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
-
janejellyroll wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Mandylou19912014 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Mandylou19912014 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Mandylou19912014 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Mandylou19912014 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »Mandylou19912014 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Mandylou19912014 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Mandylou19912014 wrote: »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?
I think that instead of charging the person more, they should increase the costs of the foods which lead to obesity .. for example .. a bar of chocolate should cost a lot more and crisps and fizzy drinks etc, this would then hopefully make people cut down purely because it’s getting too expensive. They should make health foods cheaper to also encourage people to buy them
My weight is normal. Why should I pay more for my chocolate just because some other people weigh more?
I didn't get overweight because of chocolate and soda. I was overweight because I ate too much of the foods I cooked at home, everyday foods like rice, potatoes, pasta, and vegetables. Someone who wants to eat more than their body can use is going to do it on a wide variety of foods.
Yeah I see your point there, my weight is normal as well but I guess for me, if chocolate was more expensive I would be less inclined to buy some at the shop so it would end up benefiting me in the long run.
Is the argument that we should implement this tax just because it would benefit you personally?
No, this “debate” not argument is about should overweight people should have to pay more and my view is that maybe junk food and sugary products should go up in price so they are less likely to be binged upon
Who decides what food is junk and what food is sugary?
Our betters...obviously.
Or the food itself ....
Food is inanimate, it's incapable of making that decision. Humans would have to make the decisions.
This is going away from the point I’m making. All I’m saying is junk food should be more expensive so people will learn to eat in moderation
Yes, but to make that point, you have to explain who will decide what "junk food" is. Is it you? Because you're arguing that people should be paying more for apples because they have sugar in them.
The government? The same people who decided to impose a sugar tax in the UK ok fizzy drinks with added sugar. I don’t think people should be paying more for apples that was someone’s random example .. obviously fruit contains sugar but it’s fructose and it’s not the same sugar you would find in a bar of chocolate
Well, you're free to hold the position, but given how political nutritional guidelines are in the US, I don't want people working for the government to use tax rates to discourage me from randomly eating foods I enjoy, especially since I don't have excess weight.
You argued that apple juice and apple sauce should have less sugar. Isn't that fructose too? Does fructose somehow not get stored as fat on the body if one eats too much?
For that matter, what's wrong with the sugar in a bar of chocolate?
I don’t care about apple juice or apple sauce someone else brought that one up, fructose May or may not make you fat if eaten in large quantities but it’s natural stuff
If I can get fat from "natural stuff," (whatever you mean by that), then why is "natural stuff" excluded from the tax?
Trail mix made from bacon bits and banana chips yummy. Sorry Jane.
I honestly can't believe there isn't a trail mix with bacon already! It seems like it would be very popular.
(There probably is and I just haven't seen it).
I'm not sure how shelf stable it would be. I haven't looked though. But for some sort of boutique product, it wouldn't need to be as indefinitely shelf stable.0 -
Nothing would prevent a consumer from picking up a sachet of bacon bits when they get their trail mix.
I think the bacon bits have use by dates that are months in the future, so it's probably all good, for a while anyway.0 -
stanmann571 wrote: »Mandylou19912014 wrote: »Mandylou19912014 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Mandylou19912014 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »Mandylou19912014 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Mandylou19912014 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Mandylou19912014 wrote: »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?
I think that instead of charging the person more, they should increase the costs of the foods which lead to obesity .. for example .. a bar of chocolate should cost a lot more and crisps and fizzy drinks etc, this would then hopefully make people cut down purely because it’s getting too expensive. They should make health foods cheaper to also encourage people to buy them
My weight is normal. Why should I pay more for my chocolate just because some other people weigh more?
I didn't get overweight because of chocolate and soda. I was overweight because I ate too much of the foods I cooked at home, everyday foods like rice, potatoes, pasta, and vegetables. Someone who wants to eat more than their body can use is going to do it on a wide variety of foods.
Yeah I see your point there, my weight is normal as well but I guess for me, if chocolate was more expensive I would be less inclined to buy some at the shop so it would end up benefiting me in the long run.
Is the argument that we should implement this tax just because it would benefit you personally?
No, this “debate” not argument is about should overweight people should have to pay more and my view is that maybe junk food and sugary products should go up in price so they are less likely to be binged upon
Who decides what food is junk and what food is sugary?
Our betters...obviously.
Or the food itself ....
Food is inanimate, it's incapable of making that decision. Humans would have to make the decisions.
This is going away from the point I’m making. All I’m saying is junk food should be more expensive so people will learn to eat in moderation
Perhaps the root issue is the point you're making is not as well developed?
What you seem to be suggesting is a tax on food that tastes good.
That’s not at all what I’m saying. Fruit tastes good, salad tastes good etc there’s lots of healthy food that tastes good. I’m referring to foods that are high in saturated fat and sugar (excluding fruit)
When you say and is that an inclusive or exclusive and?
IOW?
Jolly ranchers are a "fat free food"
Bacon has no sugar
Donuts have fat and sugar.
So are jolly ranchers included in your tax list or excluded?
Ditto for bacon, and Butter, and Avocados?
You don't have a well developed point, and yet you persist in pushing forward without clarifying or developing your point.
The only reason it seems I’m persistent is because I have about 5 people grilling me on something I just thought up of on the spot! I don’t have a list of foods I haven’t even put much thought into this idea, I literally answered a question then boom .. all these questions from everyone3 -
Mandylou19912014 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »Mandylou19912014 wrote: »Mandylou19912014 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Mandylou19912014 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »Mandylou19912014 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Mandylou19912014 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Mandylou19912014 wrote: »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?
I think that instead of charging the person more, they should increase the costs of the foods which lead to obesity .. for example .. a bar of chocolate should cost a lot more and crisps and fizzy drinks etc, this would then hopefully make people cut down purely because it’s getting too expensive. They should make health foods cheaper to also encourage people to buy them
My weight is normal. Why should I pay more for my chocolate just because some other people weigh more?
I didn't get overweight because of chocolate and soda. I was overweight because I ate too much of the foods I cooked at home, everyday foods like rice, potatoes, pasta, and vegetables. Someone who wants to eat more than their body can use is going to do it on a wide variety of foods.
Yeah I see your point there, my weight is normal as well but I guess for me, if chocolate was more expensive I would be less inclined to buy some at the shop so it would end up benefiting me in the long run.
Is the argument that we should implement this tax just because it would benefit you personally?
No, this “debate” not argument is about should overweight people should have to pay more and my view is that maybe junk food and sugary products should go up in price so they are less likely to be binged upon
Who decides what food is junk and what food is sugary?
Our betters...obviously.
Or the food itself ....
Food is inanimate, it's incapable of making that decision. Humans would have to make the decisions.
This is going away from the point I’m making. All I’m saying is junk food should be more expensive so people will learn to eat in moderation
Perhaps the root issue is the point you're making is not as well developed?
What you seem to be suggesting is a tax on food that tastes good.
That’s not at all what I’m saying. Fruit tastes good, salad tastes good etc there’s lots of healthy food that tastes good. I’m referring to foods that are high in saturated fat and sugar (excluding fruit)
When you say and is that an inclusive or exclusive and?
IOW?
Jolly ranchers are a "fat free food"
Bacon has no sugar
Donuts have fat and sugar.
So are jolly ranchers included in your tax list or excluded?
Ditto for bacon, and Butter, and Avocados?
You don't have a well developed point, and yet you persist in pushing forward without clarifying or developing your point.
The only reason it seems I’m persistent is because I have about 5 people grilling me on something I just thought up of on the spot! I don’t have a list of foods I haven’t even put much thought into this idea, I literally answered a question then boom .. all these questions from everyone
So you jumped into a 1300 post discussion without reading it, with an idea that wasn't fully formed, and when challenged, instead of thinking the idea through a bit more thoroughly, or reading the history of the discussion, continued to dig your heels in and press forward with your unformed idea?
Is that about the whole story?
5 -
A glazed krispy cream donut has 10g of sugar. A banana has 14g of sugar.
A glazed krispy cream donut has 12g of fat. 146 grams of avocado has 21g of fat.
I think if we're going to tax something because of it's sugar and/or fat content, we might be in trouble.7 -
Mandylou19912014 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »Mandylou19912014 wrote: »Mandylou19912014 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Mandylou19912014 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »Mandylou19912014 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Mandylou19912014 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Mandylou19912014 wrote: »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?
I think that instead of charging the person more, they should increase the costs of the foods which lead to obesity .. for example .. a bar of chocolate should cost a lot more and crisps and fizzy drinks etc, this would then hopefully make people cut down purely because it’s getting too expensive. They should make health foods cheaper to also encourage people to buy them
My weight is normal. Why should I pay more for my chocolate just because some other people weigh more?
I didn't get overweight because of chocolate and soda. I was overweight because I ate too much of the foods I cooked at home, everyday foods like rice, potatoes, pasta, and vegetables. Someone who wants to eat more than their body can use is going to do it on a wide variety of foods.
Yeah I see your point there, my weight is normal as well but I guess for me, if chocolate was more expensive I would be less inclined to buy some at the shop so it would end up benefiting me in the long run.
Is the argument that we should implement this tax just because it would benefit you personally?
No, this “debate” not argument is about should overweight people should have to pay more and my view is that maybe junk food and sugary products should go up in price so they are less likely to be binged upon
Who decides what food is junk and what food is sugary?
Our betters...obviously.
Or the food itself ....
Food is inanimate, it's incapable of making that decision. Humans would have to make the decisions.
This is going away from the point I’m making. All I’m saying is junk food should be more expensive so people will learn to eat in moderation
Perhaps the root issue is the point you're making is not as well developed?
What you seem to be suggesting is a tax on food that tastes good.
That’s not at all what I’m saying. Fruit tastes good, salad tastes good etc there’s lots of healthy food that tastes good. I’m referring to foods that are high in saturated fat and sugar (excluding fruit)
When you say and is that an inclusive or exclusive and?
IOW?
Jolly ranchers are a "fat free food"
Bacon has no sugar
Donuts have fat and sugar.
So are jolly ranchers included in your tax list or excluded?
Ditto for bacon, and Butter, and Avocados?
You don't have a well developed point, and yet you persist in pushing forward without clarifying or developing your point.
The only reason it seems I’m persistent is because I have about 5 people grilling me on something I just thought up of on the spot! I don’t have a list of foods I haven’t even put much thought into this idea, I literally answered a question then boom .. all these questions from everyone
You're in the debate area. If you bring up an idea, people are probably going to ask questions about it. There's never an obligation to defend something if after consideration you decide it is no longer your position or you're unsure what your justification for it is.
But basically, if you suggest making everyone pay more for a certain group of foods, people are going to have questions about how you are deciding what is included in that group and how this actually addresses the problem.0 -
Mandylou19912014 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Mandylou19912014 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Mandylou19912014 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Mandylou19912014 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »Mandylou19912014 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Mandylou19912014 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Mandylou19912014 wrote: »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?
I think that instead of charging the person more, they should increase the costs of the foods which lead to obesity .. for example .. a bar of chocolate should cost a lot more and crisps and fizzy drinks etc, this would then hopefully make people cut down purely because it’s getting too expensive. They should make health foods cheaper to also encourage people to buy them
My weight is normal. Why should I pay more for my chocolate just because some other people weigh more?
I didn't get overweight because of chocolate and soda. I was overweight because I ate too much of the foods I cooked at home, everyday foods like rice, potatoes, pasta, and vegetables. Someone who wants to eat more than their body can use is going to do it on a wide variety of foods.
Yeah I see your point there, my weight is normal as well but I guess for me, if chocolate was more expensive I would be less inclined to buy some at the shop so it would end up benefiting me in the long run.
Is the argument that we should implement this tax just because it would benefit you personally?
No, this “debate” not argument is about should overweight people should have to pay more and my view is that maybe junk food and sugary products should go up in price so they are less likely to be binged upon
Who decides what food is junk and what food is sugary?
Our betters...obviously.
Or the food itself ....
Food is inanimate, it's incapable of making that decision. Humans would have to make the decisions.
This is going away from the point I’m making. All I’m saying is junk food should be more expensive so people will learn to eat in moderation
Yes, but to make that point, you have to explain who will decide what "junk food" is. Is it you? Because you're arguing that people should be paying more for apples because they have sugar in them.
The government? The same people who decided to impose a sugar tax in the UK ok fizzy drinks with added sugar. I don’t think people should be paying more for apples that was someone’s random example .. obviously fruit contains sugar but it’s fructose and it’s not the same sugar you would find in a bar of chocolate
Well, you're free to hold the position, but given how political nutritional guidelines are in the US, I don't want people working for the government to use tax rates to discourage me from randomly eating foods I enjoy, especially since I don't have excess weight.
You argued that apple juice and apple sauce should have less sugar. Isn't that fructose too? Does fructose somehow not get stored as fat on the body if one eats too much?
For that matter, what's wrong with the sugar in a bar of chocolate?
I don’t care about apple juice or apple sauce someone else brought that one up, fructose May or may not make you fat if eaten in large quantities but it’s natural stuff
You're more than a bit ignorant about what sugar is, it would help you think about this more critically if you understand a bit more about it. Table sugar (sucrose) is a disaccharide made up of equal parts glucose and fructose. Sucrose is broken down to glucose and fructose when absorbed by the intestine. There is no difference between the sucrose molecules (or glucose and fructose) in table sugar and the sugar molecules naturally occurring in fruits or other foods.
A 100 g serving of apple (on average) would have 10.4 g total sugar, with 5.9g free fructose, 2.4g free glucose, and 2.1 g of sucrose. Other fruits and vegetables have different ratios of the sugar molecules.
The only difference between "natural" sugars, and the sugar in candies and baked goods is that a portion of the whole fruit or vegetable sugars are inside the cells of the plant which includes fiber, and the digestive system must work harder to extract them. You can get the same amount of sugar from an apple or a piece of candy, but the sugar in the apple goes into the bloodstream more slowly.
That's what makes proposing a "sin tax" for "unhealthy" foods problematic because it's too situational. A type 1 diabetic with low blood sugar may need a piece of candy for some quick absorbing sugar and a piece of fruit would be too slow. A person with other digestive issues with fiber may need sugary snacks or drinks to help insure they get enough calories to meet their needs. An endurance athlete may have a high sugar snack to help with recovery. Context and dosage are what determines if a food is appropriate for a person, and that changes according to the circumstances.10 -
Absolutely not. As others have said, this is a slippery slope that just about one could be fitted into some slot or another. How about too thin? Vision problems because of being more accident prone? Certain occupations? Driving on certain more dangerous highways, or weather conditions? Obesity is the one problem that is visible to all, but it is surely not the only problem that makes some people more susceptible to illness or accident.1
-
Mandylou19912014 wrote: »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?
I think that instead of charging the person more, they should increase the costs of the foods which lead to obesity .. for example .. a bar of chocolate should cost a lot more and crisps and fizzy drinks etc, this would then hopefully make people cut down purely because it’s getting too expensive. They should make health foods cheaper to also encourage people to buy them
That would be fine. There are taxes on junk foods/drinks in some counties/areas of the US.1 -
janejellyroll wrote: »Mandylou19912014 wrote: »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?
I think that instead of charging the person more, they should increase the costs of the foods which lead to obesity .. for example .. a bar of chocolate should cost a lot more and crisps and fizzy drinks etc, this would then hopefully make people cut down purely because it’s getting too expensive. They should make health foods cheaper to also encourage people to buy them
My weight is normal. Why should I pay more for my chocolate just because some other people weigh more?
I didn't get overweight because of chocolate and soda. I was overweight because I ate too much of the foods I cooked at home, everyday foods like rice, potatoes, pasta, and vegetables. Someone who wants to eat more than their body can use is going to do it on a wide variety of foods.
Because it's a societal problem? Just like everyone pays taxes on alcohol although the vast majority drink it without issue.3 -
janejellyroll wrote: »Mandylou19912014 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Mandylou19912014 wrote: »Mandylou19912014 wrote: »Mandylou19912014 wrote: »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?
I think that instead of charging the person more, they should increase the costs of the foods which lead to obesity .. for example .. a bar of chocolate should cost a lot more and crisps and fizzy drinks etc, this would then hopefully make people cut down purely because it’s getting too expensive. They should make health foods cheaper to also encourage people to buy them
The big problem with this is that there are no specific foods that lead to obesity - it is overall excess consumption that leads to obesity... and there is a 100 page thread someplace on here about trying to tax junk food out of existence - you should do a search for it.
There are lots of specific foods that can lead to obesity, like full fat fizzy drinks, any chocolate bar, cake, full fat ice creams, most takeaways etc the list could go on. If you increase the prices of these items it will make people eat them in moderation because they just won’t be able to afford it
No there are not - any person on this planet can eat any or all of the foods that you mention and as long as they maintain a calorie deficit they will lose weight. The ONLY thing that causes obesity is excess consumption of calories - doesn't matter if those calories come from 'healthy' foods or from 'junk' food. There are numerous examples on these boards of people who got fat from eating 'healthy' foods.
Ah ok that makes sense, I guess the problem then is purely down to the person who chooses to eat a large/regular amount of unhealthy food.
It's not the food that is unhealthy, it's the dose. A serving of chocolate is fine for health. Eating sweet potatoes or broccoli in excess is bad for my health.
Food can be unhealthy though, in moderation it’s ok for some people but for example a donut is unhealthy, there is no nutritional value in it what so ever .. but yes I agree that it’s all about how much of certain foods you eat that make it become more unhealthy
Donuts have nutritional value. The donuts I eat contain carbohydrates, fat, and protein, macronutrients my body can use for energy. They're typically made with enriched flour, which is going to provide vitamins and minerals, like iron and some B vitamins.
Nothing wrong with an occasional doughnut, but someone saying doughnuts have nutritional value on a heath and fitness forum makes me want to wash my eyes out with bleach.
The quality of carbs and fats in the typical doughnut are very poor from a healthy diet standpoint.5 -
Packerjohn wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »My weight is normal. Why should I pay more for my chocolate just because some other people weigh more?
Because it's a societal problem? Just like everyone pays taxes on alcohol although the vast majority drink it without issue.
Doesn't look like the alcohol tax has discouraged anyone from drinking. In fact alcohol use has been on the rise, despite taxes generally going up.
When people want something, they will pay for it.. or they seek cheaper alternatives like generic brands.
Fortunately there are other ways to reduce food consumption besides ineffective taxation.5 -
Packerjohn wrote: »
Because it's a societal problem? Just like everyone pays taxes on alcohol although the vast majority drink it without issue.
So your argument is that because we have one bad policy, we should have more of the same.
It's bad policy to charge person A for the bad choices of person B. Doesn't really matter if it's alcohol, food, sex, drugs, driving, etc.
Hold the irresponsible responsible. Stop advocating a shift of costs and responsibility to parties not responsible for the problem.
7 -
tbright1965 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »
Because it's a societal problem? Just like everyone pays taxes on alcohol although the vast majority drink it without issue.
So your argument is that because we have one bad policy, we should have more of the same.
It's bad policy to charge person A for the bad choices of person B. Doesn't really matter if it's alcohol, food, sex, drugs, driving, etc.
Hold the irresponsible responsible. Stop advocating a shift of costs and responsibility to parties not responsible for the problem.
So I take it you're good with charging the obese more for health insurance?
I'm good with that too.2 -
5 -
Packerjohn wrote: »
So I take it you're good with charging the obese more for health insurance?
I'm good with that too.
If they have an unhealthy percentage of body fat, it certainly should be on the table for discussion.
What should be off the table is charging OTHERS for the higher costs of the obese.5 -
Packerjohn wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Mandylou19912014 wrote: »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?
I think that instead of charging the person more, they should increase the costs of the foods which lead to obesity .. for example .. a bar of chocolate should cost a lot more and crisps and fizzy drinks etc, this would then hopefully make people cut down purely because it’s getting too expensive. They should make health foods cheaper to also encourage people to buy them
My weight is normal. Why should I pay more for my chocolate just because some other people weigh more?
I didn't get overweight because of chocolate and soda. I was overweight because I ate too much of the foods I cooked at home, everyday foods like rice, potatoes, pasta, and vegetables. Someone who wants to eat more than their body can use is going to do it on a wide variety of foods.
Because it's a societal problem? Just like everyone pays taxes on alcohol although the vast majority drink it without issue.
Obesity and alcoholism are societal problems...chocolate and wine aren't.9 -
tbright1965 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »
So I take it you're good with charging the obese more for health insurance?
I'm good with that too.
If they have an unhealthy percentage of body fat, it certainly should be on the table for discussion.
What should be off the table is charging OTHERS for the higher costs of the obese.
It's necessary to distinguish between horses, zebras, and donkeys- You may assign the animals as you wish as long as you understand that 1. is the horses. 2/3 are smaller populations who will be impacted by any such legislation, even as they are not the target of it.
1. The overweight/obese unhealthy person- Not necessarily yet suffering from the effects of being overweight, but will inevitably, generally sedentary or inactive
2. The overweight/obese healthy person-generally active by choice, and overweight by choice as well. Also not yet suffering from the effects of being overweight/overfat, but equipped to deal with those effects due to overall better CV health and strength -The group most likely to complain about penalties, also the group most likely to actually lose weight if the penalties do not measure BF%
3. The unhealthy overweight/obese person- has one or several health conditions that restrict activity, diet or both, and while they can and do regain overall normal weight, returning to a "healthy weight" will not measurably improve their health care costs/prospects.
Advanced members of 1 and 3 can look the same(Fat guy on a scooter) but their medical practitioners can and should know the difference. I can't at a glance, and unfortunately neither can anyone else, but exposure to enough members of 1 in an advanced condition prejudices the general population against members of 3. The population of group 2 are the fat guys and gals running 23-25 minute 5 Ks 9-10 minute pace halfs and fulls who just like to eat(a lot) And don't really care because the extra mass isn't keeping them from enjoying life(right now) When it does, They'll shave off the extra mass that is impairing their life and go right on trucking. As contrasted with the group 1 members who will take their scooter and handicap tag and keep eating for an early grave.
Yes I'm being judgy.0 -
To the food police:
People still find plenty of money for alcohol and cigarettes. .. I doubt my having to pay more for the (sugary) fruit snacks keeping me from bonking out on a long run/ride will keep the fat @rses gorging themselves on the couch from continuing to do so.
Some foods are easier to over-eat due to calorie density (generally due more to the fat content, some of which is required by the body). This, not some imaginary "bad carbs", is what makes a food potentially troublesome in our increasingly obese world. But.. It also makes it excellent backpacking food, or food for those who are extremely active, or who are trying to gain weight (bulking, illness, etc). Not everybody is sitting on the couch all day.2 -
Obese people don't "use up" more healthcare. No, they shouldn't pay more. Seems like a bunch of fat shaming to me. Do your research, people.11
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K 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
- 388 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
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 918 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions