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
-
MoiAussi93 wrote: »
You are the healthiest fat girl you know...right now. At some point, if you don't lose weight the odds are that the weight will catch up to you and medical problems will result. I hope I'm wrong for your sake, but the data is not your friend.
My father was the healthiest man I knew...fat or not...until he hit his mid 40's. He never missed a day of work in his life...never needed medical treatment...until he was rushed to the hospital in the middle of the night, had emergency surgery, and was diagnosed with diabetes. He was either overweight or obese...probably obese...and had a crap diet. A few years later came the heart problems. Lots of expensive medications for the rest of his life, two major heart attacks, etc.
He was a GREAT bargain for the insurance company...until he suddenly wasn't.
Excess weight is linked to many, many, many chronic serious diseases. People who are obese are higher risk. That is fact. It is fair that they should pay more as a result.
It's funny that you say that I'm the "healthiest fat girl I know" because I OFTEN say that myself. However, I do know plenty of fat girls that don't have any comorbidities just like me. Again though, I don't base ALL obese people are these factors because I know that everyone is different. You're also probably right in that if I don't lose weight, I will end up like almost every other person in my family, riddled with comorbidities. That's why I'm here and I'm down 38 lbs since March 7. I'm working on ME.
My point is that there are skinny people who have worse health than those of overweight/obese people. You can't base it purely on someone's BMI. You have to look at all factors. If someone with a healthy BMI has testing come back with high cholesterol, hypertension, diabetes, etc and someone with an unhealthy BMI comes back with great cholesterol, normal BP and normal sugar levels, why should the overweight person pay more when in actuality, the skinny person is more unhealthy than the overweight person?1 -
CatchMom13 wrote: »
Higher quality food costs more. Everyone knows that. I see it in my own grocery bill when I buy BETTER QUALITY food and stay away from processed food.
Frozen vegetables, rice, beans, lentils, farro, canned vegetables and chicken are not that expensive. Produce can be had relatively inexpensively if you look for things that are in season. Fresh carrots aren't that expensive. Depending upon the time of year, different varietals of apples are also relatively inexpensive. Bananas are usually pretty cheap, as are eggs. Stuff you have to actually prepare yourself is generally less expensive on the whole than boxes of "mix in some water and oil and heat it up" processed food, or single serving containers of yogurt that has stuff to mix in the container with it. Convenience is expensive. Food is not.
If you're talking about "healthy" food like paying for a low-calorie, low fat version of "ice cream", well yeah, they charge out the butt for that. But that's not exactly nutritious food, either.10 -
I don't think that obese people like being that way and wake up every day saying, "I am going to continue to be fat, sick and nearly dead today".
I also think that many obese people are obese because of underlying health issues related to lack of education, poverty (cheap food isn't always healthy food), hormones (thyroid), stress (adrenal), and genetics.
In a wellness oriented health care system (e.g., Nationalized Heath Care) ideally people would have access to proper diagnosis and treatment that focuses on correcting the underlying cause of their weight gain.
If we as a society solved the underlying causes of poverty and poor health, I believe that obesity then might be eradicated -- it's a symptom of a greater problem (Corporate Greed) and "punishing people for being fat" is just another symptom of "white privilege".
BTW - I didn't vote for Bernie... I just think that it's time that we move the conversation toward what matters - we pay taxes and we should have nationalized health care and obesity should be addressed as a national health crisis - without the interference of Monsanto, Pillsbury, Quaker Oats, Procter and Gamble, etc.
See this NIH study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3198075/
1 -
CatchMom13 wrote: »
It's funny that you say that I'm the "healthiest fat girl I know" because I OFTEN say that myself. However, I do know plenty of fat girls that don't have any comorbidities just like me. Again though, I don't base ALL obese people are these factors because I know that everyone is different. You're also probably right in that if I don't lose weight, I will end up like almost every other person in my family, riddled with comorbidities. That's why I'm here and I'm down 38 lbs since March 7. I'm working on ME.
My point is that there are skinny people who have worse health than those of overweight/obese people. You can't base it purely on someone's BMI. You have to look at all factors. If someone with a healthy BMI has testing come back with high cholesterol, hypertension, diabetes, etc and someone with an unhealthy BMI comes back with great cholesterol, normal BP and normal sugar levels, why should the overweight person pay more when in actuality, the skinny person is more unhealthy than the overweight person?
Read and understand this term:
RISK POOL.4 -
I believe society as a whole, not just the individual, benefits when a reasonable standard of healthcare is available to all. Not just all who can afford it or are fortunate enough to have access to decent insurance.
That makes sense and don't you think as members of that society they have a duty to use the least resources possible, i.e., eliminate or reduce behaviors that increase medical costs?
For those that don't do that how do we drive behavior?2 -
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.0 -
Packerjohn wrote: »
That makes sense and don't you think as members of that society they have a duty to use the least resources possible, i.e., eliminate or reduce behaviors that increase medical costs?
For those that don't do that how do we drive behavior?
No that's not how it works.
The only people who have any responsibility to anyone else are fit people with good incomes. We owe everyone else.5 -
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 problem5 -
Packerjohn wrote: »
That makes sense and don't you think as members of that society they have a duty to use the least resources possible, i.e., eliminate or reduce behaviors that increase medical costs?
For those that don't do that how do we drive behavior?
I absolutely agree that society functions best when all members act in a personally responsible manner. Education and resources for nutritional guidance can help. I'm old enough to remember ads for cigarettes, but just barely. I've seen a huge turnaround in the attitude toward smoking in my lifetime. Maybe obesity can follow.heiliskrimsli wrote: »
No that's not how it works.
The only people who have any responsibility to anyone else are fit people with good incomes. We owe everyone else.
Because nobody who is overweight earns a good income and pays taxes? :huh:10 -
I don't think that obese people like being that way and wake up every day saying, "I am going to continue to be fat, sick and nearly dead today".
I also think that many obese people are obese because of underlying health issues related to lack of education, poverty (cheap food isn't always healthy food), hormones (thyroid), stress (adrenal), and genetics.
In a wellness oriented health care system (e.g., Nationalized Heath Care) ideally people would have access to proper diagnosis and treatment that focuses on correcting the underlying cause of their weight gain.
If we as a society solved the underlying causes of poverty and poor health, I believe that obesity then might be eradicated -- it's a symptom of a greater problem (Corporate Greed) and "punishing people for being fat" is just another symptom of "white privilege".
BTW - I didn't vote for Bernie... I just think that it's time that we move the conversation toward what matters - we pay taxes and we should have nationalized health care and obesity should be addressed as a national health crisis - without the interference of Monsanto, Pillsbury, Quaker Oats, Procter and Gamble, etc.
See this NIH study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3198075/
Actually, a majority of the people who are obese are white, so I don’t see a white privilege angle. A lot of minorities do not have obesity issues in the US.
Obesity is a byproduct of eating to excess and not exercising. A reasonable portion of healthy food is as cheap as or cheaper than an excessive portion of “junk food”. But junk food is easy, it is easier and more satisfying to open a bag of Ruffles (that won’t expire for months) and bask in the fat and sodium than to buy a bag of vegetables (that expire in days), cut them up, and don’t taste as good.
The nutritional value of food has never been more transparent. The problem isn’t with the corporations, white people, or the government, it is with people’s habits and priorities.
5 -
CatchMom13 wrote: »
Higher quality food costs more. Everyone knows that. I see it in my own grocery bill when I buy BETTER QUALITY food and stay away from processed food.
I eat lots of vegetables in season, dried beans, oats, rice, canned tomato products, and potatoes. IMO, it's cheaper than eating more processed foods (although there are some processed foods that are very affordable and healthful). I'm doubtful that higher quality food costs more across the board.6 -
mrsnattybulking wrote: »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.)0 -
richardgavel wrote: »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.4 -
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!!0
-
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?6 -
StarvingDiva wrote: »
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.1 -
StarvingDiva wrote: »
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.4 -
heiliskrimsli wrote: »
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.2 -
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.2 -
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...0
-
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.0 -
heiliskrimsli wrote: »
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.2 -
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...
Obesity increases our health care costs way more than skydiving does. I'm extremely dubious that billions are spent each year to help cover skydiving injuries.7 -
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.0 -
cushman5279 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.0 -
MoiAussi93 wrote: »
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 $$ to do things might be more likely to achieve the desired result than penalizing them for not doing those things, even if the total paid is identical either way ($500 with $100 off vs. $400 with a $100 penalty, for example).2 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »
It's the same thing, but seems to go over better if framed that way, so if we were actually doing that I think it makes sense to pay attention. Giving someone $$ 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.1 -
NO. My BMI is through the roof and I am healthier than most. Until we can agree on a more useful tool for labeling obesity (as it certainly is a significant health risk) this tactic would inconsistently target the wrong people.
Plus, I despise policies that inadvertently raise costs for those of low socioeconomic status compared to those who are more able to pay the higher costs. Many times, it's not about economics, it's about inequality.7 -
mrsnattybulking wrote: »
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.
0 -
heiliskrimsli wrote: »
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.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 395.8K Introduce Yourself
- 44.1K Getting Started
- 260.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.3K Food and Nutrition
- 47.6K Recipes
- 232.8K Fitness and Exercise
- 448 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.2K Motivation and Support
- 8.2K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 4.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 16 News and Announcements
- 17 MyFitnessPal Academy
- 1.4K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions