my overhead low (yeah, I live in "the hood"), and just generally don't spend money on stupid things. Even after two failed marriages, I am more financially stable than most people in their 50s.
Our spending problem in this country isn't just of a government issue.
You're unusual. 2/3 of the US population would have issues paying an unexpected 1000 expense.
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/965e48ed609245539ed315f83e01b6a2
And again, not trying to be a dick, but that's not my problem, and it annoys me when people insist that I should make it my problem. I live within my means. I can't help it that others refuse to do so.
I live within my means and never pay a bill late. I have a savings account. I have no debt. I don't get any financial support from family or friends; my husband and I take care of our emergencies. My husband did rack up some bills for dental work and minor health issues a few years back. We didn't just write it off; we set up a payment plan and spent about 3 years paying that off. No one else paid for that, ultimately. We also lived in the "hood" and would have qualified for Section 8 had we applied. We never lived paycheck to paycheck because of how careful we were. I'm proud of those things because our income was dangerously low at the time he needed those services, and I don't have a lot of patience for people who make more than we did then but can't keep up on basic expenses. I understand emergencies, though. $20,000 that I could blow on what, at the time, seemed a nonessential surgery? Yeah, no. I wouldn't have $20,000 for an essential surgery. That amount would have been my husband's gross income for a year at one point in time.6 -
Lots of people can't live within their means due to low wages, or if they do, they have no extra per month and not because they're spending too much. A recent article demonstrated that a full time, minimum wage job will not afford you rent in any major US city.
These things contribute to why it's more complicated than a lot of people assume.7 -
@Packerjohn , how long have you been on this hobby horse?4
-
Society can only move as fast as their slowest person. By refusing socialism a country will only move backwards and not progress. Healthy people, who receive regular healthcare are more productive (ie. make more money) and contribute to the economy. By denying healthcare, everyone suffers.
12 -
Lots of people can't live within their means due to low wages, or if they do, they have no extra per month and not because they're spending too much. A recent article demonstrated that a full time, minimum wage job will not afford you rent in any major US city.
These things contribute to why it's more complicated than a lot of people assume.
My very first summer working for the company I am at: I was barely above minimum wage as a general laborer. You're right, I could barely afford rent. What was my solution at that time? I moved into a spare bedroom in a house that was rented out by a bunch of college kids. My rent was suddenly about $195/mo, including my part of the utilities.
Did it suck? Only at times. Would I do it again? If I were 19 again, sure. Anyway, point being that there are always creative ways to make things work, while managing to keep money around. I grew up rather poor, with a single mother who worked one full-time and two part-time jobs, because she refused to allow our household onto government assistance (other than the obvious income tax return that I am sure was quite massive at the end of the year). So yes, I may have a bit of a bias toward working, forced saving, and personal accountability, instead of hoping (or demanding) someone else decides to make your life easier.12 -
I believe it is the duty of an enlightened modern society to provide for the young, old and sick in the community. The methods by which we care for these populations is an indication of our collective values.
"How do we pay for the healthcare costs of obesity?" is similar to any question we ask about taxes, like How do we pay for jails? You can tax people more. You can make inmates work to earn their keep. You can make the laws more lax so fewer people are incarcerated. You can have shorter sentences. You can have outreach and drug prevention/treatment programs to prevent crime. You can send all your criminals to an island somewhere. You can kill your criminals with firing squads. You can lobotomize/chemically treat criminals so they become complacent zombies who are easy to manage. You can turn criminals into entertainment Running Man/Thunderdome style. Which of these any society chooses to use says a lot about their values.
In the end, the societies that most successfully manage their fiscal, ethical, and social needs in the face of new challenges will prosper and the ones who don't won't.9 -
We seem to have forgotten what the US stands for. Didn't our fore fathers want a place where we weren't persicuded for our sins? A place where we can peacefully do as we please another leave us the heck alone?
I'm sorry, I worked REALLY hard to get a good job, to earn a good living. I chose to never get married and never have kids so my money would be mine. I'll spend my money on what I want. And if I want to buy high priced food, alcohol, clothes and running shoes, that's my business. If I eat/drink too much, so much that those running shoes don't help me not be a perfect weight, so be it. Mind your own freakin' business and let people do what they want. If you want to control peoples choices, move.8 -
I believe it is the duty of an enlightened modern society to provide for the young, old and sick in the community. The methods by which we care for these populations is an indication of our collective values.
"How do we pay for the healthcare costs of obesity?" is similar to any question we ask about taxes, like How do we pay for jails? You can tax people more. You can make inmates work to earn their keep. You can make the laws more lax so fewer people are incarcerated. You can have shorter sentences. You can have outreach and drug prevention/treatment programs to prevent crime. You can send all your criminals to an island somewhere. You can kill your criminals with firing squads. You can lobotomize/chemically treat criminals so they become complacent zombies who are easy to manage. You can turn criminals into entertainment Running Man/Thunderdome style. Which of these any society chooses to use says a lot about their values.
In the end, the societies that most successfully manage their fiscal, ethical, and social needs in the face of new challenges will prosper and the ones who don't won't.
Decriminalization of victimless crimes would go a long way on the prison thing.
As for the young, old, and infirm: if it were just them, you'd probably see a lot less griping. The fact that so few pay income tax, and a huge portion receive back more than they pay in anyway, was put forth in another thread, and is also valid here. "Fair share" always seems to translate to "someone else's money".7 -
I was talking to a younger man at the pub who was sitting at the rail bemoaning government handouts eating into his gross pay. After listening for a bit, I joined in their conversation. I asked the young man if he and his wife had bought their first house. Yes, he replied. Did you get a SHDA-backed loan? I asked. ... Yes... he replied. Then he kinda blinked at me, realized that the SHDA loan (subsidized interest rates for first time home buyers) was a government program. And he kinda slapped his knee and said "huh, I'm gonna have to think about that."
All government programs are "handouts to the undeserving," until it's a program you're utilizing. It really seems to be human nature to feel this way about subsidies and social benefits via government spending. I think education on the issue is going to be part of the solution.20 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »I've always thought that an HSA would be the right solution for the healthcare issue (to include obesity). Individuals would be required to save a portion of their pay (before taxes) for broadly defined healthcare expenses. They could use these funds at their discretion for things like normal health costs, lasik, weight loss surgery, Insurance premiums, almost anything health related. These funds could also be willed or donated.
As people begin working while young, they will likely build up a surplus. This could be coupled high deductible insurance at affordable rates. It could also cause deflation in the lower healthcare market as people will be more judicious with their funds.
I would be fine with that, assuming that there is an opt-out, and that in case of such opt-outs, hospitals are allowed under Federal law to turn said opt-outs away.
I'd be fine with that.
...dear god, are you a unicorn? Someone who is capable of thinking of ways to help the whole without infringing upon the individual? I almost feel like I should believe that your response was sarcastic.
If more people could grasp that people don't need saving from themselves, I'm pretty sure we could all agree on a lot more.
No sarcasm. Not a unicorn.0 -
Society can only move as fast as their slowest person. By refusing socialism a country will only move backwards and not progress. Healthy people, who receive regular healthcare are more productive (ie. make more money) and contribute to the economy. By denying healthcare, everyone suffers.
Define "move". If you mean "innovate", I think you are very mistaken. Socialism attenuates progress by removing personal incentive. From each according to his ability only works if people give according to their ability. There is no way to ensure that. The only thing that comes close is force. which is morally indefensible.9 -
I was talking to a younger man at the pub who was sitting at the rail bemoaning government handouts eating into his gross pay. After listening for a bit, I joined in their conversation. I asked the young man if he and his wife had bought their first house. Yes, he replied. Did you get a SHDA-backed loan? I asked. ... Yes... he replied. Then he kinda blinked at me, realized that the SHDA loan (subsidized interest rates for first time home buyers) was a government program. And he kinda slapped his knee and said "huh, I'm gonna have to think about that."
All government programs are "handouts to the undeserving," until it's a program you're utilizing. It really seems to be human nature to feel this way about subsidies and social benefits via government spending. I think education on the issue is going to be part of the solution.
I can absolutely appreciate this point. That being said, as someone who actually goes out of his way to avoid such programs, the feds seem to be doing their damndest to make that impossible. We are creating a culture of reliance, which is fine, assuming that everyone is a willing participant. That last part is where things get sticky, force becomes needed, and we have a serious problem.1 -
How is it that people believe that ACA really forces everyone to carry insurance, and somehow stops people from skipping out on hospital bills? It certainly doesn't. Many of the same people who couldn't afford or didn't have access to affordable health insurance programs before ACA . . . still don't. What happens when they go to the hospital? Same thing as before. They still get treated, and they still don't pay the bill. In fact, many who had other options previously, such as low cost clinics for the poor, no longer do because ACA was going to fix everything and those places went by the wayside. Now, they go to the emergency room for EVERYTHING, and still don't pay the bill. The only thing ACA has done is actually drive up the cost of health insurance. If you don't understand why, please Google "the law of supply and demand". And if you think that the penalty tax the IRS is collecting is going to offset the medical cost, you really are delusional. That money goes straight to the bloated government budget. The hospitals and providers never see a dime of that. And don't even get me started on the insurance companies themselves. If you want to see something really infuriating, also Google "health insurance clawbacks". Then let's see how many are still singing the praises of their insurance policy's prescription drug plan.
Socialism is a system where the less inclined, as well as the less capable, seek to attain a lifestyle equal to that of the more inclined and more capable. As the pressures of socialism equalize the quality of life for everyone, the ones who previously worked hard in order to achieve a greater quality of life begin to see that they are working harder than everyone else and gaining nothing. They begin to back off that wonderful work ethic and only do as much as necessary to get by. The ones who never had that great of a work ethic to begin with decide they are no longer "capable" either, and hop on the wagon of the unemployable and disabled. The quantitative effect of all this is a rapid decline in everyone's quality of life. And, as more and more get tired of pulling the wagon and decide to get in it, society begins to fall apart. Shortages occur due to lack of production - think bread lines. If you want a real life example of this, please look at what is going on in Venezuela. Spoiler alert: there are no pets left in Venezuela, and you can probably guess why.10
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 402 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 998 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions