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?

1303133353650

Replies

  • jdlobb
    jdlobb Posts: 1,232 Member
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    jdlobb wrote: »
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    jdlobb wrote: »
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    jdlobb wrote: »
    how is it remotely controversial that fat people are less healthy than fit people? Have we really gone that far down the "acceptance" and "healthy at any weight" "big boned" *kitten* rabbit hole that people actually believe this?

    personal responsibility is not a thing anymore...

    everyone has an excuse, so we should all get on the excuse train to political correctness-ville..

    people are not over weight they are just "waist challenged"...

    oh please. It has nothing to do with political correctness. Have you seen a right-wing rally recently? not exactly a cross section of the fittest and healthiest Americans.

    It goes well beyond just not wanting to "offend" fat people by calling them fat. It starts with parents being blind to how unhealthy their own children are and extends into adulthood when fat people want to validate their own unhealthy lifestyle by accepting it in others.

    It cuts across ALL political and ideological stripes.

    Hell. When I was in the military, not exactly the most "politically correct" place, obesity was still rampant. And for MANY it was justified because they "felt" manly, or macho. Or celebrated feats of eating and drinking. Especially feats of drinking. Fat guys were "tanks" and "beasts." They weren't just fat. Skinny guys "needed a sandwich." etc. It was pervasive.

    i didn't say anything about left vs right.. I said personal responsibility is not a thing anymore...

    please. You deliberately included not 1, but 2 right wing buzzwords. You're not fooling anyone.

    your the one that assumed that..

    I did not know that political correctness is only a creature of the left.

    blaming anything you don't like on "political correctness" is a favorite hobby of the right. Don't feign ignorance. It's unbecoming.
  • ndj1979
    ndj1979 Posts: 29,136 Member
    jdlobb wrote: »
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    jdlobb wrote: »
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    jdlobb wrote: »
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    jdlobb wrote: »
    how is it remotely controversial that fat people are less healthy than fit people? Have we really gone that far down the "acceptance" and "healthy at any weight" "big boned" *kitten* rabbit hole that people actually believe this?

    personal responsibility is not a thing anymore...

    everyone has an excuse, so we should all get on the excuse train to political correctness-ville..

    people are not over weight they are just "waist challenged"...

    oh please. It has nothing to do with political correctness. Have you seen a right-wing rally recently? not exactly a cross section of the fittest and healthiest Americans.

    It goes well beyond just not wanting to "offend" fat people by calling them fat. It starts with parents being blind to how unhealthy their own children are and extends into adulthood when fat people want to validate their own unhealthy lifestyle by accepting it in others.

    It cuts across ALL political and ideological stripes.

    Hell. When I was in the military, not exactly the most "politically correct" place, obesity was still rampant. And for MANY it was justified because they "felt" manly, or macho. Or celebrated feats of eating and drinking. Especially feats of drinking. Fat guys were "tanks" and "beasts." They weren't just fat. Skinny guys "needed a sandwich." etc. It was pervasive.

    i didn't say anything about left vs right.. I said personal responsibility is not a thing anymore...

    please. You deliberately included not 1, but 2 right wing buzzwords. You're not fooling anyone.

    your the one that assumed that..

    I did not know that political correctness is only a creature of the left.

    blaming anything you don't like on "political correctness" is a favorite hobby of the right. Don't feign ignorance. It's unbecoming.

    go back and read what I said..I blamed it on lack of personal responsibility..

    for the record I am a libertarian/independent...

  • jdlobb
    jdlobb Posts: 1,232 Member
    edited September 2017
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    jdlobb wrote: »
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    jdlobb wrote: »
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    jdlobb wrote: »
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    jdlobb wrote: »
    how is it remotely controversial that fat people are less healthy than fit people? Have we really gone that far down the "acceptance" and "healthy at any weight" "big boned" *kitten* rabbit hole that people actually believe this?

    personal responsibility is not a thing anymore...

    everyone has an excuse, so we should all get on the excuse train to political correctness-ville..

    people are not over weight they are just "waist challenged"...

    oh please. It has nothing to do with political correctness. Have you seen a right-wing rally recently? not exactly a cross section of the fittest and healthiest Americans.

    It goes well beyond just not wanting to "offend" fat people by calling them fat. It starts with parents being blind to how unhealthy their own children are and extends into adulthood when fat people want to validate their own unhealthy lifestyle by accepting it in others.

    It cuts across ALL political and ideological stripes.

    Hell. When I was in the military, not exactly the most "politically correct" place, obesity was still rampant. And for MANY it was justified because they "felt" manly, or macho. Or celebrated feats of eating and drinking. Especially feats of drinking. Fat guys were "tanks" and "beasts." They weren't just fat. Skinny guys "needed a sandwich." etc. It was pervasive.

    i didn't say anything about left vs right.. I said personal responsibility is not a thing anymore...

    please. You deliberately included not 1, but 2 right wing buzzwords. You're not fooling anyone.

    your the one that assumed that..

    I did not know that political correctness is only a creature of the left.

    blaming anything you don't like on "political correctness" is a favorite hobby of the right. Don't feign ignorance. It's unbecoming.

    go back and read what I said..I blamed it on lack of personal responsibility..

    for the record I am a libertarian/independent...


    that's the other buzzword.

    But this is beside the point of this thread.

    fat people should pay more insurance, they are statistically more expensive to care for.

    But for the 3rd time. Insurance companies already assume that you're fat, because most Americans are fat. So the better answer is that fit people should pay less. Charge everybody like they're fat and incentivize those who take care of themselves.
  • mph323
    mph323 Posts: 3,565 Member
    mph323 wrote: »
    jdlobb wrote: »
    Should smokers, or pregnant women, or addicts, or people who work in a profession that could pose health hazards like doctors or nurses, should those with kids or those who have less means pay more for health insurance?

    wow, one of these things is not like the other.

    Why not you choose to smoke you chose to have kids, you chose your profession

    I disagree with this - a huge chunk of the population does the work they have to do to get by, not the work they would choose to do if they had their druthers.

    Largely because a similarly sized although not 1:1 overlapping would do no work if they had their druthers.

    I'm not sure where you're going with this. My point is that people work in crap jobs with crap insurance because that's the best they can get. Would they druther be working in some white-collar well-paying job? I would bet the majority would say "damn straight". I don't think they would druther live off the system if given a chance.
  • wmd1979
    wmd1979 Posts: 469 Member
    mph323 wrote: »
    mph323 wrote: »
    jdlobb wrote: »
    Should smokers, or pregnant women, or addicts, or people who work in a profession that could pose health hazards like doctors or nurses, should those with kids or those who have less means pay more for health insurance?

    wow, one of these things is not like the other.

    Why not you choose to smoke you chose to have kids, you chose your profession

    I disagree with this - a huge chunk of the population does the work they have to do to get by, not the work they would choose to do if they had their druthers.

    Largely because a similarly sized although not 1:1 overlapping would do no work if they had their druthers.

    I'm not sure where you're going with this. My point is that people work in crap jobs with crap insurance because that's the best they can get. Would they druther be working in some white-collar well-paying job? I would bet the majority would say "damn straight". I don't think they would druther live off the system if given a chance.

    Maybe it is the best they can get at the moment, but a person always has the ability to improve themselves and their position in life. Some people have that desire and some don't. I believe the point was that there is a decent percentage that simply does not put in the effort to do that. Those same people tend to not be able to lose weight because of "genetics."
  • KelGen02
    KelGen02 Posts: 668 Member
    when I started my lifestyle change I weighed 260lbs which is morbidly obese as far as the "charts" are concerned. I have since loss 70+lbs which puts me in the just the obese catagory and my goal weigh of 160ish puts me in the overweight catagory. So I would have loss almost 100lbs and still would need to pay a higher insurance because I have a goal weight in a catagory in which someone else considers to be an"unhealthy" weight? The problem with society is that we tend to associate Healthy with being a certain size. I didn't have medical issues at 260lbs and don't have any issues now. My sister is in a healthy weight catagory and recently had a double mastectomy so the cancer wouldn't kill her. My mother died at the age of 62, from lung cancer also at a healthy weight and exercised faithfully 4 times a week. My father died of colon cancer at the age of 59, also in a healthy weight catagory and didn't believe in cars so walked everywhere. One of my good friends, in a healthy weigh catagory who exercises regularly but loves to eat crap on a daily basis, is on blood pressure meds, as well as cholesterol meds and a diabetic. Where do you draw the line on what HEALTHY looks like? It's a slippery slope...
  • jdlobb
    jdlobb Posts: 1,232 Member
    you know what this thread needs? more anecdotes. that'll convince people.
  • mph323
    mph323 Posts: 3,565 Member
    wmd1979 wrote: »
    mph323 wrote: »
    mph323 wrote: »
    jdlobb wrote: »
    Should smokers, or pregnant women, or addicts, or people who work in a profession that could pose health hazards like doctors or nurses, should those with kids or those who have less means pay more for health insurance?

    wow, one of these things is not like the other.

    Why not you choose to smoke you chose to have kids, you chose your profession

    I disagree with this - a huge chunk of the population does the work they have to do to get by, not the work they would choose to do if they had their druthers.

    Largely because a similarly sized although not 1:1 overlapping would do no work if they had their druthers.

    I'm not sure where you're going with this. My point is that people work in crap jobs with crap insurance because that's the best they can get. Would they druther be working in some white-collar well-paying job? I would bet the majority would say "damn straight". I don't think they would druther live off the system if given a chance.

    Maybe it is the best they can get at the moment, but a person always has the ability to improve themselves and their position in life. Some people have that desire and some don't. I believe the point was that there is a decent percentage that simply does not put in the effort to do that. Those same people tend to not be able to lose weight because of "genetics."

    I really disagree with this, but I don't want to pursue it here since it's a sideline to the topic.
  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,763 Member
    jdlobb wrote: »
    jdlobb wrote: »
    For the 2nd time. Insurance also starts at the statistical norm. For Americans this is ALREADY guessing that you're fat, sedentary, and eat poorly. Because 'murica. If you're not these things, almost every insurance company will give you discounts.

    I don't get any discounts for my weight, activity level, and diet (that I'm aware of).

    you should check in to that. You might have to dig a little deeper. I had the same insurer for 5 years before I found out how to get discounts and rebates for making healthier lifestyle choices.

    I do get some discounts for behaviors, but none of them are related to my weight, activity level, and diet.

    They're for things like having an annual checkup, getting my biometrics done, and getting a flu shot.
  • CSARdiver
    CSARdiver Posts: 6,252 Member
    jdlobb wrote: »
    jdlobb wrote: »
    For the 2nd time. Insurance also starts at the statistical norm. For Americans this is ALREADY guessing that you're fat, sedentary, and eat poorly. Because 'murica. If you're not these things, almost every insurance company will give you discounts.

    I don't get any discounts for my weight, activity level, and diet (that I'm aware of).

    you should check in to that. You might have to dig a little deeper. I had the same insurer for 5 years before I found out how to get discounts and rebates for making healthier lifestyle choices.

    I do get some discounts for behaviors, but none of them are related to my weight, activity level, and diet.

    They're for things like having an annual checkup, getting my biometrics done, and getting a flu shot.

    Same here - loads of financial incentives via our wellness plan and insurance firm. The healthy habits have essentially negated the negative impact of having cancer in the risk profile.

    We have benefits for the following: Exercising regularly, maintaining healthy BMI, annual medical/dental checkup, biometrics, vaccinations, getting enough sleep, etc. Even watching wellness videos is counted as a plus in this plan.
  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,763 Member
    CSARdiver wrote: »
    jdlobb wrote: »
    jdlobb wrote: »
    For the 2nd time. Insurance also starts at the statistical norm. For Americans this is ALREADY guessing that you're fat, sedentary, and eat poorly. Because 'murica. If you're not these things, almost every insurance company will give you discounts.

    I don't get any discounts for my weight, activity level, and diet (that I'm aware of).

    you should check in to that. You might have to dig a little deeper. I had the same insurer for 5 years before I found out how to get discounts and rebates for making healthier lifestyle choices.

    I do get some discounts for behaviors, but none of them are related to my weight, activity level, and diet.

    They're for things like having an annual checkup, getting my biometrics done, and getting a flu shot.

    Same here - loads of financial incentives via our wellness plan and insurance firm. The healthy habits have essentially negated the negative impact of having cancer in the risk profile.

    We have benefits for the following: Exercising regularly, maintaining healthy BMI, annual medical/dental checkup, biometrics, vaccinations, getting enough sleep, etc. Even watching wellness videos is counted as a plus in this plan.

    I'd like to have some of those, but it also seems like it would be kind of a pain to track some of it.
  • clicketykeys
    clicketykeys Posts: 6,577 Member
    wmd1979 wrote: »
    does
    wmd1979 wrote: »
    ccrdragon wrote: »
    wmd1979 wrote: »
    ccrdragon wrote: »
    jdlobb wrote: »
    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.

    You could argue against this all you want, but you would be dead wrong. Your own personal experience does not invalidate decades of data. Statistically speaking @jdlobb was 100% correct.

    Got any links to the data?

    https://stateofobesity.org/healthcare-costs-obesity/

    Its pretty clearly stated in the link above. Here is a preview:

    "Obese adults spend 42 percent more on direct healthcare costs than adults who are a healthy weight."
    wmd1979 wrote: »
    ccrdragon wrote: »
    wmd1979 wrote: »
    ccrdragon wrote: »
    jdlobb wrote: »
    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.

    You could argue against this all you want, but you would be dead wrong. Your own personal experience does not invalidate decades of data. Statistically speaking @jdlobb was 100% correct.

    Got any links to the data?

    https://stateofobesity.org/healthcare-costs-obesity/

    Its pretty clearly stated in the link above. Here is a preview:

    "Obese adults spend 42 percent more on direct healthcare costs than adults who are a healthy weight."

    Can't access that link ATM. But what obese adults spend is not the same as the actual cost is it? And I thought the cost overall was the point in question.
  • CSARdiver
    CSARdiver Posts: 6,252 Member
    CSARdiver wrote: »
    jdlobb wrote: »
    jdlobb wrote: »
    For the 2nd time. Insurance also starts at the statistical norm. For Americans this is ALREADY guessing that you're fat, sedentary, and eat poorly. Because 'murica. If you're not these things, almost every insurance company will give you discounts.

    I don't get any discounts for my weight, activity level, and diet (that I'm aware of).

    you should check in to that. You might have to dig a little deeper. I had the same insurer for 5 years before I found out how to get discounts and rebates for making healthier lifestyle choices.

    I do get some discounts for behaviors, but none of them are related to my weight, activity level, and diet.

    They're for things like having an annual checkup, getting my biometrics done, and getting a flu shot.

    Same here - loads of financial incentives via our wellness plan and insurance firm. The healthy habits have essentially negated the negative impact of having cancer in the risk profile.

    We have benefits for the following: Exercising regularly, maintaining healthy BMI, annual medical/dental checkup, biometrics, vaccinations, getting enough sleep, etc. Even watching wellness videos is counted as a plus in this plan.

    I'd like to have some of those, but it also seems like it would be kind of a pain to track some of it.

    Most of these are linked from Fitbit or other wearables and to my knowledge this is all "on your honor" verification. Perhaps this may come into play in an investigation of a claim, but I doubt it. The overall positive impact of carrot over stick outweighs the negative.

    There is a very noticeable positive impact with our firm and while the pounds lost is private - it is very obvious that the entire company is on a healthier trend.
  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,763 Member
    CSARdiver wrote: »
    CSARdiver wrote: »
    jdlobb wrote: »
    jdlobb wrote: »
    For the 2nd time. Insurance also starts at the statistical norm. For Americans this is ALREADY guessing that you're fat, sedentary, and eat poorly. Because 'murica. If you're not these things, almost every insurance company will give you discounts.

    I don't get any discounts for my weight, activity level, and diet (that I'm aware of).

    you should check in to that. You might have to dig a little deeper. I had the same insurer for 5 years before I found out how to get discounts and rebates for making healthier lifestyle choices.

    I do get some discounts for behaviors, but none of them are related to my weight, activity level, and diet.

    They're for things like having an annual checkup, getting my biometrics done, and getting a flu shot.

    Same here - loads of financial incentives via our wellness plan and insurance firm. The healthy habits have essentially negated the negative impact of having cancer in the risk profile.

    We have benefits for the following: Exercising regularly, maintaining healthy BMI, annual medical/dental checkup, biometrics, vaccinations, getting enough sleep, etc. Even watching wellness videos is counted as a plus in this plan.

    I'd like to have some of those, but it also seems like it would be kind of a pain to track some of it.

    Most of these are linked from Fitbit or other wearables and to my knowledge this is all "on your honor" verification. Perhaps this may come into play in an investigation of a claim, but I doubt it. The overall positive impact of carrot over stick outweighs the negative.

    There is a very noticeable positive impact with our firm and while the pounds lost is private - it is very obvious that the entire company is on a healthier trend.

    Oh, I didn't think about Fitbit. That would make it easier.
  • Iwannabfit76
    Iwannabfit76 Posts: 101 Member
    _emma_78 wrote: »
    My mom and I were discussing this today and I thought it would be a great topic for this forum, especially with all the politics surrounding health care these days.

    So do you think people who are overweight and/or obese should have to pay more?

    Do you think this would be a deterrent to gaining weight for people that are not in this category?

    Should people with medications/medical conditions that cause weight gain be exempt?

    I know that with obamacare/ACA there are wellness programs available, do you think these are all that helpful if you've been to one?


    This really hits a nerve with me. It’s overpriced as it is! The middle class pay for so much we can barely survive as it is. We pay 200$/ week for health insurance in my family! Sure why not add more penalty’s because I’m not in my “healthy weight range”. You’d have to prove why the people would have to pay more. What if being obese is due to having a thyroid issue? I mean I guess that’s just an excuse to some people. Gahhhhhh
    Can you tell I’m hangry at 4 am?!
  • Packerjohn
    Packerjohn Posts: 4,855 Member
    _emma_78 wrote: »
    My mom and I were discussing this today and I thought it would be a great topic for this forum, especially with all the politics surrounding health care these days.

    So do you think people who are overweight and/or obese should have to pay more?

    Do you think this would be a deterrent to gaining weight for people that are not in this category?

    Should people with medications/medical conditions that cause weight gain be exempt?

    I know that with obamacare/ACA there are wellness programs available, do you think these are all that helpful if you've been to one?


    This really hits a nerve with me. It’s overpriced as it is! The middle class pay for so much we can barely survive as it is. We pay 200$/ week for health insurance in my family! Sure why not add more penalty’s because I’m not in my “healthy weight range”. You’d have to prove why the people would have to pay more. What if being obese is due to having a thyroid issue? I mean I guess that’s just an excuse to some people. Gahhhhhh
    Can you tell I’m hangry at 4 am?!


    Here you go:

    People who have obesity, compared to those with a normal or healthy weight, are at increased risk for many serious diseases and health conditions, including the following:

    All-causes of death (mortality)
    High blood pressure (Hypertension)
    High LDL cholesterol, low HDL cholesterol, or high levels of triglycerides (Dyslipidemia)
    Type 2 diabetes
    Coronary heart disease
    Stroke
    Gallbladder disease
    Osteoarthritis (a breakdown of cartilage and bone within a joint)
    Sleep apnea and breathing problems
    Some cancers (endometrial, breast, colon, kidney, gallbladder, and liver)
    Low quality of life
    Mental illness such as clinical depression, anxiety, and other mental disorders4,5
    Body pain and difficulty with physical functioning

    https://www.cdc.gov/healthyweight/effects/index.html
  • jdlobb
    jdlobb Posts: 1,232 Member
    The proof is in the numbers. Insurance is about math, not feels.
  • Mr_Healthy_Habits
    Mr_Healthy_Habits Posts: 12,588 Member
    jdlobb wrote: »
    The proof is in the numbers. Insurance is about math, not feels.

    Sad but true
  • wmd1979
    wmd1979 Posts: 469 Member
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    _emma_78 wrote: »
    My mom and I were discussing this today and I thought it would be a great topic for this forum, especially with all the politics surrounding health care these days.

    So do you think people who are overweight and/or obese should have to pay more?

    Do you think this would be a deterrent to gaining weight for people that are not in this category?

    Should people with medications/medical conditions that cause weight gain be exempt?

    I know that with obamacare/ACA there are wellness programs available, do you think these are all that helpful if you've been to one?


    This really hits a nerve with me. It’s overpriced as it is! The middle class pay for so much we can barely survive as it is. We pay 200$/ week for health insurance in my family! Sure why not add more penalty’s because I’m not in my “healthy weight range”. You’d have to prove why the people would have to pay more. What if being obese is due to having a thyroid issue? I mean I guess that’s just an excuse to some people. Gahhhhhh
    Can you tell I’m hangry at 4 am?!


    Here you go:

    People who have obesity, compared to those with a normal or healthy weight, are at increased risk for many serious diseases and health conditions, including the following:

    All-causes of death (mortality)
    High blood pressure (Hypertension)
    High LDL cholesterol, low HDL cholesterol, or high levels of triglycerides (Dyslipidemia)
    Type 2 diabetes
    Coronary heart disease
    Stroke
    Gallbladder disease
    Osteoarthritis (a breakdown of cartilage and bone within a joint)
    Sleep apnea and breathing problems
    Some cancers (endometrial, breast, colon, kidney, gallbladder, and liver)
    Low quality of life
    Mental illness such as clinical depression, anxiety, and other mental disorders4,5
    Body pain and difficulty with physical functioning

    https://www.cdc.gov/healthyweight/effects/index.html

    Not to mention, if a person is concerned about saving money then it would be in their best interest to lose weight. I would think a person's overall health would be prioritized, but sometimes inexplicably money is more important.
  • TonyB0588
    TonyB0588 Posts: 9,520 Member
    Insurance is a business. All businesses need to make a profit. If a prospective client is at greater risk of sickness or death, this is a greater liability to an insurance company, not an asset. Therefore that person will either be denied coverage, or asked to pay a higher premium to mitigate the higher risk.
  • joshdegen1
    joshdegen1 Posts: 1 Member
    So I might be brining this thread back to life, but I actually have something to say about it. The vast majority of people are obese because they are misinformed or led down the wrong path about what to eat and what not to eat. Sugar conglomerates actually said that "fatty" foods is what causes wait gain because they are fat. A guy, who was funded by the sugar conglomerates, did a study and found that to be true, but it was debunked when real impartial studies were performed. But still the damage was done and the government backed the sugar companies and actually said sugar is better for you than fatty foods.
    I think you'll see a huge decrease in the national obesity rates if the government stopped letting people buy energy drinks and whatever other junk food with their food stamps (I know they're not actually called food stamps. It's just a generic term). If they only let you buy Whole Foods instead of processed foods obesity rates would drop.
    Teaching younger people what to eat and how to eat and the benefits of eating right would also bring down obesity rates greatly. I took a nutrition elective in college and was blown away by the amount of knowledge I didn't know.
    It's all truly about peeling back the onion. Should an obese person who has a choice of being fit or not being fit be charged more for premiums, short simple answer is no. They have to know the consequences, and if they except a shorter more unhappy life then that's there choice. But also, I don't think I should be fitting the bill for someone's else's health insurance, but that's a different story.
  • tomteboda
    tomteboda Posts: 2,171 Member
    What sugar conglomerates?
  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,763 Member
    joshdegen1 wrote: »
    So I might be brining this thread back to life, but I actually have something to say about it. The vast majority of people are obese because they are misinformed or led down the wrong path about what to eat and what not to eat. Sugar conglomerates actually said that "fatty" foods is what causes wait gain because they are fat. A guy, who was funded by the sugar conglomerates, did a study and found that to be true, but it was debunked when real impartial studies were performed. But still the damage was done and the government backed the sugar companies and actually said sugar is better for you than fatty foods.
    I think you'll see a huge decrease in the national obesity rates if the government stopped letting people buy energy drinks and whatever other junk food with their food stamps (I know they're not actually called food stamps. It's just a generic term). If they only let you buy Whole Foods instead of processed foods obesity rates would drop.
    Teaching younger people what to eat and how to eat and the benefits of eating right would also bring down obesity rates greatly. I took a nutrition elective in college and was blown away by the amount of knowledge I didn't know.
    It's all truly about peeling back the onion. Should an obese person who has a choice of being fit or not being fit be charged more for premiums, short simple answer is no. They have to know the consequences, and if they except a shorter more unhappy life then that's there choice. But also, I don't think I should be fitting the bill for someone's else's health insurance, but that's a different story.

    When exactly did the government say that sugar was better than foods containing fat? The government is a huge organization with many individuals and branches so I'm unclear what particular statement you're referring to here.
  • mph323
    mph323 Posts: 3,565 Member
    joshdegen1 wrote: »
    So I might be brining this thread back to life, but I actually have something to say about it. The vast majority of people are obese because they are misinformed or led down the wrong path about what to eat and what not to eat. Sugar conglomerates actually said that "fatty" foods is what causes wait gain because they are fat. A guy, who was funded by the sugar conglomerates, did a study and found that to be true, but it was debunked when real impartial studies were performed. But still the damage was done and the government backed the sugar companies and actually said sugar is better for you than fatty foods.
    I think you'll see a huge decrease in the national obesity rates if the government stopped letting people buy energy drinks and whatever other junk food with their food stamps (I know they're not actually called food stamps. It's just a generic term). If they only let you buy Whole Foods instead of processed foods obesity rates would drop.
    Teaching younger people what to eat and how to eat and the benefits of eating right would also bring down obesity rates greatly. I took a nutrition elective in college and was blown away by the amount of knowledge I didn't know.
    It's all truly about peeling back the onion. Should an obese person who has a choice of being fit or not being fit be charged more for premiums, short simple answer is no. They have to know the consequences, and if they except a shorter more unhappy life then that's there choice. But also, I don't think I should be fitting the bill for someone's else's health insurance, but that's a different story.

    ?? What on earth are you talking about?
    Do you have peer-reviewed sources to back up your assertions?
    What do food stamps have to do with insurance?
    To the bolded - that doesn't make even a little bit of sense. Obese people shouldn't be charged more for insurance but you don't want to foot the bill? You're footing the bill with your insurance premiums.
  • CSARdiver
    CSARdiver Posts: 6,252 Member
    joshdegen1 wrote: »
    So I might be brining this thread back to life, but I actually have something to say about it. The vast majority of people are obese because they are misinformed or led down the wrong path about what to eat and what not to eat. Sugar conglomerates actually said that "fatty" foods is what causes wait gain because they are fat. A guy, who was funded by the sugar conglomerates, did a study and found that to be true, but it was debunked when real impartial studies were performed. But still the damage was done and the government backed the sugar companies and actually said sugar is better for you than fatty foods.
    I think you'll see a huge decrease in the national obesity rates if the government stopped letting people buy energy drinks and whatever other junk food with their food stamps (I know they're not actually called food stamps. It's just a generic term). If they only let you buy Whole Foods instead of processed foods obesity rates would drop.
    Teaching younger people what to eat and how to eat and the benefits of eating right would also bring down obesity rates greatly. I took a nutrition elective in college and was blown away by the amount of knowledge I didn't know.
    It's all truly about peeling back the onion. Should an obese person who has a choice of being fit or not being fit be charged more for premiums, short simple answer is no. They have to know the consequences, and if they except a shorter more unhappy life then that's there choice. But also, I don't think I should be fitting the bill for someone's else's health insurance, but that's a different story.

    Interesting first post.
  • ritzvin
    ritzvin Posts: 2,860 Member
    joshdegen1 wrote: »
    So I might be brining this thread back to life, but I actually have something to say about it. The vast majority of people are obese because they are misinformed or led down the wrong path about what to eat and what not to eat. Sugar conglomerates actually said that "fatty" foods is what causes wait gain because they are fat. A guy, who was funded by the sugar conglomerates, did a study and found that to be true, but it was debunked when real impartial studies were performed. But still the damage was done and the government backed the sugar companies and actually said sugar is better for you than fatty foods.

    In one sense, they aren't/weren't necessarily wrong about that. People are so *kitten* fat because they are eating way too many calories.. and high fat foods are generally more calorie dense than most merely sugary foods.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    edited September 2017
    joshdegen1 wrote: »
    The vast majority of people are obese because they are misinformed or led down the wrong path about what to eat and what not to eat.

    No, the vast majority (as in all) people who are overweight or obese are so because they overeat for the amount of activity they do.

    Think of it this way:

    Is the average fat person really unaware that he or she should be eating a good many vegetables (and perhaps some fruit) per day? I think instead everyone knows that's true, and that's the advice from basically everywhere. Yet on average Americans do not.

    Is the average person unaware of how to make up a healthy balanced meal (say a source of protein, ideally one that more often than not doesn't have a ton of extra calories from being a fatty cut or fried), some vegetables, and maybe a starch course (and more often than not it's best to have a whole food or whole grain source)? Again, I think this is kindergarten stuff, and it's also consistent with dietary advice.

    Is the average person (or anyone) unaware that a diet made up primarily of, say, fast food burgers and fries, pizza, and sweets is not a great or healthy diet or that such foods should be consumed in moderation (as in smaller portions or less frequently)? Again, no, this is something I recall knowing as a small child.

    If your diet is high cal and full of sweets and sugary soda or whatever, it is simply NOT because you are misled. It's because you knew that wasn't anyone's idea of a healthy diet but did not care. And that's fine, no need to care, your choice, but claiming BigSugar made you do it is just excuses, IMO, and not accurate at all.
    I think you'll see a huge decrease in the national obesity rates if the government stopped letting people buy energy drinks and whatever other junk food with their food stamps (I know they're not actually called food stamps. It's just a generic term).

    Most fat people are not on SNAP (food stamps).

    The studies indicate that what people buy on SNAP is pretty similar to what people not on SNAP buy.

    So, no, there would not be a huge decrease in the national obesity rate for that reason. (Heck, I managed to get fat -- and later lose it -- without ever being on SNAP, aren't I fancy!)
    If they only let you buy Whole Foods instead of processed foods obesity rates would drop.

    How is plain greek yogurt making me fat?
    Teaching younger people what to eat and how to eat and the benefits of eating right would also bring down obesity rates greatly. I took a nutrition elective in college and was blown away by the amount of knowledge I didn't know.

    They do this, and I think it's good. Will it help? I doubt it, since I don't think the issue is lack of knowledge. (Also, we learn about history and gov't in school and the average American can't tell you what the various duties of the house and senate are, or even how many branches of gov't there is, and does not understand that the president can't just announce that something is a law, and probably cannot say what decade the Civil War occurred in).
    Should an obese person who has a choice of being fit or not being fit be charged more for premiums, short simple answer is no.

    Why not? (My answer is that our health insurance isn't really based on an insurance model, so we should stop pretending it is, but if it IS based on an insurance model why WOULDN'T risk be taken into account? That's how insurance works.)