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 don't see why ANYBODY has to pay a dime for healthcare to begin with, but that's a different discussion, I suppose.9
-
amandastardust89 wrote: »I don't see why ANYBODY has to pay a dime for healthcare to begin with, but that's a different discussion, I suppose.
Probably has something to do with those working in healthcare not working for free.10 -
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 to me goes along the same lines of them wanting to charge more/make it possible for health insurance companies to turn away people who are chronically ill. I gained a lot of weight because of my illness, so this means that because of something that is entirely out of my control, i am being punished? i realize that you asked if people on medication/illnesses should be exempt, however to me it is really all the same. i do also understand entirely that people who are obese end up causing their own health issues 90% of the time. i do think that there should be way more of a push to find people help. while there are people who just eat their life away, there are also people who do not have control over it via mental illness, etc. Instead of screwing everyone over like they already do, why not actually try to put something together that is worth their time? Now, this is a very dumb question and all too hopeful because all of us know that they don't care about anyone, and really at the end of the day all that is cared about is how much money they take home. But still, it would be nice to see something change.1 -
crazyycatladyy1 wrote: »This is already in place for our insurance. Smokers pay more as well, and staring next year those with bad blood work numbers will also pay more. We'll pay higher premiums for my husband with the new rule next year and I don't have a problem with that-he's a higher risk for needing costly medical care. Getting an insurance policy through the company is optional so if someone doesn't agree with these policies they don't need to participate.
edit: grammar
yes and no. for example, i am chronically ill and because of this, my insurance will now go through the roof. For something that is entirely out of my control. Now yes, taking health insurance through work is a choice, but do you really have much of a choice when your only other option is to be covered through the state? and there is absolutely no assistance offered with anything because you make just over the allowed salary? now, i am not talking about a full ride here. but why is it fair that i am stuck paying hundreds and hundreds of dollars in medical bills, tests and prescriptions when health insurance is supposed to help with that? as an example, my mom has RA. now, she makes just about the same amount every year as i do, and because of that she has to pay 100% out of pocket for chemo infusions as this is the only thing left out there that actually helps. How do you think people can actually be ok with that?0 -
Happysoul0317 wrote: »I do not think that anyone should pay more for health insurance. That's kind of a rotten way of thinking.
Not if it's insurance. (I personally think insurance should not be the primary way we finance health care in the US.)
Do you feel this way about people paying different prices for home owner's insurance or car insurance?
Should a family with 5 children pay more than a single person or couple?
Even if health care or health "insurance" is all tax funded, people will pay different prices.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »JMcGee2018 wrote: »Assigning premiums based on lifestyle choices that can change at any time for any reason sounds like a pretty big overhead expense to me... and overhead costs are ultimately absorbed by consumers anyway. Sounds like a waste of time and money, but what do I know...
I think a mandatory yearly physical should be put in place, and at that time the doctor can calculate your BMI, which you would then submit as part of your taxes in return for a tax credit if you are in a healthy BMI range or no tax credit (or at least a reduced tax credit) if you are in an unhealthy range.
Wishful thinking. The government in the US is limiting tax credits and tax deductions and do you think that Congress will change the tax code again to accommodate for incentives for a healthy BMI? I think NOT!
Besides, we all know that BMI is a relative measure of fitness. A very fit person doing a lot of exercise and developing a nice muscular physic will weigh more and have a higher BMI that somebody leaner but probably not so healthy. So the ripped guy will pay more while the not so healthy one will be rewarded with a tax refund, credit or what ever? Not a good idea.
I am not advocating for a BMI-based tax credit system, but it's likely that the very fit person who has developed a muscular physique and the leaner person who is not so healthy will both fall into the healthy BMI range. BMI being thrown off my muscle is only an issue for more serious bodybuilders, not people who are just fit and developing muscle.
I understand the point that you are trying to make, but I don't believe the bolded is accurate. I am 6'2" 196lbs right now and I would fall into the overweight category(barely) and I am not a bodybuilder. When I bulk though I easily top 200lbs(still within 10-12% bodyfat) which puts me squarely into the overweight category. I understand I am an outlier, but I also don't believe that someone needs to be a bodybuilder or an elite athlete to fall outside of the normal range for BMI.
The new BMI does a better job of accounting for taller people and might solve your problem. But this is why my proposition was not that overweight people are penalized through taxes, just that they don't receive a tax credit, just like people who don't have kids don't receive a tax credit. It isn't a punishment.0 -
Wow interesting question. I can see both sides, but to be honest I agree with what others are saying, if we start down that road where will it end. Often there is just as much 'research' stating there are no risks and there are risks if you are overweight; don't get 8 hours sleep; drink coffee; etc. So what would they base the additional cost on. But wait what am I saying, insurance companies can set any rules they want.
I did find the comment interesting that a company will not hire smokers and grandfathered existing employees that smoke. I assume this is in the US, I have never heard of this happening in Canada. In fact I would think employers aren't allowed to ask potential employees if they smoke or not or what they smoke
0 -
amandastardust89 wrote: »I don't see why ANYBODY has to pay a dime for healthcare to begin with, but that's a different discussion, I suppose.
I assume you're talking about some sort of government paid plan, which BTW, you will pay for. Judging from your picture (younger female), unless you're destitute, you will be paying more than you are now. Also, I wouldn't bet my house, but pretty close. Any government funded program will have somewhat punitive taxes on whatever is considered junk food at the time. Both to raise revenue and the perception at least to keep costs down by "encouraging" people to limit those items.2 -
amandastardust89 wrote: »I don't see why ANYBODY has to pay a dime for healthcare to begin with, but that's a different discussion, I suppose.
Probably because it's a commodity (like it or not), and not a right.
2 -
*Steps in, looks around* *Steps out*
5 -
Obese and fat people should be forced to perform heavy manual labor while cruel guards taunt and scream at them, calling them losers and fatties.
In addition they will be starved and given only unpalatable, nauseating foods to eat.
They will remain prisoners until their BMI reaches recommended levels.
Oh, wait a minute, this is already a TV show...6 -
No. Our current medical model doesn't support this. When we change the medical model we change the culture. In the U.S. doctors spend a few minutes with a patient. They don't address emerging issues and talk about lifestyle with their patients. They prescribe pills and if they can't there isn't a problem. When going for an annual physical I am told not to bring anything else up because I might be charged for it. This is not helpful medical care. There is no ideal weight for everyone. BMI is not a reliable indicator of health. There are too many factors in obesity it takes a long time for some to pinpoint and address those issues. Hormones can play a large roll and even though doctors think they know about how hormones affect the body there is so much more to learn. Because of our current state of medicine, we can not charge people more for being overweight.1
-
No. Our current medical model doesn't support this. When we change the medical model we change the culture. In the U.S. doctors spend a few minutes with a patient. They don't address emerging issues and talk about lifestyle with their patients. They prescribe pills and if they can't there isn't a problem. When going for an annual physical I am told not to bring anything else up because I might be charged for it. This is not helpful medical care. There is no ideal weight for everyone. BMI is not a reliable indicator of health. There are too many factors in obesity it takes a long time for some to pinpoint and address those issues. Hormones can play a large roll and even though doctors think they know about how hormones affect the body there is so much more to learn. Because of our current state of medicine, we can not charge people more for being overweight.
What you are describing isn't a universal medical experience in the US. While I think many people do share your experience, this doesn't describe my experiences. I spend as much time with my medical providers as I feel I need (sometimes a few minutes, sometimes much more), we discuss potential future issues, and I'm encouraged to bring up any concerns, worries, or questions I may have.
3 -
No. Our current medical model doesn't support this. When we change the medical model we change the culture. In the U.S. doctors spend a few minutes with a patient. They don't address emerging issues and talk about lifestyle with their patients. They prescribe pills and if they can't there isn't a problem. When going for an annual physical I am told not to bring anything else up because I might be charged for it. This is not helpful medical care. There is no ideal weight for everyone. BMI is not a reliable indicator of health. There are too many factors in obesity it takes a long time for some to pinpoint and address those issues. Hormones can play a large roll and even though doctors think they know about how hormones affect the body there is so much more to learn. Because of our current state of medicine, we can not charge people more for being overweight.
This practice is due to insurance and the deliberate insertion of multiple "middle-men" into medicine. Doctors don't have time to treat patients and spend the majority of their time documenting activities for insurance purposes. Increasing payments for high risk categories is how insurance works. If you don't want to pay more then you can't have insurance. You cannot have this both ways.
There is one primary factor that overrides all else in obesity - eating more calories than you burn.
Hormones play a minimal role in weight management.2 -
I pay more for my insurance because I smoke. I don't pretend what I do is of no consequence because I am at a higher risk of cancer and other smoking related diseases like COPD etc.
I'm also an insurance broker and I understand that to correctly underwrite a risk you need to collect enough premium from those that are more likely to suffer a loss. It's statistics. Smokers cost more to take care of so do fat people and therefore pay more; rightfully.8 -
No. Our current medical model doesn't support this. When we change the medical model we change the culture. In the U.S. doctors spend a few minutes with a patient. They don't address emerging issues and talk about lifestyle with their patients. They prescribe pills and if they can't there isn't a problem. When going for an annual physical I am told not to bring anything else up because I might be charged for it. This is not helpful medical care. There is no ideal weight for everyone. BMI is not a reliable indicator of health. There are too many factors in obesity it takes a long time for some to pinpoint and address those issues. Hormones can play a large roll and even though doctors think they know about how hormones affect the body there is so much more to learn. Because of our current state of medicine, we can not charge people more for being overweight.
This practice is due to insurance and the deliberate insertion of multiple "middle-men" into medicine. Doctors don't have time to treat patients and spend the majority of their time documenting activities for insurance purposes. Increasing payments for high risk categories is how insurance works. If you don't want to pay more then you can't have insurance. You cannot have this both ways.
There is one primary factor that overrides all else in obesity - eating more calories than you burn.
Hormones play a minimal role in weight management.
As someone who once had hormone issues, I could not lose weight, only when those hormones were balanced did I lose weight. So I know from experience that if you are the one with hormone imbalance it's not a minimal role. It's the role. My body wasn't working optimally - and only when the body is working optimally does the CICO equation work. Please don't minimize that for people who truly suffer. This isn't only about insurance - our medical model hasn't changed since insurance changed. So many people don't know what is healthy, they are uneducated, they are confused, what is healthy changes over time. If we don't even know what healthy is how can we charge obese people higher insurance premiums? Our doctors and medical professionals should be talking to every patient about lifestyle, health, exercise, water, sleep, etc. They don't and they are not meeting the needs of overweight patients. Therefore, we can't charge more.
8 -
No. Our current medical model doesn't support this. When we change the medical model we change the culture. In the U.S. doctors spend a few minutes with a patient. They don't address emerging issues and talk about lifestyle with their patients. They prescribe pills and if they can't there isn't a problem. When going for an annual physical I am told not to bring anything else up because I might be charged for it. This is not helpful medical care. There is no ideal weight for everyone. BMI is not a reliable indicator of health. There are too many factors in obesity it takes a long time for some to pinpoint and address those issues. Hormones can play a large roll and even though doctors think they know about how hormones affect the body there is so much more to learn. Because of our current state of medicine, we can not charge people more for being overweight.
This practice is due to insurance and the deliberate insertion of multiple "middle-men" into medicine. Doctors don't have time to treat patients and spend the majority of their time documenting activities for insurance purposes. Increasing payments for high risk categories is how insurance works. If you don't want to pay more then you can't have insurance. You cannot have this both ways.
There is one primary factor that overrides all else in obesity - eating more calories than you burn.
Hormones play a minimal role in weight management.
As someone who once had hormone issues, I could not lose weight, only when those hormones were balanced did I lose weight. So I know from experience that if you are the one with hormone imbalance it's not a minimal role. It's the role. My body wasn't working optimally - and only when the body is working optimally does the CICO equation work. Please don't minimize that for people who truly suffer. This isn't only about insurance - our medical model hasn't changed since insurance changed. So many people don't know what is healthy, they are uneducated, they are confused, what is healthy changes over time. If we don't even know what healthy is how can we charge obese people higher insurance premiums? Our doctors and medical professionals should be talking to every patient about lifestyle, health, exercise, water, sleep, etc. They don't and they are not meeting the needs of overweight patients. Therefore, we can't charge more.
I had a total thyroidectomy in 2000 and used to believe what you're selling. It simply is not true.
CICO works regardless of "optimization".
From clinical observation hormones impact Resting Energy Expenditure (REE) by ~5% and that is in a patient population going from full supplementation to no supplementation. That's 80 kcals/day out of a 1600 kcal/day caloric budget.
The medical model completely changed with the implementation of insurance. Note that medical costs have not increased beyond the consumer price index outside of models without insurance. Insurance is the root cause.
Not sure we need physicians to tell people to eat less and move more. Seems like literally anyone else could do this without 11 years of higher education.6 -
No. Our current medical model doesn't support this. When we change the medical model we change the culture. In the U.S. doctors spend a few minutes with a patient. They don't address emerging issues and talk about lifestyle with their patients. They prescribe pills and if they can't there isn't a problem. When going for an annual physical I am told not to bring anything else up because I might be charged for it. This is not helpful medical care. There is no ideal weight for everyone. BMI is not a reliable indicator of health. There are too many factors in obesity it takes a long time for some to pinpoint and address those issues. Hormones can play a large roll and even though doctors think they know about how hormones affect the body there is so much more to learn. Because of our current state of medicine, we can not charge people more for being overweight.
The highlighted above is incorrect:
BMI is a useful measure of overweight and obesity. It is calculated from your height and weight. BMI is an estimate of body fat and a good gauge of your risk for diseases that can occur with more body fat. The higher your BMI, the higher your risk for certain diseases such as heart disease, high blood pressure, type 2 diabetes, gallstones, breathing problems, and certain cancers.
https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/educational/lose_wt/risk.htm5 -
No. Our current medical model doesn't support this. When we change the medical model we change the culture. In the U.S. doctors spend a few minutes with a patient. They don't address emerging issues and talk about lifestyle with their patients. They prescribe pills and if they can't there isn't a problem. When going for an annual physical I am told not to bring anything else up because I might be charged for it. This is not helpful medical care. There is no ideal weight for everyone. BMI is not a reliable indicator of health. There are too many factors in obesity it takes a long time for some to pinpoint and address those issues. Hormones can play a large roll and even though doctors think they know about how hormones affect the body there is so much more to learn. Because of our current state of medicine, we can not charge people more for being overweight.
This practice is due to insurance and the deliberate insertion of multiple "middle-men" into medicine. Doctors don't have time to treat patients and spend the majority of their time documenting activities for insurance purposes. Increasing payments for high risk categories is how insurance works. If you don't want to pay more then you can't have insurance. You cannot have this both ways.
There is one primary factor that overrides all else in obesity - eating more calories than you burn.
Hormones play a minimal role in weight management.
As someone who once had hormone issues, I could not lose weight, only when those hormones were balanced did I lose weight. So I know from experience that if you are the one with hormone imbalance it's not a minimal role. It's the role. My body wasn't working optimally - and only when the body is working optimally does the CICO equation work. Please don't minimize that for people who truly suffer. This isn't only about insurance - our medical model hasn't changed since insurance changed. So many people don't know what is healthy, they are uneducated, they are confused, what is healthy changes over time. If we don't even know what healthy is how can we charge obese people higher insurance premiums? Our doctors and medical professionals should be talking to every patient about lifestyle, health, exercise, water, sleep, etc. They don't and they are not meeting the needs of overweight patients. Therefore, we can't charge more.
I had a total thyroidectomy in 2000 and used to believe what you're selling. It simply is not true.
CICO works regardless of "optimization".
From clinical observation hormones impact Resting Energy Expenditure (REE) by ~5% and that is in a patient population going from full supplementation to no supplementation. That's 80 kcals/day out of a 1600 kcal/day caloric budget.
The medical model completely changed with the implementation of insurance. Note that medical costs have not increased beyond the consumer price index outside of models without insurance. Insurance is the root cause.
Not sure we need physicians to tell people to eat less and move more. Seems like literally anyone else could do this without 11 years of higher education.
Congrats you honorary degree.2 -
I don't think it should cost more for anyone. Whether they're overweight, a smoker, or (though it's not an issue since the ACA) have a pre-existing condition.
I think in order to help overweight people deal with the issues, there should be added nutrion classes/health class that further teach people the proper way to eat. I don't think there is enough basic nutritional education, because more and more families are headed down the same road from bad eating habits learned from older generations.
I don't believe people are stupid or bad parents for passing down the habits, everyone's doing the best they can,- but when you have to pay additional fees just to visit a nurtionist, just to be a part of the gym (the doctors office I used to attend had their own gym, which was a substantial fee if you wanted to use), less people are going to try to change. Less people will try to lose weight.
Which is why I'm a huge supporter of the universal healthcare plan. Medical is run federally by taxes, and not the insurance people. Would bring down the cost of medical expenses, and provide easier access for those who want to change. I'd be more than willing to pay taxes for free nutrition classes/weightloss surgery, if I knew another person would learn something and/or change their life around.
In short, charging more would deter people from seeking help to change, alot more than it would to make them want to change. You can be disabled and on government assistance if you're too big. Upping the price wont do anything. A cheaper, even free (as in no hospital/insurance bill coming later) is more inviting to the people who desperately need help.
(Kind of like charging an overweight person for two seats on an airplane. More often than not the person just stops flying that airline, or flying altogether- than they do changing their life around.)2 -
CallyBeth08 wrote: »I don't think it should cost more for anyone. Whether they're overweight, a smoker, or (though it's not an issue since the ACA) have a pre-existing condition.
I think in order to help overweight people deal with the issues, there should be added nutrion classes/health class that further teach people the proper way to eat. I don't think there is enough basic nutritional education, because more and more families are headed down the same road from bad eating habits learned from older generations.
I don't believe people are stupid or bad parents for passing down the habits, everyone's doing the best they can,- but when you have to pay additional fees just to visit a nurtionist, just to be a part of the gym (the doctors office I used to attend had their own gym, which was a substantial fee if you wanted to use), less people are going to try to change. Less people will try to lose weight.
Which is why I'm a huge supporter of the universal healthcare plan. Medical is run federally by taxes, and not the insurance people. Would bring down the cost of medical expenses, and provide easier access for those who want to change. I'd be more than willing to pay taxes for free nutrition classes/weightloss surgery, if I knew another person would learn something and/or change their life around.
In short, charging more would deter people from seeking help to change, alot more than it would to make them want to change. You can be disabled and on government assistance if you're too big. Upping the price wont do anything. A cheaper, even free (as in no hospital/insurance bill coming later) is more inviting to the people who desperately need help.
(Kind of like charging an overweight person for two seats on an airplane. More often than not the person just stops flying that airline, or flying altogether- than they do changing their life around.)
Couple questions. Would you make nutrition education mandatory to get a discount on insurance if obese?
Also, what would you be willing to pay in taxes for a family of 4 to support universal healthcare?1 -
Perhaps a point scoring system for historic conditions, age, weight, lifestyle could help? I'm sure something like this is already in place.
I'd like to pay premiums according to my annual proofs of health and lifestyle choices.
I'd like to pay less than someone who does not take responsibility for their own lifestyle choices.
However, if a person has unavoidable conditions which cause other problems such as weight gain etc they should enjoy some support like reduction of costs if they can demonstrate that they are being responsible in ways posible to them. Though how you manage such a system I really couldn't say.
We are extremely lucky in the UK, where we can access health care freely.1 -
While I can understand the logic behind the "fat fee" and if you are not trying to reduce your weight to a healthy range, then yes it affects everyone in terms of health insurance costs. Unfortunately, health insurance is so expensive to begin with and many people out there in the workforce feel the financial pinch already.
That being said, there are health rewards programs out there that will reward people for living a healthy lifestyle. My workplace does that with a program called Go365. Anyone can join and it's free, but I found out about it through work. Basically you download this program, and something like Fitbit or MyFitnessPal to track your diet, exercise and weight loss. These apps work together to track your progress and you earn rewards points where you can redeem stuff like free fitness trackers, discounts to stores, exercise equipment, etc. On top of that, you also get a health insurance discount. I think mine so far knocked off about $40 a month. Not sure how it's prorated for everyone though. But hey- every little bit helps, right?!
So that in my view is the answer to this issue: a health insurance discount and rewards program for those of us who are trying to lose weight and live a healthy lifestyle.2 -
yes.; so I went to work daily. watch what I ate. exercised daily...really worked hard...and here is my co worker - laughing that she is overweight - eating garbage all day long and advertising it to us - spends as much on ins as we all do but..the ins company just paid out over 150k to deal w her mild heart attack = YES OVERWEIGHT PEOPLE WHO DO NOTHING TO CHANGE THEIR SITUATION should pay more in health ins rates. but also the bio metrics should be in the equation - not all overweight people are a heart attack waiting to happen. I'm waiting for the day that we can hook up our fits bits to ins company...just like our cars.3
-
No, I do not think insurance should be more for those who are obese. I do think there should be discounts for those who are healthy or making progress to become healthy. Some auto insurance companies offer discounts for being a good driver. We should do the same with health insurance. For people that want the discount they will work on being healthy. This means, not smoking, being obese, killing your liver or whatever it may be.
1 -
yes.; so I went to work daily. watch what I ate. exercised daily...really worked hard...and here is my co worker - laughing that she is overweight. spends as much on ins as we all do but..the ins company just paid out over 150k to deal w her mild heart attack = YES OVERWEIGHT PEOPLE WHO DO NOTHING TO CHANGE THEIR SITUATION should pay more in health ins rates. but also the bio metrics should be in the equation - not all overweight people are a heart attack waiting to happen. I'm waiting for the day that we can hook up our fits bits to ins company...just like our cars.
The program @Kimmotion5783 mentions is working on hooking Fitbits to the insurance company. They give you a "discount" for sharing health metrics with rhe company.
I looked at the program mentioned. Believe it is through employees or insurance companies. Not everyone can join for free.1 -
Packerjohn wrote: »CallyBeth08 wrote: »I don't think it should cost more for anyone. Whether they're overweight, a smoker, or (though it's not an issue since the ACA) have a pre-existing condition.
I think in order to help overweight people deal with the issues, there should be added nutrion classes/health class that further teach people the proper way to eat. I don't think there is enough basic nutritional education, because more and more families are headed down the same road from bad eating habits learned from older generations.
I don't believe people are stupid or bad parents for passing down the habits, everyone's doing the best they can,- but when you have to pay additional fees just to visit a nurtionist, just to be a part of the gym (the doctors office I used to attend had their own gym, which was a substantial fee if you wanted to use), less people are going to try to change. Less people will try to lose weight.
Which is why I'm a huge supporter of the universal healthcare plan. Medical is run federally by taxes, and not the insurance people. Would bring down the cost of medical expenses, and provide easier access for those who want to change. I'd be more than willing to pay taxes for free nutrition classes/weightloss surgery, if I knew another person would learn something and/or change their life around.
In short, charging more would deter people from seeking help to change, alot more than it would to make them want to change. You can be disabled and on government assistance if you're too big. Upping the price wont do anything. A cheaper, even free (as in no hospital/insurance bill coming later) is more inviting to the people who desperately need help.
(Kind of like charging an overweight person for two seats on an airplane. More often than not the person just stops flying that airline, or flying altogether- than they do changing their life around.)
Couple questions. Would you make nutrition education mandatory to get a discount on insurance if obese?
Also, what would you be willing to pay in taxes for a family of 4 to support universal healthcare?
To an extent nutrional education is mandatory. One semester class in highschool is what our government thinks is needed. In that class they cover just the tip top of all the basics. From sex, stages of life, obesity, and CPR training. Nothing in depth.
If the healthcare system doesn't change, I think that would be a very cool incentive. Just like insurance companies offer deductions for completion of defensive driving class, completion of different nutrition courses would be a cool way to get a deduction from your medical insurance bill.
As for the second question, I'm not sure I understand it. Looking at taxes as a small percentage from everyone in the country, yeah- I can spare $10-$20 bucks to add the the pot. We are a nation that is supposed to be united, so I will take care of my people. As much as I am able.
If our collected money goes toward 100 peoples weightloss surgery, that's 100 people who will be able to get back to work/spend more money in the economy than into the health system. (Would rather that, than have my tax money go to their disability/welfare caused by the preventable/ bad health- for the next twenty years of their and my life.).
With universal healthcare, aside from insurance companies being taken out of the equation, the salary for doctors would go down (still more than enough for a comfortable life, just not triple digit. Taxes wouldn't be able to cover it.), which would also make the tuition for medical school go down. Would probably still be expensive, don't get me wrong, but manageable compared to what it is right now. With those prices plummeting, the cost to be cared for wouldn't be nearly as expensive as it is right now.
So in theory, our taxes would go further. At the rate our nation is going, if the health predicament we're in doesn't change, the majority of our nation's budget (if I remember correctly the statistics said somewhere around 80%) will go towards healthcare and healthcare alone in twenty some odd years.
I'll see if I can find the stats to share the link.4 -
Why not, they charge smokers more. The older you get the higher your premiums get too.1
-
Packerjohn wrote: »CallyBeth08 wrote: »I don't think it should cost more for anyone. Whether they're overweight, a smoker, or (though it's not an issue since the ACA) have a pre-existing condition.
I think in order to help overweight people deal with the issues, there should be added nutrion classes/health class that further teach people the proper way to eat. I don't think there is enough basic nutritional education, because more and more families are headed down the same road from bad eating habits learned from older generations.
I don't believe people are stupid or bad parents for passing down the habits, everyone's doing the best they can,- but when you have to pay additional fees just to visit a nurtionist, just to be a part of the gym (the doctors office I used to attend had their own gym, which was a substantial fee if you wanted to use), less people are going to try to change. Less people will try to lose weight.
Which is why I'm a huge supporter of the universal healthcare plan. Medical is run federally by taxes, and not the insurance people. Would bring down the cost of medical expenses, and provide easier access for those who want to change. I'd be more than willing to pay taxes for free nutrition classes/weightloss surgery, if I knew another person would learn something and/or change their life around.
In short, charging more would deter people from seeking help to change, alot more than it would to make them want to change. You can be disabled and on government assistance if you're too big. Upping the price wont do anything. A cheaper, even free (as in no hospital/insurance bill coming later) is more inviting to the people who desperately need help.
(Kind of like charging an overweight person for two seats on an airplane. More often than not the person just stops flying that airline, or flying altogether- than they do changing their life around.)
Couple questions. Would you make nutrition education mandatory to get a discount on insurance if obese?
Also, what would you be willing to pay in taxes for a family of 4 to support universal healthcare?
Just reread it and understand the question now. Lol, whoops.
This is a link delving into the budget crisis with healthcare in the us. Kind of scary.
https://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2017-07-14/health-care-will-bankrupt-the-nation-we-need-reform-now
And I know that my ideal look at a healthcare system is flawed, and I know that even if our nation did change, it would take years before it was smooth sailing- but imho I think it's the way it should be.
I see healthcare as a right. Not as a privilege. Healthcare shouldn't be just for those who can afford it, and it shouldn't be more expensive just because someone didn't learn proper nutrion habits. No one should have to worry about going bankrupt because they can't afford their medical bill.
Anyways.3 -
CallyBeth08 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »CallyBeth08 wrote: »I don't think it should cost more for anyone. Whether they're overweight, a smoker, or (though it's not an issue since the ACA) have a pre-existing condition.
I think in order to help overweight people deal with the issues, there should be added nutrion classes/health class that further teach people the proper way to eat. I don't think there is enough basic nutritional education, because more and more families are headed down the same road from bad eating habits learned from older generations.
I don't believe people are stupid or bad parents for passing down the habits, everyone's doing the best they can,- but when you have to pay additional fees just to visit a nurtionist, just to be a part of the gym (the doctors office I used to attend had their own gym, which was a substantial fee if you wanted to use), less people are going to try to change. Less people will try to lose weight.
Which is why I'm a huge supporter of the universal healthcare plan. Medical is run federally by taxes, and not the insurance people. Would bring down the cost of medical expenses, and provide easier access for those who want to change. I'd be more than willing to pay taxes for free nutrition classes/weightloss surgery, if I knew another person would learn something and/or change their life around.
In short, charging more would deter people from seeking help to change, alot more than it would to make them want to change. You can be disabled and on government assistance if you're too big. Upping the price wont do anything. A cheaper, even free (as in no hospital/insurance bill coming later) is more inviting to the people who desperately need help.
(Kind of like charging an overweight person for two seats on an airplane. More often than not the person just stops flying that airline, or flying altogether- than they do changing their life around.)
Couple questions. Would you make nutrition education mandatory to get a discount on insurance if obese?
Also, what would you be willing to pay in taxes for a family of 4 to support universal healthcare?
To an extent nutrional education is mandatory. One semester class in highschool is what our government thinks is needed. In that class they cover just the tip top of all the basics. From sex, stages of life, obesity, and CPR training. Nothing in depth.
If the healthcare system doesn't change, I think that would be a very cool incentive. Just like insurance companies offer deductions for completion of defensive driving class, completion of different nutrition courses would be a cool way to get a deduction from your medical insurance bill.
As for the second question, I'm not sure I understand it. Looking at taxes as a small percentage from everyone in the country, yeah- I can spare $10-$20 bucks to add the the pot. We are a nation that is supposed to be united, so I will take care of my people. As much as I am able.
If our collected money goes toward 100 peoples weightloss surgery, that's 100 people who will be able to get back to work/spend more money in the economy than into the health system. (Would rather that, than have my tax money go to their disability/welfare caused by the preventable/ bad health- for the next twenty years of their and my life.).
With universal healthcare, aside from insurance companies being taken out of the equation, the salary for doctors would go down (still more than enough for a comfortable life, just not triple digit. Taxes wouldn't be able to cover it.), which would also make the tuition for medical school go down. Would probably still be expensive, don't get me wrong, but manageable compared to what it is right now. With those prices plummeting, the cost to be cared for wouldn't be nearly as expensive as it is right now.
So in theory, our taxes would go further. At the rate our nation is going, if the health predicament we're in doesn't change, the majority of our nation's budget (if I remember correctly the statistics said somewhere around 80%) will go towards healthcare and healthcare alone in twenty some odd years.
I'll see if I can find the stats to share the link.
My question was, you are a huge supporter of universal health care. What would you be willing to pay in taxes to fund universal health care?
1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions