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
Replies
-
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.1
-
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.4 -
What sugar conglomerates?2
-
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.4 -
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.
1 -
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.0 -
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.1 -
Thank goodness for the NHS!5
-
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.)2 -
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...
I disagree. Most people are fat because they freely choose the comfort, pleasure and instant gratification of overeating and being sedentary. It's easy and it feels good. Most fat people I know absolutely own up to this. As a society, we aren't as innocent and naive as you say. We've had it pounded into our heads for years now that we need to eat more vegetables and fewer donuts and that we need to get up off our butts and move more. And yet, we willfully choose not to. The sooner you own the truth, the better.6 -
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...
I disagree. Most people are fat because they freely choose the comfort, pleasure and instant gratification of overeating and being sedentary. It's easy and it feels good. Most fat people I know absolutely own up to this. As a society, we aren't as innocent and naive as you say. We've had it pounded into our heads for years now that we need to eat more vegetables and fewer donuts and that we need to get up off our butts and move more. And yet, we willfully choose not to. The sooner you own the truth, the better.
I would tend to agree with this. More education is not the answer.1 -
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...
I disagree. Most people are fat because they freely choose the comfort, pleasure and instant gratification of overeating and being sedentary. It's easy and it feels good. Most fat people I know absolutely own up to this. As a society, we aren't as innocent and naive as you say. We've had it pounded into our heads for years now that we need to eat more vegetables and fewer donuts and that we need to get up off our butts and move more. And yet, we willfully choose not to. The sooner you own the truth, the better.
Yes, this, and most fat people I know (including me when I was fat) would agree.
I do think there's an information problem that keeps people from losing, but it's not that they think broccoli and cake are nutritionally and calorically similar. It's that they've been told over and over that weight loss is hard, complicated, and requires extreme measures like working out at something they hate or giving up sweets or their favorite savory foods (maybe pizza) and, especially being hungry.
That seems undoable. (I actually think this is a huge part of the initial appeal of low carbing for many -- in contrast, they are told, yeah, you may have to give up some favorite foods, and a bunch of other stuff they don't care so much about, but you get to eat decadent things that are usually -- falsely -- considered diet no nos, like bacon, cheese, butter, steak.)
And yes, I also think part of it is that not thinking much about food or exercise, and being able to just veg for relaxation, to use food for comfort is easy and cheap and mentally doing other things may represent a hard change (more so to the extent your life is overall harder and the benefit from weight loss is less immediate and obvious).
None of this is hard to understand or requires implausible theories that BigSugar convinced us that vegetables don't matter or whatever.2 -
No. But I don't think anyone should have to pay for insurance, period.6
-
No. If that happens, then why can't someone with red/blonde hair get charged more because they are more likely to develop skin cancer due to their fair skin? Slippery slope.
Bottom line, truthfully I think that the majority of obese people probably pay more anyways as one should take into account the copays, deductibles, medications, and multiple trips to the doctor they have to make due to their obesity. Those fees add up.2 -
yourfitnessenemy wrote: »No. But I don't think anyone should have to pay for insurance, period.
So we just pay all of our medical expenses out of pocket? Seems risky1 -
yourfitnessenemy wrote: »No. But I don't think anyone should have to pay for insurance, period.
So we just pay all of our medical expenses out of pocket? Seems risky
Far less expensive actually. Especially if insurance was limited to catastrophic medical.
Medical costs are highly inflated due to the massive charge backs and price negotiating process.2 -
yourfitnessenemy wrote: »No. But I don't think anyone should have to pay for insurance, period.
So we just pay all of our medical expenses out of pocket? Seems risky
Far less expensive actually. Especially if insurance was limited to catastrophic medical.
Medical costs are highly inflated due to the massive charge backs and price negotiating process.
Not for me. One of my psych drugs is $500 a month. I'm not sure if that was the brand name or the generic though. I pay $10 for generic and $25 for brand name. That's a condition that I'll be treated for for life and not related to my obesity.
Now if you said along with restrictions on how much the pharmaceutical companies and hospitals could charge patients without insurance, maybe. But as it is now, no way.
I have zero problems with charging me more per month for insurance. I've cost my insurance company a lot of money. I have high cholesterol, type 2 diabetes (I am genetically disposed to that, both sides of my family are full of it for several generations, and was taking a drug that a side effect was increased blood sugar/diabetes), and knee problems. As well as moderate mental illness. I'm expensive.
The mental illness and knee problems are the most expensive problems though, and not related to my obesity. I was born with a defect in my leg bone that cause mechanical problems in my knee that necessitated major surgery.
The rest? All my fault. I chose to be obese, not on purpose, but I didn't do anything about it. I knew the health risks. I should pay more. Until such time as my diabetes is in remission and my cholesterol is under control. I shouldn't be penalized for my birth defect or my mental illness as I had no control over that.1 -
yourfitnessenemy wrote: »No. But I don't think anyone should have to pay for insurance, period.
So we just pay all of our medical expenses out of pocket? Seems risky
Far less expensive actually. Especially if insurance was limited to catastrophic medical.
Medical costs are highly inflated due to the massive charge backs and price negotiating process.
i said risky, not expensive.
economically speaking, healthcare would absolutely be less expensive if we paid 100% of expenses out of pocket. Insurance creates hazards by disconnecting people from the cost of their care. You simply don't make the same decisions about how you spend money, when it's somebody else's money and you're only paying a small portion. It's not a coincidence that as the percentage paid out of pocket on average has fallen, from around 50% in the 1950s to around 15% today. People not only seek out elective care they wouldn't otherwise, but they also make poorer choices that affect their health, because they will not ultimately bear the costs.
HOWEVER.
I said risky.
Insurance, all insurance, is a risk mitigation tool. Health expenses are large, often unexpected, and typically come in huge chunks. We buy insurance to mitigate the financial risks of health care
Unfortunately, in America the health insurance system has become more of a health payment plan system. With that "insurance" being used to cover all number of services that are not necessarily expensive enough to justify the risk mitigating costs of insurance.
Regardless. Eliminating health insurance now, without an alternative (single payer, medicare, nationalization, etc) would result in both a huge increase in death, as well as huge economic costs as health-related bankruptcies drain money from the economy.2 -
lol thats ridiculous, thats like saying drug addicts, alcoholics, smokers etc and every other 'vice' should have to pay higher insurance. You're basically increasing everyones insurance. lol. Motorcyclists, adrenaline junkies, enthusiasts, pet owners who get bit or attacked, people who have children and now have pregnancy complications, if you are basing 'obesity' off of 'choice' then your logic is flawed.
Besides. according to doctors most of our nation is obese anyway. who wins? pharmaceutical companies and insurance agencies. Who loses? America, America loses thats who. lol.3 -
yourfitnessenemy wrote: »No. But I don't think anyone should have to pay for insurance, period.
So we just pay all of our medical expenses out of pocket? Seems risky
Far less expensive actually. Especially if insurance was limited to catastrophic medical.
Medical costs are highly inflated due to the massive charge backs and price negotiating process.
i said risky, not expensive.
economically speaking, healthcare would absolutely be less expensive if we paid 100% of expenses out of pocket. Insurance creates hazards by disconnecting people from the cost of their care. You simply don't make the same decisions about how you spend money, when it's somebody else's money and you're only paying a small portion. It's not a coincidence that as the percentage paid out of pocket on average has fallen, from around 50% in the 1950s to around 15% today. People not only seek out elective care they wouldn't otherwise, but they also make poorer choices that affect their health, because they will not ultimately bear the costs.
HOWEVER.
I said risky.
Insurance, all insurance, is a risk mitigation tool. Health expenses are large, often unexpected, and typically come in huge chunks. We buy insurance to mitigate the financial risks of health care
Unfortunately, in America the health insurance system has become more of a health payment plan system. With that "insurance" being used to cover all number of services that are not necessarily expensive enough to justify the risk mitigating costs of insurance.
Regardless. Eliminating health insurance now, without an alternative (single payer, medicare, nationalization, etc) would result in both a huge increase in death, as well as huge economic costs as health-related bankruptcies drain money from the economy.yourfitnessenemy wrote: »No. But I don't think anyone should have to pay for insurance, period.
So we just pay all of our medical expenses out of pocket? Seems risky
Far less expensive actually. Especially if insurance was limited to catastrophic medical.
Medical costs are highly inflated due to the massive charge backs and price negotiating process.
i said risky, not expensive.
economically speaking, healthcare would absolutely be less expensive if we paid 100% of expenses out of pocket. Insurance creates hazards by disconnecting people from the cost of their care. You simply don't make the same decisions about how you spend money, when it's somebody else's money and you're only paying a small portion. It's not a coincidence that as the percentage paid out of pocket on average has fallen, from around 50% in the 1950s to around 15% today. People not only seek out elective care they wouldn't otherwise, but they also make poorer choices that affect their health, because they will not ultimately bear the costs.
HOWEVER.
I said risky.
Insurance, all insurance, is a risk mitigation tool. Health expenses are large, often unexpected, and typically come in huge chunks. We buy insurance to mitigate the financial risks of health care
Unfortunately, in America the health insurance system has become more of a health payment plan system. With that "insurance" being used to cover all number of services that are not necessarily expensive enough to justify the risk mitigating costs of insurance.
Regardless. Eliminating health insurance now, without an alternative (single payer, medicare, nationalization, etc) would result in both a huge increase in death, as well as huge economic costs as health-related bankruptcies drain money from the economy.
I misunderstood, I apologize. And I can't disagree with any of that.
Healthcare costs in this country are so incredibly broken right now, and I don't know if it will even be possible to fix it given the type of people who run for office on both sides of the aisle.
We had a chance to do it right with the ACA. All these other countries that have gone before us with socialized medicine have decades of data for us to crunch. We have the manpower and the money to do the research. Finland did this with education years ago, and now they have one of the best education systems in the world.
I know healthcare is a LOT more complex than education, but we could have done it. We could have had one of the best healthcare systems in the world by the time we were done. But partisan politics got in the way from both sides, and we ended up with a frankenbill.
There's some good things in there, calories on menus, pre-existing conditions, no lifetime caps, but the rest is a mess.1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 394 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
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 948 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions