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?

1121315171875

Replies

  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    If an obese person can prove that their weight problem has medical validity then I believe to charge more would be discriminatory but if you're CHOOSING to do something you know is unhealthy then yeah, pay for it please.

    Assuming you can charge more for preexisting conditions (since it costs the insurance company more), why would this be illegally discriminatory? Insurance companies traditionally have been able to discriminate against those with health problems by charging them more or refusing to insure them. I don't think that's a great idea, but since people keep comparing it to the general natural of insurance/the insurance market in other areas...

    (My personal view is that wellness programs and benefits for meeting positive criteria is a good idea. It's probably the same thing as charging more for obesity, but I think it encourages positive choices better.)
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    Frankly, the biggest issue in my mind is the idea that most people get their insurance thru a group plan via their job. This provides a disincentive to come up with these variable options. I'd rather insurance was always bought individually. Then it stays with you from job to job and likely there would be more flexibility.

    This is true. Tying insurance to job is problematic in a number of ways.
  • Mnecka
    Mnecka Posts: 119 Member
    Charging someone more for coverage based on weight alone, is stupid! I'm pretty freakin' fat, but have no health issues at all. I have multiple friends much smaller than I, who have to pop pills like candy to make it through a day. Skinny does not equate health!!
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    This is how it works for life insurance. If you have a lot of tickets or accidents this is how it works for car insurance. However, what more health insurance programs should have is more incentives for weight loss just like they do for smoking. Many insurance companies offer discounts on gym memberships, or discounts if you are part of a medical weight loss program, etc. but so many do not.

    This is not how it currently works for health insurance, although I suppose we may be bringing back the real insurance model. It will affect way more people than the overweight. (Luckily for those with Medicare, they at least are out of it.)

    I know its not how it currently works for health insurance, but most of the other insurances work that way, so why shouldn't it for health insurance.

    Because if we had a free insurance market like that people would be unable to buy insurance if they had a preexisting condition or, if they could, it would be far more expensive. This includes such things as psychological care, cancer, Type 1 Diabetes, an autoimmune disease, many others. It also could get unaffordable just because you are in your 50s, have a child with special needs, etc.

    Beyond that, I'd say there's a sense for many of us that much about health is luck or something we all may experience, so it makes sense to share the costs and not have it work just like other insurance markets. Beyond that, it makes 0 sense to have insurance (in the real sense) to pay for fixed costs like yearly check-ups, so those should be excluded.

    Also, I've had times when we decided not to make a claim on insurance for fear the costs would go up (basically, homeowner's insurance, but also car insurance when someone broke my back windshield). The analogous example with health insurance is that people would try to avoid treatment that would make their insurance too expensive, and insurance companies could deny claims for people not adequately disclosing things (even when it was inadvertent).

    I don't think people really want this to be how it works, but at this point, whatever, do what you want.

    Do what I want. No need to get mad, its a simple discussion.

    I'm not mad at all, it's probably not going to affect me, as I have good workplace insurance and am not overweight (and the overweight penalty probably only happens if we allow preexisting conditions and other such factors to increase costs, which is what is currently on the table. I'm just bowing out of the national discussion, somewhat.

    And I think a discussion about that is off the table, as too directly political, so will just say that a lot of insurance was much cheaper because what it covered was limited. People didn't care, until they needed coverage and discovered they did not have it. People with employer-based insurance (like me) were fine, because we were privileged under the old system (and somewhat through now and will be if we change it again, at least if we have insurers who will continue to offer it and will offer good insurance, as in my field).
    I don't know why anyone would want government in charge of their health insurance

    Oh, I don't know, my parents hate the government being in anything, theoretically, but they sure do seem to like Medicare. Other countries seem to be able to provide health care for less money and with at least as good results. So I don't seem that our semi-private system has been such a great thing, but like I said, since there's no chance in the world we decide to get rid of the benefits that encourage employer-based insurance I am actually going to be okay either way.
    You shouldn't be required to buy insurance if you don't want it

    If you don't have it and end up getting care from the emergency room, the rest of us have to pay.
    not everyone goes to the doctors for every little sniffle. Some people do, god knows but not everyone does.

    Preventative care is beneficial overall. Not going to the doctor for every little sniffle, which I don't really think is common. Goodness knows I avoid the doctor to an almost irresponsible degree (which I feel bad about sometimes).

    But anyway, cool. So the proposal is let the insurers underwrite based on risk, let costs reflect that. I think a lot of the people saying they want that won't like it, but like I said I guess I'll stop worrying about it.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    This is how it works for life insurance. If you have a lot of tickets or accidents this is how it works for car insurance. However, what more health insurance programs should have is more incentives for weight loss just like they do for smoking. Many insurance companies offer discounts on gym memberships, or discounts if you are part of a medical weight loss program, etc. but so many do not.

    This is not how it currently works for health insurance, although I suppose we may be bringing back the real insurance model. It will affect way more people than the overweight. (Luckily for those with Medicare, they at least are out of it.)

    I know its not how it currently works for health insurance, but most of the other insurances work that way, so why shouldn't it for health insurance.

    Some people find it problematic if you cannot get health insurance because you've had cancer.
  • Bry_Fitness70
    Bry_Fitness70 Posts: 2,480 Member
    Mnecka wrote: »
    Charging someone more for coverage based on weight alone, is stupid! I'm pretty freakin' fat, but have no health issues at all. I have multiple friends much smaller than I, who have to pop pills like candy to make it through a day. Skinny does not equate health!!

    Insurance is based upon risk.

    Overweight and obese people, as a group, are more of a risk than normal weight people in the same way that young, unmarried men without children are more of a risk for vehicular accidents (particularly expensive ones) than older married women with children. Guess who pays more for insurance?

    Right - everyone has that uncle who was overweight, smoked 3 packs a day, drank a half-gallon of whiskey per week, never exercised a minute of his life, and lived to be 90. These people are outliers, and clearly most people who have these lifestyle habits will significantly diminish their health and longevity.
  • heiliskrimsli
    heiliskrimsli Posts: 735 Member
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    If you don't have it and end up getting care from the emergency room, the rest of us have to pay.

    Everything a provider has to write off for people who don't pay and use the ER as their personal doctor raises the prices for people who do pay.
  • justme312
    justme312 Posts: 2 Member
    Obesity is not a lifestyle. It comes in many different forms and is an extreme struggle for most people. There are so many other issues that are lifestyle related that costs our health industry billions every year. Smoking, drinking, skydiving, mountain climbing etc etc etc. I would support an extreme tax on unhealthy (junk) foods (and processed foods - convenience foods and prepared meals) and with that money subsidize fruits, vegetables and unprocessed meats. Why is the junk food at the door to greet you, there staring at you at the check out and looming in every "end display" in every supermarket. And let's face it along with obesity comes another nasty malady - type II diabetes. The drug companies don't want us to reduce our bmi and lower our risk of adult onset diabetes - there's way too much money being made at our expense. Big Pharma preys on the illness in America and Canada...
  • fitjp88
    fitjp88 Posts: 15 Member
    _emma_78 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?

    no.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    If you don't have it and end up getting care from the emergency room, the rest of us have to pay.

    Everything a provider has to write off for people who don't pay and use the ER as their personal doctor raises the prices for people who do pay.

    Yes, that was my point.
  • joemac1988
    joemac1988 Posts: 1,021 Member
    _emma_78 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?

    Yes, but not just them. Smokers, etc too. Also, there's people that are "fit" looking and have high cholesterol etc and "chubby" people that have perfect health numbers. There should be factors that calculate risk, like car insurance. If you're a teenager, you're likely to crash.
  • MoiAussi93
    MoiAussi93 Posts: 1,948 Member
    Not necessarily. I would rather be given a break on my insurance premiums or some money back for being healthy and active at a fitness center x times per week vs. making someone to pay more for being obese. There are too many variables.

    They can't let you pay less without someone else without healthy stats paying more. Not if they actually want to stay in business. That's how it works. Money doesn't just grow on trees.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    Not necessarily. I would rather be given a break on my insurance premiums or some money back for being healthy and active at a fitness center x times per week vs. making someone to pay more for being obese. There are too many variables.

    They can't let you pay less without someone else without healthy stats paying more. Not if they actually want to stay in business. That's how it works. Money doesn't just grow on trees.

    It's the same thing, but seems to go over better if framed that way, so if we were actually doing that I think it makes sense to pay attention. Giving someone $$ to do things might be more likely to achieve the desired result than penalizing them for not doing those things, even if the total paid is identical either way ($500 with $100 off vs. $400 with a $100 penalty, for example).
  • MoiAussi93
    MoiAussi93 Posts: 1,948 Member
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    Not necessarily. I would rather be given a break on my insurance premiums or some money back for being healthy and active at a fitness center x times per week vs. making someone to pay more for being obese. There are too many variables.

    They can't let you pay less without someone else without healthy stats paying more. Not if they actually want to stay in business. That's how it works. Money doesn't just grow on trees.

    It's the same thing, but seems to go over better if framed that way, so if we were actually doing that I think it makes sense to pay attention. Giving someone $$ to do things might be more likely to achieve the desired result than penalizing them for not doing those things, even if the total paid is identical either way ($500 with $100 off vs. $400 with a $100 penalty, for example).

    Wonderful. So everybody starts paying 20% more right now, and the people at healthy weights who exercise then get a "discount" and wind up paying what they were before while the obese are stuck with the increase. Okay. I'm fine with that...if phrasing it that way avoids hurt feelings and accusations of being mean, great, because the end result is the same either way.
  • STLBADGIRL
    STLBADGIRL Posts: 1,693 Member
    STLBADGIRL wrote: »
    They should tax or penalize the companies that put all this enormous amount of sugar and shyt in the foods that we eat. Force them to provide healthier food. It's ridiculous how fat our country is - some blame and taxation should be put on the vendors who is pushing this stuff out here.

    I worked in the inner city and that grocery store was locked and loaded with frozen pizza, starchy sugary crap, processed foods and sugary drinks.

    except the problem isn't sugar or food, it's people's overconsumption that's the problem

    This is true...but IMO some cases they go hand in hand.

    For instance, if unhealthy food is only offered at schools, it's a chance that the kids are going to consume more calories. We should be accountable for what we consume, but to fight the obesity problem, we need to look at other sources as well that is helping us be fat.

    This crap they are feeding us is BS - and its not so in some other countries as it is here.

    Off subject - One thing I appreciate is more restaurants are starting to post their nut facts. That helps me to make a more informed decision.

  • Packerjohn
    Packerjohn Posts: 4,855 Member
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    If you don't have it and end up getting care from the emergency room, the rest of us have to pay.

    Everything a provider has to write off for people who don't pay and use the ER as their personal doctor raises the prices for people who do pay.

    A VP of our company was on the board of a hospital in a rust belt community. He told us the hospital actually collected 30% of the total amount billed.