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
-
No. Everyone should be entitled to the same level of healthcare. I feel it's a basic human right. It's similar to charging people more who have a pre existing condition. What else, are we going to charge people more who have a genetic predisposition to certain Illnesses?
Basic human rights would be life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.
You have no right to demand services provided by another individual.
But everyone who buys health insurance is forcing other people to pay for their healthcare....that's how it works. Whatever is billed to your insurance company by a Dr is paid from a pool of money that other people have paid into. The only way you can truly enact this belief is to not buy health insurance but self pay for every health expense.
Well we did not used to be forced by government to purchase health insurance, so people had a choice.
This is not how it works, but a simplistic facade. When you wonder why healthcare costs are so expensive look no further than the price exchange programs managed by government, insurance, wholesale distributors, hospital networks, and pharmaceutical/medical device companies.
We would be far better off removing insurance from this process.
Healthcare costs are outrageously high in the US because it's based on private insurance. I agree removing the entire insurance industry would make things much better for all concerned ( except the people who own and work for health insurance companies...they'd have to retrain and find new jobs). A single payer system is the best system out there to date imho.
Healthcare costs were in line with the rest of consumer index until the early 1960s where government expanded insurance without regulating the industry. Since then this has become consistently the most profitable market sector. I agree that this should be removed entirely. Deliberate insertion of middlemen into any process is insanity - unless of course your goal is to insert inefficiency (if you are the middleman).
Single payer is a pipe dream and goes against human nature. You cannot support any system with unlimited demand and limited supply. You cannot continue innovation without reward. Every socialized system fails - it's just a matter of mitigating the damage done before it fails.
Those in the medical profession will resist your use of force to try and nationalize. What will you do then?3 -
No. Everyone should be entitled to the same level of healthcare. I feel it's a basic human right. It's similar to charging people more who have a pre existing condition. What else, are we going to charge people more who have a genetic predisposition to certain Illnesses?
Basic human rights would be life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.
You have no right to demand services provided by another individual.
But everyone who buys health insurance is forcing other people to pay for their healthcare....that's how it works. Whatever is billed to your insurance company by a Dr is paid from a pool of money that other people have paid into. The only way you can truly enact this belief is to not buy health insurance but self pay for every health expense.
Well we did not used to be forced by government to purchase health insurance, so people had a choice.
This is not how it works, but a simplistic facade. When you wonder why healthcare costs are so expensive look no further than the price exchange programs managed by government, insurance, wholesale distributors, hospital networks, and pharmaceutical/medical device companies.
We would be far better off removing insurance from this process.
Healthcare costs are outrageously high in the US because it's based on private insurance. I agree removing the entire insurance industry would make things much better for all concerned ( except the people who own and work for health insurance companies...they'd have to retrain and find new jobs). A single payer system is the best system out there to date imho.
Healthcare costs were in line with the rest of consumer index until the early 1960s where government expanded insurance without regulating the industry. Since then this has become consistently the most profitable market sector. I agree that this should be removed entirely. Deliberate insertion of middlemen into any process is insanity - unless of course your goal is to insert inefficiency (if you are the middleman).
Single payer is a pipe dream and goes against human nature. You cannot support any system with unlimited demand and limited supply. You cannot continue innovation without reward. Every socialized system fails - it's just a matter of mitigating the damage done before it fails.
Those in the medical profession will resist your use of force to try and nationalize. What will you do then?
Vote with my feet...which I've already done. Now I pay only 2% extra in taxes for all the healthcare I could possibly need and it's saved me a bundle of money because I was paying more than 2% of my income on health insurance and having to fight with said insurance company over which Dr is in network, not in network, constantly "shopping" around every year for a better deal as costs kept going up and benefits down.2 -
No. Everyone should be entitled to the same level of healthcare. I feel it's a basic human right. It's similar to charging people more who have a pre existing condition. What else, are we going to charge people more who have a genetic predisposition to certain Illnesses?
Basic human rights would be life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.
You have no right to demand services provided by another individual.
But everyone who buys health insurance is forcing other people to pay for their healthcare....that's how it works. Whatever is billed to your insurance company by a Dr is paid from a pool of money that other people have paid into. The only way you can truly enact this belief is to not buy health insurance but self pay for every health expense.
Well we did not used to be forced by government to purchase health insurance, so people had a choice.
This is not how it works, but a simplistic facade. When you wonder why healthcare costs are so expensive look no further than the price exchange programs managed by government, insurance, wholesale distributors, hospital networks, and pharmaceutical/medical device companies.
We would be far better off removing insurance from this process.
Healthcare costs are outrageously high in the US because it's based on private insurance. I agree removing the entire insurance industry would make things much better for all concerned ( except the people who own and work for health insurance companies...they'd have to retrain and find new jobs). A single payer system is the best system out there to date imho.
Healthcare costs were in line with the rest of consumer index until the early 1960s where government expanded insurance without regulating the industry. Since then this has become consistently the most profitable market sector. I agree that this should be removed entirely. Deliberate insertion of middlemen into any process is insanity - unless of course your goal is to insert inefficiency (if you are the middleman).
Single payer is a pipe dream and goes against human nature. You cannot support any system with unlimited demand and limited supply. You cannot continue innovation without reward. Every socialized system fails - it's just a matter of mitigating the damage done before it fails.
Those in the medical profession will resist your use of force to try and nationalize. What will you do then?
Vote with my feet...which I've already done. Now I pay only 2% extra in taxes for all the healthcare I could possibly need and it's saved me a bundle of money because I was paying more than 2% of my income on health insurance and having to fight with said insurance company over which Dr is in network, not in network, constantly "shopping" around every year for a better deal as costs kept going up and benefits down.
I would agree with this philosophy as well and wish more people would simply vote with their feet instead of forcing their beliefs of social justice onto others.4 -
No. Everyone should be entitled to the same level of healthcare. I feel it's a basic human right. It's similar to charging people more who have a pre existing condition. What else, are we going to charge people more who have a genetic predisposition to certain Illnesses?
Basic human rights would be life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.
You have no right to demand services provided by another individual.
But everyone who buys health insurance is forcing other people to pay for their healthcare....that's how it works. Whatever is billed to your insurance company by a Dr is paid from a pool of money that other people have paid into. The only way you can truly enact this belief is to not buy health insurance but self pay for every health expense.
Well we did not used to be forced by government to purchase health insurance, so people had a choice.
This is not how it works, but a simplistic facade. When you wonder why healthcare costs are so expensive look no further than the price exchange programs managed by government, insurance, wholesale distributors, hospital networks, and pharmaceutical/medical device companies.
We would be far better off removing insurance from this process.
Healthcare costs are outrageously high in the US because it's based on private insurance. I agree removing the entire insurance industry would make things much better for all concerned ( except the people who own and work for health insurance companies...they'd have to retrain and find new jobs). A single payer system is the best system out there to date imho.
Healthcare costs were in line with the rest of consumer index until the early 1960s where government expanded insurance without regulating the industry. Since then this has become consistently the most profitable market sector. I agree that this should be removed entirely. Deliberate insertion of middlemen into any process is insanity - unless of course your goal is to insert inefficiency (if you are the middleman).
Single payer is a pipe dream and goes against human nature. You cannot support any system with unlimited demand and limited supply. You cannot continue innovation without reward. Every socialized system fails - it's just a matter of mitigating the damage done before it fails.
Those in the medical profession will resist your use of force to try and nationalize. What will you do then?
Vote with my feet...which I've already done. Now I pay only 2% extra in taxes for all the healthcare I could possibly need and it's saved me a bundle of money because I was paying more than 2% of my income on health insurance and having to fight with said insurance company over which Dr is in network, not in network, constantly "shopping" around every year for a better deal as costs kept going up and benefits down.
I would agree with this philosophy as well and wish more people would simply vote with their feet instead of forcing their beliefs of social justice onto others.
Yep agreed.1 -
No. Everyone should be entitled to the same level of healthcare. I feel it's a basic human right. It's similar to charging people more who have a pre existing condition. What else, are we going to charge people more who have a genetic predisposition to certain Illnesses?
Basic human rights would be life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.
You have no right to demand services provided by another individual.
But everyone who buys health insurance is forcing other people to pay for their healthcare....that's how it works. Whatever is billed to your insurance company by a Dr is paid from a pool of money that other people have paid into. The only way you can truly enact this belief is to not buy health insurance but self pay for every health expense.
Well we did not used to be forced by government to purchase health insurance, so people had a choice.
This is not how it works, but a simplistic facade. When you wonder why healthcare costs are so expensive look no further than the price exchange programs managed by government, insurance, wholesale distributors, hospital networks, and pharmaceutical/medical device companies.
We would be far better off removing insurance from this process.
Healthcare costs are outrageously high in the US because it's based on private insurance. I agree removing the entire insurance industry would make things much better for all concerned ( except the people who own and work for health insurance companies...they'd have to retrain and find new jobs). A single payer system is the best system out there to date imho.
Healthcare costs were in line with the rest of consumer index until the early 1960s where government expanded insurance without regulating the industry. Since then this has become consistently the most profitable market sector. I agree that this should be removed entirely. Deliberate insertion of middlemen into any process is insanity - unless of course your goal is to insert inefficiency (if you are the middleman).
Single payer is a pipe dream and goes against human nature. You cannot support any system with unlimited demand and limited supply. You cannot continue innovation without reward. Every socialized system fails - it's just a matter of mitigating the damage done before it fails.
Those in the medical profession will resist your use of force to try and nationalize. What will you do then?
Eh, can you think of any close neighbors who just might have a working "pipe dream" for many years, like one up north? Canada, Denmark, Sweden all have very functional single payer systems which score better than our health system on ratings of health care by country. In fact we spend the highest percent GDP and are #37... we aren't even high ranking in the Americas: after Canada, Columbia, Chile, and Costa Rica score better. Yet we are talking about restricting more access here in the US now. We are also rapidly losing ground on innovation, invention and discovery to the rest of the world. Most companies are also international, many of our drug companies are at least in part foreign owned or based in other countries to avoid taxes. Switzerland, France and UK all have top 10 drug companies which are very functional and also have hybrid single payer systems in a much smaller country with much higher ratings of health care rankings. So I don't see either of those arguments having much basis in reality, its just people repeating such statements without any data backing it up.
Many other countries in Europe have a working hybrid of single payer as well, and almost all of our first world nations have some public system hybrid. But its still falsely labeled "pipe dream" and unworkable by people who think they don't want it (many of whom have just been told they don't want it and don't even understand what it actually means).
Now I am definitely not a fan of the government forcing us to pay a private company, and we have some big problems currently (especially for small businesses/middle class people). Yet if Switzerland can have a system for an avg $243 per month with no change in costs based on age, 99% of people covered, max $2500 deductible and covers more than most our plans, while our average is $536 per month, common $5-7,000 deductibles, something is very very wrong in our system. I think we either need to improve what we have and turn it into a single payer hybrid or go back completely to the way it was, because nobody should be forced to pay the large costs for what poor coverage we currently have, and its only going to get worse for most people with every glimpse of what is being worked on in the Senate and House.10 -
stanmann571 wrote: »No. Everyone should be entitled to the same level of healthcare. I feel it's a basic human right. It's similar to charging people more who have a pre existing condition. What else, are we going to charge people more who have a genetic predisposition to certain Illnesses?
Basic human rights would be life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.
You have no right to demand services provided by another individual.
As Senator Paul pointed out. That's called slavery.
Oh so calling 911 for fire, or police is actually calling up "slaves" is it? How so? Everyone pays taxes for these services no matter how much they need/use them.
Fire, EMT, police services are all government employees.
Are you going to nationalize physicians, nurses, and all medical personnel?
Local fire, EMT and police services are not "nationalized." They are local government employees.0 -
stanmann571 wrote: »No. Everyone should be entitled to the same level of healthcare. I feel it's a basic human right. It's similar to charging people more who have a pre existing condition. What else, are we going to charge people more who have a genetic predisposition to certain Illnesses?
Basic human rights would be life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.
You have no right to demand services provided by another individual.
As Senator Paul pointed out. That's called slavery.
Oh so calling 911 for fire, or police is actually calling up "slaves" is it? How so? Everyone pays taxes for these services no matter how much they need/use them.
Fire, EMT, police services are all government employees.
Are you going to nationalize physicians, nurses, and all medical personnel?
Local fire, EMT and police services are not "nationalized." They are local government employees.
OK - are you going to Local Governmentize all medical personnel?0 -
stanmann571 wrote: »No. Everyone should be entitled to the same level of healthcare. I feel it's a basic human right. It's similar to charging people more who have a pre existing condition. What else, are we going to charge people more who have a genetic predisposition to certain Illnesses?
Basic human rights would be life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.
You have no right to demand services provided by another individual.
As Senator Paul pointed out. That's called slavery.
Oh so calling 911 for fire, or police is actually calling up "slaves" is it? How so? Everyone pays taxes for these services no matter how much they need/use them.
Fire, EMT, police services are all government employees.
Are you going to nationalize physicians, nurses, and all medical personnel?
Local fire, EMT and police services are not "nationalized." They are local government employees.
Actually in much of the United states, local fire fighters aren't paid employees.
3 -
@stanmann571 is right.stanmann571 wrote: »Actually in much of the United states, local fire fighters aren't paid employees.
Often they are part-time volunteers.
They could be doing it in conjunction with another role such as a LEO or EMT.
They may not be getting paid and if they are it might not be much.
It depends on the municipality.
0 -
SoLongAndThanksForAllTheFish wrote: »No. Everyone should be entitled to the same level of healthcare. I feel it's a basic human right. It's similar to charging people more who have a pre existing condition. What else, are we going to charge people more who have a genetic predisposition to certain Illnesses?
Basic human rights would be life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.
You have no right to demand services provided by another individual.
But everyone who buys health insurance is forcing other people to pay for their healthcare....that's how it works. Whatever is billed to your insurance company by a Dr is paid from a pool of money that other people have paid into. The only way you can truly enact this belief is to not buy health insurance but self pay for every health expense.
Well we did not used to be forced by government to purchase health insurance, so people had a choice.
This is not how it works, but a simplistic facade. When you wonder why healthcare costs are so expensive look no further than the price exchange programs managed by government, insurance, wholesale distributors, hospital networks, and pharmaceutical/medical device companies.
We would be far better off removing insurance from this process.
Healthcare costs are outrageously high in the US because it's based on private insurance. I agree removing the entire insurance industry would make things much better for all concerned ( except the people who own and work for health insurance companies...they'd have to retrain and find new jobs). A single payer system is the best system out there to date imho.
Healthcare costs were in line with the rest of consumer index until the early 1960s where government expanded insurance without regulating the industry. Since then this has become consistently the most profitable market sector. I agree that this should be removed entirely. Deliberate insertion of middlemen into any process is insanity - unless of course your goal is to insert inefficiency (if you are the middleman).
Single payer is a pipe dream and goes against human nature. You cannot support any system with unlimited demand and limited supply. You cannot continue innovation without reward. Every socialized system fails - it's just a matter of mitigating the damage done before it fails.
Those in the medical profession will resist your use of force to try and nationalize. What will you do then?
Eh, can you think of any close neighbors who just might have a working "pipe dream" for many years, like one up north? Canada, Denmark, Sweden all have very functional single payer systems which score better than our health system on ratings of health care by country. In fact we spend the highest percent GDP and are #37... we aren't even high ranking in the Americas: after Canada, Columbia, Chile, and Costa Rica score better. Yet we are talking about restricting more access here in the US now. We are also rapidly losing ground on innovation, invention and discovery to the rest of the world. Most companies are also international, many of our drug companies are at least in part foreign owned or based in other countries to avoid taxes. Switzerland, France and UK all have top 10 drug companies which are very functional and also have hybrid single payer systems in a much smaller country with much higher ratings of health care rankings. So I don't see either of those arguments having much basis in reality, its just people repeating such statements without any data backing it up.
Many other countries in Europe have a working hybrid of single payer as well, and almost all of our first world nations have some public system hybrid. But its still falsely labeled "pipe dream" and unworkable by people who think they don't want it (many of whom have just been told they don't want it and don't even understand what it actually means).
Now I am definitely not a fan of the government forcing us to pay a private company, and we have some big problems currently (especially for small businesses/middle class people). Yet if Switzerland can have a system for an avg $243 per month with no change in costs based on age, 99% of people covered, max $2500 deductible and covers more than most our plans, while our average is $536 per month, common $5-7,000 deductibles, something is very very wrong in our system. I think we either need to improve what we have and turn it into a single payer hybrid or go back completely to the way it was, because nobody should be forced to pay the large costs for what poor coverage we currently have, and its only going to get worse for most people with every glimpse of what is being worked on in the Senate and House.
Working? I guess this depends on your definition. Struggling or dying would be far more accurate. These systems are only sustainable in societies with expanding economies and population growth. Neither of which are growing beyond the demand for medical care.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/joelkotkin/2017/02/01/death-spiral-demographics-the-countries-shrinking-the-fastest/#2de4a45db83c
As for losing ground on innovation this is largely due to regulatory restrictions and the cost of proving the risk outweighs the reward. Prohibitive taxation has forced companies to move manufacturing to cheaper labor markets. EU is relocating to US, US relocating to India...which lowers the capacity for taxable income as the last large sector of manufacturing leaves.
I would love to introduce a hybrid system in the US - one for those who willingly relinquish their individual liberty to a government run system and one for those who do not. Single payer is micromanagement at it's worst and inserts bureaucrats into what should be a decision between patient and provider.2 -
No. Everyone should be entitled to the same level of healthcare. I feel it's a basic human right. It's similar to charging people more who have a pre existing condition. What else, are we going to charge people more who have a genetic predisposition to certain Illnesses?
Basic human rights would be life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.
You have no right to demand services provided by another individual.
But everyone who buys health insurance is forcing other people to pay for their healthcare....that's how it works. Whatever is billed to your insurance company by a Dr is paid from a pool of money that other people have paid into. The only way you can truly enact this belief is to not buy health insurance but self pay for every health expense.
Well we did not used to be forced by government to purchase health insurance, so people had a choice.
This is not how it works, but a simplistic facade. When you wonder why healthcare costs are so expensive look no further than the price exchange programs managed by government, insurance, wholesale distributors, hospital networks, and pharmaceutical/medical device companies.
We would be far better off removing insurance from this process.
Healthcare costs are outrageously high in the US because it's based on private insurance. I agree removing the entire insurance industry would make things much better for all concerned ( except the people who own and work for health insurance companies...they'd have to retrain and find new jobs). A single payer system is the best system out there to date imho.
Actually I believe government controls on costs are how other countries are lower cost.3 -
SoLongAndThanksForAllTheFish wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »This "slippery slope" argument doesn't hold water. Young men already pay more for auto insurance than young woman, and the world hasn't ended.
You aren't thinking of the future at all, comparing to a different animal and being absurd with a nonesense result. Time keeps moving, more things are being included as it progresses, and we actually have moved to voluntarily monitoring of driving habits in the automobile insurance venue, so your argument actually supports what I'm saying. But that's a different issue, its not medical. The more we allow as fair game info, the faster this progression goes. Not only this, but there are many many more reasons to reasonably gain and assess more medical info (lots of nuggets are right there in your medical history they already could use if we allowed it) for a medical claim pricing than there are to gain unrelated info for a different kind of insurance.
You're saying people who aren't obese should pay higher insurance premiums to fund obesity treatments because you can imagine a dystopian future.1 -
I don't fundamentally agree with the idea of "health insurance," even though that is the reality. I think health care should be the focus and a single-payer system in place to ensure anyone who needs care can get it.6
-
No. Everyone should be entitled to the same level of healthcare. I feel it's a basic human right. It's similar to charging people more who have a pre existing condition. What else, are we going to charge people more who have a genetic predisposition to certain Illnesses?
Basic human rights would be life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.
You have no right to demand services provided by another individual.
Are you saying there is no relationship between healthcare and life?4 -
This would basically be health insurance.fitoverfortymom wrote: »I don't fundamentally agree with the idea of "health insurance," even though that is the reality. I think health care should be the focus and a single-payer system in place to ensure anyone who needs care can get it.
0 -
No, the insurance companies get enough money already. Incentives are a better idea.1
-
SeptemberFeyre wrote: »No, the insurance companies get enough money already. Incentives are a better idea.
Heh, that's an interesting point. If it were to come in, how long until people started accusing "big Insurance" of plotting to keep people fat for higher premiums?1 -
No. Everyone should be entitled to the same level of healthcare. I feel it's a basic human right. It's similar to charging people more who have a pre existing condition. What else, are we going to charge people more who have a genetic predisposition to certain Illnesses?
Basic human rights would be life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.
You have no right to demand services provided by another individual.
Are you saying there is no relationship between healthcare and life?
Life - as in you have the unalienable right to live your life as you see fit - enjoy the rewards as well as suffer the consequences for your behavior. You have no right to demand services provided by another individual. That would be a clear infringement upon their unalienable rights.2 -
No. Everyone should be entitled to the same level of healthcare. I feel it's a basic human right. It's similar to charging people more who have a pre existing condition. What else, are we going to charge people more who have a genetic predisposition to certain Illnesses?
Basic human rights would be life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.
You have no right to demand services provided by another individual.
Are you saying there is no relationship between healthcare and life?
Life - as in you have the unalienable right to live your life as you see fit - enjoy the rewards as well as suffer the consequences for your behavior. You have no right to demand services provided by another individual. That would be a clear infringement upon their unalienable rights.
And yet csar is fine with everyone being entitled to the same level of fire or police services.....that's an exception to his 'you cannot demand services' mantra.2 -
No. Everyone should be entitled to the same level of healthcare. I feel it's a basic human right. It's similar to charging people more who have a pre existing condition. What else, are we going to charge people more who have a genetic predisposition to certain Illnesses?
Basic human rights would be life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.
You have no right to demand services provided by another individual.
Are you saying there is no relationship between healthcare and life?
Life - as in you have the unalienable right to live your life as you see fit - enjoy the rewards as well as suffer the consequences for your behavior. You have no right to demand services provided by another individual. That would be a clear infringement upon their unalienable rights.
And yet csar is fine with everyone being entitled to the same level of fire or police services.....that's an exception to his 'you cannot demand services' mantra.
I can't speak for CSAR, but if those services became Paygo/privatized as they were until the mid 19th century that would be quite alright.1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.2K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 386 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
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 895 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions