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
-
Packerjohn wrote: »SiegfriedXXL wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »prettygirlstorm1 wrote: »Just because I am overweight does not mean that I have health problems. I am overweight, but I don't have any health issues so why should the number on the scale dictate what I should be paying for healthcare. Thin people may have health issues as well. Should they pay less just because they are thin?
Statistically if you are significantly overweight/obese you will have more healthcare costs in your lifetime,
Statistics are just too general.
I've been hospitalized exactly one time and take one medication. My physicals are stellar. I know it will not last if I stay obese but I also know that I've used medical services far less than many other people, both obese and normal weight. So no, I shouldn't have to pay a "surcharge" for services I'm not availing myself of. If I don't lose the weight and develop diabetes and cholesterol and all the other issues of obesity, then by all means charge me, but as long as I can demonstrate healthy blood panels and a general level of fitness, buzz off with that nonsense.
Insurance is based on assigning risks to "pools" or groups of similar individuals based on a set of characteristics. It is designed to look a the statistics of stratified groups and assign a level of risk to the group. I had a good job and bought a "high risk" vehicle as an under 25 year old male. Even though I never had a ticket or an accident, I had to pay more than a 24 year old female or a 50 yo male because of the risks associated with those in my risk pool driving a similar car. If I choose to live on a flood plain, my insurance and my neighbors will be more than those with the same house on higher ground. Even if there hasn't been a flood in the 3 years I lived there.
As far as statistics being too general. You are a male in a certain age range. There is an actuarially calculated amount that someone in that class will consume in reimbursable health insurance costs on an annual basis. The company prices the policy in general to be able to pay those costs for the group, operating expenses, plus make some profit. By further stratifying the group by weight, since obese in the group will use more insurance resources, charging extra for obese individuals is making the process more specific.
I am well aware of what a risk pool is, thank you, and why insurance companies use them. My point is that, so far, I am well below the statistically projected usage of medical services for my age group and, certainly for those projected using obesity as a marker. My insurance doesn't have such a determination so I cannot speak to that specifically, but I assure you I see the doctor once a year and all he says is lose weight. The risk pool already assumes a certain usage, so i still maintain that I should not be charged an additional obesity surcharge until problems specific to my obesity start cropping up.1 -
I will add something else to stir the pot. If insurance premiums are supposed to be higher for overweight/fat/obese people, should all of our representatives in Congress, Governors’ mansions and even (or specially) the WH that fit that profile get charged more too
even if they have state or federal insurance?
After all, we the tax payer in the US are paying for their insurance, don't we?
No, they get an exemption.
(Or so I understand.)0 -
NorthCascades wrote: »By this logic, anyone who does things that are detrimental to their health should be charged extra for health insurance... people who don't get enough exercise, people who eat unhealthy, people who have unsafe sex or many sex partners, people who work in coal mines or with pesticides. You can't pick and choose
People who provide insurance can pick and choose. That's why they have actuaries.
Yeah, this.
If we are going to focus on individual risk factors and underwrite insurance accordingly, then they absolutely can take all of that into account.
And if you don't disclose a risk factor that applies and they discover it after the fact, the policy can be voided.2 -
MoiAussi93 wrote: »If healthy weight people were to get discounts wouldn't that almost be the same as the rest having to pay more? It's just worded differently but essentially the same thing.
My health insurance also pays for part of a gym membership, but which gyms they do this for is very selective and often times not worth the 30+min commute.
If health companies really cared about it's subscribers, they would make sure you have all the tools to be healthy. Such as paying for gym memberships, etc.
Nobody NEEDS a gym to be healthy. I was obese for many years while belonging to a gym. Now, I am a healthy weight and haven't belonged to a gym for many years. You can exercise outside or at home. It's great if an insurance company will subsidize gyms, but by no means should it be required or expected. The more they pay for the more expensive premiums are by necessity. People complain about some people not having insurance...well, forcing/pressuring insurance companies to pay for things that aren't medically necessary will only make this problem worse.
Must they subsidize people's grocery bills if they check purchases and they didn't buy sugary drinks and foods?
Must they pay for people's sunscreen so they are less likely to develop skin cancer?
Must they pay people who walk any distance under a mile instead of drive, or take the stairs instead of the elevator?
Must they pay people to use their seatbelts?
Must they pay people not to bike or rollerblade without a helmet?
These are ALL "tools to be healthy". It is unreasonable to expect an insurance company to subsidize your lifestyle.
I really believe insurance should be for things you CAN"T DO ON YOUR OWN but are necessary for health...not a bunch of healthy habits you should be willing to pay for yourself because YOU care about yourself. If you don't care enough to pay for these things, why should the insurance company pay for them? If you don't care enough to spend your own money on it, you probably won't use it even if it was "free" (meaning subsidized by other people's premiums.) And in that case the insurance company would be throwing money away with no improvement in health outcomes.
You're right. But in spirit of the debate, if insurance companies are going to charge more for obese people - they need to offer a supplement to help them stay healthy.
In a perfect world healthcare would have nothing to do from weight related health issues.
And I do those things for myself because I do care about myself, thanks.
0 -
SiegfriedXXL wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »SiegfriedXXL wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »prettygirlstorm1 wrote: »Just because I am overweight does not mean that I have health problems. I am overweight, but I don't have any health issues so why should the number on the scale dictate what I should be paying for healthcare. Thin people may have health issues as well. Should they pay less just because they are thin?
Statistically if you are significantly overweight/obese you will have more healthcare costs in your lifetime,
Statistics are just too general.
I've been hospitalized exactly one time and take one medication. My physicals are stellar. I know it will not last if I stay obese but I also know that I've used medical services far less than many other people, both obese and normal weight. So no, I shouldn't have to pay a "surcharge" for services I'm not availing myself of. If I don't lose the weight and develop diabetes and cholesterol and all the other issues of obesity, then by all means charge me, but as long as I can demonstrate healthy blood panels and a general level of fitness, buzz off with that nonsense.
Insurance is based on assigning risks to "pools" or groups of similar individuals based on a set of characteristics. It is designed to look a the statistics of stratified groups and assign a level of risk to the group. I had a good job and bought a "high risk" vehicle as an under 25 year old male. Even though I never had a ticket or an accident, I had to pay more than a 24 year old female or a 50 yo male because of the risks associated with those in my risk pool driving a similar car. If I choose to live on a flood plain, my insurance and my neighbors will be more than those with the same house on higher ground. Even if there hasn't been a flood in the 3 years I lived there.
As far as statistics being too general. You are a male in a certain age range. There is an actuarially calculated amount that someone in that class will consume in reimbursable health insurance costs on an annual basis. The company prices the policy in general to be able to pay those costs for the group, operating expenses, plus make some profit. By further stratifying the group by weight, since obese in the group will use more insurance resources, charging extra for obese individuals is making the process more specific.
I am well aware of what a risk pool is, thank you, and why insurance companies use them. My point is that, so far, I am well below the statistically projected usage of medical services for my age group and, certainly for those projected using obesity as a marker. My insurance doesn't have such a determination so I cannot speak to that specifically, but I assure you I see the doctor once a year and all he says is lose weight. The risk pool already assumes a certain usage, so i still maintain that I should not be charged an additional obesity surcharge until problems specific to my obesity start cropping up.
All your references to yourself indicate you in fact indicate you don't understand a risk pool.
Maybe Google a bit. Have a good one7 -
MoiAussi93 wrote: »If healthy weight people were to get discounts wouldn't that almost be the same as the rest having to pay more? It's just worded differently but essentially the same thing.
My health insurance also pays for part of a gym membership, but which gyms they do this for is very selective and often times not worth the 30+min commute.
If health companies really cared about it's subscribers, they would make sure you have all the tools to be healthy. Such as paying for gym memberships, etc.
Nobody NEEDS a gym to be healthy. I was obese for many years while belonging to a gym. Now, I am a healthy weight and haven't belonged to a gym for many years. You can exercise outside or at home. It's great if an insurance company will subsidize gyms, but by no means should it be required or expected. The more they pay for the more expensive premiums are by necessity. People complain about some people not having insurance...well, forcing/pressuring insurance companies to pay for things that aren't medically necessary will only make this problem worse.
Must they subsidize people's grocery bills if they check purchases and they didn't buy sugary drinks and foods?
Must they pay for people's sunscreen so they are less likely to develop skin cancer?
Must they pay people who walk any distance under a mile instead of drive, or take the stairs instead of the elevator?
Must they pay people to use their seatbelts?
Must they pay people not to bike or rollerblade without a helmet?
These are ALL "tools to be healthy". It is unreasonable to expect an insurance company to subsidize your lifestyle.
I really believe insurance should be for things you CAN"T DO ON YOUR OWN but are necessary for health...not a bunch of healthy habits you should be willing to pay for yourself because YOU care about yourself. If you don't care enough to pay for these things, why should the insurance company pay for them? If you don't care enough to spend your own money on it, you probably won't use it even if it was "free" (meaning subsidized by other people's premiums.) And in that case the insurance company would be throwing money away with no improvement in health outcomes.
You're right. But in spirit of the debate, if insurance companies are going to charge more for obese people - they need to offer a supplement to help them stay healthy.
In a perfect world healthcare would have nothing to do from weight related health issues.
And I do those things for myself because I do care about myself, thanks.
No, I don't think they do need to offer a supplement. Once again, I repeat that a gym is not necessary to stay healthy...and even if it was, the insurance carrier's job is to provide payment for necessary healthcare...not to make sure you do what is required to stay healthy... That is your job. If it makes business sense, they probably will offer a subsidy. If not, they won't. More expensive health plans sometimes include things like that for everybody. But it is up to the individual to manage their life. The insurance company's job is to evaluate their risk and price appropriately.2 -
No, as many have said - where do you draw the line? The government is going to demand you control the way you look? Force you to get body scans and tests done? That's a little too big brother for me. If anything, you should be rewarded for being at a healthy weight. Not penalized for being at an unhealthy weight. The reward of cheaper health care would be more motivating to stay healthy. Not to mention it should be a voluntary thing. As you in choose to sign up for a body scan to lower your premiums.
As someone else said, until the healthcare company becomes not for profit, this can never happen.
Huh? The government isn't doing this. Private companies are.If health companies really cared about it's subscribers, they would make sure you have all the tools to be healthy. Such as paying for gym memberships, etc.
But isn't it my responsibility to take care of my own health? If I'm not willing to pay for a gym membership, why should somebody else have to pay for one for me? (Also, you don't have to drive to a gym and run on a treadmill to be fit, you can just go outside and run, and save some gas money.)3 -
Packerjohn wrote: »SiegfriedXXL wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »SiegfriedXXL wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »prettygirlstorm1 wrote: »Just because I am overweight does not mean that I have health problems. I am overweight, but I don't have any health issues so why should the number on the scale dictate what I should be paying for healthcare. Thin people may have health issues as well. Should they pay less just because they are thin?
Statistically if you are significantly overweight/obese you will have more healthcare costs in your lifetime,
Statistics are just too general.
I've been hospitalized exactly one time and take one medication. My physicals are stellar. I know it will not last if I stay obese but I also know that I've used medical services far less than many other people, both obese and normal weight. So no, I shouldn't have to pay a "surcharge" for services I'm not availing myself of. If I don't lose the weight and develop diabetes and cholesterol and all the other issues of obesity, then by all means charge me, but as long as I can demonstrate healthy blood panels and a general level of fitness, buzz off with that nonsense.
Insurance is based on assigning risks to "pools" or groups of similar individuals based on a set of characteristics. It is designed to look a the statistics of stratified groups and assign a level of risk to the group. I had a good job and bought a "high risk" vehicle as an under 25 year old male. Even though I never had a ticket or an accident, I had to pay more than a 24 year old female or a 50 yo male because of the risks associated with those in my risk pool driving a similar car. If I choose to live on a flood plain, my insurance and my neighbors will be more than those with the same house on higher ground. Even if there hasn't been a flood in the 3 years I lived there.
As far as statistics being too general. You are a male in a certain age range. There is an actuarially calculated amount that someone in that class will consume in reimbursable health insurance costs on an annual basis. The company prices the policy in general to be able to pay those costs for the group, operating expenses, plus make some profit. By further stratifying the group by weight, since obese in the group will use more insurance resources, charging extra for obese individuals is making the process more specific.
I am well aware of what a risk pool is, thank you, and why insurance companies use them. My point is that, so far, I am well below the statistically projected usage of medical services for my age group and, certainly for those projected using obesity as a marker. My insurance doesn't have such a determination so I cannot speak to that specifically, but I assure you I see the doctor once a year and all he says is lose weight. The risk pool already assumes a certain usage, so i still maintain that I should not be charged an additional obesity surcharge until problems specific to my obesity start cropping up.
All your references to yourself indicate you in fact indicate you don't understand a risk pool.
Maybe Google a bit. Have a good one
Again, not true. I'm just petulantly whining against an already established system and only because, right now, I don't use a lot of medical services. I know I'm a risk factor, especially if I stop losing the pounds and fail to reach a healthy weight, and the insurance companies can and should view me as such in regards to their premiums and policies. I still don't have to like it.
Anyway, off to Google something more interesting than risk pools. Cheers!3 -
NorthCascades wrote: »No, as many have said - where do you draw the line? The government is going to demand you control the way you look? Force you to get body scans and tests done? That's a little too big brother for me. If anything, you should be rewarded for being at a healthy weight. Not penalized for being at an unhealthy weight. The reward of cheaper health care would be more motivating to stay healthy. Not to mention it should be a voluntary thing. As you in choose to sign up for a body scan to lower your premiums.
As someone else said, until the healthcare company becomes not for profit, this can never happen.
Huh? The government isn't doing this. Private companies are.If health companies really cared about it's subscribers, they would make sure you have all the tools to be healthy. Such as paying for gym memberships, etc.
But isn't it my responsibility to take care of my own health? If I'm not willing to pay for a gym membership, why should somebody else have to pay for one for me? (Also, you don't have to drive to a gym and run on a treadmill to be fit, you can just go outside and run, and save some gas money.)
Come on man, nobody is personally responsible for anything anymore
. 8 -
crazyycatladyy1 wrote: »IMO, until the US healthcare system isn't a FOR PROFIT venture, people will end up spending their retirement income and savings on it. See how much it costs to get hospitalized or how much medication costs for people who need it. It's pretty astounding and outrageous.
We could pay for ALL AMERICANS healthcare, it's just that our government chooses to spend more of taxes towards the military might instead.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Dd was hospitalized a couple weeks ago and so far we have a $7,000 hospital bill pending. That will probably be for the ER (which in the past has run us around $1,000), and then most likely her one night stay, (since the claim is pending it doesn't have the breakdown available yet for what services it's for).
I have nothing to add, but I'm not in the US so i'm curious. What if you didn't have the ability to pay the bill for the hospital? Or if you had no insurance? Surly a hospital would still give a critically ill person the same service? I mean, no parent would ever be told "we can save your child as long as you can pay X amount..."
right??
The hospital offers 0% interest payment plans, starting at a $20 a month payment. Also, if you qualify there's assistance programs as well.1 -
Packerjohn wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »No, as many have said - where do you draw the line? The government is going to demand you control the way you look? Force you to get body scans and tests done? That's a little too big brother for me. If anything, you should be rewarded for being at a healthy weight. Not penalized for being at an unhealthy weight. The reward of cheaper health care would be more motivating to stay healthy. Not to mention it should be a voluntary thing. As you in choose to sign up for a body scan to lower your premiums.
As someone else said, until the healthcare company becomes not for profit, this can never happen.
Huh? The government isn't doing this. Private companies are.If health companies really cared about it's subscribers, they would make sure you have all the tools to be healthy. Such as paying for gym memberships, etc.
But isn't it my responsibility to take care of my own health? If I'm not willing to pay for a gym membership, why should somebody else have to pay for one for me? (Also, you don't have to drive to a gym and run on a treadmill to be fit, you can just go outside and run, and save some gas money.)
Come on man, nobody is personally responsible for anything anymore.
The sad thing is you are so correct.1 -
I'm definitely sitting on the fence with this one because I can see ups and downs to both sides. If I have a job which is considered higher risk then I have to pay more. If I'm a smoker I have to pay more. Both of these factors are choices made by individuals in the same way that not all but most overweight and obese people have chosen not to take action and get their weight under control. However from an Australian perspective if we put health insurance costs up for overweight and obese people then people may not be able to afford health insurance and there would be greater strain on the public health system resulting in more tax payer money being used to cater for the increased use of public health care and hospitals. Considering we have one of the highest rates of obesity in the world this would be an issue.
In conclusion I'm sitting on the fence I'm not certain of my opinion. However, I think it would be naive to think of this from a health perspective without considering the ecomomic impact and social factors (are we creating an us and them mentality in society).1 -
richardgavel wrote: »The point isn't necessarily to encourage overweight people to lose weight, but to get them to shoulder most of their health costs for a result that (in most cases), is due to their own actions. Especially since weight related issues ranks high on health care costs.
The problem with that is that poorer people tend to eat more poorly. Not because they want to but it's much cheaper to buy processed food then to buy more healthy food. So charging the poor more because they are overweight doesn't solve anything. It makes matters worse.
What needs to happen is that our elected officials should not bow down to the Insurance or drug company pacs. It is amazing how in Canada the drugs are so much cheaper than they are here. That is what is raising the cost of health care here.4 -
I take full responsibility for having a Swiftian perspective on the moralizing about people's weight and desire to penalize them occurring repeatedly on this thread.
Would anyone say "health insurance should cost more for gay men because they're much more likely to get AIDS"? My guess is that very, very few would take such a position, even among the shrillest voices advocating that overweight people shouldn't even be employed much less get affordable health care. (and I am left wondering if those people really thought through that position either, as then being overweight would become a disability, and the government would assume all responsibility vis-a-vis social welfare programs)
As to the original topic, in the USA under current law it is legal to charge 30% more on health insurance if someone is overweight. That was codified in the Affordable Care Act. It isn't universally applied, for reasons of which you'd have to discuss with an insurance underwriter but I suspect fear of public outage would be one contributing issue.
Addendum:
It's truly surprising how many college freshmen, when assigned to read "A Modest Proposal", recoil in horror to this day.10 -
heiliskrimsli wrote: »NO ... it's discrimination. Should we charge based on age, nationality or better yet ... lower income individuals since we know it is more expensive to eat healthy?? Absolutely not ... but providing resources to programs that encourage healthier eating and fitness could help.
Not all forms of discrimination are bad. Discriminating against bad choices is not a bad thing. Age and nationality aren't choices. Being fat is.
Except in rare circumstances, NO ONE chooses to be obese or overweight and that is proven by the multi-billion dollar weight loss industry ...
1 -
heiliskrimsli wrote: »NO ... it's discrimination. Should we charge based on age, nationality or better yet ... lower income individuals since we know it is more expensive to eat healthy?? Absolutely not ... but providing resources to programs that encourage healthier eating and fitness could help.
Not all forms of discrimination are bad. Discriminating against bad choices is not a bad thing. Age and nationality aren't choices. Being fat is.
Except in rare circumstances, NO ONE chooses to be obese or overweight and that is proven by the multi-billion dollar weight loss industry ...
Everyone who is overweight or obese, with the exception of children, the mentally retarded and Prader-Willi sufferers, is there because they chose to eat too much.
You have no choice in height, race, ethnicity, age, sex or sexual orientation. But every adult that has an IQ one standard deviation below the mean and up absolutely can choose to not be fat. Their weight is in their control. I have no problem with there being consequences for bad decisions.15 -
@Leverfam
I don't know if I can agree with that. I make healthy choices to keep my weight down. Isn't it fair to say the opposite with obese and overweight individuals? Even if the choices are unconscious ones? Obviously no one WANTS to be overweight but it's it's a choice that I think is made up of daily choices over time.
5 -
People chose to eat too much. People, gay and straight, choose to engage in high risk sexual encounters.
Responsibility. Not a popular choice.5 -
No...absolutely no. Our health care costs are out of control and premiums are high not because of obese people or even smokers. While certainly, folks with health conditions do make the total cost of care more than it otherwise would be, pre-existing conditions or even new conditions are not the primary reason healthcare cost so much. The primary reason is that our system of healthcare favors the big-business and profit-minded side of healthcare. Drug companies and their massive profits are the primary reason healthcare costs so much. At some point, every single person will have a condition that requires us to interact with the healthcare industry. It's what makes us human. Health insurance premiums should be like social security. We pay into the system knowing that 'someday' we'll need to benefit from it. That's how healthcare premiums should be now. Anything else just drives the total cost of care up for everyone. Fix the source of the problem if you really want to drive the total cost of care down. The source of the problem is a system that exists to make a profit, not make people healthy.
Let's not forget that obesity is not the same kind of addiction as something like heroin or even alcohol. You can't go cold-turkey on food. In my experience, the people who would make that argument are the people who have no clue what it means to truly struggle with their weight. It's not as simple as people make it out to be. There are a multitude of reasons of why people are obese. Some of it's about poverty and emotional wellness. It's an injust system when we put the burden on the very people who can afford higher premiums the least.11 -
crazyycatladyy1 wrote: »crazyycatladyy1 wrote: »IMO, until the US healthcare system isn't a FOR PROFIT venture, people will end up spending their retirement income and savings on it. See how much it costs to get hospitalized or how much medication costs for people who need it. It's pretty astounding and outrageous.
We could pay for ALL AMERICANS healthcare, it's just that our government chooses to spend more of taxes towards the military might instead.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Dd was hospitalized a couple weeks ago and so far we have a $7,000 hospital bill pending. That will probably be for the ER (which in the past has run us around $1,000), and then most likely her one night stay, (since the claim is pending it doesn't have the breakdown available yet for what services it's for).
I have nothing to add, but I'm not in the US so i'm curious. What if you didn't have the ability to pay the bill for the hospital? Or if you had no insurance? Surly a hospital would still give a critically ill person the same service? I mean, no parent would ever be told "we can save your child as long as you can pay X amount..."
right??
The hospital offers 0% interest payment plans, starting at a $20 a month payment. Also, if you qualify there's assistance programs as well.
Wow, at $20 a month and 0% interest, a $20K ER visit would only take some people with limited incomes the rest of their life to pay off. That's a lifetime of medical debt. Sounds fun...If you're young enough, you could be celebrating your 80 year anniversary of writing out that monthly check to the hospital.
Ugh...it would have taken 10 years to pay off my husband's over-priced tetanus shot and stitches at that rate! (He was accidentally cut by another employee at work and his boss took him to the ER. Urgent care wouldn't take the paperwork for some unknown reason. Work paid for it, thank goodness...)
I think this is probably why the number one reason for bankruptcy in the United States is medical debt. I mean even if you do have insurance, the costs are crazy high, and if there's an enormous deductible, is it true that you could be looking at paying upwards of $10K in medical bills out of pocket before the insurance even kicks in and starts paying? Anybody here with experience with high deductible insurance who can answer this? I'm curious.1 -
Well folks, the way things are going with the ACA, soon everybody will be paying more for insurance and deductibles with less care and access to get for the money or coverage.
Please don't get sick and make sure that your off springs are healthy and born without any pre-existing conditon
, and don't eat too much so you can save money to pay for health insurance. 8 -
crazyycatladyy1 wrote: »crazyycatladyy1 wrote: »IMO, until the US healthcare system isn't a FOR PROFIT venture, people will end up spending their retirement income and savings on it. See how much it costs to get hospitalized or how much medication costs for people who need it. It's pretty astounding and outrageous.
We could pay for ALL AMERICANS healthcare, it's just that our government chooses to spend more of taxes towards the military might instead.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Dd was hospitalized a couple weeks ago and so far we have a $7,000 hospital bill pending. That will probably be for the ER (which in the past has run us around $1,000), and then most likely her one night stay, (since the claim is pending it doesn't have the breakdown available yet for what services it's for).
I have nothing to add, but I'm not in the US so i'm curious. What if you didn't have the ability to pay the bill for the hospital? Or if you had no insurance? Surly a hospital would still give a critically ill person the same service? I mean, no parent would ever be told "we can save your child as long as you can pay X amount..."
right??
The hospital offers 0% interest payment plans, starting at a $20 a month payment. Also, if you qualify there's assistance programs as well.
Wow, at $20 a month and 0% interest, a $20K ER visit would only take some people with limited incomes the rest of their life to pay off. That's a lifetime of medical debt. Sounds fun...If you're young enough, you could be celebrating your 80 year anniversary of writing out that monthly check to the hospital.
Ugh...it would have taken 10 years to pay off my husband's over-priced tetanus shot and stitches at that rate! (He was accidentally cut by another employee at work and his boss took him to the ER. Urgent care wouldn't take the paperwork for some unknown reason. Work paid for it, thank goodness...)
I think this is probably why the number one reason for bankruptcy in the United States is medical debt. I mean even if you do have insurance, the costs are crazy high, and if there's an enormous deductible, is it true that you could be looking at paying upwards of $10K in medical bills out of pocket before the insurance even kicks in and starts paying? Anybody here with experience with high deductible insurance who can answer this? I'm curious.
I guess I look at it differently-$20 a month is eating out one time, a couple coffee runs, a small portion of a new outfit etc-but instead it's going towards paying for something much more important. Maybe because I'm so close to the incident yet, but I'll gladly pay for the services my dd received because I know what it did for her. When you have a neurosurgeon come into your triage room and tell you that your kid has a skull fracture, your whole world stops for a moment-paying for the professionals/equipment to help us get through that is well worth $20 a month payments, or eating out one less time a month (assuming we go the payment route, which we're still waiting to see the final bill before deciding).
Our plan is considered high deductible (it's a high deductible HSA plan)-it's $3,000 oop before any insurance kicks in, then it goes to 20/80 up to around $7,500, and then insurance takes over 100%. So annually we could have $7,500 oop for medical expenses, not including dental and vision, which is separate. We usually hit that every 2-3 years. Some years we do payment plans, some years we pay for all of it oop right away, just depends on what else is going on.2 -
crazyycatladyy1 wrote: »crazyycatladyy1 wrote: »IMO, until the US healthcare system isn't a FOR PROFIT venture, people will end up spending their retirement income and savings on it. See how much it costs to get hospitalized or how much medication costs for people who need it. It's pretty astounding and outrageous.
We could pay for ALL AMERICANS healthcare, it's just that our government chooses to spend more of taxes towards the military might instead.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Dd was hospitalized a couple weeks ago and so far we have a $7,000 hospital bill pending. That will probably be for the ER (which in the past has run us around $1,000), and then most likely her one night stay, (since the claim is pending it doesn't have the breakdown available yet for what services it's for).
I have nothing to add, but I'm not in the US so i'm curious. What if you didn't have the ability to pay the bill for the hospital? Or if you had no insurance? Surly a hospital would still give a critically ill person the same service? I mean, no parent would ever be told "we can save your child as long as you can pay X amount..."
right??
The hospital offers 0% interest payment plans, starting at a $20 a month payment. Also, if you qualify there's assistance programs as well.
Not always available. This varies considerably by hospital. individual circumstances, etc.1 -
mistyjazz929 wrote: »richardgavel wrote: »The point isn't necessarily to encourage overweight people to lose weight, but to get them to shoulder most of their health costs for a result that (in most cases), is due to their own actions. Especially since weight related issues ranks high on health care costs.
The problem with that is that poorer people tend to eat more poorly. Not because they want to but it's much cheaper to buy processed food then to buy more healthy food. So charging the poor more because they are overweight doesn't solve anything. It makes matters worse.
What needs to happen is that our elected officials should not bow down to the Insurance or drug company pacs. It is amazing how in Canada the drugs are so much cheaper than they are here. That is what is raising the cost of health care here.
The price controls in Canada and the EU are part of the reason that drugs that cost so much more in the US--we are subsidizing the R&D for the rest of the world.6 -
I am overweight and I have not been to the doctor other than a yearly check up in years. My dad, who is fit and active, goes constantly because he's a mountain biker who has had serious accidents and now has back and neck problems. Who should pay a higher premium? I think it is a slippery slope.7
-
crazyycatladyy1 wrote: »I think this is probably why the number one reason for bankruptcy in the United States is medical debt. I mean even if you do have insurance, the costs are crazy high, and if there's an enormous deductible, is it true that you could be looking at paying upwards of $10K in medical bills out of pocket before the insurance even kicks in and starts paying? Anybody here with experience with high deductible insurance who can answer this? I'm curious.
Our plan is considered high deductible (it's a high deductible HSA plan)-it's $3,000 oop before any insurance kicks in, then it goes to 20/80 up to around $7,500, and then insurance takes over 100%. So annually we could have $7,500 oop for medical expenses, not including dental and vision, which is separate. We usually hit that every 2-3 years. Some years we do payment plans, some years we pay for all of it oop right away, just depends on what else is going on.
Your deductible is less than half of what mine is - $6500 per person - $13,500 for the family. Most meds are covered with a $10 copay (even tho I have a scrip right now that both the docs and I are fighting the insurance company about - but that is a different thread). If we were to hit the max on our deductible, we would be living under a bridge someplace... sucks really - and ours is considered a 'good' policy.
So to answer the original question - yes, if something major were to happen, my family would have to pay $6500 per person (if multiple family members were involved) before we got anything from the insurance, and then 20% of the costs up to $13,000 (or another $2600) before the insurance took over full payment.1 -
And even if you do get a $20 a month or whatever else, what happens when you or someone in your family has another major medical incident. let's face it, it's rare a family will only have one major medical event in their lives.
It's adequate and affordable healthcare for the wealthy/higher income population. Which I can't help but feel is just morally wrong in a first world country.7 -
mistyjazz929 wrote: »richardgavel wrote: »The point isn't necessarily to encourage overweight people to lose weight, but to get them to shoulder most of their health costs for a result that (in most cases), is due to their own actions. Especially since weight related issues ranks high on health care costs.
The problem with that is that poorer people tend to eat more poorly. Not because they want to but it's much cheaper to buy processed food then to buy more healthy food. So charging the poor more because they are overweight doesn't solve anything. It makes matters worse.
What needs to happen is that our elected officials should not bow down to the Insurance or drug company pacs. It is amazing how in Canada the drugs are so much cheaper than they are here. That is what is raising the cost of health care here.
The price controls in Canada and the EU are part of the reason that drugs that cost so much more in the US--we are subsidizing the R&D for the rest of the world.
Do you have any links to this with researched stats. I'd be interested to see just how much state funded healthcare eats into pharmaceutical profit.0 -
I take full responsibility for having a Swiftian perspective on the moralizing about people's weight and desire to penalize them occurring repeatedly on this thread.
Strawman. When a group of people go out to a restaurant, and enjoy a meal, they have to pay for it. Presumably each of them chips in according to what they ordered. That's what we're talking about.
Emotionally charged words like "penalize" them have no place in this.
Are you aware that young men pay more for car insurance than young women, because they're a higher risk group?1 -
Think about the fact that a large percentage of overweight/obese are lower income. You can't compare this to buying cigarettes, because smoking is an additional purchase. Often folks only purchase cheap food. Cheap food is not filling, which lends itself to eating more of it, hence becoming overweight/obese. Adding that type of financial burden is not going to help overweight people. It's only going to further benefit those who are either naturally slim, or fit.1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions