Myfitnesspal

Message Boards Debate: Health and Fitness
You are currently viewing the message boards in:

Fat Acceptance Movement

1111214161773

Replies

  • T1DCarnivoreRunnerT1DCarnivoreRunner Member Posts: 11,366 Member Member Posts: 11,366 Member
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    My question to those who say people should take responsibility for themselves, is, "what business is it of yours?"
    Why does it matter to you what someone else does or doesn't do? How does it concern you?

    Like others have said above, "mind your own business".

    Kind of ironic that this is a web site mostly about getting healthier. Try a little compassion for people that have not found this site, or can not make it work for them. Walk a mile in their shoes. Cuz I have been there, done that, lost a lot of weight and have kept it off for over 2 years, thanks to MFP, my fitbit, and a lot of compassionate, helpful people here.

    If you pay taxes or insurance it's your busiess. Obesity related illnesses count for over 20% of medical spending in thr US.

    So far, in most cases, the obese don't pay highwe insurance premiums or more taxes (over 50% of medical costs are paid by government)

    It's coming though. My husband works for a large, global company (based out of the U.S. and has over 100,000 employees). In the last couple years things have changed with our insurance, where it's now mandatory to submit blood work/weight details, in order to not get penalized for health insurance. It's also mandatory that we're screened for smoking.

    It started out that if you didn't do this, then you lost HSA deposit incentives (up to $500 per employee/spouse). This year they changed it and if you don't get the blood work done then you actually pay a 'fine' and pay more for your premium. And smokers pay an additional fine on top of that. We've been told that soon there will also be fines for not having good blood work/having high bmi's.

    My husband has higher cholesterol and soon we'll be paying more for our insurance because of it. People who have a higher bmi (by the criteria that the insurance company goes by), will also incur fines. And if you're a smoker, then you get hit twice. I don't know if you get triple fines if you fail at all three things (overweight, bad blood work, smoker), but it wouldn't surprise me at all. This applies for spouses of employees as well.

    Where I work, it is similar. Many people see it as a "fine" or a "penalty" but the annual health screenings (weight, height, body fat %, blood work, optional test for nicotine/cotinine) are voluntary. Technically, the way it works is that we get a discount if we do the screening and the results are good and we get another discount if we don't smoke. If the results from the screening are not good enough to get the maximum discount, everyone has an option to get extra "points" added to their screening results by taking online training specific to the areas they didn't do well on. So in reality, everybody has an opportunity to get the health screening discount, but it is a discount and not a fine if you don't do it, despite that many employees see it that way.

    Personally, I like this because it saves me some money and the worst case is that I have to spend an hour or 2 doing some training (on stuff I usually already know, but it is worth the discount). The only part I don't like is some of the specific administration. For example, there was a year when my LDL was 17. They said that was too low and my total health was just low enough that I didn't qualify for the discount without doing online training. So one of the things I had to do was the cholesterol training. The problem is, this class was all about the dangers of high cholesterol and how to lower cholesterol. I even sent an email to my dr. and he agreed that the lower LDL, the better. So I was annoyed by that. But I still got the discount.
  • GaleHawkinsGaleHawkins Member Posts: 8,147 Member Member Posts: 8,147 Member
    @DearestWinter think of it as the inverse of No Fault insurance, divorce, etc.

    If one develops life styles that drives up medical cost they pay more. Personal responsibility seems to be an old concept that is returning perhaps to some degree?

    At some point these policies will wind up in a court room I expect in our brave new world.
    edited April 2016
  • RuatineRuatine Member Posts: 3,437 Member Member Posts: 3,437 Member
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    My question to those who say people should take responsibility for themselves, is, "what business is it of yours?"
    Why does it matter to you what someone else does or doesn't do? How does it concern you?

    Like others have said above, "mind your own business".

    Kind of ironic that this is a web site mostly about getting healthier. Try a little compassion for people that have not found this site, or can not make it work for them. Walk a mile in their shoes. Cuz I have been there, done that, lost a lot of weight and have kept it off for over 2 years, thanks to MFP, my fitbit, and a lot of compassionate, helpful people here.

    If you pay taxes or insurance it's your busiess. Obesity related illnesses count for over 20% of medical spending in thr US.

    So far, in most cases, the obese don't pay highwe insurance premiums or more taxes (over 50% of medical costs are paid by government)

    It's coming though. My husband works for a large, global company (based out of the U.S. and has over 100,000 employees). In the last couple years things have changed with our insurance, where it's now mandatory to submit blood work/weight details, in order to not get penalized for health insurance. It's also mandatory that we're screened for smoking.

    It started out that if you didn't do this, then you lost HSA deposit incentives (up to $500 per employee/spouse). This year they changed it and if you don't get the blood work done then you actually pay a 'fine' and pay more for your premium. And smokers pay an additional fine on top of that. We've been told that soon there will also be fines for not having good blood work/having high bmi's.

    My husband has higher cholesterol and soon we'll be paying more for our insurance because of it. People who have a higher bmi (by the criteria that the insurance company goes by), will also incur fines. And if you're a smoker, then you get hit twice. I don't know if you get triple fines if you fail at all three things (overweight, bad blood work, smoker), but it wouldn't surprise me at all. This applies for spouses of employees as well.

    I prefer the Humana Vitality way of doing things, where people are rewarded for doing "healthy" things (such as regular checkups, losing weight if needed, stopping smoking, etc). I receive a 10% discount on my insurance premiums when I hit a certain status with them (i.e. do enough "healthy" things worth a certain number of points).



    I've been following this thread just because it's so bizarre to me. I've been overweight most of my life and obese my entire adulthood (except I dropped below into overweight BMI this month - go me!). I remember feeling bad about being "chunky" as a kid. It's not that I wasn't active - I was - rode my bike hours almost every day, but I definitely ate too much and not the best choices of food either. I recall a couple incidences of kids/teens being mean because of my weight, but I never thought being overweight was okay. I definitely agree that making people feel bad about their weight is a *kitten* move. However, I'm not okay with people burying their heads in the sand about the health risks of being overweight and obese, and this is coming from someone who never saw any of those risks realized.
  • PackerjohnPackerjohn Member Posts: 4,855 Member Member Posts: 4,855 Member
    Ruatine wrote: »
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    My question to those who say people should take responsibility for themselves, is, "what business is it of yours?"
    Why does it matter to you what someone else does or doesn't do? How does it concern you?

    Like others have said above, "mind your own business".

    Kind of ironic that this is a web site mostly about getting healthier. Try a little compassion for people that have not found this site, or can not make it work for them. Walk a mile in their shoes. Cuz I have been there, done that, lost a lot of weight and have kept it off for over 2 years, thanks to MFP, my fitbit, and a lot of compassionate, helpful people here.

    If you pay taxes or insurance it's your busiess. Obesity related illnesses count for over 20% of medical spending in thr US.

    So far, in most cases, the obese don't pay highwe insurance premiums or more taxes (over 50% of medical costs are paid by government)

    It's coming though. My husband works for a large, global company (based out of the U.S. and has over 100,000 employees). In the last couple years things have changed with our insurance, where it's now mandatory to submit blood work/weight details, in order to not get penalized for health insurance. It's also mandatory that we're screened for smoking.

    It started out that if you didn't do this, then you lost HSA deposit incentives (up to $500 per employee/spouse). This year they changed it and if you don't get the blood work done then you actually pay a 'fine' and pay more for your premium. And smokers pay an additional fine on top of that. We've been told that soon there will also be fines for not having good blood work/having high bmi's.

    My husband has higher cholesterol and soon we'll be paying more for our insurance because of it. People who have a higher bmi (by the criteria that the insurance company goes by), will also incur fines. And if you're a smoker, then you get hit twice. I don't know if you get triple fines if you fail at all three things (overweight, bad blood work, smoker), but it wouldn't surprise me at all. This applies for spouses of employees as well.

    I prefer the Humana Vitality way of doing things, where people are rewarded for doing "healthy" things (such as regular checkups, losing weight if needed, stopping smoking, etc). I receive a 10% discount on my insurance premiums when I hit a certain status with them (i.e. do enough "healthy" things worth a certain number of points).



    I've been following this thread just because it's so bizarre to me. I've been overweight most of my life and obese my entire adulthood (except I dropped below into overweight BMI this month - go me!). I remember feeling bad about being "chunky" as a kid. It's not that I wasn't active - I was - rode my bike hours almost every day, but I definitely ate too much and not the best choices of food either. I recall a couple incidences of kids/teens being mean because of my weight, but I never thought being overweight was okay. I definitely agree that making people feel bad about their weight is a *kitten* move. However, I'm not okay with people burying their heads in the sand about the health risks of being overweight and obese, and this is coming from someone who never saw any of those risks realized.

    Reward for healthy ot penalty for unhealthy, it's just marketing. Company can make final numbers come out the same either way
  • ArmyofAdrianArmyofAdrian Member Posts: 177 Member Member Posts: 177 Member
    stealthq wrote: »
    stealthq wrote: »
    tomteboda wrote: »
    I don't know what definition of obesity you are using, but we're going to have to agree to disagree. I'm going with the CDC's definition of obesity: "Weight that is higher than what is considered as a healthy weight for a given height is described as overweight or obese. " A weight that is higher than what is healthy would be unhealthy.

    Also, the AMA, The World Health Organization, Food and Drug Administration (FDA), National Institutes of Health (NIH), and the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists each recognize obesity as a disease. A disease is included in the set of things that are unhealthy.

    Of course, the line between healthy and unhealthy is uniform for a height regardless of any other factors? That seems very, very arbitrary to me. The BMI definition of obesity is population-statistical. It's uninformative for any individual.

    How can it be arbitrary when it's based on statistical analysis? Anyway, quibbling over the diagnostic criteria doesn't change the plain fact that obesity is unhealthy.

    For several reasons. One, BMI does not include sufficient variables to adequately be more than an estimation for an individual. Two, BMI does not adequately cover sufficient populations to really develop an all-inclusive model with the variables it does include (i.e. the model doesn't fit well for Asians as an example). It also does not fit the very short or the very tall. Three, how exactly were cut-offs picked? They have some basis in risk analysis, but what level of risk is considered unacceptable is basically arbitrary.

    Basing a criterion on its statistical significance using huge data sets is not at all "arbitrary".

    Deciding that a 20.1% risk* is unacceptable whereas a 20% risk* is acceptable is arbitrary. There is no standard for when health risk crosses from 'acceptable' to not.

    Also, when dealing with global population and physiological diversity, I'd hardly consider the sampling used to generate the BMI model as 'huge'.

    *Not actual numbers, used only as an example.

    You arbitrarily pull numbers out of the air then pretend those arbitrary numbers somehow refute the actual statistical analysis??
    edited April 2016
  • stealthqstealthq Member Posts: 4,307 Member Member Posts: 4,307 Member
    stealthq wrote: »
    stealthq wrote: »
    tomteboda wrote: »
    I don't know what definition of obesity you are using, but we're going to have to agree to disagree. I'm going with the CDC's definition of obesity: "Weight that is higher than what is considered as a healthy weight for a given height is described as overweight or obese. " A weight that is higher than what is healthy would be unhealthy.

    Also, the AMA, The World Health Organization, Food and Drug Administration (FDA), National Institutes of Health (NIH), and the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists each recognize obesity as a disease. A disease is included in the set of things that are unhealthy.

    Of course, the line between healthy and unhealthy is uniform for a height regardless of any other factors? That seems very, very arbitrary to me. The BMI definition of obesity is population-statistical. It's uninformative for any individual.

    How can it be arbitrary when it's based on statistical analysis? Anyway, quibbling over the diagnostic criteria doesn't change the plain fact that obesity is unhealthy.

    For several reasons. One, BMI does not include sufficient variables to adequately be more than an estimation for an individual. Two, BMI does not adequately cover sufficient populations to really develop an all-inclusive model with the variables it does include (i.e. the model doesn't fit well for Asians as an example). It also does not fit the very short or the very tall. Three, how exactly were cut-offs picked? They have some basis in risk analysis, but what level of risk is considered unacceptable is basically arbitrary.

    Basing a criterion on its statistical significance using huge data sets is not at all "arbitrary".

    Deciding that a 20.1% risk* is unacceptable whereas a 20% risk* is acceptable is arbitrary. There is no standard for when health risk crosses from 'acceptable' to not.

    Also, when dealing with global population and physiological diversity, I'd hardly consider the sampling used to generate the BMI model as 'huge'.

    *Not actual numbers, used only as an example.

    You arbitrarily pull numbers out of the air then pretend those arbitrary numbers somehow refute the actual statistical analysis??

    Do you enjoy deliberately missing the point?

    Explain to me how choosing the threshold for health risk to be acceptable vs unacceptable can be anything other than arbitrary. We know they did not use 100% (everybody at this BMI has potentially weight-related health issues, definitely unacceptable) or 0% (nobody at this BMI has potentially weight-related health issues, definitely acceptable).
  • RobD520RobD520 Member Posts: 420 Member Member Posts: 420 Member
    stealthq wrote: »
    stealthq wrote: »
    tomteboda wrote: »
    I don't know what definition of obesity you are using, but we're going to have to agree to disagree. I'm going with the CDC's definition of obesity: "Weight that is higher than what is considered as a healthy weight for a given height is described as overweight or obese. " A weight that is higher than what is healthy would be unhealthy.

    Also, the AMA, The World Health Organization, Food and Drug Administration (FDA), National Institutes of Health (NIH), and the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists each recognize obesity as a disease. A disease is included in the set of things that are unhealthy.

    Of course, the line between healthy and unhealthy is uniform for a height regardless of any other factors? That seems very, very arbitrary to me. The BMI definition of obesity is population-statistical. It's uninformative for any individual.

    How can it be arbitrary when it's based on statistical analysis? Anyway, quibbling over the diagnostic criteria doesn't change the plain fact that obesity is unhealthy.

    For several reasons. One, BMI does not include sufficient variables to adequately be more than an estimation for an individual. Two, BMI does not adequately cover sufficient populations to really develop an all-inclusive model with the variables it does include (i.e. the model doesn't fit well for Asians as an example). It also does not fit the very short or the very tall. Three, how exactly were cut-offs picked? They have some basis in risk analysis, but what level of risk is considered unacceptable is basically arbitrary.

    Basing a criterion on its statistical significance using huge data sets is not at all "arbitrary".

    Deciding that a 20.1% risk* is unacceptable whereas a 20% risk* is acceptable is arbitrary. There is no standard for when health risk crosses from 'acceptable' to not.

    Also, when dealing with global population and physiological diversity, I'd hardly consider the sampling used to generate the BMI model as 'huge'.

    *Not actual numbers, used only as an example.

    You arbitrarily pull numbers out of the air then pretend those arbitrary numbers somehow refute the actual statistical analysis??

    Totally missed the point, didn't you?
  • PackerjohnPackerjohn Member Posts: 4,855 Member Member Posts: 4,855 Member
    Ruatine wrote: »
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    Ruatine wrote: »
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    My question to those who say people should take responsibility for themselves, is, "what business is it of yours?"
    Why does it matter to you what someone else does or doesn't do? How does it concern you?

    Like others have said above, "mind your own business".

    Kind of ironic that this is a web site mostly about getting healthier. Try a little compassion for people that have not found this site, or can not make it work for them. Walk a mile in their shoes. Cuz I have been there, done that, lost a lot of weight and have kept it off for over 2 years, thanks to MFP, my fitbit, and a lot of compassionate, helpful people here.

    If you pay taxes or insurance it's your busiess. Obesity related illnesses count for over 20% of medical spending in thr US.

    So far, in most cases, the obese don't pay highwe insurance premiums or more taxes (over 50% of medical costs are paid by government)

    It's coming though. My husband works for a large, global company (based out of the U.S. and has over 100,000 employees). In the last couple years things have changed with our insurance, where it's now mandatory to submit blood work/weight details, in order to not get penalized for health insurance. It's also mandatory that we're screened for smoking.

    It started out that if you didn't do this, then you lost HSA deposit incentives (up to $500 per employee/spouse). This year they changed it and if you don't get the blood work done then you actually pay a 'fine' and pay more for your premium. And smokers pay an additional fine on top of that. We've been told that soon there will also be fines for not having good blood work/having high bmi's.

    My husband has higher cholesterol and soon we'll be paying more for our insurance because of it. People who have a higher bmi (by the criteria that the insurance company goes by), will also incur fines. And if you're a smoker, then you get hit twice. I don't know if you get triple fines if you fail at all three things (overweight, bad blood work, smoker), but it wouldn't surprise me at all. This applies for spouses of employees as well.

    I prefer the Humana Vitality way of doing things, where people are rewarded for doing "healthy" things (such as regular checkups, losing weight if needed, stopping smoking, etc). I receive a 10% discount on my insurance premiums when I hit a certain status with them (i.e. do enough "healthy" things worth a certain number of points).



    I've been following this thread just because it's so bizarre to me. I've been overweight most of my life and obese my entire adulthood (except I dropped below into overweight BMI this month - go me!). I remember feeling bad about being "chunky" as a kid. It's not that I wasn't active - I was - rode my bike hours almost every day, but I definitely ate too much and not the best choices of food either. I recall a couple incidences of kids/teens being mean because of my weight, but I never thought being overweight was okay. I definitely agree that making people feel bad about their weight is a *kitten* move. However, I'm not okay with people burying their heads in the sand about the health risks of being overweight and obese, and this is coming from someone who never saw any of those risks realized.

    Reward for healthy ot penalty for unhealthy, it's just marketing. Company can make final numbers come out the same either way

    True enough, but the psychological impact on the insured is completely different. One would irritate me to no end, and the other makes me feel good. Which do you think is more likely to incite people to improve their health?

    Actually I believe studies are varied, but punishment seems to win.
  • ArmyofAdrianArmyofAdrian Member Posts: 177 Member Member Posts: 177 Member
    stealthq wrote: »
    stealthq wrote: »
    stealthq wrote: »
    tomteboda wrote: »
    I don't know what definition of obesity you are using, but we're going to have to agree to disagree. I'm going with the CDC's definition of obesity: "Weight that is higher than what is considered as a healthy weight for a given height is described as overweight or obese. " A weight that is higher than what is healthy would be unhealthy.

    Also, the AMA, The World Health Organization, Food and Drug Administration (FDA), National Institutes of Health (NIH), and the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists each recognize obesity as a disease. A disease is included in the set of things that are unhealthy.

    Of course, the line between healthy and unhealthy is uniform for a height regardless of any other factors? That seems very, very arbitrary to me. The BMI definition of obesity is population-statistical. It's uninformative for any individual.

    How can it be arbitrary when it's based on statistical analysis? Anyway, quibbling over the diagnostic criteria doesn't change the plain fact that obesity is unhealthy.

    For several reasons. One, BMI does not include sufficient variables to adequately be more than an estimation for an individual. Two, BMI does not adequately cover sufficient populations to really develop an all-inclusive model with the variables it does include (i.e. the model doesn't fit well for Asians as an example). It also does not fit the very short or the very tall. Three, how exactly were cut-offs picked? They have some basis in risk analysis, but what level of risk is considered unacceptable is basically arbitrary.

    Basing a criterion on its statistical significance using huge data sets is not at all "arbitrary".

    Deciding that a 20.1% risk* is unacceptable whereas a 20% risk* is acceptable is arbitrary. There is no standard for when health risk crosses from 'acceptable' to not.

    Also, when dealing with global population and physiological diversity, I'd hardly consider the sampling used to generate the BMI model as 'huge'.

    *Not actual numbers, used only as an example.

    You arbitrarily pull numbers out of the air then pretend those arbitrary numbers somehow refute the actual statistical analysis??

    Do you enjoy deliberately missing the point?

    Explain to me how choosing the threshold for health risk to be acceptable vs unacceptable can be anything other than arbitrary. We know they did not use 100% (everybody at this BMI has potentially weight-related health issues, definitely unacceptable) or 0% (nobody at this BMI has potentially weight-related health issues, definitely acceptable).

    Using that logic, ALL decisions are arbitrary unless there is absolute certainty.
  • ArmyofAdrianArmyofAdrian Member Posts: 177 Member Member Posts: 177 Member
    RobD520 wrote: »
    stealthq wrote: »
    stealthq wrote: »
    tomteboda wrote: »
    I don't know what definition of obesity you are using, but we're going to have to agree to disagree. I'm going with the CDC's definition of obesity: "Weight that is higher than what is considered as a healthy weight for a given height is described as overweight or obese. " A weight that is higher than what is healthy would be unhealthy.

    Also, the AMA, The World Health Organization, Food and Drug Administration (FDA), National Institutes of Health (NIH), and the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists each recognize obesity as a disease. A disease is included in the set of things that are unhealthy.

    Of course, the line between healthy and unhealthy is uniform for a height regardless of any other factors? That seems very, very arbitrary to me. The BMI definition of obesity is population-statistical. It's uninformative for any individual.

    How can it be arbitrary when it's based on statistical analysis? Anyway, quibbling over the diagnostic criteria doesn't change the plain fact that obesity is unhealthy.

    For several reasons. One, BMI does not include sufficient variables to adequately be more than an estimation for an individual. Two, BMI does not adequately cover sufficient populations to really develop an all-inclusive model with the variables it does include (i.e. the model doesn't fit well for Asians as an example). It also does not fit the very short or the very tall. Three, how exactly were cut-offs picked? They have some basis in risk analysis, but what level of risk is considered unacceptable is basically arbitrary.

    Basing a criterion on its statistical significance using huge data sets is not at all "arbitrary".

    Deciding that a 20.1% risk* is unacceptable whereas a 20% risk* is acceptable is arbitrary. There is no standard for when health risk crosses from 'acceptable' to not.

    Also, when dealing with global population and physiological diversity, I'd hardly consider the sampling used to generate the BMI model as 'huge'.

    *Not actual numbers, used only as an example.

    You arbitrarily pull numbers out of the air then pretend those arbitrary numbers somehow refute the actual statistical analysis??

    Totally missed the point, didn't you?

    Okay Rob, I'll ignore the AMA, CDC, NIH, and WHO since they didn't clear their statistical methods with you first and because they can't guarantee absolute 100% predictably of outcomes based on risk factors.
  • ArmyofAdrianArmyofAdrian Member Posts: 177 Member Member Posts: 177 Member
    RobD520 wrote: »
    RobD520 wrote: »
    stealthq wrote: »
    stealthq wrote: »
    tomteboda wrote: »
    I don't know what definition of obesity you are using, but we're going to have to agree to disagree. I'm going with the CDC's definition of obesity: "Weight that is higher than what is considered as a healthy weight for a given height is described as overweight or obese. " A weight that is higher than what is healthy would be unhealthy.

    Also, the AMA, The World Health Organization, Food and Drug Administration (FDA), National Institutes of Health (NIH), and the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists each recognize obesity as a disease. A disease is included in the set of things that are unhealthy.

    Of course, the line between healthy and unhealthy is uniform for a height regardless of any other factors? That seems very, very arbitrary to me. The BMI definition of obesity is population-statistical. It's uninformative for any individual.

    How can it be arbitrary when it's based on statistical analysis? Anyway, quibbling over the diagnostic criteria doesn't change the plain fact that obesity is unhealthy.

    For several reasons. One, BMI does not include sufficient variables to adequately be more than an estimation for an individual. Two, BMI does not adequately cover sufficient populations to really develop an all-inclusive model with the variables it does include (i.e. the model doesn't fit well for Asians as an example). It also does not fit the very short or the very tall. Three, how exactly were cut-offs picked? They have some basis in risk analysis, but what level of risk is considered unacceptable is basically arbitrary.

    Basing a criterion on its statistical significance using huge data sets is not at all "arbitrary".

    Deciding that a 20.1% risk* is unacceptable whereas a 20% risk* is acceptable is arbitrary. There is no standard for when health risk crosses from 'acceptable' to not.

    Also, when dealing with global population and physiological diversity, I'd hardly consider the sampling used to generate the BMI model as 'huge'.

    *Not actual numbers, used only as an example.

    You arbitrarily pull numbers out of the air then pretend those arbitrary numbers somehow refute the actual statistical analysis??

    Totally missed the point, didn't you?

    Okay Rob, I'll ignore the AMA, CDC, NIH, and WHO since they didn't clear their statistical methods with you first and because they can't guarantee absolute 100% predictably of outcomes based on risk factors.

    Which of these organizations compell you to hold overweight people in contempt?

    I need direct quotes on this one.

    The funny thing is I don't disagree that obesity increases health risks. But that isn't really what's being debated here.

    Where did I say I hold anyone in contempt? Also, what is being debated here is whether or not guidelines for obesity are arbitrary. They aren't.
  • RuatineRuatine Member Posts: 3,437 Member Member Posts: 3,437 Member
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    Ruatine wrote: »
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    Ruatine wrote: »
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    My question to those who say people should take responsibility for themselves, is, "what business is it of yours?"
    Why does it matter to you what someone else does or doesn't do? How does it concern you?

    Like others have said above, "mind your own business".

    Kind of ironic that this is a web site mostly about getting healthier. Try a little compassion for people that have not found this site, or can not make it work for them. Walk a mile in their shoes. Cuz I have been there, done that, lost a lot of weight and have kept it off for over 2 years, thanks to MFP, my fitbit, and a lot of compassionate, helpful people here.

    If you pay taxes or insurance it's your busiess. Obesity related illnesses count for over 20% of medical spending in thr US.

    So far, in most cases, the obese don't pay highwe insurance premiums or more taxes (over 50% of medical costs are paid by government)

    It's coming though. My husband works for a large, global company (based out of the U.S. and has over 100,000 employees). In the last couple years things have changed with our insurance, where it's now mandatory to submit blood work/weight details, in order to not get penalized for health insurance. It's also mandatory that we're screened for smoking.

    It started out that if you didn't do this, then you lost HSA deposit incentives (up to $500 per employee/spouse). This year they changed it and if you don't get the blood work done then you actually pay a 'fine' and pay more for your premium. And smokers pay an additional fine on top of that. We've been told that soon there will also be fines for not having good blood work/having high bmi's.

    My husband has higher cholesterol and soon we'll be paying more for our insurance because of it. People who have a higher bmi (by the criteria that the insurance company goes by), will also incur fines. And if you're a smoker, then you get hit twice. I don't know if you get triple fines if you fail at all three things (overweight, bad blood work, smoker), but it wouldn't surprise me at all. This applies for spouses of employees as well.

    I prefer the Humana Vitality way of doing things, where people are rewarded for doing "healthy" things (such as regular checkups, losing weight if needed, stopping smoking, etc). I receive a 10% discount on my insurance premiums when I hit a certain status with them (i.e. do enough "healthy" things worth a certain number of points).



    I've been following this thread just because it's so bizarre to me. I've been overweight most of my life and obese my entire adulthood (except I dropped below into overweight BMI this month - go me!). I remember feeling bad about being "chunky" as a kid. It's not that I wasn't active - I was - rode my bike hours almost every day, but I definitely ate too much and not the best choices of food either. I recall a couple incidences of kids/teens being mean because of my weight, but I never thought being overweight was okay. I definitely agree that making people feel bad about their weight is a *kitten* move. However, I'm not okay with people burying their heads in the sand about the health risks of being overweight and obese, and this is coming from someone who never saw any of those risks realized.

    Reward for healthy ot penalty for unhealthy, it's just marketing. Company can make final numbers come out the same either way

    True enough, but the psychological impact on the insured is completely different. One would irritate me to no end, and the other makes me feel good. Which do you think is more likely to incite people to improve their health?

    Actually I believe studies are varied, but punishment seems to win.

    Hmm, I'm going to have to go digging now because I'm genuinely curious as to which has been found more effective. I know my own n=1 experience is that punishment does not encourage me to change, but I'm curious as to whether I fall outside the norm or if it tends to be 50/50.
Sign In or Register to comment.