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
1…34689…75

Replies

  • NorthCascades
    NorthCascades Posts: 10,970 Member
    Options
    Carillon_Campanello wrote: »
    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?

    You're worrying about stuff that's already happened.
    • Your car insurance will go up if you drive too fast to work. At least once you get caught. :wink:
    • Many health insurance companies give out discounts for people who exercise outside of work hours. This is the only reason I care about step tracking, because it gets me $$$ back.
    • What we're talking about isn't so much what I ate for dinner as how much I ate.

    Now this sounds pretty bad, until you stop and think about it. If something bad happens and break your arm, the hospital will fix you up. If you have insurance, this won't cost you $20,000. Now that's pretty great. It works because big groups of people get together and pool their risk. So, now we have this situation where peoples' individual choices affect everyone else. Some people bring more risk into the pool, and others pick up the slack. That's what insurance is. It's not a system people set up so they could discriminate against folks who already feel bad.
  • BurlzGettingFit
    BurlzGettingFit Posts: 115 Member
    Options
    VintageFeline wrote: »
    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).

    The reason my employer started the gym reimbursement was because they used to offer a different variety of free fitness classes throughout the week here at the agency. When those were stopped (I have no idea why they were) a lot of people were very upset and then the gym reimbursement was created. I had a gym membership way before this started so I'd be part of a gym regardless but doesn't mean I'm not going to take advantage of it while I'm able!
  • tklivory
    tklivory Posts: 46 Member
    Options
    "janejellyroll wrote: »
    We have US Representatives making statements about how healthy people are those who have led "good lives."

    Speaking of things that are scary... Bleh. That smacks of the Prosperity Gospel in action.

  • earlnabby
    earlnabby Posts: 8,171 Member
    Options
    tklivory wrote: »
    "janejellyroll wrote: »
    We have US Representatives making statements about how healthy people are those who have led "good lives."

    Speaking of things that are scary... Bleh. That smacks of the Prosperity Gospel in action.

    The "prosperity gospel" aka the Protestant Ethic has been strong in the US since the first colonies were founded. Nothing new here.
  • Gisel2015
    Gisel2015 Posts: 4,140 Member
    Options
    Leverfam wrote: »
    NO ... it's discrimination. Should we charge based on age, nationality or better yet ... lower income individuals since we know it is more expensive to eat healthy?? Absolutely not ... but providing resources to programs that encourage healthier eating and fitness could help.

    ACA already allowed insurances to charge up to 3 times more to older individuals (not in Medicare of course), and for what I read about the new health law being discussed in the House, insurances will be allowed to charge up to 5 times more.

  • runner475
    runner475 Posts: 1,236 Member
    Options
    Gisel2015 wrote: »
    I will add something else to stir the pot. If insurance premiums are supposed to be higher for overweight/fat/obese people, should all of our representatives in Congress, Governors’ mansions and even (or specially) the WH that fit that profile get charged more too :D even if they have state or federal insurance?

    After all, we the tax payer in the US are paying for their insurance, don't we?

    :D Good one
  • Packerjohn
    Packerjohn Posts: 4,855 Member
    Options
    prettygirlstorm1 wrote: »
    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?

    Statistically if you are significantly overweight/obese you will have more healthcare costs in your lifetime,
  • NorthCascades
    NorthCascades Posts: 10,970 Member
    Options
    maxhan231 wrote: »
    By this logic, anyone who does things that are detrimental to their health should be charged extra for health insurance... people who don't get enough exercise, people who eat unhealthy, people who have unsafe sex or many sex partners, people who work in coal mines or with pesticides. You can't pick and choose

    People who provide insurance can pick and choose. That's why they have actuaries.
  • SiegfriedXXL
    SiegfriedXXL Posts: 219 Member
    Options
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    prettygirlstorm1 wrote: »
    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?

    Statistically if you are significantly overweight/obese you will have more healthcare costs in your lifetime,

    Statistics are just too general.

    I've been hospitalized exactly one time and take one medication. My physicals are stellar. I know it will not last if I stay obese but I also know that I've used medical services far less than many other people, both obese and normal weight. So no, I shouldn't have to pay a "surcharge" for services I'm not availing myself of. If I don't lose the weight and develop diabetes and cholesterol and all the other issues of obesity, then by all means charge me, but as long as I can demonstrate healthy blood panels and a general level of fitness, buzz off with that nonsense.
  • Theo166
    Theo166 Posts: 2,564 Member
    Options
    loisburch59 wrote: »
    Improving health to reduce cost of medical conditions is important. Charging people more if they are overweight is not the way to do it, when we do not teach children how to be healthy. How many years did it take for you to learn all the in's and out's of weight ? Incentivize people works better, they have a reason to change habits learned from childhood. Teach them in schools, they seem to only eat foods they know, showing them other foods that are good for them helps them learn a better way.

    Thyroid cancer, kidney problems, and many other thing cause weight gain. That is why the doctors weigh you when you have an appointment. Big changes in weight are signs that something has changed.

    If necessary get them mental health checkups too. Food can be an addiction like so many other thing. The physical result of a mental illness, just like cigarettes/drugs/alcohol.

    And some people have valid reasons for having a bad driving record, doesn't change that overall it's helpful to charge the group a bit more, varied rates does motivate the vast majority to improve their self control.
  • bizgirl26
    bizgirl26 Posts: 1,808 Member
    Options
    VintageFeline wrote: »
    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).

    That's why the wellness assessments we have to complete to receive $$ to use on gym equipment, running shoes etc is a good idea. As an example quarterly we may have to do a nutrition education online quiz that earns us $ 30.00. I have bought new runners , put money towards a new bike and I even submitted a snorkel set and they allowed it. It has to be related to physical activity. I just wish it was a bit improved but it is a step in the right direction. I believe prevention is more important than treating .

    They would cover my medications if I needed medication for hypertension if I was obese. But if you are healthy and don't need any treatments you are not rewarded? yes, I realize there are thin people who have hypertension but it has been proven that if you are obese you have a greater chance of being treated for health issues so it would make sense that the health premiums would be higher

  • nightengale7
    nightengale7 Posts: 563 Member
    edited May 2017
    Options
    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.

    That is an awful, awful idea. My husband, who suffers from severe sinus issues (has his whole life) should have to pay 200% more each year just to get prescriptions for sinus infections?
    Edit: I have now read through other postings and see that she was being sarcastic, it sure did come across as straight though, and I see I'm not the only one that thought that.
  • nightengale7
    nightengale7 Posts: 563 Member
    Options
    zyxst wrote: »
    mskimee wrote: »
    crazyycatladyy1 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.

    I have often wondered if these people whose lives are "saved" end up wishing they had died after all when they end up struggling so much financially afterwards. What is the point of living if your quality of life is absolute crap?
  • MoiAussi93
    MoiAussi93 Posts: 1,948 Member
    Options
    brittyn3 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.

    If health companies really cared about it's subscribers, they would make sure you have all the tools to be healthy. Such as paying for gym memberships, etc.

    Nobody NEEDS a gym to be healthy. I was obese for many years while belonging to a gym. Now, I am a healthy weight and haven't belonged to a gym for many years. You can exercise outside or at home. It's great if an insurance company will subsidize gyms, but by no means should it be required or expected. The more they pay for the more expensive premiums are by necessity. People complain about some people not having insurance...well, forcing/pressuring insurance companies to pay for things that aren't medically necessary will only make this problem worse.

    Must they subsidize people's grocery bills if they check purchases and they didn't buy sugary drinks and foods?
    Must they pay for people's sunscreen so they are less likely to develop skin cancer?
    Must they pay people who walk any distance under a mile instead of drive, or take the stairs instead of the elevator?
    Must they pay people to use their seatbelts?
    Must they pay people not to bike or rollerblade without a helmet?

    These are ALL "tools to be healthy". It is unreasonable to expect an insurance company to subsidize your lifestyle.

    I really believe insurance should be for things you CAN"T DO ON YOUR OWN but are necessary for health...not a bunch of healthy habits you should be willing to pay for yourself because YOU care about yourself. If you don't care enough to pay for these things, why should the insurance company pay for them? If you don't care enough to spend your own money on it, you probably won't use it even if it was "free" (meaning subsidized by other people's premiums.) And in that case the insurance company would be throwing money away with no improvement in health outcomes.



Categories