Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.

Do you think obese/overweight people should pay more for health insurance?

Options
1235775

Replies

  • BurlzGettingFit
    BurlzGettingFit Posts: 115 Member
    Options
    _emma_78 wrote: »
    If healthy weight people were to get discounts wouldn't that almost be the same as the rest having to pay more? It's just worded differently but essentially the same thing.

    My health insurance also pays for part of a gym membership, but which gyms they do this for is very selective and often times not worth the 30+min commute.

    Out of curiosity do you know why they're selective about which gyms they reimburse for? I'd think a gym you join is a gym to be reimbursed for.
  • Packerjohn
    Packerjohn Posts: 4,855 Member
    edited May 2017
    Options
    bizgirl26 wrote: »
    I do think they should pay more but not if they are overweight , just obese. I do think it is fair but I also feel there should be more incentives offered to motivate people. I have fought for my health benefits to pay for gym memberships but the issue is that they don't know how they would monitor it and it is possible that everyone would sign up and not go . They do offer courses that give me "wellness credits" that I can apply for gym memberships, running shoes , sports equipment etc but I can only accumulate around $ 140 or so a year . Its better than nothing

    Some divisions of my company did this for a while. It was a cluster *kitten*, not fair and dropped. In our case, to get up to a $30 reimbursement you had to have front desk person at the club sign a form or provide a monthly printout of your check in times. If you went 8 times during the month and provided proof you got the $. Of course now way of telling what anyone did there. Someone spending 20 minutes on an elliptical twice a week was getting a benefit, but someone running 5 miles a day outside was most likely in better shape and got no benefit.
  • ccrdragon
    ccrdragon Posts: 3,365 Member
    Options
    zyxst wrote: »
    mskimee wrote: »
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    IMO, until the US healthcare system isn't a FOR PROFIT venture, people will end up spending their retirement income and savings on it. See how much it costs to get hospitalized or how much medication costs for people who need it. It's pretty astounding and outrageous.
    We could pay for ALL AMERICANS healthcare, it's just that our government chooses to spend more of taxes towards the military might instead.

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

    9285851.png

    Dd was hospitalized a couple weeks ago and so far we have a $7,000 hospital bill pending. That will probably be for the ER (which in the past has run us around $1,000), and then most likely her one night stay, (since the claim is pending it doesn't have the breakdown available yet for what services it's for).


    I have nothing to add, but I'm not in the US so i'm curious. What if you didn't have the ability to pay the bill for the hospital? Or if you had no insurance? Surly a hospital would still give a critically ill person the same service? I mean, no parent would ever be told "we can save your child as long as you can pay X amount..."

    right??

    It's been a long time since I lived in the U.S. (Iowa), so it may have changed. Emergency care had to be given to anyone regardless of non-payment or non-insurance. The hospital couldn't deny care to someone who came in to the ER for help. You can have your life saved, but get the bill later. It's how many people go bankrupt/broke/homeless/end up on GoFundMe trying to payoff medical bills simply because they wanted to live.

    This is still true - no hospital in the US can deny critical care based on ability to pay.
  • Emily3907
    Emily3907 Posts: 1,461 Member
    Options
    Slippery slope IMHO.
    1st...smokers.
    2nd...obesity.
    next????
    Genetic predispositions based on DNA.
    What you ate for dinner.
    How much sleep you get.
    How fast you drive your car to work.
    What type of activities you do or don't participate in after work hours.

    Where does it stop?
    Corporations already have the power of PACs pushing corporate agendas.
    Do we really want to encourage them to take more power when it comes to how they price health insurance based on varying factors?

    "Careful what you wish, you may regret it. Careful what you wish, you just might get it"

    And of course it will all be in the name of "saving the company a few bucks" and "controlling skyrocketing insurance costs" which invariably get passed to you anyway. Yes...even the healthy "you" in the form of cost increases that outpace standard of living wage increases.

    This. All of this.
  • earlnabby
    earlnabby Posts: 8,171 Member
    Options
    ccrdragon wrote: »
    zyxst wrote: »
    mskimee wrote: »
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    IMO, until the US healthcare system isn't a FOR PROFIT venture, people will end up spending their retirement income and savings on it. See how much it costs to get hospitalized or how much medication costs for people who need it. It's pretty astounding and outrageous.
    We could pay for ALL AMERICANS healthcare, it's just that our government chooses to spend more of taxes towards the military might instead.

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

    9285851.png

    Dd was hospitalized a couple weeks ago and so far we have a $7,000 hospital bill pending. That will probably be for the ER (which in the past has run us around $1,000), and then most likely her one night stay, (since the claim is pending it doesn't have the breakdown available yet for what services it's for).


    I have nothing to add, but I'm not in the US so i'm curious. What if you didn't have the ability to pay the bill for the hospital? Or if you had no insurance? Surly a hospital would still give a critically ill person the same service? I mean, no parent would ever be told "we can save your child as long as you can pay X amount..."

    right??

    It's been a long time since I lived in the U.S. (Iowa), so it may have changed. Emergency care had to be given to anyone regardless of non-payment or non-insurance. The hospital couldn't deny care to someone who came in to the ER for help. You can have your life saved, but get the bill later. It's how many people go bankrupt/broke/homeless/end up on GoFundMe trying to payoff medical bills simply because they wanted to live.

    This is still true - no hospital in the US can deny critical care based on ability to pay.

    Non profit community hospitals cannot turn anyone away based on ability to pay and they have programs you can apply to where they will pay up to 100% of your bills on a sliding scale. "Private" for-profit hospitals cannot turn away emergency cases, but they can turn down other cases if they cannot pay and have no insurance. They will transfer the patient to the closest non-profit hospital.
  • _emma_78
    _emma_78 Posts: 64 Member
    Options
    _emma_78 wrote: »
    If healthy weight people were to get discounts wouldn't that almost be the same as the rest having to pay more? It's just worded differently but essentially the same thing.

    My health insurance also pays for part of a gym membership, but which gyms they do this for is very selective and often times not worth the 30+min commute.

    Out of curiosity do you know why they're selective about which gyms they reimburse for? I'd think a gym you join is a gym to be reimbursed for.

    I have no idea. I feel like as long as I can prove I'm a member each month that they should be able to give me 25 dollars a month, but maybe that's wishful thinking hahaha.
  • ccrdragon
    ccrdragon Posts: 3,365 Member
    Options
    tomteboda wrote: »
    ccrdragon wrote: »
    tomteboda wrote: »
    I say that people who use health care should have to pay more for insurance. Put a 50% increase on your premium for each doctor visit. Another 50% increase for every prescription. 50% if you need lab tests or any scans. It's not fair healthy people pay for sick people.

    Did you even think about the effect of something like this before you typed this nonsense and hit enter????

    Basically, you think that people who have a problem that is out of their control (like auto-immune disorders such as the one that my daughter was BORN with) should pay the GNP in insurance premiums???? Or are you trying to encourage people to ignore health concerns/issues until they they become life threatening and far more expensive to take care of???

    So you only want to penalize the non-virtuous sick? Isn't that like only wanting welfare for the virtuous poor? Also if you can't recognize satire, you need to do a little more reading.

    Sorry I miss-read that - insurance is a very sore point with me - prolly from having to deal with claims people on a regular basis...
  • BurlzGettingFit
    BurlzGettingFit Posts: 115 Member
    Options
    _emma_78 wrote: »
    _emma_78 wrote: »
    If healthy weight people were to get discounts wouldn't that almost be the same as the rest having to pay more? It's just worded differently but essentially the same thing.

    My health insurance also pays for part of a gym membership, but which gyms they do this for is very selective and often times not worth the 30+min commute.

    Out of curiosity do you know why they're selective about which gyms they reimburse for? I'd think a gym you join is a gym to be reimbursed for.

    I have no idea. I feel like as long as I can prove I'm a member each month that they should be able to give me 25 dollars a month, but maybe that's wishful thinking hahaha.

    I agree! And if my employer was that choosy I couldn't be involved! The gym I joined I do like but the main reason I picked that one was because proximity to where I live! I pass it everyday on the way home from work so there's no skipping :)
  • stanmann571
    stanmann571 Posts: 5,728 Member
    Options
    Gisel2015 wrote: »
    tomteboda wrote: »
    I say that people who use health care should have to pay more for insurance. Put a 50% increase on your premium for each doctor visit. Another 50% increase for every prescription. 50% if you need lab tests or any scans. It's not fair healthy people pay for sick people.

    You got to be kidding!
    ...
    I am glad that you are so healthy that you never need to go to the doctor or get any test or lab work. Bless your heart!


    Normally I will make a comment when I see that phrase, but in this case I heartily agree.
  • VintageFeline
    VintageFeline Posts: 6,771 Member
    Options
    I feel like the US for profit system leads to a lot of unnecessary yearly check ups. But maybe I'm wrong.

    Also, the gym reimbursement thing. I'd be screwed, I workout at home and more than 8 times per month. where's my reward!? (I understand the point but I still have to buy things to workout that are likely in line with gym memberships such as foam rollers, mats, dumbbells etc).
  • heiliskrimsli
    heiliskrimsli Posts: 735 Member
    Options
    Just because I am overweight does not mean that I have health problems. I am overweight, but I don't have any health issues so why should the number on the scale dictate what I should be paying for healthcare. Thin people may have health issues as well. Should they pay less just because they are thin?

    It's called a risk pool, and you belong to a higher risk pool than those who aren't overweight.