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?
Replies
-
So my insurance rates should drop if I'm in perfect health? Wow, I've been paying 1,229.00 a month for ever. Oh wait, my BMI says I'm obese. Wonder how BMI knows it's fat or muscle?2
-
So my insurance rates should drop if I'm in perfect health? Wow, I've been paying 1,229.00 a month for ever. Oh wait, my BMI says I'm obese. Wonder how BMI knows it's fat or muscle?
Behavioral modeling is a successful business model. I would like to see health insurance follow a similar model such as auto insurance, only filing claims for major expenses and patients incorporated into various risk pools; however regulations have made this impossible. Rewarding good behavior isn't PC.
Good question regarding insurance policy views on bodybuilders and BMI. I would imagine they have this incorporated as even government service recognizes this outlier.1 -
It doesn't, by definition. That is the biggest flaw with using BMI as an indicator of health or fitness.So my insurance rates should drop if I'm in perfect health? Wow, I've been paying 1,229.00 a month for ever. Oh wait, my BMI says I'm obese. Wonder how BMI knows it's fat or muscle?
I am guessing you know this and were being rhetorical and/or facetious, but just in case...1 -
The extreme sports listed tend to be fairly expensive--either through the equipment necessary or travel to venues. Does that mean that those who participate in those sports are independently wealthy or just have good jobs with comprehensive insurance so that they are left out estimates of cost of care because it's not through a publicly-funded source? It would be interesting to know if the numbers cited for cost of obesity are all costs, are only those paid by Medicare/Medicaid/ACA-subsidies? And if obesity rates trend upward with reduced socioeconomic status, wouldn't surcharges for obesity just be another tax on the poor?
A climbing rope costs $200. A harness is about $50. Gas for a Saturday trip to the crag is $20. Free climbing isn't any more expensive than cable TV. It doesn't mean people are independently wealthy.4 -
NorthCascades wrote: »The extreme sports listed tend to be fairly expensive--either through the equipment necessary or travel to venues. Does that mean that those who participate in those sports are independently wealthy or just have good jobs with comprehensive insurance so that they are left out estimates of cost of care because it's not through a publicly-funded source? It would be interesting to know if the numbers cited for cost of obesity are all costs, are only those paid by Medicare/Medicaid/ACA-subsidies? And if obesity rates trend upward with reduced socioeconomic status, wouldn't surcharges for obesity just be another tax on the poor?
A climbing rope costs $200. A harness is about $50. Gas for a Saturday trip to the crag is $20. Free climbing isn't any more expensive than cable TV. It doesn't mean people are independently wealthy.
I'm laughing at the concept of wealthy rock climbers. Practically every climber I know barely scraped by. This was one of the key demographics I point to when people comment that it matters what you eat. Climbers notoriously have atrocious diets by conventional standards, but Olympian physiques.3 -
@CSARdiver
Fred Beckey is probably America's most darling climber, although it's especially easy for me to say that considering that he put up most of the first ascents in my state and wrote THE guide books, known collectively as The Beckey Bible.
His life story - "Dirtbag" - just hit a theater near me.
You probably know all about "dirbag" climbers, people living in their vans, parked at the crags, living the cheap life so as to spend as much of it as possible outdoors.
Here's a recent (April 2017) picture of the guy, for everybody in this thread who complained that reckless and wealthy climbers are taking all the sickness before obese people can get it:
5 -
NorthCascades wrote: »@CSARdiver
Fred Beckey is probably America's most darling climber, although it's especially easy for me to say that considering that he put up most of the first ascents in my state and wrote THE guide books, known collectively as The Beckey Bible.
His life story - "Dirtbag" - just hit a theater near me.
You probably know all about "dirbag" climbers, people living in their vans, parked at the crags, living the cheap life so as to spend as much of it as possible outdoors.
Here's a recent (April 2017) picture of the guy, for everybody in this thread who complained that reckless and wealthy climbers are taking all the sickness before obese people can get it:
Outstanding! I was completely unaware of this, but was just pulling out my guidebooks penned by Fred to my son when we were watching Valley Uprising. I figured with your handle you were a Beckey fan.
3 -
I think that it would be better to have incentive programs for positive behavior than to penalize people for negative behavior.
The previous company I worked for gave us a discount based on different factors: blood pressure, BMI (under 30), cholesterol, not smoking, and other factors. You could also appeal if you failed one of the factors. I appealed BMI (I was 30.1 at the time and was desperately trying to lose weight. Also, my good cholesterol was really high. They granted my appeal.
That was the company paying the discount, not the insurance company. Now, I would pass with flying colors.
I have a disease (MS) that costs more to be covered. I do swim 6 days a week and am back on my way to a healthy weight.
I certainly wouldn't want to pay more because I have a disease that I had no control over getting.
When I was on insurance through Obamacare and my premiums went up to $1000/month, this guy told me that I was lucky to have insurance since my treatments were so expensive. Yet, he was getting free insurance because he chose not to work and live on welfare. I guess life will never be fair!5 -
Getting a discount for not smoking means smokers pay more money which is exactly the same in the end as charging them more to begin with. I don't think many people would argue that people with diseases should pay more because that's mostly out of you control.nickiphillips1 wrote: »I think that it would be better to have incentive programs for positive behavior than to penalize people for negative behavior.
The previous company I worked for gave us a discount based on different factors: blood pressure, BMI (under 30), cholesterol, not smoking, and other factors. You could also appeal if you failed one of the factors. I appealed BMI (I was 30.1 at the time and was desperately trying to lose weight. Also, my good cholesterol was really high. They granted my appeal.
That was the company paying the discount, not the insurance company. Now, I would pass with flying colors.
I have a disease (MS) that costs more to be covered. I do swim 6 days a week and am back on my way to a healthy weight.
I certainly wouldn't want to pay more because I have a disease that I had no control over getting.
When I was on insurance through Obamacare and my premiums went up to $1000/month, this guy told me that I was lucky to have insurance since my treatments were so expensive. Yet, he was getting free insurance because he chose not to work and live on welfare. I guess life will never be fair!
2 -
JohnnyPenso wrote: »
Getting a discount for not smoking means smokers pay more money which is exactly the same in the end as charging them more to begin with. I don't think many people would argue that people with diseases should pay more because that's mostly out of you control.nickiphillips1 wrote: »I think that it would be better to have incentive programs for positive behavior than to penalize people for negative behavior.
The previous company I worked for gave us a discount based on different factors: blood pressure, BMI (under 30), cholesterol, not smoking, and other factors. You could also appeal if you failed one of the factors. I appealed BMI (I was 30.1 at the time and was desperately trying to lose weight. Also, my good cholesterol was really high. They granted my appeal.
That was the company paying the discount, not the insurance company. Now, I would pass with flying colors.
I have a disease (MS) that costs more to be covered. I do swim 6 days a week and am back on my way to a healthy weight.
I certainly wouldn't want to pay more because I have a disease that I had no control over getting.
When I was on insurance through Obamacare and my premiums went up to $1000/month, this guy told me that I was lucky to have insurance since my treatments were so expensive. Yet, he was getting free insurance because he chose not to work and live on welfare. I guess life will never be fair!
I guess there's some psychological thing where even though it's exactly the same thing, it just sounds nicer when someone says "Oh, it's a discount for not smoking."
The same mind-trickery that is why prices at retail stores will never end in a whole dollar. Because 14.99$ "sounds better" than 15$.3 -
heiliskrimsli wrote: »JohnnyPenso wrote: »
Getting a discount for not smoking means smokers pay more money which is exactly the same in the end as charging them more to begin with. I don't think many people would argue that people with diseases should pay more because that's mostly out of you control.nickiphillips1 wrote: »I think that it would be better to have incentive programs for positive behavior than to penalize people for negative behavior.
The previous company I worked for gave us a discount based on different factors: blood pressure, BMI (under 30), cholesterol, not smoking, and other factors. You could also appeal if you failed one of the factors. I appealed BMI (I was 30.1 at the time and was desperately trying to lose weight. Also, my good cholesterol was really high. They granted my appeal.
That was the company paying the discount, not the insurance company. Now, I would pass with flying colors.
I have a disease (MS) that costs more to be covered. I do swim 6 days a week and am back on my way to a healthy weight.
I certainly wouldn't want to pay more because I have a disease that I had no control over getting.
When I was on insurance through Obamacare and my premiums went up to $1000/month, this guy told me that I was lucky to have insurance since my treatments were so expensive. Yet, he was getting free insurance because he chose not to work and live on welfare. I guess life will never be fair!
I guess there's some psychological thing where even though it's exactly the same thing, it just sounds nicer when someone says "Oh, it's a discount for not smoking."
The same mind-trickery that is why prices at retail stores will never end in a whole dollar. Because 14.99$ "sounds better" than 15$.
Personally more than okay if refer to this as a penalty. It's undesirable behavior, we're not talking about kids where everyone has to have a medal.
It's not nice, why try to sugar coat it.3 -
Packerjohn wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »JohnnyPenso wrote: »
Getting a discount for not smoking means smokers pay more money which is exactly the same in the end as charging them more to begin with. I don't think many people would argue that people with diseases should pay more because that's mostly out of you control.nickiphillips1 wrote: »I think that it would be better to have incentive programs for positive behavior than to penalize people for negative behavior.
The previous company I worked for gave us a discount based on different factors: blood pressure, BMI (under 30), cholesterol, not smoking, and other factors. You could also appeal if you failed one of the factors. I appealed BMI (I was 30.1 at the time and was desperately trying to lose weight. Also, my good cholesterol was really high. They granted my appeal.
That was the company paying the discount, not the insurance company. Now, I would pass with flying colors.
I have a disease (MS) that costs more to be covered. I do swim 6 days a week and am back on my way to a healthy weight.
I certainly wouldn't want to pay more because I have a disease that I had no control over getting.
When I was on insurance through Obamacare and my premiums went up to $1000/month, this guy told me that I was lucky to have insurance since my treatments were so expensive. Yet, he was getting free insurance because he chose not to work and live on welfare. I guess life will never be fair!
I guess there's some psychological thing where even though it's exactly the same thing, it just sounds nicer when someone says "Oh, it's a discount for not smoking."
The same mind-trickery that is why prices at retail stores will never end in a whole dollar. Because 14.99$ "sounds better" than 15$.
Personally more than okay if refer to this as a penalty. It's undesirable behavior, we're not talking about kids where everyone has to have a medal.
It's not nice, why try to sugar coat it.
We should do whatever is most likely to result in people changing their behavior to be more healthy. If that means structuring it as incentives (research should be done), why not? It is the same thing. (I was surprised at how many people seem good with one version and not okay with the other in that to me they are the same thing, but human nature, I suppose.)
Don't know what "everyone gets a medal" has to do with it, as there is a specific benefit (discount) that not everyone gets that people would get for achieving and maintaining a healthy weight and perhaps other fitness goals.4 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »JohnnyPenso wrote: »
Getting a discount for not smoking means smokers pay more money which is exactly the same in the end as charging them more to begin with. I don't think many people would argue that people with diseases should pay more because that's mostly out of you control.nickiphillips1 wrote: »I think that it would be better to have incentive programs for positive behavior than to penalize people for negative behavior.
The previous company I worked for gave us a discount based on different factors: blood pressure, BMI (under 30), cholesterol, not smoking, and other factors. You could also appeal if you failed one of the factors. I appealed BMI (I was 30.1 at the time and was desperately trying to lose weight. Also, my good cholesterol was really high. They granted my appeal.
That was the company paying the discount, not the insurance company. Now, I would pass with flying colors.
I have a disease (MS) that costs more to be covered. I do swim 6 days a week and am back on my way to a healthy weight.
I certainly wouldn't want to pay more because I have a disease that I had no control over getting.
When I was on insurance through Obamacare and my premiums went up to $1000/month, this guy told me that I was lucky to have insurance since my treatments were so expensive. Yet, he was getting free insurance because he chose not to work and live on welfare. I guess life will never be fair!
I guess there's some psychological thing where even though it's exactly the same thing, it just sounds nicer when someone says "Oh, it's a discount for not smoking."
The same mind-trickery that is why prices at retail stores will never end in a whole dollar. Because 14.99$ "sounds better" than 15$.
Personally more than okay if refer to this as a penalty. It's undesirable behavior, we're not talking about kids where everyone has to have a medal.
It's not nice, why try to sugar coat it.
We should do whatever is most likely to result in people changing their behavior to be more healthy. If that means structuring it as incentives (research should be done), why not? It is the same thing. (I was surprised at how many people seem good with one version and not okay with the other in that to me they are the same thing, but human nature, I suppose.)
Don't know what "everyone gets a medal" has to do with it, as there is a specific benefit (discount) that not everyone gets that people would get for achieving and maintaining a healthy weight and perhaps other fitness goals.
I think incentives are good. I would have liked to see my asthma surcharge deleted based on a lung capacity test for example. Why? Because if you manage to be sporty with exercise induced asthma, it actually cancels out the limited lung capacity so you approach normal levels. There are Olympic athletes with exercise induced asthma so with concerted effort and dedication it can be done. If someone has an inherited condition and they've taken extraordinary steps to minimise it's impact on their risk, then there should be an incentive for that.
Maybe also a surcharge for anyone who uses a tanning bed too...as tanning beds are estimated to cause 384 million a year in skin cancer costs to the healthcare system.3 -
Because it isn't the same thing, especially psychologically.lemurcat12 wrote: »We should do whatever is most likely to result in people changing their behavior to be more healthy. If that means structuring it as incentives (research should be done), why not? It is the same thing. (I was surprised at how many people seem good with one version and not okay with the other in that to me they are the same thing, but human nature, I suppose.)
"Incentives to be healthy" means pandering to people who are overweight as to not to hurt their feelings while simultaneously "rewarding" others for being responsible with their choices - a gold star or participation medal for doing what everyone should be doing.
"Taxing the overweight" is making it clear that being responsible for your decisions is the expected behavior and failure to comply will have negative consequences.
You might not like the difference and it might not be "sensitive" or "nice" or "politically correct" but the difference is definitely there.
I will just say I have some experience and expertise in this realm and leave it at that.
Which is easier for a overweight person to do?
1) Accepting that the more "fit" people are going to get what amounts to a hypothetical $150 extra in their paychecks due to various "incentives" and move on without need for a lifestyle change
or
2) Making the necessary lifestyle changes to get that $150 for themselves
Which choice is made most often? Number 1 of course.
So, net effect? Most overweight people do NOT make the necessary long-term lifestyle changes, obesity-related costs continue to rise and "healthy" individuals continue to see their insurance rates go up.
Of course the "$150" does not cover the additional insurance premium costs for the year so "fit" people must still pay more out of pocket.3 -
Because it isn't the same thing, especially psychologically.lemurcat12 wrote: »We should do whatever is most likely to result in people changing their behavior to be more healthy. If that means structuring it as incentives (research should be done), why not? It is the same thing. (I was surprised at how many people seem good with one version and not okay with the other in that to me they are the same thing, but human nature, I suppose.)
"Incentives to be healthy" means pandering to people who are overweight as to not to hurt their feelings while simultaneously "rewarding" others for being responsible with their choices - a gold star or participation medal for doing what everyone should be doing.
"Taxing the overweight" is making it clear that being responsible for your decisions is the expected behavior and failure to comply will have negative consequences.
You might not like the difference and it might not be "sensitive" or "politically correct" but the difference is definitely there.
I will just say I have some experience and expertise in this realm and leave it at that.
It's true it's not the same psychologically but you do catch more bees with honey than vinegar. Really all you're advocating is using a stick whereas others are advocating using a carrot. People do tend to modify behaviours when they have a carrot because people are inherently self cantered. Platitudes to civic duty to not get obese results in smash the patriarchy fat acceptance super size models and activists. Monetary incentives to get or stay slim would result in more people pursuing that goal. There was a TV show/documentary based on a study that showed that when people bet their own money, they lost more weight and kept it off than if they were offered any sort of other incentive.4 -
@Macy9336
Sticks work better than carrots, especially when the rabbits have already eaten themselves full.
We aren't dealing with flies here we are dealing with people who have variable outlooks, prejudices, beliefs and the like so I don't care about honey or vinegar.
Appeals to emotion don't do it for me, sorry. It isn't personal.
You actually proved my point with your last sentence.
When they directly have something of their OWN to lose -money on a bet, an additional tax- then changes are more likely to occur.
Whether they are long-term is another story.
See the addendum (for clarity) to my previous post that may have come after your quote.
That is not the same as incentives to get and stay thin. I work with a company that pays people extra to participate in the wellness plan and get to a healthy weight. It is based on BMI, but you cannot win them all at once.
Guess what? A very small fraction of eligible overweight people take advantage of it.
I have heard dozens of excuses for why this is but it all comes down to not wanting to do the work.
You know the largest proportion of people who participate in the plan? Reasonably fit people who already do the work.
Look at the reverse. The number of people here who are OK with incentives to get/stay "healthy" but are simultaneously opposed to being "taxed". Why do you think that is?
Exactly the reason I stated: The "tax" would affect them directly by coming out of their paychecks and they would feel targeted.
The "incentives" only affect them peripherally. You don't miss what you never had.
@lemurcat12 wrote: »
"We should do whatever is most likely to result in people changing their behavior to be more healthy."
"incentives to get healthy" have been demonstrated not to work for many people.
An obesity tax (like Japan uses) "is most likely to result in people changing their behavior", based on the data we have now.2 -
You may feel this is a mere platitude, but I and others disagree with you.Platitudes to civic duty to not get obese results in smash the patriarchy fat acceptance super size models and activists.
There is so much concern for the "fatness" of our population that it is being classified as a National Security issue by some.
Something like 1 in 3 people are too fat to serve in the military.
"...nearly one in three young adults ages 17 to 24 is too heavy to serve in the military. Among active-duty service members, 12 percent are obese based on their height and weight, an increase of 61 percent since 2002. The military’s health system spends more than $1.5 billion annually treating obesity-related health problems and replacing troops discharged because they are unfit."
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Wellness/school-lunches-pose-national-security-threat-ret-military/story?id=10424313
As for "smash the patriarchy fat acceptance super size models and activists" yes, down with that.
It does not promote healthy lifestyle choices and so the whole "Fat Acceptance Movement" presents a risk to our National Security. When you have already lost 1/3 of your fighting force because "being fat" is more socially acceptable then it is a problem.
I am not saying anyone should be a Barbie Doll or have unrealistic body goals but "reasonably fit" is not too much to expect.
If you are a US citizen and so overweight that you cannot serve in our Armed Forces then you are too fat. Period.
If you don't feel it is your "civic duty" to fight to defend your home, your country or your family in a time of crisis then we have nothing else to discuss on the subject.
* Disclosure: I work with branches of the DoD, the United States Armed Forces and various Law Enforcement personnel and agencies. I am very opposed to overweight LEOs as well.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »We should do whatever is most likely to result in people changing their behavior to be more healthy. If that means structuring it as incentives (research should be done), why not? It is the same thing. (I was surprised at how many people seem good with one version and not okay with the other in that to me they are the same thing, but human nature, I suppose.)
Because it isn't the same thing, especially psychologically.
I agree it's not, psychologically. I think it's likely to be more of an incentive to frame it as a benefit for someone doing better than as a penalty for being fat, and thus do more to result in the positive result we all want.
But I would think some research should be done, of course."Incentives to be healthy" means pandering to people who are overweight as to not to hurt their feelings while simultaneously "rewarding" others for being responsible with their choices - a gold star or participation medal for doing what everyone should be doing.
If the result is more people losing weight/being fit, who cares? People who are overweight are still paying more, which was the result desired, no?Which is easier for a overweight person to do?
1) Accepting that the more "fit" people are going to get what amounts to a hypothetical $150 extra in their paychecks due to various "incentives" and move on without need for a lifestyle change
or
2) Making the necessary lifestyle changes to get that $150 for themselves
Which choice is made most often? Number 1 of course.
It seems to me (including from this thread) that calling it a penalty is going to make people resentful, feel like they are being treated unfairly, and to lobby to change the rule. Calling it a benefit is going to be accepted and do more to get people to try to get the benefit themselves.
Speaking for myself, my insurance has always cost the same regardless, but I did look at its wellness program and happily logged in my own improvements and saw it as an incentive to get, sure, a gold star. People like positive feedback, or enough do that it could help. Tying this to a financial benefit (that is economically identical to the financial penalty you want) would only add to that.1 -
Also, of course, what is more likely to actually become law, given the reaction we've seen here, in a society that is majority overweight?2
-
Thus supporting my assertion that being overweight is too common and has too much social acceptance already.lemurcat12 wrote: »Also, of course, what is more likely to actually become law, given the reaction we've seen here, in a society that is majority overweight?0 -
Thus supporting my assertion that being overweight is too common and has too much social acceptance already.lemurcat12 wrote: »Also, of course, what is more likely to actually become law, given the reaction we've seen here, in a society that is majority overweight?
So we aren't talking about anything that we actually expect to happen?1 -
Until someone sucks it up and literally lays down the law, no.lemurcat12 wrote: »So we aren't talking about anything that we actually expect to happen?
It may eventually happen if the DoD forces some dietary requirements to "school lunch" and related programs but it will take a while.
A big reason there is a school lunch program in the first place is because people were too malnourished to serve.
Now that the trend is reversed I expect they will be the only agency with enough reach to do anything.
It will take a lot of arguing in Congress and working with the the ED to get anywhere.
Likely a long while to see any improvement and will require tagging in the FDA, USDA, etc. also.
Because of the power of DHS, calling anything a "National Security issue" raises the pucker factor.
Being overweight is still not accepted in the military no matter how far the "Fat Acceptance" crowd want to try to push.2 -
You may feel this is a mere platitude, but I and others disagree with you.Platitudes to civic duty to not get obese results in smash the patriarchy fat acceptance super size models and activists.
There is so much concern for the "fatness" of our population that it is being classified as a National Security issue by some.
Something like 1 in 3 people are too fat to serve in the military.
"...nearly one in three young adults ages 17 to 24 is too heavy to serve in the military. Among active-duty service members, 12 percent are obese based on their height and weight, an increase of 61 percent since 2002. The military’s health system spends more than $1.5 billion annually treating obesity-related health problems and replacing troops discharged because they are unfit."
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Wellness/school-lunches-pose-national-security-threat-ret-military/story?id=10424313
As for "smash the patriarchy fat acceptance super size models and activists" yes, down with that.
It does not promote healthy lifestyle choices and so the whole "Fat Acceptance Movement" presents a risk to our National Security. When you have already lost 1/3 of your fighting force because "being fat" is more socially acceptable then it is a problem.
I am not saying anyone should be a Barbie Doll or have unrealistic body goals but "reasonably fit" is not too much to expect.
If you are a US citizen and so overweight that you cannot serve in our Armed Forces then you are too fat. Period.
If you don't feel it is your "civic duty" to fight to defend your home, your country or your family in a time of crisis then we have nothing else to discuss on the subject.
* Disclosure: I work with branches of the DoD, the United States Armed Forces and various Law Enforcement personnel and agencies. I am very opposed to overweight LEOs as well.
Oh, I agree with what you've said about fat acceptance and I completely agree obesity is at crisis levels. I will say that I am glad the fitness test in the USAF was improved recently as that bike test we did for years was a complete and utter joke. We used to talk about "biking to war." Thanks for your service, I did 18yrs myself (retired with TBI and ptsd) ( I am US citizen living in UK)
I just know that in my experience, the threat of being discharged from the military...losing their entire pay check, and housing and healthcare didn't faze some of today's youngsters at all. I sat through a watershed moment during a status of discipline commanders brief when for the first time there were more discharges due to failing the fitness test than there were for all other violations combined (drugs, crime, DUI, insubordination, etc) so I guess my viewpoint is a bit coloured by what I saw. True this was when the new, stricter ( thank good) fitness tests were introduced but still, they weren't that hard to meet. But, if losing everything didn't get this new generation into shape, a minor financial penalty isn't going to do it in the civilian world.
So I guess we should just deploy both sticks and carrots because researching which works better will just delay things and people will get fatter and fatter until it's like that Disney movie my kids loved, Wall-e.
I just hope that this fat acceptance doesn't lead to obesity being on par with sex, race, ethnicity etc for antidiscrimination laws because that could lead to relaxed fitness standards in the military which would be an utter disaster to our national security.
4 -
Until someone sucks it up and literally lays down the law, no.lemurcat12 wrote: »So we aren't talking about anything that we actually expect to happen?
Wellness programs do offer incentives for improving fitness, though, and from my read of the discussion here, it seems likely that people might accept such a rule more broadly if phrased as a benefit for those in shape.
And again, it's the same thing: charging $150 as the default but $200 for the overweight is the same as charging $200 as the default but allowing those who pass a fitness test to pay $150. You seem to be saying that you'd rather have no difference in cost unless it's phrased as a penalty to punish the overweight.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »So we aren't talking about anything that we actually expect to happen?
We all knew that as soon as "single payer" came up - 15 pages ago.0 -
NorthCascades wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »So we aren't talking about anything that we actually expect to happen?
We all knew that as soon as "single payer" came up - 15 pages ago.
Heh, excellent point!0 -
You may feel this is a mere platitude, but I and others disagree with you.Platitudes to civic duty to not get obese results in smash the patriarchy fat acceptance super size models and activists.
There is so much concern for the "fatness" of our population that it is being classified as a National Security issue by some.
Something like 1 in 3 people are too fat to serve in the military.
"...nearly one in three young adults ages 17 to 24 is too heavy to serve in the military. Among active-duty service members, 12 percent are obese based on their height and weight, an increase of 61 percent since 2002. The military’s health system spends more than $1.5 billion annually treating obesity-related health problems and replacing troops discharged because they are unfit."
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Wellness/school-lunches-pose-national-security-threat-ret-military/story?id=10424313
Except that's really not all that significant... it's an increase from about 8 percent to 12 if I'm doing the math right and that's based solely on BMI which correlates with the increase in muscleheads since the late 90s.0 -
You may feel this is a mere platitude, but I and others disagree with you.Platitudes to civic duty to not get obese results in smash the patriarchy fat acceptance super size models and activists.
There is so much concern for the "fatness" of our population that it is being classified as a National Security issue by some.
Something like 1 in 3 people are too fat to serve in the military.
"...nearly one in three young adults ages 17 to 24 is too heavy to serve in the military. Among active-duty service members, 12 percent are obese based on their height and weight, an increase of 61 percent since 2002. The military’s health system spends more than $1.5 billion annually treating obesity-related health problems and replacing troops discharged because they are unfit."
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Wellness/school-lunches-pose-national-security-threat-ret-military/story?id=10424313
As for "smash the patriarchy fat acceptance super size models and activists" yes, down with that.
It does not promote healthy lifestyle choices and so the whole "Fat Acceptance Movement" presents a risk to our National Security. When you have already lost 1/3 of your fighting force because "being fat" is more socially acceptable then it is a problem.
I am not saying anyone should be a Barbie Doll or have unrealistic body goals but "reasonably fit" is not too much to expect.
If you are a US citizen and so overweight that you cannot serve in our Armed Forces then you are too fat. Period.
If you don't feel it is your "civic duty" to fight to defend your home, your country or your family in a time of crisis then we have nothing else to discuss on the subject.
* Disclosure: I work with branches of the DoD, the United States Armed Forces and various Law Enforcement personnel and agencies. I am very opposed to overweight LEOs as well.
Oh, I agree with what you've said about fat acceptance and I completely agree obesity is at crisis levels. I will say that I am glad the fitness test in the USAF was improved recently as that bike test we did for years was a complete and utter joke. We used to talk about "biking to war." Thanks for your service, I did 18yrs myself (retired with TBI and ptsd) ( I am US citizen living in UK)
Except that the test that preceded the bike test was a worse not a better measure of fitness.0 -
Because it isn't the same thing, especially psychologically.lemurcat12 wrote: »We should do whatever is most likely to result in people changing their behavior to be more healthy. If that means structuring it as incentives (research should be done), why not? It is the same thing. (I was surprised at how many people seem good with one version and not okay with the other in that to me they are the same thing, but human nature, I suppose.)
"Incentives to be healthy" means pandering to people who are overweight as to not to hurt their feelings while simultaneously "rewarding" others for being responsible with their choices - a gold star or participation medal for doing what everyone should be doing.
"Taxing the overweight" is making it clear that being responsible for your decisions is the expected behavior and failure to comply will have negative consequences.
You might not like the difference and it might not be "sensitive" or "politically correct" but the difference is definitely there.
I will just say I have some experience and expertise in this realm and leave it at that.
It's true it's not the same psychologically but you do catch more bees with honey than vinegar. Really all you're advocating is using a stick whereas others are advocating using a carrot. People do tend to modify behaviours when they have a carrot because people are inherently self cantered. Platitudes to civic duty to not get obese results in smash the patriarchy fat acceptance super size models and activists. Monetary incentives to get or stay slim would result in more people pursuing that goal. There was a TV show/documentary based on a study that showed that when people bet their own money, they lost more weight and kept it off than if they were offered any sort of other incentive.
Do the police pull people over and give them a $100 prepaid visa card when they are driving 70 in a 70 MPH zone. No they give a 100 ticket when they are doing 90 in a 70 MPH zone.
The stick seems to be fine in that case.4
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.2K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 422 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions