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
-
I have insurance from Aetna through my employer. Our plan includes big discounts for gym memberships, professional services like nutritionists and personal trainers, etc. We also have a reward program through Redbrick where we get discounts on our premiums, up to $300/yr, and can additionally earn up to $300/yr in cash rewards by completing certain activities.
I've only just recently started taking advantage of all that, and beating myself up over the $3000 I left on the table over the last 5 years with my employer that I didn't realize we had these options.
@ritzvin @jdlobb
I'll have to look into that this open season. I used to have aetna and at the time the only gym type benefit was a discount for Curves. Not exactly helpful for me. Right now I have Kaiser Permanente. No gym/nutrition benefits that I know of.
I get emails all the time from them with discounts. They just had a special promotion last week specifically around Crossfit gyms. Lower rates and reduced, or free, initiation charges. My nearest Crossfit gym had its initiation fee waived completely and the monthly memebership reduced from $200 to $167. A quick check this morning showed a preferred rate at LA Fitness with no initiation fee and monthly dues of $29.99, which is normally reserved for those willing to pre-pay for an annual membership. Pretty good deals.1 -
Why? I am healthier now at 50lbs or so overweight (195) than I ever was at 125 or 130. Besides I never said healthy at "any" size, I said fat.2 -
Why? I am healthier now at 50lbs or so overweight (195) than I ever was at 125 or 130. Besides I never said healthy at "any" size, I said fat.
are you "overweight" or "fat." There are lots of reasons one could be overweight mathematically and not be fat.
you said fat doesn't mean unhealthy, and that is completely false, on every level. The very concept of being "fat" is being unhealthy. Fatness in and of itself is a health issue. All other things held equal, a fatter person is categorically less healthy than a thinner person.
Maybe you got healthier IN SPITE of being fatter, but not because of it, unless you were clinically underweight before. Which obviously comes with its own host of medical issues.5 -
I just said that being fat does not mean you are not healthy, never said I got healthier because I got fat.3
-
I have insurance from Aetna through my employer. Our plan includes big discounts for gym memberships, professional services like nutritionists and personal trainers, etc. We also have a reward program through Redbrick where we get discounts on our premiums, up to $300/yr, and can additionally earn up to $300/yr in cash rewards by completing certain activities.
I've only just recently started taking advantage of all that, and beating myself up over the $3000 I left on the table over the last 5 years with my employer that I didn't realize we had these options.
@ritzvin @jdlobb
I'll have to look into that this open season. I used to have aetna and at the time the only gym type benefit was a discount for Curves. Not exactly helpful for me. Right now I have Kaiser Permanente. No gym/nutrition benefits that I know of.
I get emails all the time from them with discounts. They just had a special promotion last week specifically around Crossfit gyms. Lower rates and reduced, or free, initiation charges. My nearest Crossfit gym had its initiation fee waived completely and the monthly memebership reduced from $200 to $167. A quick check this morning showed a preferred rate at LA Fitness with no initiation fee and monthly dues of $29.99, which is normally reserved for those willing to pre-pay for an annual membership. Pretty good deals.
I'm pretty sure most gyms never charge an initiation fee but just pretend to so they can waive it as a "promotion." I just joined a gym and literally every gym I looked at, out of six, was running a promotion to waive the initiation fee.1 -
I just said that being fat does not mean you are not healthy, never said I got healthier because I got fat.
Yes. And that would be false. Being fat IS unhealthy. A fat person is unhealthy the same way a smoker is unhealthy even if they can run a hundred miles and have sterling blood work.4 -
rheddmobile wrote: »I have insurance from Aetna through my employer. Our plan includes big discounts for gym memberships, professional services like nutritionists and personal trainers, etc. We also have a reward program through Redbrick where we get discounts on our premiums, up to $300/yr, and can additionally earn up to $300/yr in cash rewards by completing certain activities.
I've only just recently started taking advantage of all that, and beating myself up over the $3000 I left on the table over the last 5 years with my employer that I didn't realize we had these options.
@ritzvin @jdlobb
I'll have to look into that this open season. I used to have aetna and at the time the only gym type benefit was a discount for Curves. Not exactly helpful for me. Right now I have Kaiser Permanente. No gym/nutrition benefits that I know of.
I get emails all the time from them with discounts. They just had a special promotion last week specifically around Crossfit gyms. Lower rates and reduced, or free, initiation charges. My nearest Crossfit gym had its initiation fee waived completely and the monthly memebership reduced from $200 to $167. A quick check this morning showed a preferred rate at LA Fitness with no initiation fee and monthly dues of $29.99, which is normally reserved for those willing to pre-pay for an annual membership. Pretty good deals.
I'm pretty sure most gyms never charge an initiation fee but just pretend to so they can waive it as a "promotion." I just joined a gym and literally every gym I looked at, out of six, was running a promotion to waive the initiation fee.
Some don't, and most run promotions from time to time. At least for the LA Fitness around here when I looked at joining a few months ago, before I found the discount portal from Aetna, I couldn't talk them out of the initiation fee any way except prepaying for a full year. Through Aetna I could get the same deal, but on a month-to-month basis, which is still better.0 -
I just said that being fat does not mean you are not healthy, never said I got healthier because I got fat.
Yes. And that would be false. Being fat IS unhealthy. A fat person is unhealthy the same way a smoker is unhealthy even if they can run a hundred miles and have sterling blood work.
I disagree6 -
I just said that being fat does not mean you are not healthy, never said I got healthier because I got fat.
Yes. And that would be false. Being fat IS unhealthy. A fat person is unhealthy the same way a smoker is unhealthy even if they can run a hundred miles and have sterling blood work.
I disagree
Unfortunately, human physiology doesn't care much what you agree or don't agree with.
8 -
My employer already does. There are three levels of premiums.
If you do none of the testing or exams you pay the most.
If you do all of it you get the middle premium, however you have to do a program to improve any measure that you failed to stay at the middle.
To get the cheapest you have to sign that you do avoid all tobacco products, pass bmi, pass fasting blood sugar and cholesterol tests and blood pressure and fill out a form that takes about an hour about your lifestyle. If you fail any of those and make an improvement by april of the next year you can be bumped up to the cheapest premium. If you do not improve you stay in the middle all year.0 -
What about people who drink? I would think that should be a health risk factor. Drinking is socially acceptable. Smoking and being heavy are not. Drinking is just as dangerous and is mind altering, which can cause harm to others.0
-
Worth pointing out. Insurance is actuarially driven, which means without knowing more about you their models would assume you are at the "norm" given known criteria. Since this is America that "norm" is overweight, unhealthy, and sedentary. From that perspective it makes more sense, statistically speaking, to give discounts to those who prove themselves to be healthier than the norm. Or at a minimum just as much sense as it does to penalize those who are worse than the norm. But the norm already assumed somewhat poor health, as a simple matter of math.
Adding to this, because people are more likely to self report things that show they're healthier, and thus cheaper, insurance actuaries also would have a tendency to set the norm at a level less healthy than the statistical "norm" to account for the imbalance between discounts and penalties. Again, because math.1 -
bobshuckleberry wrote: »What about people who drink? I would think that should be a health risk factor. Drinking is socially acceptable. Smoking and being heavy are not. Drinking is just as dangerous and is mind altering, which can cause harm to others.
Actually the science flip flops about having the odd drink now and then. Some years a study will say there are health benefits to a glass of red wine with dinner, other times the science says any amount of alcohol at all is bad.
If you are referring to binge drinking...as in getting drunk...no that is no longer socially acceptable in most contexts although you are right in that the science is pretty firm on binge drinking being a risk factor for healthiness. I was reading an article talking about how even the majority of college/university students feel it's not socially acceptable to get drunk. The reason being that their mates will FB and instagram their stupidity while they are drunk and so any silliness is permanently on the web for all history and all to see. So the reasons the study cited for this generation being so sober is they don't want to lose self control and the fear of any drunkenness being permanently on the web.1 -
The number of people here who think health care is only for runny noses and other such frivolity is astounding. Cancer happens whether you're fat or thin, and if you pay more for cancer treatment just because you're overweight I think that's horribly unjust.
Judge society not based on how we treat it's strongest members, but it's weakest; do we want to be a country that would throw every disabled person with costly-to-treat conditions on the street? I have no personal stake in healthcare for all--I'm lucky to be healthy. But I would gladly pay my taxes for the sake of societal well-being. Think of the lives we could save. It's in our power.6 -
The number of people here who think health care is only for runny noses and other such frivolity is astounding. Cancer happens whether you're fat or thin, and if you pay more for cancer treatment just because you're overweight I think that's horribly unjust.
Judge society not based on how we treat it's strongest members, but it's weakest; do we want to be a country that would throw every disabled person with costly-to-treat conditions on the street? I have no personal stake in healthcare for all--I'm lucky to be healthy. But I would gladly pay my taxes for the sake of societal well-being. Think of the lives we could save. It's in our power.
Insurance is primarily for serious, chronic conditions. If you are fat you are statistically more likely to develop serious, chronic conditions.
The difference in the amount of routine health care needed by a fat person and a fit person is negligible. But the difference in treatment for diseases is significant.
So I'm not really sure how your point is supposed to counter the idea that fat people should pay more for insurance.1 -
The number of people here who think health care is only for runny noses and other such frivolity is astounding. Cancer happens whether you're fat or thin, and if you pay more for cancer treatment just because you're overweight I think that's horribly unjust.
Judge society not based on how we treat it's strongest members, but it's weakest; do we want to be a country that would throw every disabled person with costly-to-treat conditions on the street? I have no personal stake in healthcare for all--I'm lucky to be healthy. But I would gladly pay my taxes for the sake of societal well-being. Think of the lives we could save. It's in our power.
True, but obesity is actually a risk factor for cancer. Statistically speaking, if a person were obese and they lost weight their risk of cancer goes down as well as all sorts of other risk factors such as heart disease and diabetes. Insurance premiums are directly correlated to risk factor.2 -
The number of people here who think health care is only for runny noses and other such frivolity is astounding. Cancer happens whether you're fat or thin, and if you pay more for cancer treatment just because you're overweight I think that's horribly unjust.
Judge society not based on how we treat it's strongest members, but it's weakest; do we want to be a country that would throw every disabled person with costly-to-treat conditions on the street? I have no personal stake in healthcare for all--I'm lucky to be healthy. But I would gladly pay my taxes for the sake of societal well-being. Think of the lives we could save. It's in our power.
But if you were paying taxes to support societal well being, shouldn't those receiving the benefits take the steps in their power (i.e. maintain a healthy weight) to keep the cost as low as possible, for the good of society?1 -
The number of people here who think health care is only for runny noses and other such frivolity is astounding. Cancer happens whether you're fat or thin, and if you pay more for cancer treatment just because you're overweight I think that's horribly unjust.
Judge society not based on how we treat it's strongest members, but it's weakest; do we want to be a country that would throw every disabled person with costly-to-treat conditions on the street? I have no personal stake in healthcare for all--I'm lucky to be healthy. But I would gladly pay my taxes for the sake of societal well-being. Think of the lives we could save. It's in our power.
Do you work in healthcare?
If insurance only covered catastrophic illness, then there would be no issue with healthcare solvency. It is precisely the treatment of runny noses and mild fevers that has turned medical insurance into pre-paid medical care.
How much do you pay in taxes? Enough to cover the limited supply and unlimited demand?2 -
The number of people here who think health care is only for runny noses and other such frivolity is astounding. Cancer happens whether you're fat or thin, and if you pay more for cancer treatment just because you're overweight I think that's horribly unjust.
Judge society not based on how we treat it's strongest members, but it's weakest; do we want to be a country that would throw every disabled person with costly-to-treat conditions on the street? I have no personal stake in healthcare for all--I'm lucky to be healthy. But I would gladly pay my taxes for the sake of societal well-being. Think of the lives we could save. It's in our power.
Do you work in healthcare?
If insurance only covered catastrophic illness, then there would be no issue with healthcare solvency. It is precisely the treatment of runny noses and mild fevers that has turned medical insurance into pre-paid medical care.
How much do you pay in taxes? Enough to cover the limited supply and unlimited demand?
Agreed. Health insurance is the only type of insurance where the expectation is that you will need it. Even in whole life insurance, the expectation is that you will love long enough to pay enough in premiums that the company makes money even after payout (Since every does die). Health needs a 2 tier model, one for catastrophic insurance and one for regular care.2 -
The number of people here who think health care is only for runny noses and other such frivolity is astounding. Cancer happens whether you're fat or thin, and if you pay more for cancer treatment just because you're overweight I think that's horribly unjust.
Judge society not based on how we treat it's strongest members, but it's weakest; do we want to be a country that would throw every disabled person with costly-to-treat conditions on the street? I have no personal stake in healthcare for all--I'm lucky to be healthy. But I would gladly pay my taxes for the sake of societal well-being. Think of the lives we could save. It's in our power.
True, but obesity is actually a risk factor for cancer. Statistically speaking, if a person were obese and they lost weight their risk of cancer goes down as well as all sorts of other risk factors such as heart disease and diabetes. Insurance premiums are directly correlated to risk factor.
That depends on the type of cancer. 4 out of the 5 people I personally know who have had cancer in the past 5 years were normal BMI their whole lives. The 2 who died were normal BMI. And all 5, interestingly enough, were under 45 at the time of diagnosis. Obesity IS a risk factor for many kinds of cancers, and it IS a good idea to maintain healthy weight, but cancer gets everybody...2 -
The number of people here who think health care is only for runny noses and other such frivolity is astounding. Cancer happens whether you're fat or thin, and if you pay more for cancer treatment just because you're overweight I think that's horribly unjust.
Judge society not based on how we treat it's strongest members, but it's weakest; do we want to be a country that would throw every disabled person with costly-to-treat conditions on the street? I have no personal stake in healthcare for all--I'm lucky to be healthy. But I would gladly pay my taxes for the sake of societal well-being. Think of the lives we could save. It's in our power.
True, but obesity is actually a risk factor for cancer. Statistically speaking, if a person were obese and they lost weight their risk of cancer goes down as well as all sorts of other risk factors such as heart disease and diabetes. Insurance premiums are directly correlated to risk factor.
That depends on the type of cancer. 4 out of the 5 people I personally know who have had cancer in the past 5 years were normal BMI their whole lives. The 2 who died were normal BMI. And all 5, interestingly enough, were under 45 at the time of diagnosis. Obesity IS a risk factor for many kinds of cancers, and it IS a good idea to maintain healthy weight, but cancer gets everybody...
Pointing out a trend with risk factors in the total population isn't making a claim that individuals within that population must have that risk factor in order to be impacted.
It's true all types of people get cancer. This doesn't mean that we can't notice trends among the overall population or that individuals should ignore risk factors that may wind up impacting them.1 -
janejellyroll wrote: »The number of people here who think health care is only for runny noses and other such frivolity is astounding. Cancer happens whether you're fat or thin, and if you pay more for cancer treatment just because you're overweight I think that's horribly unjust.
Judge society not based on how we treat it's strongest members, but it's weakest; do we want to be a country that would throw every disabled person with costly-to-treat conditions on the street? I have no personal stake in healthcare for all--I'm lucky to be healthy. But I would gladly pay my taxes for the sake of societal well-being. Think of the lives we could save. It's in our power.
True, but obesity is actually a risk factor for cancer. Statistically speaking, if a person were obese and they lost weight their risk of cancer goes down as well as all sorts of other risk factors such as heart disease and diabetes. Insurance premiums are directly correlated to risk factor.
That depends on the type of cancer. 4 out of the 5 people I personally know who have had cancer in the past 5 years were normal BMI their whole lives. The 2 who died were normal BMI. And all 5, interestingly enough, were under 45 at the time of diagnosis. Obesity IS a risk factor for many kinds of cancers, and it IS a good idea to maintain healthy weight, but cancer gets everybody...
Pointing out a trend with risk factors in the total population isn't making a claim that individuals within that population must have that risk factor in order to be impacted.
It's true all types of people get cancer. This doesn't mean that we can't notice trends among the overall population or that individuals should ignore risk factors that may wind up impacting them.
I get that, but the poster said, "if a person were obese and they lost weight their risk of cancer goes down." That's not true for all cancers, or even cancer in general. It's true for some cancers - mostly those of the digestive system (and some hormone sensitive cancers.) I know what you're saying, but I don't want people to get the idea that they are low risk for "cancer" in general just because they are healthy BMI or that it's their fault they got cancer because they're fat. It really does depend on the type of cancer. Sorry, I'm just a "specifics" kind of person.
2 -
janejellyroll wrote: »The number of people here who think health care is only for runny noses and other such frivolity is astounding. Cancer happens whether you're fat or thin, and if you pay more for cancer treatment just because you're overweight I think that's horribly unjust.
Judge society not based on how we treat it's strongest members, but it's weakest; do we want to be a country that would throw every disabled person with costly-to-treat conditions on the street? I have no personal stake in healthcare for all--I'm lucky to be healthy. But I would gladly pay my taxes for the sake of societal well-being. Think of the lives we could save. It's in our power.
True, but obesity is actually a risk factor for cancer. Statistically speaking, if a person were obese and they lost weight their risk of cancer goes down as well as all sorts of other risk factors such as heart disease and diabetes. Insurance premiums are directly correlated to risk factor.
That depends on the type of cancer. 4 out of the 5 people I personally know who have had cancer in the past 5 years were normal BMI their whole lives. The 2 who died were normal BMI. And all 5, interestingly enough, were under 45 at the time of diagnosis. Obesity IS a risk factor for many kinds of cancers, and it IS a good idea to maintain healthy weight, but cancer gets everybody...
Pointing out a trend with risk factors in the total population isn't making a claim that individuals within that population must have that risk factor in order to be impacted.
It's true all types of people get cancer. This doesn't mean that we can't notice trends among the overall population or that individuals should ignore risk factors that may wind up impacting them.
I get that, but the poster said, "if a person were obese and they lost weight their risk of cancer goes down." That's not true for all cancers, or even cancer in general. It's true for some cancers - mostly those of the digestive system (and some hormone sensitive cancers.) I know what you're saying, but I don't want people to get the idea that they are low risk for "cancer" in general just because they are healthy BMI or that it's their fault they got cancer because they're fat. It really does depend on the type of cancer. Sorry, I'm just a "specifics" kind of person.
You're missing two key words at the beginning of that sentence: "Statistically speaking."
From the POV of statistics, it's absolutely accurate. Some people are in categories that do put them at a lower risk for cancer than other people. Recognizing this doesn't mean that one is arguing people in these categories are immune to cancer and don't have to worry about it. And it doesn't mean that I think anyone is at fault for getting cancer.1 -
insurance ONLY cares about statistics. It doesn't give a rats but about anecdotes or what happened to "your friend that one time."2
-
No I do not... but smokers yes I do. They are electing to put harmful carcinogenic elements in their body despite all the science.0
-
The number of people here who think health care is only for runny noses and other such frivolity is astounding. Cancer happens whether you're fat or thin, and if you pay more for cancer treatment just because you're overweight I think that's horribly unjust.
Judge society not based on how we treat it's strongest members, but it's weakest; do we want to be a country that would throw every disabled person with costly-to-treat conditions on the street? I have no personal stake in healthcare for all--I'm lucky to be healthy. But I would gladly pay my taxes for the sake of societal well-being. Think of the lives we could save. It's in our power.
True, but obesity is actually a risk factor for cancer. Statistically speaking, if a person were obese and they lost weight their risk of cancer goes down as well as all sorts of other risk factors such as heart disease and diabetes. Insurance premiums are directly correlated to risk factor.
That depends on the type of cancer. 4 out of the 5 people I personally know who have had cancer in the past 5 years were normal BMI their whole lives. The 2 who died were normal BMI. And all 5, interestingly enough, were under 45 at the time of diagnosis. Obesity IS a risk factor for many kinds of cancers, and it IS a good idea to maintain healthy weight, but cancer gets everybody...
Well yeah, obviously. My point was that their overall risk of cancer would decrease because they lost weight which is absolutely true.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »The number of people here who think health care is only for runny noses and other such frivolity is astounding. Cancer happens whether you're fat or thin, and if you pay more for cancer treatment just because you're overweight I think that's horribly unjust.
Judge society not based on how we treat it's strongest members, but it's weakest; do we want to be a country that would throw every disabled person with costly-to-treat conditions on the street? I have no personal stake in healthcare for all--I'm lucky to be healthy. But I would gladly pay my taxes for the sake of societal well-being. Think of the lives we could save. It's in our power.
True, but obesity is actually a risk factor for cancer. Statistically speaking, if a person were obese and they lost weight their risk of cancer goes down as well as all sorts of other risk factors such as heart disease and diabetes. Insurance premiums are directly correlated to risk factor.
That depends on the type of cancer. 4 out of the 5 people I personally know who have had cancer in the past 5 years were normal BMI their whole lives. The 2 who died were normal BMI. And all 5, interestingly enough, were under 45 at the time of diagnosis. Obesity IS a risk factor for many kinds of cancers, and it IS a good idea to maintain healthy weight, but cancer gets everybody...
Pointing out a trend with risk factors in the total population isn't making a claim that individuals within that population must have that risk factor in order to be impacted.
It's true all types of people get cancer. This doesn't mean that we can't notice trends among the overall population or that individuals should ignore risk factors that may wind up impacting them.
I get that, but the poster said, "if a person were obese and they lost weight their risk of cancer goes down." That's not true for all cancers, or even cancer in general. It's true for some cancers - mostly those of the digestive system (and some hormone sensitive cancers.) I know what you're saying, but I don't want people to get the idea that they are low risk for "cancer" in general just because they are healthy BMI or that it's their fault they got cancer because they're fat. It really does depend on the type of cancer. Sorry, I'm just a "specifics" kind of person.
You're missing two key words at the beginning of that sentence: "Statistically speaking."
From the POV of statistics, it's absolutely accurate. Some people are in categories that do put them at a lower risk for cancer than other people. Recognizing this doesn't mean that one is arguing people in these categories are immune to cancer and don't have to worry about it. And it doesn't mean that I think anyone is at fault for getting cancer.
Thank you, you explained this better than I did, but what you say is absolutely what I meant. I was not at all implying that people of a healthy weight couldn't get cancer. I lost my brother in law who was in fantastic shape to pancreatic cancer so I am well aware that cancer can get anyone.0 -
If you take a group of 1000 people at a healthy weight, and group of 1000 people who are overweight, over a equal periods the fitter group will incur LESS health care expenses than the fatter group. Therefore the fitter people should pay lower premiums.
Anecdotes about individuals in either group are pointless. You can't know WHICH of those people will get sick and need money. But you CAN know that SOMEBODY in that group will need money. This is the fundamental basis of the entire institution of insurance, and has been since the first insurance schemes were established at Lloyd's Coffee Shop in London in the 1600s to insure merchant ships.2 -
If you take a group of 1000 people at a healthy weight, and group of 1000 people who are overweight, over a equal periods the fitter group will incur LESS health care expenses than the fatter group. Therefore the fitter people should pay lower premiums.
Anecdotes about individuals in either group are pointless. You can't know WHICH of those people will get sick and need money. But you CAN know that SOMEBODY in that group will need money. This is the fundamental basis of the entire institution of insurance, and has been since the first insurance schemes were established at Lloyd's Coffee Shop in London in the 1600s to insure merchant ships.
I would argue against this - the fatter group may incur more diseases/chronic conditions, but statistically speaking, the fitter group is far more likely to incur injuries which often times offset any medical cost savings from the lack of chronic issues. Just my N=1 experience on this - my daughter broke her wrist and the costs incurred with that single injury out-weighed several YEARS of my maintenance medications.2
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K 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
- 426 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
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions