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
1…78101213…75

Replies

  • Sivadee00
    Sivadee00 Posts: 428 Member
    edited May 2017
    Options
    crazyycatladyy1 wrote: »
    Sivadee00 wrote: »
    It isn't fair that healthy people must pay for the bills of the unhealthy. Having said that, there are some considerations.

    Someone who is overweight/obese and does not have any irriversable damage due to their weight, can reverse their condition. Many years ago I lost over 50lbs for free by walking in the park daily. I also quit smoking for free by just telling myself NO. It's a slap in my face when someone tells me it's not possible to help yourself and lose weight/quit smoking without spending money.

    That said, if a person has developed other medical conditions that restrict their ability to exercise then they do need extra treatment. But what if they are poor or underpaid? What is the solution?

    Well, a payment plan percentage should be applicable (nothing is free) but capped. Any additional funds that need to be covered can be by done so by taxed lotteries. Each state should start a lottery that pays for this group. They already tax lotteries to pay for roads and schooling so why not for medical?

    Just a thought.

    I lost 50lbs without any exercise factored in-just ate at the correct calorie deficit for my weight loss goals. Several years into maintenance now and exercise is still not part of the equation. People can lose weight without exercise-they just need to consume less calories. That should actually save them money as well.


    That's awesome. What other methods did you use to lessen your calories?

    Besides setting a daily calorie limit, I also stopped eating out. This bummed out most people I used to hand out with. Including some family. They know now that I am no good for eating out and that I won't be paying the bill. Lol That saves money too.
  • caliallie2
    caliallie2 Posts: 19 Member
    Options
    So do you think people who are overweight and/or obese should have to pay more?
    I think something needs to be done to make people more accountable for their health in general. Right now its easier and cheaper to the individual to have the medical community treat obesity and its medical outcomes such as diabetes, knee replacement, high cholesterol etc. with surgery and or meds than it is to be an active participant in making the change towards health. Maybe a higher copay for those who consistently come in with very high body fat or demanding a large copay for gastric bypass surgery rather than offering it for free to most. So many people would rather be fixed then do the fixing. You would think that health would be the incentive but if it is not, some financial accountability not to punish persay but to encourage participation.
  • Sivadee00
    Sivadee00 Posts: 428 Member
    edited May 2017
    Options
    VintageFeline wrote: »
    Sivadee00 wrote: »
    It isn't fair that healthy people must pay for the bills of the unhealthy. Having said that, there are some considerations.

    Someone who is overweight/obese and does not have any irriversable damage due to their weight, can reverse their condition. Many years ago I lost over 50lbs for free by walking in the park daily. I also quit smoking for free by just telling myself NO. It's a slap in my face when someone tells me it's not possible to help yourself and lose weight/quit smoking without spending money.

    That said, if a person has developed other medical conditions that restrict their ability to exercise then they do need extra treatment. But what if they are poor or underpaid? What is the solution?

    Well, a payment plan percentage should be applicable (nothing is free) but capped. Any additional funds that need to be covered can be by done so by taxed lotteries. Each state should start a lottery that pays for this group. They already tax lotteries to pay for roads and schooling so why not for medical?

    Just a thought.

    So healthy people not paying the bills of unhealthy. What about things not self inflicted? Isn't it a good thing that society helps out those in a more unfortunate position? It makes for a better functioning society all round, benefits far outweigh the costs. A well and financially stable as possible population is far more cost efficient never mind the just basic overall population happiness. And a happy population is a more productive one.

    But maybe I'm just far too much of a hippy drippy idealist.

    No I don't think your a hippy drippy idealist.
    From what you have typed, you sound very passionate about society.

    I would like society to be more balanced. I never argued against society helping those in a more "unfortunate position". That is why I suggested the capping of insurance fees and each state start taxing lotteries to help pay for those who need further financial assistance with medical needs. This way the mandate can be let go while monies can be collected from a different pool.

    There is no way to say how successful my idea would turn out since I doubt it would happen. Besides, happiness can be a very fickle and subjective objective. Because no matter what good intentions you or I have there will always be unhappy people.
  • crazyycatladyy1
    crazyycatladyy1 Posts: 156 Member
    Options
    Sivadee00 wrote: »
    crazyycatladyy1 wrote: »
    Sivadee00 wrote: »
    It isn't fair that healthy people must pay for the bills of the unhealthy. Having said that, there are some considerations.

    Someone who is overweight/obese and does not have any irriversable damage due to their weight, can reverse their condition. Many years ago I lost over 50lbs for free by walking in the park daily. I also quit smoking for free by just telling myself NO. It's a slap in my face when someone tells me it's not possible to help yourself and lose weight/quit smoking without spending money.

    That said, if a person has developed other medical conditions that restrict their ability to exercise then they do need extra treatment. But what if they are poor or underpaid? What is the solution?

    Well, a payment plan percentage should be applicable (nothing is free) but capped. Any additional funds that need to be covered can be by done so by taxed lotteries. Each state should start a lottery that pays for this group. They already tax lotteries to pay for roads and schooling so why not for medical?

    Just a thought.

    I lost 50lbs without any exercise factored in-just ate at the correct calorie deficit for my weight loss goals. Several years into maintenance now and exercise is still not part of the equation. People can lose weight without exercise-they just need to consume less calories. That should actually save them money as well.


    That's awesome. What other methods did you use to lessen your calories?

    Besides setting a daily calorie limit, I also stopped eating out. This bummed out most people I used to hand out with. Including some family. They know now that I am no good for eating out and that I won't be paying the bill. Lol That saves money too.

    I did an IF protocol for my weight loss phase, which was a fancy way of calorie cycling/counting calories :) That's about it for the weight loss part, maintenance has been a mix of IF protocols and still tracking calorie intake.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    Options
    VintageFeline wrote: »
    Sivadee00 wrote: »
    It isn't fair that healthy people must pay for the bills of the unhealthy. Having said that, there are some considerations.

    Someone who is overweight/obese and does not have any irriversable damage due to their weight, can reverse their condition. Many years ago I lost over 50lbs for free by walking in the park daily. I also quit smoking for free by just telling myself NO. It's a slap in my face when someone tells me it's not possible to help yourself and lose weight/quit smoking without spending money.

    That said, if a person has developed other medical conditions that restrict their ability to exercise then they do need extra treatment. But what if they are poor or underpaid? What is the solution?

    Well, a payment plan percentage should be applicable (nothing is free) but capped. Any additional funds that need to be covered can be by done so by taxed lotteries. Each state should start a lottery that pays for this group. They already tax lotteries to pay for roads and schooling so why not for medical?

    Just a thought.

    So healthy people not paying the bills of unhealthy. What about things not self inflicted? Isn't it a good thing that society helps out those in a more unfortunate position? It makes for a better functioning society all round, benefits far outweigh the costs. A well and financially stable as possible population is far more cost efficient never mind the just basic overall population happiness. And a happy population is a more productive one.

    But maybe I'm just far too much of a hippy drippy idealist.

    I agree with you. I also think that encouraging preventative care is helpful (even if one thinks health insurance should all be individually underwritten based on personal risks, in the US we all end up paying for those on Medicare anyway, however "culpable" they were when younger), and that health is something no one can count on, things happen, and a lot of it is luck.

    But I'm not getting into this here except to let you know that there are some in the US who agree with you. Politics and MFP, never worth it!
  • ninerbuff
    ninerbuff Posts: 48,526 Member
    Options
    crazyycatladyy1 wrote: »
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    IMO, until the US healthcare system isn't a FOR PROFIT venture, people will end up spending their retirement income and savings on it. See how much it costs to get hospitalized or how much medication costs for people who need it. It's pretty astounding and outrageous.
    We could pay for ALL AMERICANS healthcare, it's just that our government chooses to spend more of taxes towards the military might instead.

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
    9285851.png

    Dd was hospitalized a couple weeks ago and so far we have a $7,000 hospital bill pending. That will probably be for the ER (which in the past has run us around $1,000), and then most likely her one night stay, (since the claim is pending it doesn't have the breakdown available yet for what services it's for). All the doctors/specialists etc will be billed separately, as will the CT scan (from previous we know that will be around $1,500 for the scan). The neurologist who overlooked her while we were in the hospital was $468, the radiologist who took the scan was $173 etc. We get small discounts on those though because they were in-network, so we're looking at $411/$123 oop for those two things. There should be at least one other doctor bill incoming, from the ER dr. who examined her/put in her staples, but nothing has come through yet (unless that's rolled into the hospital bill). The hospital we used has a 0% payment plan, with a $20 a month minimum payment option. We've used it before and we'll most likely use that option again for the larger bill. The doctors/CT scan we'll pay oop right away/not need a payment plan.

    I don't think any of the incoming bills are unreasonable for the amount of treatment/care my dd received? We had a potentially life threatening injury and we received prompt and appropriate care, and they had all of the tools, equipment and experienced staff on hand to help us. We had a follow up appointment with the neurologist yesterday, ($100), and as we were walking in the neurologist was running out because he had just been called into emergency surgery, for a child that had just been brought in with serious head trauma, (his office is attached to the hospital for that reason). To have someone like that available to help when needed, as well as the support staff/equipment, is priceless when you're in the midst of emergency situations.
    That just means you have GOOD coverage. Many may not have that availability to it.

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
    9285851.png
  • Wattyz
    Wattyz Posts: 91 Member
    Options
    earlnabby wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    Wattyz wrote: »
    Every insurance has a maximum they pay, right?

    No, they don't. Often there's a deductible before they kick in, but a good policy should not have a maximum.

    the ACA made maximum's illegal.

    Thank you. Luckily I've never had to find out.
  • heiliskrimsli
    heiliskrimsli Posts: 735 Member
    Options
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    heiliskrimsli wrote: »
    Azdak wrote: »
    Instead of wasting so much time and energy coveting our neighbor's goods, we should be working to make society work better for everyone.

    Then my neighbor needs to work, not stand around with a hand out expecting me to hand over what I've earned. I'm not asking them to fork over the fruit of their labor for free, but that's what they're calling me selfish as they demand entitlement to what I've earned.
    So your neighbor can somehow live next to you rent/mortgage free? How does that work unless you live in section 8 housing?

    You must have a really interesting life taking everything completely literally.
  • heiliskrimsli
    heiliskrimsli Posts: 735 Member
    Options
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    heiliskrimsli wrote: »
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    heiliskrimsli wrote: »
    Azdak wrote: »
    Instead of wasting so much time and energy coveting our neighbor's goods, we should be working to make society work better for everyone.

    Then my neighbor needs to work, not stand around with a hand out expecting me to hand over what I've earned. I'm not asking them to fork over the fruit of their labor for free, but that's what they're calling me selfish as they demand entitlement to what I've earned.
    So your neighbor can somehow live next to you rent/mortgage free? How does that work unless you live in section 8 housing?

    You must have a really interesting life taking everything completely literally.
    Or I just question how some may be exaggerating what they are saying. ;)

    I responded to a comment regarding coveting what my neighbor has because I don't want to shoulder the cost of everyone who thinks they're entitled to handouts. The point was not the actual location of the person who expects the handout, but in which direction the coveting is happening.

    You're focusing on the wrong part of that statement. It's either because you really don't understand it, or you're only interested in starting a fight. Either way it's pretty lame.

Categories