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
-
Butts_Boys_and_Burgers_ohmy wrote: »Also, what about all the patient's that are on government assistance that don't pay for healthcare?
What about them? If they aren't paying, presumably they aren't going to pay more if obese.
Is the additional Medicare tax going to be more if you are fat?2 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Butts_Boys_and_Burgers_ohmy wrote: »Also, what about all the patient's that are on government assistance that don't pay for healthcare?
What about them? If they aren't paying, presumably they aren't going to pay more if obese.
Is the additional Medicare tax going to be more if you are fat?
I think she's pointing out that we (taxpayers) already pay for others healthcare costs? And then those people don't file taxes so they're not paying into the system. Not sure though but that's how I read the post.
ETA: I'm wrong a lot so apologizes in advance.2 -
BurlzGettingFit wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Butts_Boys_and_Burgers_ohmy wrote: »Also, what about all the patient's that are on government assistance that don't pay for healthcare?
What about them? If they aren't paying, presumably they aren't going to pay more if obese.
Is the additional Medicare tax going to be more if you are fat?
I think she's pointing out that we (taxpayers) already pay for others healthcare costs? And then those people don't file taxes so they're not paying into the system. Not sure though but that's how I read the post.
ETA: I'm wrong a lot so apologizes in advance.
You are probably right, but I just wasn't sure how it was relevant, as of course we already pay for other's costs. I was bringing up another way (Medicare), and of course the group insurance/community rated insurance context that is at issue in this thread.0 -
MoiAussi93 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »AnninStPaul wrote: »If you aren't caring for your health, you should pay more. If you're diabetic and work with your physician to achieve control, you don't get a surcharge. If you're hypertensive and don't act to reduce your bp - lose weight, exercise, take anti-hypertensives - you get a surcharge.
This makes sense but it's a slippery slope. What if "caring for your health" extended to not engaging in extreme sports? Free climbing, wind suit jumping, paragliding, mountaineering, bmx trick riding, downhill mountain bike racing, white water rafting/kayaking, sky diving, etc. One could argue that taking risks of injury and death is not really caring for you health. We could all end up being limited to exercise machines indoors like hamsters.
I don't think it is a slippery slope at all. People who are fit and active enough to routinely engage in sports such as climbing and mountain biking are highly unlikely to be obese. The occasional broken arm which necessitates a couple of x-rays, a cast, or...worst case scenario...an outpatient surgery...will be an insignificant cost compared to the lifetime of expensive drugs, hospitalizations, intensive care units, etc. that obese people are likely to eventually need.
One sports injury will likely cost less to treat (and be a one time event) than a single year's supply of the expensive drugs needed to treat obesity related chronic illnesses.
I am sure any insurance company would GLADLY choose the super active sports participant over the fat person who sits inside their nice and safe home. And they would charge the sporty person much less...which is fair.
You missed my point. I'm sorry I wasn't clear. You stated that people who already have a health condition such as hypertension or diabetes should have the extra costs waived if they are working on improving their health. I think that's a slippery slope because people who have no condition such as extreme sports athletes who are arguably reckless about their health from an injury standpoint could then be charged extra costs under this mind set. This is what could happen if insurance were NOT based on whether you already have a condition but based on efforts to avoid health risks...which is what you were proposing.
It's got nothing to do with obesity or rates for obese people versus athletes. You were proposing rates based on efforts to avoid health risks INSTEAD of rates based on actual health conditions.
I didn't state that...it was somebody else. The lack of nesting in these threads make it hard to track who is responding to what! Maybe I missed some context to what you wrote because it was part of a previous reply.
My position is simply that obese people should pay more because they are a much higher risk and the payouts involved with them are likely to be MUCH higher than for the occasional minor accident with sporty fit people. Sporty people may have a slightly higher risk of minor injuries...but these injuries are relatively cheap to treat. They will not significantly impact the insurance company's profitability. Their overall risk is much lower because they are much less likely to develop heart disease, diabetes, various cancers, etc.
I think you have to charge based on actual health condition...and obesity is a MAJOR health condition. Maybe we are on the same page.
Sorry, the nesting does divorce responses from commentators. Yep, we are on same page. If there are to be different rates for people, then it should be based on actual health conditions. The poster I was responding to was saying it should be based not on actual conditions but on effort to avoid risks/conditions even if they had a condition.
However, I am in favour of a single payer system though so I do think that the ideal circumstance is where everyone pays the same % of their income towards healthcare which then makes it free at the point of service. This is simply because so many people with health insurance go bankrupt if they get cancer or in a bad car crash. It doesn't seem fair for people who work hard and pay in to lose everything because of misfortune.3 -
Is obesity a health condition in and of itself? I know it doubles your risk of heart failure, and increases risk for other conditions markedly like diabetes, joint issues, hypertension, stroke, etc. But is obesity really more an indication of high risk? As there are a proportion of people who are obese and lucky and manage to not develop health conditions.
Consider women with the BRAC1 gene. Their risk of breast cancer is 55-65% instead of the 11% of a "normal" woman. Their risk of ovarian cancer is 39% instead of the 1% of "normal" women.
If obese people were charged more, isn't it really because they are high risk? Could we then not apply the same logic to women with BRAC1...if you're high risk for developing certain health conditions, then you should pay higher rates? Especially since cancer trumps everything in terms of cost per capita to treat.
Or is this really about virtue/deserving versus undeserving? I've said before I had to pay a higher rate due to my asthma...inherited, not in my control. Is the sentiment here more about penalising people for high risk lifestyle choices ( letting themselves get obese) rather than a pure risk based calculation where all high risk people, regardless of why or how they are high risk should pay more?3 -
Is obesity a health condition in and of itself? I know it doubles your risk of heart failure, and increases risk for other conditions markedly like diabetes, joint issues, hypertension, stroke, etc. But is obesity really more an indication of high risk? As there are a proportion of people who are obese and lucky and manage to not develop health conditions.
I believe these people are pretty much like the 2 pack a day smokers that never develop any smoking related issues. Very few and far between3 -
Is obesity a health condition in and of itself? I know it doubles your risk of heart failure, and increases risk for other conditions markedly like diabetes, joint issues, hypertension, stroke, etc. But is obesity really more an indication of high risk? As there are a proportion of people who are obese and lucky and manage to not develop health conditions.
Consider women with the BRAC1 gene. Their risk of breast cancer is 55-65% instead of the 11% of a "normal" woman. Their risk of ovarian cancer is 39% instead of the 1% of "normal" women.
If obese people were charged more, isn't it really because they are high risk? Could we then not apply the same logic to women with BRAC1...if you're high risk for developing certain health conditions, then you should pay higher rates? Especially since cancer trumps everything in terms of cost per capita to treat.
Yes. From the insurance company's perspective, they'd like to charge according to risk. We (currently, who knows what the law will be) don't let them, but have some exceptions where it is believed to encourage positive behavior changes, specifically smoking. The argument for also allowing wellness programs (discounts for being in shape -- which is the same thing as charging more for not being in shape) or increased charges for obesity is the same as with making smoking an exception.Or is this really about virtue/deserving versus undeserving?
For some people I'm sure it is, but it need not be.2 -
I'm just going to leave this here....
TOFI
Thin outside fat inside0 -
Is obesity a health condition in and of itself? I know it doubles your risk of heart failure, and increases risk for other conditions markedly like diabetes, joint issues, hypertension, stroke, etc. But is obesity really more an indication of high risk? As there are a proportion of people who are obese and lucky and manage to not develop health conditions.
Consider women with the BRAC1 gene. Their risk of breast cancer is 55-65% instead of the 11% of a "normal" woman. Their risk of ovarian cancer is 39% instead of the 1% of "normal" women.
If obese people were charged more, isn't it really because they are high risk? Could we then not apply the same logic to women with BRAC1...if you're high risk for developing certain health conditions, then you should pay higher rates? Especially since cancer trumps everything in terms of cost per capita to treat.
Or is this really about virtue/deserving versus undeserving? I've said before I had to pay a higher rate due to my asthma...inherited, not in my control. Is the sentiment here more about penalising people for high risk lifestyle choices ( letting themselves get obese) rather than a pure risk based calculation where all high risk people, regardless of why or how they are high risk should pay more?
From a medical perspective - yes. From a regulatory perspective - yes. From an insurance/risk management perspective - yes.
Take hormonal disorders for example - as hormones are free cycling being overweight will impact hormonal balance. This may not manifest any symptoms, but causes the specific glands to work harder than normal. Depending on a combination of genetic and environmental factors this may manifest in a more serious condition or adverse experience. So did the hormonal deficiency cause obesity or did obesity cause the hormonal deficiency?
There are numerous discussions on this point, but these are devolve into a manner of chicken/egg disputes and meaningless when it comes to root cause analysis and application of therapy. Any effective correction would be holistic in nature, e.g. prescribed hormonal therapy and moderate caloric deficit.
Virtue/deserving will have to be included in any program as you are dealing with limited supply and unlimited demand. If cost is removed this will have to be replaced with some other metric - first come first served, rationing of care, etc.4 -
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
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 389 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
- 918 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions