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
-
Cost sharing is appropriate but there should also be consequences for things under your control. If your behavior affects your car insurance, why not health insurance.
Conversely we should also increase price transparency and competition for basic services. Annual check up and blood work should be affordable, even if they treat it like an assembly line to keep the costs low.
I don't put much faith in 'wellness programs' since people mostly know they have problems with their lifestyle. We probably need more PSA type marketing on the benefits of healthy living. We have a marketing problem.7 -
No I don't -
Then smokers should pay more
Oh and people that go skiing (break way more limbs) and those that drive cars (major reason of injury)
The ones that work in high risk industry (oil rigs etc) Chemical industry (cancer risks)
Oh and those that have children when they know heditary diseases run into one of the family? For instance in my family asthma runs in the family (I have it too) should I pay more? Or in my husbands family heditary heart conditions and heditary diabetes 2 (yes there is a genetic link) Should they pay more?
Or the people in Volendam where there is a specific disease local and genetic Yet they insist on procreating Should they pay more?
Or the people that have the audacity to get really old and cannot move anymore? My grandmother had a fall at 72, broke her back, went blind and deaf. Needed increasing care as a result. Should she pay more as she fell over a chair she'd left a little carelessly in the wrong spot? After all she lived until 86.
Where do you stop? So I say no. There are things we cannot control, there are things we can but still do and we all do something that the other considers to be stupid and possibly endangering our own health. We share the burden
I am in favour of programs that help people to get things back under control and to give support where needed/wanted. I am in favour of using tax where food is generally considered to be not that healthy (soda/pop/carbonated sugar waters). But health insurance, no that is not a good incentive59 -
So do you think people who are overweight and/or obese should have to pay more?
No, I don't think people who are overweight or obese should pay more for health insurance.
Do you think this would be a deterrent to gaining weight for people that are not in this category?
I think it would deter people from getting health care they need if insurance becomes more unaffordable. Trying to punish/threaten people to stay thin is not promoting health IMO.
I think standards would be tightened up so more people would be considered overweight by insurance companies not based on their actual health. I think it would lead to more discrimination of people based on size.
Should people with medications/medical conditions that cause weight gain be exempt?
Why should they? If they are overweight then they have the same increased health risks as a person who got there without medications or medical conditions. How is their fat body exempt if it potentially causes the same health problems?
35 -
smoking is a "touchable" source, so what are you going to base obese on? Weight? BMI? Fat percentage, these are all figures that are either very shadowy/incorrect, or can fluctuate greatly16
-
Charging more for obesity would certainly have to lead to charging more to anyone significantly underweight. What measure would be used to figure out who to charge more? BMI is not a healthy measure for everyone, placing people into a box and forcing them to pay money for being outside of that infringes on many areas of life.23
-
This discussion makes me realise how lucky I am living in Europe.
Loading is not allowed here. If you need medical help its their for you regardless of your situation.60 -
No. Sounds like a slippery slope and where does it stop?26
-
Should you charge more for someone whose parents had cancer? What if they grew up in foster care (childhood neglect and abuse are associated with a whole host of health issues later in life)? Should their genes be tested and then we charge more for anyone predisposed to any disease?40
-
Also charging more just means that more overweight and obese people won't get health coverage and will not get preventative care and then won't see a doctor until they wind up in the ER with something life-threatening.39
-
Cost sharing is appropriate but there should also be consequences for things under your control. If your behavior affects your car insurance, why not health insurance.
Problem is that health insurance is nothing like car insurance because it is not freely underwritten because the truth is it's not really insurance. It covers fixed costs and, of course to the extent it covers pre-existing conditions (and can't charge more for them) that's another huge way it's not insurance.
I don't care about this, but I think we need to be honest that it's not really an insurance model and people don't really want the insurance model. (The number of people who would not be able to get insurance or would pay way, way, way more for it if it were actually based on individual underwriting is huge, and this would also probably lead to people not getting medical care -- just like minor accidents often are not reported or other possible claims on insurance forgone in other areas -- to avoid losing/cost increases with insurance. Most don't realize this, because most (or enough, anyway) are protected from this by group employer insurance. They don't connect their own actions to costs.)
Anyway, I'm not opposed to having some kind of surcharge for obesity, but it would be a pain and how does one do it, rely on self reporting? (I'm not sure how the smoking thing works.) Seems to me that it's essentially the same as those wellness programs in reverse (paying less for being normal weight=paying more for being overweight if the total is the same, obviously). But what we realistically cannot and will not have is actual underwriting based on risks.
(I think the political pressure is such that paying more for health insurance also will not happen, and it does open the door to other intrusions -- like in diet? -- that I think most would oppose.)I don't put much faith in 'wellness programs' since people mostly know they have problems with their lifestyle. We probably need more PSA type marketing on the benefits of healthy living. We have a marketing problem.
I think wellness programs are about exercising, reducing cholesterol, reducing weight. I don't think they work that well, but I do think having specific goals and action steps that have specific shorter term rewards has more potential for changing behavior than reliance on general "I know should lose weight and exercise more and eat better, but it's all overwhelming and I don't really know what to do and will do something someday." There is some evidence that people who change their behaviors often do it as a result of being told that it will have specific health consequences -- this helps with the long-term/short-term reward issue by making it more concrete and short-term. I think such a thing might have been helpful for me (maybe, maybe not), as I knew I should lose weight but put it off in part because I had no feeling of urgency -- my health and tests were always good and I knew it was a risk but kept thinking I could fix it later. (Ultimately it wasn't health but just being disgusted with myself and wanting to be more active and fit and look better that motivated me. I was sick of feeling depressed and miserable every time I bought clothes or someone pulled out a camera.)6 -
This is already in place for our insurance. Smokers pay more as well, and staring next year those with bad blood work numbers will also pay more. We'll pay higher premiums for my husband with the new rule next year and I don't have a problem with that-he's a higher risk for needing costly medical care. Getting an insurance policy through the company is optional so if someone doesn't agree with these policies they don't need to participate.
edit: grammar4 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Cost sharing is appropriate but there should also be consequences for things under your control. If your behavior affects your car insurance, why not health insurance.
Problem is that health insurance is nothing like car insurance because it is not freely underwritten because the truth is it's not really insurance. It covers fixed costs and, of course to the extent it covers pre-existing conditions (and can't charge more for them) that's another huge way it's not insurance.
I don't care about this, but I think we need to be honest that it's not really an insurance model and people don't really want the insurance model. (The number of people who would not be able to get insurance or would pay way, way, way more for it if it were actually based on individual underwriting is huge, and this would also probably lead to people not getting medical care -- just like minor accidents often are not reported or other possible claims on insurance forgone in other areas -- to avoid losing/cost increases with insurance. Most don't realize this, because most (or enough, anyway) are protected from this by group employer insurance. They don't connect their own actions to costs.)
Anyway, I'm not opposed to having some kind of surcharge for obesity, but it would be a pain and how does one do it, rely on self reporting? (I'm not sure how the smoking thing works.) Seems to me that it's essentially the same as those wellness programs in reverse (paying less for being normal weight=paying more for being overweight if the total is the same, obviously). But what we realistically cannot and will not have is actual underwriting based on risks.
(I think the political pressure is such that paying more for health insurance also will not happen, and it does open the door to other intrusions -- like in diet? -- that I think most would oppose.)I don't put much faith in 'wellness programs' since people mostly know they have problems with their lifestyle. We probably need more PSA type marketing on the benefits of healthy living. We have a marketing problem.
I think wellness programs are about exercising, reducing cholesterol, reducing weight. I don't think they work that well, but I do think having specific goals and action steps that have specific shorter term rewards has more potential for changing behavior than reliance on general "I know should lose weight and exercise more and eat better, but it's all overwhelming and I don't really know what to do and will do something someday." There is some evidence that people who change their behaviors often do it as a result of being told that it will have specific health consequences -- this helps with the long-term/short-term reward issue by making it more concrete and short-term. I think such a thing might have been helpful for me (maybe, maybe not), as I knew I should lose weight but put it off in part because I had no feeling of urgency -- my health and tests were always good and I knew it was a risk but kept thinking I could fix it later. (Ultimately it wasn't health but just being disgusted with myself and wanting to be more active and fit and look better that motivated me. I was sick of feeling depressed and miserable every time I bought clothes or someone pulled out a camera.)
It's already implemented for our insurance and every October (during open enrollment), employees and their spouses have to go in for mandatory health screenings (if you want insurance through the company). Basic blood work (cholesterol, glucose etc), weight, blood pressure and waist measurements are taken. They run a specific blood test to detect smokers as well. BMI is figured out during this visit.1 -
Carillon_Campanello wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »
My employer doesn't hire smokers.
They also have a surcharge on insurance premiums to any "grandfathered" smokers that were employees prior to this policy being enacted.
With the % of Americans that are considered obese the backlash would be far and wide (is that a pun...no offense).
I see how this could be construed as a "surcharge" or penalty against employees that are obese. I think the litigation that followed directly after (and likely prior too) would vastly outweigh any cost savings benefits of an "obesity surcharge" on the premiums. When looking at the number of Americans that are obese...It's a pretty big hornets nest to kick and expect little repercussions.
So far I am aware of exactly one lawsuit in which an employer refused to hire someone due to his weight. He lost summarily because weight is not a protected class under either the ADA or EEOC. I don't think that would get very far.
Since smokers (something directly under their control) are already charged more and can be passed over for hiring or even fired if they fail to quit smoking in a mandated time frame I see no problem with extending this to overweight/obesity. It's a choice. If you don't like the consequences of it, make a different choice.9 -
BMI isn't a great measure though, as some people will have a high BMI but low body fat--if they work out a lot. My husband lifts weights for example.8
-
crazyycatladyy1 wrote: »
It's already implemented for our insurance and every October (during open enrollment), employees and their spouses have to go in for mandatory health screenings (if you want insurance through the company). Basic blood work (cholesterol, glucose etc), weight, blood pressure and waist measurements are taken. They run a specific blood test to detect smokers as well. BMI is figured out during this visit.
Same at my previous employment through the state- we had state run health insurance for state employees that started rolling out these wellness visits as mandatory- or you get a $500 deductible increase. Next year, if you don't have a doctor's "excuse" then if you test poorly in these metrics, it is a deductible increase. It included all that CrazyCatLady mentioned. I no longer work there, however, and my new insurance doesn't have those requirements at the moment.
So it is already kind of starting in many places in the US.3 -
nevadavis1 wrote: »BMI isn't a great measure though, as some people will have a high BMI but low body fat--if they work out a lot. My husband lifts weights for example.
The vast majority of people who think they are outliers are wrong. Though he could always volunteer to go in the dunk tank, get a DEXA scan, or use waist-to-height ratio to prove that he is actually an outlier.14 -
nevadavis1 wrote: »BMI isn't a great measure though, as some people will have a high BMI but low body fat--if they work out a lot. My husband lifts weights for example.
Do you know what your husband's bmi is? For our insurance-the bmi number is quite high for the penalty (into the obese category).2 -
Penthesilea514 wrote: »crazyycatladyy1 wrote: »
It's already implemented for our insurance and every October (during open enrollment), employees and their spouses have to go in for mandatory health screenings (if you want insurance through the company). Basic blood work (cholesterol, glucose etc), weight, blood pressure and waist measurements are taken. They run a specific blood test to detect smokers as well. BMI is figured out during this visit.
Same at my previous employment through the state- we had state run health insurance for state employees that started rolling out these wellness visits as mandatory- or you get a $500 deductible increase. Next year, if you don't have a doctor's "excuse" then if you test poorly in these metrics, it is a deductible increase. It included all that CrazyCatLady mentioned. I no longer work there, however, and my new insurance doesn't have those requirements at the moment.
So it is already kind of starting in many places in the US.
Yep, that's exactly how they rolled out the changes-at first there was incentives, then penalties. They gave us plenty of notice though (several years), so none of it was a surprise. They also offer all sorts of resources for those who want help to change things.1 -
Every time people are checked out at an office, we pay for the visit. Every stay, test, etc, we pay. It doesn't matter the condition. Every insurance has a maximum they pay, right? No reason to give insurance companies more money to put into their pockets, that just gives people more reason to not go to the doctor.
No, I don't think so.18 -
Being from the UK I have nothing to offer but this discussion fascinates me. Your healthcare is so complex. Saying that our national health service is moving gradually towards privatisation and there are constantly think pieces about whether people who make avoidable decisions that lead to accidents/health problems e.g. drinking, smoking, overeating should have to pay to treat such health problems.
I disagree, I think the only people who should be charged are those who don't show up for their appointments (no excuse there) or who waste time by showing up to A&E with minor illnesses.18
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 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
- 911 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions