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
-
My problem with government supplied single payer is that premiums are based on income, not risk.
The person making $1 million/year will pay more for the same thing being provided to the person making $10k/year.
Just because someone makes 100x more doesn't mean they should pay 100x more for the same coverage.
If you want a single payer that is risk based and not income based, I'm listening. But as soon as you want to charge based on income, I'm not interested and would like to be left out of any mandatory participation.3 -
I think it's an excellent idea to have a trial period for a person to try to lose weight before paying a surcharge, and I think there should be a reward for doing so, like car insurance has accident-free lower premiums.1
-
If the company is willing to provide the care needed to help them lose weight including excess skin removal absolutely. The 50 percent increase on prescriptions would be unfair to folks with conditions they can't control such as mental health issues or other diseases though.0
-
JMcGee2018 wrote: »tbright1965 wrote: »mudknuckles wrote: »I don't think anyone should have to pay for health insurance.
Then who pays the doctors, hospitals, etc?
It's great to say something is free. Does that mean you are going to donate enough money so that others don't pay?
Because that's the crux of such issues. Someone says something should be free. Seldom is that person using their time, talent and treasure to provide it. Instead, they expect to impose their values on another.
Often, they'll be the first to decry when someone else wants to impose their values on another, but then turn around and demand that politicians impose their values on another.
Anyone who wants to make healthcare free is still free to donate their time, talent and treasure to making that happen. But please, keep out of my wallet with demands that taxpayers be party to plans and programs that pay for others.
It's government interference in the marketplace that has us where we are today. I don't think the same group of knuckleheads are going to fix this in a fashion that is good for the taxpayer and/or consumer.
Bravo! Very well said!
Do you truly believe that American healthcare is (or was before the ACA) better than most European healthcare systems are? Countries with socialized healthcare experience high levels of "government interference," yet have much lower cost per capita (paid by tax dollars, not out of pocket) and also have great outcomes. Government isn't the problem, corporate greed is.
Yes we did have better healthcare, before ACA, than socialized medicine countries. Routine things like soar throats, flu, an infection, are one thing. It's great that those are paid for. But treatments like cancer treatments, transplants, even joint replacements are something different. People will come to the USA for those treatments very often because the wait time is so long or it's denied. I'd like to see what kind of treatment/ medications I would be getting for my autoimmune diseases under socialized medicine vs our system. Just one of my medications is $4,000. Per month and gets paid by insurance. Wonder if I would get it for free elsewhere?
You could probably Google it and see if that drug is available in whatever socialized country you're thinking of. If it's available (or a similar drug is available) it will most likely be free. My friend with MS who lives in Germany and is on their socialized plan has her medications and therapies paid for in full.
Most of the denied or delayed treatments in other countries are for elective surgeries, as are the long wait times, similar to the U.S. if you're going to your local hospital instead of one of the premier hospitals. If you need emergency treatment or surgery in a socialized country, you're not going to be waitlisted.
Here's a nice article comparing us to other countries, where we are better in some areas (cancer) and worse in others (respiratory disease). https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/quality-u-s-healthcare-system-compare-countries/#item-use-emergency-department-place-regular-doctor-visits-common-u-s-comparable-countries1 -
JMcGee2018 wrote: »tbright1965 wrote: »mudknuckles wrote: »I don't think anyone should have to pay for health insurance.
Then who pays the doctors, hospitals, etc?
It's great to say something is free. Does that mean you are going to donate enough money so that others don't pay?
Because that's the crux of such issues. Someone says something should be free. Seldom is that person using their time, talent and treasure to provide it. Instead, they expect to impose their values on another.
Often, they'll be the first to decry when someone else wants to impose their values on another, but then turn around and demand that politicians impose their values on another.
Anyone who wants to make healthcare free is still free to donate their time, talent and treasure to making that happen. But please, keep out of my wallet with demands that taxpayers be party to plans and programs that pay for others.
It's government interference in the marketplace that has us where we are today. I don't think the same group of knuckleheads are going to fix this in a fashion that is good for the taxpayer and/or consumer.
Bravo! Very well said!
Do you truly believe that American healthcare is (or was before the ACA) better than most European healthcare systems are? Countries with socialized healthcare experience high levels of "government interference," yet have much lower cost per capita (paid by tax dollars, not out of pocket) and also have great outcomes. Government isn't the problem, corporate/government greed is the same.
Amended for accuracy.
Cost is not cheaper in socialized structures. The expenses are all hidden by the bureaucracy. The cost per individual is far more expensive in socialized structures largely due to the massive administration costs.
Government collaborating with big business is the problem.
Cost IS cheaper in socialized countries. Taxes go up, but the middle man (insurance companies) is cut out, which reduces costs, and the government as a whole is able to bargain for lower drug costs from pharmaceutical companies. https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2017/04/20/524774195/what-country-spends-the-most-and-least-on-health-care-per-person3 -
Packerjohn wrote: »JMcGee2018 wrote: »tbright1965 wrote: »mudknuckles wrote: »I don't think anyone should have to pay for health insurance.
Then who pays the doctors, hospitals, etc?
It's great to say something is free. Does that mean you are going to donate enough money so that others don't pay?
Because that's the crux of such issues. Someone says something should be free. Seldom is that person using their time, talent and treasure to provide it. Instead, they expect to impose their values on another.
Often, they'll be the first to decry when someone else wants to impose their values on another, but then turn around and demand that politicians impose their values on another.
Anyone who wants to make healthcare free is still free to donate their time, talent and treasure to making that happen. But please, keep out of my wallet with demands that taxpayers be party to plans and programs that pay for others.
It's government interference in the marketplace that has us where we are today. I don't think the same group of knuckleheads are going to fix this in a fashion that is good for the taxpayer and/or consumer.
Bravo! Very well said!
Do you truly believe that American healthcare is (or was before the ACA) better than most European healthcare systems are? Countries with socialized healthcare experience high levels of "government interference," yet have much lower cost per capita (paid by tax dollars, not out of pocket) and also have great outcomes. Government isn't the problem, corporate greed is.
Government and corporate both have a hand in high health care costs. Government won't pass regulations that allow sales of insurance over state lines that would remove administrative costs and increase competition. Government is not willing to look at possible regulation of drug prices. The lawyers that run government refuse to take a serious look at tort reform.
There is plenty of blame to share.
Government essentially regulates drug prices already. Medicare/Medicaid determines what they will pay for products. Our head of sales/marketing spends the majority of his time before Congress fighting against price lowering. Often we are forced to defend pricing and have to disclose the cost of manufacture as our profit margin is ~2-5%. This prohibits small business from entering the market as you can only stay established through volume.0 -
JMcGee2018 wrote: »JMcGee2018 wrote: »tbright1965 wrote: »mudknuckles wrote: »I don't think anyone should have to pay for health insurance.
Then who pays the doctors, hospitals, etc?
It's great to say something is free. Does that mean you are going to donate enough money so that others don't pay?
Because that's the crux of such issues. Someone says something should be free. Seldom is that person using their time, talent and treasure to provide it. Instead, they expect to impose their values on another.
Often, they'll be the first to decry when someone else wants to impose their values on another, but then turn around and demand that politicians impose their values on another.
Anyone who wants to make healthcare free is still free to donate their time, talent and treasure to making that happen. But please, keep out of my wallet with demands that taxpayers be party to plans and programs that pay for others.
It's government interference in the marketplace that has us where we are today. I don't think the same group of knuckleheads are going to fix this in a fashion that is good for the taxpayer and/or consumer.
Bravo! Very well said!
Do you truly believe that American healthcare is (or was before the ACA) better than most European healthcare systems are? Countries with socialized healthcare experience high levels of "government interference," yet have much lower cost per capita (paid by tax dollars, not out of pocket) and also have great outcomes. Government isn't the problem, corporate/government greed is the same.
Amended for accuracy.
Cost is not cheaper in socialized structures. The expenses are all hidden by the bureaucracy. The cost per individual is far more expensive in socialized structures largely due to the massive administration costs.
Government collaborating with big business is the problem.
Cost IS cheaper in socialized countries. Taxes go up, but the middle man (insurance companies) is cut out, which reduces costs, and the government as a whole is able to bargain for lower drug costs from pharmaceutical companies. https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2017/04/20/524774195/what-country-spends-the-most-and-least-on-health-care-per-person
The US model embraces the worst of both worlds. We subsidize healthcare for the world and drive innovation, but we have a quasi-socialism/quasi-risk pooling model, none of which is idealized to cost, but idealized to insurance profit. Other countries have the ability to leverage prices, whereas the US has minimal ability to do so and only through Medicare/Medicaid.
Cost in a capitalist system is cheaper than socialized countries, but there is no longer an example of this since 1961. Remove insurance from the equation and healthcare would trend along with consumer price index.1 -
JMcGee2018 wrote: »JMcGee2018 wrote: »tbright1965 wrote: »mudknuckles wrote: »I don't think anyone should have to pay for health insurance.
Then who pays the doctors, hospitals, etc?
It's great to say something is free. Does that mean you are going to donate enough money so that others don't pay?
Because that's the crux of such issues. Someone says something should be free. Seldom is that person using their time, talent and treasure to provide it. Instead, they expect to impose their values on another.
Often, they'll be the first to decry when someone else wants to impose their values on another, but then turn around and demand that politicians impose their values on another.
Anyone who wants to make healthcare free is still free to donate their time, talent and treasure to making that happen. But please, keep out of my wallet with demands that taxpayers be party to plans and programs that pay for others.
It's government interference in the marketplace that has us where we are today. I don't think the same group of knuckleheads are going to fix this in a fashion that is good for the taxpayer and/or consumer.
Bravo! Very well said!
Do you truly believe that American healthcare is (or was before the ACA) better than most European healthcare systems are? Countries with socialized healthcare experience high levels of "government interference," yet have much lower cost per capita (paid by tax dollars, not out of pocket) and also have great outcomes. Government isn't the problem, corporate greed is.
Yes we did have better healthcare, before ACA, than socialized medicine countries. Routine things like soar throats, flu, an infection, are one thing. It's great that those are paid for. But treatments like cancer treatments, transplants, even joint replacements are something different. People will come to the USA for those treatments very often because the wait time is so long or it's denied. I'd like to see what kind of treatment/ medications I would be getting for my autoimmune diseases under socialized medicine vs our system. Just one of my medications is $4,000. Per month and gets paid by insurance. Wonder if I would get it for free elsewhere?
You could probably Google it and see if that drug is available in whatever socialized country you're thinking of. If it's available (or a similar drug is available) it will most likely be free. My friend with MS who lives in Germany and is on their socialized plan has her medications and therapies paid for in full.
Most of the denied or delayed treatments in other countries are for elective surgeries, as are the long wait times, similar to the U.S. if you're going to your local hospital instead of one of the premier hospitals. If you need emergency treatment or surgery in a socialized country, you're not going to be waitlisted.
Here's a nice article comparing us to other countries, where we are better in some areas (cancer) and worse in others (respiratory disease). https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/quality-u-s-healthcare-system-compare-countries/#item-use-emergency-department-place-regular-doctor-visits-common-u-s-comparable-countries
But saying it's all paid for isn't exactly true either. People pay for it through taxes and most of those countries have a high flat tax rate. Denmark for example is around 60% and that's for most people, not just higher earning individuals. So people are paying for it one way or another.1 -
Yes. And smokers: yes.2
-
cyclepro405 wrote: »Yes I think that they should. There are many health issues that are related to obesity. And we pay for that in healthcare costs.
I don't think that it is fair when you see someone who's weight problem is because they eat too much or refuse to eat the right foods. There are of course extenuating circumstances to obesity. But by and large it is usually because of diet.
Therefore if someone like that refuses to take action and straighten out their lifestyle then they should pay more.
How would you deal with those (especially men) that are rather muscular??? Men who have a BMI that put them into "overweight" when they have 7% body fat? This is where BMI fails, and why using it as a standard for insurance is dangerous.0 -
cyclepro405 wrote: »Yes I think that they should. There are many health issues that are related to obesity. And we pay for that in healthcare costs.
I don't think that it is fair when you see someone who's weight problem is because they eat too much or refuse to eat the right foods. There are of course extenuating circumstances to obesity. But by and large it is usually because of diet.
Therefore if someone like that refuses to take action and straighten out their lifestyle then they should pay more.
How would you deal with those (especially men) that are rather muscular??? Men who have a BMI that put them into "overweight" when they have 7% body fat? This is where BMI fails, and why using it as a standard for insurance is dangerous.
Don’t use BMI. One can measure them. When I was in the Army they would measure your neck and waist and plug it into a formula to determine body fat.
Could weigh them in a water tank to determine fat percentage. There are also scales that do it by measuring conductivity of a small electrical current determining body fat.
It’s fat, not weight that is the problem.
0 -
Or, you can all vote sensibly and get Affordable Care act like we have in Canada where I don't have to worry about whether to pay for my mortgage/rent or lose an arm. And also the cost that the Canadian gov't pay to the health industry is a HELL of a lot less than what the public pays in USA for the health industry out of their own pocket, because it's not in the hands of corporate greed.
I like having the ability to go to the doctor any time I need without having to a) pay b) deal with insurance.
Just 2c.8 -
heiliskrimsli wrote: »If a smoker can be charged more, so should the overweight and obese.
I disagree.. Smokers have a choice to light a ciggarette or not...
Sometimes obesity is NOT a choice. Food availability, health, medications, poverty, parental eating habits, disability/mobility, etc. Food allegies/ intolerances. Some people just have odds stacked against them making weight loss challenging.7 -
tbright1965 wrote: »cyclepro405 wrote: »Yes I think that they should. There are many health issues that are related to obesity. And we pay for that in healthcare costs.
I don't think that it is fair when you see someone who's weight problem is because they eat too much or refuse to eat the right foods. There are of course extenuating circumstances to obesity. But by and large it is usually because of diet.
Therefore if someone like that refuses to take action and straighten out their lifestyle then they should pay more.
How would you deal with those (especially men) that are rather muscular??? Men who have a BMI that put them into "overweight" when they have 7% body fat? This is where BMI fails, and why using it as a standard for insurance is dangerous.
Don’t use BMI. One can measure them. When I was in the Army they would measure your neck and waist and plug it into a formula to determine body fat.
Could weigh them in a water tank to determine fat percentage. There are also scales that do it by measuring conductivity of a small electrical current determining body fat.
It’s fat, not weight that is the problem.
Exactly!!!! BMI is not a good tool to measure an individuals overall health. Body fat percentage is much more accurate as to level of health. The problem comes in when insurance companies have to actually measure people, that takes a lot of time and effort to measure 1000's of people, and then remeasuring periodically if they lose or gain weight. Now, an overall health screening by a doctor done annually (which everyone should get regardless of health) would be the easiest and least costly to the insurance company (if they have to spend the money on measuring people, they will be building that charge into overall costs).1 -
When you go for a job interview they size things up. They surely do. Weight discrimination exists. If you get in the door, it affects your career. Not always but I know what they say behind closed doors. I've watched the pretty or good lookin' ones jump right to the top and the well qualified overweight ones stay right where they are.0
-
Crochetmama84 wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »If a smoker can be charged more, so should the overweight and obese.
I disagree.. Smokers have a choice to light a ciggarette or not...
Sometimes obesity is NOT a choice. Food availability, health, medications, poverty, parental eating habits, disability/mobility, etc. Food allegies/ intolerances. Some people just have odds stacked against them making weight loss challenging.
I have friends who run the gamut of odds stacked up against them. In particular, I have friends with Prader Willi Syndrome and Dercum's disease. Both are extraordinarily rare and require health care beyond the concerns of weight. They're going to be paying more, anyway. I am disabled due to genetics, as well, receive benefits, have to travel to buy groceries, have dietary limitations, must use medications that increase appetite, have no partner or visiting caregivers to help me do anything, but I live in 2018. I can use the internet to learn tips on replacing old habits with better ones appropriate to my needs. I maintain a healthy weight, which seems to be challenging for people without rare diseases, too. Here's the rub: I really really need this medical care, and it's always going to cost more. I see countless people with no congenital flaws complaining about how all their doctors tell them to do is lose weight for their joint issues or GI problems. Okay, that's not the most helpful advice, but they didn't study medicine to babysit your eating habits. I'm sure in the future, medical texts will include diseases of excess, but can't we agree that actual disabilities of fat are extraordinarily rare and learn from our lifestyle mistakes?0 -
Crochetmama84 wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »If a smoker can be charged more, so should the overweight and obese.
I disagree.. Smokers have a choice to light a ciggarette or not...
Sometimes obesity is NOT a choice. Food availability, health, medications, poverty, parental eating habits, disability/mobility, etc. Food allegies/ intolerances. Some people just have odds stacked against them making weight loss challenging.
Insurance isn't about choices, it's about risk. An older person has a higher risk of needing medical care soon, so they pay more for insurance. Age isn't a choice, but it's correlated to risk. Makes sense?
By the way, almost anyone can reverse obesity if they're committed to eating a little less. It doesn't require exercise, a good income, or foods perceived as healthy.
4 -
cyclepro405 wrote: »Yes I think that they should. There are many health issues that are related to obesity. And we pay for that in healthcare costs.
I don't think that it is fair when you see someone who's weight problem is because they eat too much or refuse to eat the right foods. There are of course extenuating circumstances to obesity. But by and large it is usually because of diet.
Therefore if someone like that refuses to take action and straighten out their lifestyle then they should pay more.
How would you deal with those (especially men) that are rather muscular??? Men who have a BMI that put them into "overweight" when they have 7% body fat? This is where BMI fails, and why using it as a standard for insurance is dangerous.
You're talking about a very small, probably less than 1% of the population. You could add a couple other makers such as waist/hip ratio and problem solved2 -
Cherimoose wrote: »Crochetmama84 wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »If a smoker can be charged more, so should the overweight and obese.
I disagree.. Smokers have a choice to light a ciggarette or not...
Sometimes obesity is NOT a choice. Food availability, health, medications, poverty, parental eating habits, disability/mobility, etc. Food allegies/ intolerances. Some people just have odds stacked against them making weight loss challenging.
Insurance isn't about choices, it's about risk. An older person has a higher risk of needing medical care soon, so they pay more for insurance. Age isn't a choice, but it's correlated to risk. Makes sense?
By the way, almost anyone can reverse obesity if they're committed to eating a little less. It doesn't require exercise, a good income, or foods perceived as healthy.
The only exercises needed to lose weight are fork put-downs and table push-backs
6 -
This whole conversation is crazy...Not all obese people eat themselves to their obesity... food prices are outrageous so if you are poor and on a budget it's cheaper to buy garbage then it is to buy fresh fruits and veggies or a good cuts of meat. I really believe that health care should be lots cheaper but with Big Pharma, Greedy Doctors AND OF COURSE LETS NOT FORGET THE INSURANCE COMPANIES, nothing will change! In the beginning our government spent millions of dollars pushing cigarettes to anyone who would listen - they turned an entire generation into "cool" smokers. It's very easy to criticize...not so easy to find a workable answer that helps everyone.6
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 901 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions