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
-
To those who don't want the obese to pay more, are you willing to make up the difference? Are you ready to fork over more money for your own insurance, since obesity is resulting in higher health care costs, in the name of keeping everyone's insurance costs the same?3
-
richardgavel wrote: »To those who don't want the obese to pay more, are you willing to make up the difference? Are you ready to fork over more money for your own insurance, since obesity is resulting in higher health care costs, in the name of keeping everyone's insurance costs the same?
You know what else is causing a rise in health insurance costs? Pre-term babies surviving. Cancer patients surviving. Diabetics surviving. Old people surviving. Helicopter rides. $100,000/year drugs treating conditions from hepatitis C to glaucoma to dry eye.12 -
I do not see why not. Being obese puts you at at much higher risk for an entire plethora of otherwise preventable conditions. The Insurance industry is not in any way cryptic at the end of the day. They operate on actuarial science based upon risk which is as regular as a Swiss timepiece. If you present a higher risk, especially one that is for all intents and purposes self inflicted, then you should be 100% prepared to incur a higher burden as far as premiums.
There is naturally an emotional/ideological side to the argument which defies this basic logic. There always is these days, but that is simply not convincing to anyone who does not similarly drink the Kool Aid. Forcing the responsible to de-facto subsidize the irresponsible is bound to create resentment.4 -
supaflyrobby1 wrote: »I do not see why not. Being obese puts you at at much higher risk for an entire plethora of otherwise preventable conditions. The Insurance industry is not in any way cryptic at the end of the day. They operate on actuarial science based upon risk which is as regular as a Swiss timepiece. If you present a higher risk, especially one that is for all intents and purposes self inflicted, then you should be 100% prepared to incur a higher burden as far as premiums.
There is naturally an emotional/ideological side to the argument which defies this basic logic. There always is these days, but that is simply not convincing to anyone who does not similarly drink the Kool Aid. Forcing the responsible to de-facto subsidize the irresponsible is bound to create resentment.
well said @supaflyrobby10 -
Until someone sucks it up and literally lays down the law, no.lemurcat12 wrote: »So we aren't talking about anything that we actually expect to happen?
It may eventually happen if the DoD forces some dietary requirements to "school lunch" and related programs but it will take a while.
A big reason there is a school lunch program in the first place is because people were too malnourished to serve.
Now that the trend is reversed I expect they will be the only agency with enough reach to do anything.
It will take a lot of arguing in Congress and working with the the ED to get anywhere.
Likely a long while to see any improvement and will require tagging in the FDA, USDA, etc. also.
Because of the power of DHS, calling anything a "National Security issue" raises the pucker factor.
Being overweight is still not accepted in the military no matter how far the "Fat Acceptance" crowd want to try to push.
I'm not trying to be political here, but I just wanted to point out that when Michelle Obama tried encouraging healthier meals for school lunches, people absolutely lost their minds over her trying to control what their kids were eating. So much backlash over something that shouldn't have been controversial IMO. I personally know several people who were outraged. Not sure why, though, since I can't think of a rational explanation for not wanting kids to have more nutritious lunches. So either people were just lashing out because of WHO was suggesting it, or they really don't want their kids eating healthier school lunches. Not sure which. I suspect it was just people being all pissy because it was M.O.'s idea, otherwise they won't be very accepting of the DoD trying to "force" their kids to eat more fruits and vegetables either. Just a thought.
8 -
Until someone sucks it up and literally lays down the law, no.lemurcat12 wrote: »So we aren't talking about anything that we actually expect to happen?
It may eventually happen if the DoD forces some dietary requirements to "school lunch" and related programs but it will take a while.
A big reason there is a school lunch program in the first place is because people were too malnourished to serve.
Now that the trend is reversed I expect they will be the only agency with enough reach to do anything.
It will take a lot of arguing in Congress and working with the the ED to get anywhere.
Likely a long while to see any improvement and will require tagging in the FDA, USDA, etc. also.
Because of the power of DHS, calling anything a "National Security issue" raises the pucker factor.
Being overweight is still not accepted in the military no matter how far the "Fat Acceptance" crowd want to try to push.
I'm not trying to be political here, but I just wanted to point out that when Michelle Obama tried encouraging healthier meals for school lunches, people absolutely lost their minds over her trying to control what their kids were eating. So much backlash over something that shouldn't have been controversial IMO. I personally know several people who were outraged. Not sure why, though, since I can't think of a rational explanation for not wanting kids to have more nutritious lunches. So either people were just lashing out because of WHO was suggesting it, or they really don't want their kids eating healthier school lunches. Not sure which. I suspect it was just people being all pissy because it was M.O.'s idea, otherwise they won't be very accepting of the DoD trying to "force" their kids to eat more fruits and vegetables either. Just a thought.
Thanks for the rather shameless political plug. Constructively, if you check your attachment to your demagogue of choice at the door more people are apt to take you seriously. That said, you miss the point entirely in the context of this post which was in regards to insurance premiums. People are free to do as they please pertaining to food and health decisions. That is the beauty of living in the USA, but this freedom also comes with responsibility. If you choose to destroy your body and engage in self destructive behavior, then you should not then expect others to be burdened with the consequences of these actions. If this is indeed your expectation, then you are pretty much condoning said behavior.2 -
My guess would be that some people don't want their federal government coming in and enforcing food guidelines in their local school district. Kids are going to eat what they learn to eat at home, they bring their eating habits taught by us parents, to school. Throwing an apple and some oatmeal on a plate of someone that's ate nothing but Captain Crunch for breakfast for 10 years isn't going to work.I'm not trying to be political here, but I just wanted to point out that when Michelle Obama tried encouraging healthier meals for school lunches, people absolutely lost their minds over her trying to control what their kids were eating. So much backlash over something that shouldn't have been controversial IMO. I personally know several people who were outraged. Not sure why, though, since I can't think of a rational explanation for not wanting kids to have more nutritious lunches. So either people were just lashing out because of WHO was suggesting it, or they really don't want their kids eating healthier school lunches. Not sure which. I suspect it was just people being all pissy because it was M.O.'s idea, otherwise they won't be very accepting of the DoD trying to "force" their kids to eat more fruits and vegetables either. Just a thought.
0 -
Not many libertarian constitutionalists here are there? If I had my way we would do away with insurance except for critical care. Folks would pay doctors directly. It would be 1/10th of the cost and better. Doctors would make more money, see fewer patients and provide much better care. This is a thing: http://www.businessinsider.com/direct-primary-care-a-no-insurance-healthcare-model-2017-3
As far as the debate over making the obese pay more, it could be valid. If doctors really knew how to treat obese patients. And we didn't have an obesity epidemic. Did you know it's about 30% of the population? It makes me sad to read all these opinions. We are so messed up
We have many other things to fix before we penalize fat people into skinny people. It won't make them lose weight.
5 -
supaflyrobby1 wrote: »
Until someone sucks it up and literally lays down the law, no.lemurcat12 wrote: »So we aren't talking about anything that we actually expect to happen?
It may eventually happen if the DoD forces some dietary requirements to "school lunch" and related programs but it will take a while.
A big reason there is a school lunch program in the first place is because people were too malnourished to serve.
Now that the trend is reversed I expect they will be the only agency with enough reach to do anything.
It will take a lot of arguing in Congress and working with the the ED to get anywhere.
Likely a long while to see any improvement and will require tagging in the FDA, USDA, etc. also.
Because of the power of DHS, calling anything a "National Security issue" raises the pucker factor.
Being overweight is still not accepted in the military no matter how far the "Fat Acceptance" crowd want to try to push.
I'm not trying to be political here, but I just wanted to point out that when Michelle Obama tried encouraging healthier meals for school lunches, people absolutely lost their minds over her trying to control what their kids were eating. So much backlash over something that shouldn't have been controversial IMO. I personally know several people who were outraged. Not sure why, though, since I can't think of a rational explanation for not wanting kids to have more nutritious lunches. So either people were just lashing out because of WHO was suggesting it, or they really don't want their kids eating healthier school lunches. Not sure which. I suspect it was just people being all pissy because it was M.O.'s idea, otherwise they won't be very accepting of the DoD trying to "force" their kids to eat more fruits and vegetables either. Just a thought.
Thanks for the rather shameless political plug. Constructively, if you check your attachment to your demagogue of choice at the door more people are apt to take you seriously. That said, you miss the point entirely in the context of this post which was in regards to insurance premiums. People are free to do as they please pertaining to food and health decisions. That is the beauty of living in the USA, but this freedom also comes with responsibility. If you choose to destroy your body and engage in self destructive behavior, then you should not then expect others to be burdened with the consequences of these actions. If this is indeed your expectation, then you are pretty much condoning said behavior.
My comment was in response to the poster who said the DoD should come in and make changes to the school lunch program to make it healthier. I could care less if it was Michelle Obama or the DoD or Melania Trump or whoever serving up healthier food to kids at school. I think healthier lunches at school are a great idea. And since we are living in the USA, you do have the freedom to protect your kids from the dangers of healthy eating if that's your choice. My own mom sent me to school with a sack lunch. It's cool. No sweat, man. Nobody's threatening anybody's freedoms here.
My point was that anytime people look at something that shouldn't be controversial (healthy school lunches) with political bias, they get over-the-top outraged if the "wrong" person is advocating it. But they'll be totally on board if their guy suggests it. It's absurd.
There was no demagoguery in my comment. It was not a shameless political plug, as much as you'd like it to be. In real life, people consider me to be fairly moderate, even though you clearly think I'm some sort of leftist extremist because I mentioned the dreaded Obama by name. That's kind of hilarious. A while ago someone accused me of being a right-winger. Whatever makes people feel better I guess...
If you're perceived as being "on the wrong team" your views are poison. It seems as though these days, if you disagree with someone's views or mention the wrong person by name someone gets triggered. I must be one of "those horrible people" from the other side of the political spectrum. LOL. Sometimes people are just people, and not hard-core political drones. Perhaps you should check your attachments?
7 -
@fatblatta obviously in a true free market, people who make risky decisions would pay more for health care, because they would bear the financial consequences directly. You wouldn't need to "penalize" them.0
-
I think those who are mobility obese should be given the tools they need to loss weight. Maybe an increase in rates if unwilling (no weight loss over a year) to take the help.0
-
Packerjohn wrote: »
Because it isn't the same thing, especially psychologically.lemurcat12 wrote: »We should do whatever is most likely to result in people changing their behavior to be more healthy. If that means structuring it as incentives (research should be done), why not? It is the same thing. (I was surprised at how many people seem good with one version and not okay with the other in that to me they are the same thing, but human nature, I suppose.)
"Incentives to be healthy" means pandering to people who are overweight as to not to hurt their feelings while simultaneously "rewarding" others for being responsible with their choices - a gold star or participation medal for doing what everyone should be doing.
"Taxing the overweight" is making it clear that being responsible for your decisions is the expected behavior and failure to comply will have negative consequences.
You might not like the difference and it might not be "sensitive" or "politically correct" but the difference is definitely there.
I will just say I have some experience and expertise in this realm and leave it at that.
It's true it's not the same psychologically but you do catch more bees with honey than vinegar. Really all you're advocating is using a stick whereas others are advocating using a carrot. People do tend to modify behaviours when they have a carrot because people are inherently self cantered. Platitudes to civic duty to not get obese results in smash the patriarchy fat acceptance super size models and activists. Monetary incentives to get or stay slim would result in more people pursuing that goal. There was a TV show/documentary based on a study that showed that when people bet their own money, they lost more weight and kept it off than if they were offered any sort of other incentive.
Do the police pull people over and give them a $100 prepaid visa card when they are driving 70 in a 70 MPH zone. No they give a 100 ticket when they are doing 90 in a 70 MPH zone.
The stick seems to be fine in that case.
Yes, because speeding is a CRIME. Being overweight while undesirable, is not a CRIME. Hardly a good analogy there.4 -
Yes because being overweight is by choice of bad habits0
-
JohnnyPenso wrote: »
My guess would be that some people don't want their federal government coming in and enforcing food guidelines in their local school district. Kids are going to eat what they learn to eat at home, they bring their eating habits taught by us parents, to school. Throwing an apple and some oatmeal on a plate of someone that's ate nothing but Captain Crunch for breakfast for 10 years isn't going to work.I'm not trying to be political here, but I just wanted to point out that when Michelle Obama tried encouraging healthier meals for school lunches, people absolutely lost their minds over her trying to control what their kids were eating. So much backlash over something that shouldn't have been controversial IMO. I personally know several people who were outraged. Not sure why, though, since I can't think of a rational explanation for not wanting kids to have more nutritious lunches. So either people were just lashing out because of WHO was suggesting it, or they really don't want their kids eating healthier school lunches. Not sure which. I suspect it was just people being all pissy because it was M.O.'s idea, otherwise they won't be very accepting of the DoD trying to "force" their kids to eat more fruits and vegetables either. Just a thought.
Not necessarily true. Kids do learn in school and healthy eating is a valuable lesson. Many kids learn to eat vegetables because they have grown them at school and then eaten them with all their class mates in school. School lunches that are both health and free exposes kids to the existence of healthy meals that are also delicious. They will know what bangers and mash with less tastes like. What a fruit cup is and how refreshing it is on a summer day. I was raised by two fatties who used a deep fryer almost everyday to feed us kids. If it weren't for learning about and eating healthy foods in school, I'd probably be morbidly obese and still eating fries with every meal.3 -
Probably not. It would be effectively discriminating a mental health issue in my opinion1
-
There is a lot of new evidenced based research that shows a lot of obesity, prediabetes and diabetes type 2 have been caused by the dietary recommendations our government and organizations like the AHA and ADA have foisted upon us. Since the 1960's when we were told to eat less fat, eat more carbohydrates (as in fruits and vegetables, grains and exercise more, there has been a steady increase of obesity and diabetes type 2 even though Americans have even been exercising more and decreased their fat intake andincreased their intakes of fruits, vegetable and grains. We have also been told to decrease our use of animal fats, especially saturated fats, in favor of vegetable oils. Sugar consumption and high fructose corn syrup has increased to well over 150# per person per year! Read "The Big FAT Surprise" by Nina Teicholz and check out all the information on www.diet doctor.com. They were eye openers for me.
2 -
Isn't the real reason for skyrocketing obesity because we live in an obesigenic environment? Basically high availability of calories for almost the entire population combined with extremely sedentary lifestyle.
Not so much with the poor dietary guidelines. People haven't really changed what they eat so much as how much they eat.3 -
Isn't the real reason for skyrocketing obesity because we live in an obesigenic environment? Basically high availability of calories for almost the entire population combined with extremely sedentary lifestyle.
Not so much with the poor dietary guidelines. People haven't really changed what they eat so much as how much they eat.
Pretty much.
I think there has been some change in what/how we eat due to what's available/cheap and cultural changes, but not related to the dietary guidelines (which have consistently recommended limiting added sugar and increasing fruits and veg, eating more whole grains and fewer refined grains, and we've ignored them -- the idea that the US is obese because of a very moderate shift in fat vs. carbs that still puts us higher fat and lower carb than many other countries that are less fat strikes me as risible).2 -
supaflyrobby1 wrote: »
Until someone sucks it up and literally lays down the law, no.lemurcat12 wrote: »So we aren't talking about anything that we actually expect to happen?
It may eventually happen if the DoD forces some dietary requirements to "school lunch" and related programs but it will take a while.
A big reason there is a school lunch program in the first place is because people were too malnourished to serve.
Now that the trend is reversed I expect they will be the only agency with enough reach to do anything.
It will take a lot of arguing in Congress and working with the the ED to get anywhere.
Likely a long while to see any improvement and will require tagging in the FDA, USDA, etc. also.
Because of the power of DHS, calling anything a "National Security issue" raises the pucker factor.
Being overweight is still not accepted in the military no matter how far the "Fat Acceptance" crowd want to try to push.
I'm not trying to be political here, but I just wanted to point out that when Michelle Obama tried encouraging healthier meals for school lunches, people absolutely lost their minds over her trying to control what their kids were eating. So much backlash over something that shouldn't have been controversial IMO. I personally know several people who were outraged. Not sure why, though, since I can't think of a rational explanation for not wanting kids to have more nutritious lunches. So either people were just lashing out because of WHO was suggesting it, or they really don't want their kids eating healthier school lunches. Not sure which. I suspect it was just people being all pissy because it was M.O.'s idea, otherwise they won't be very accepting of the DoD trying to "force" their kids to eat more fruits and vegetables either. Just a thought.
Thanks for the rather shameless political plug. Constructively, if you check your attachment to your demagogue of choice at the door more people are apt to take you seriously. That said, you miss the point entirely in the context of this post which was in regards to insurance premiums. People are free to do as they please pertaining to food and health decisions. That is the beauty of living in the USA, but this freedom also comes with responsibility. If you choose to destroy your body and engage in self destructive behavior, then you should not then expect others to be burdened with the consequences of these actions. If this is indeed your expectation, then you are pretty much condoning said behavior.
My comment was in response to the poster who said the DoD should come in and make changes to the school lunch program to make it healthier. I could care less if it was Michelle Obama or the DoD or Melania Trump or whoever serving up healthier food to kids at school. I think healthier lunches at school are a great idea. And since we are living in the USA, you do have the freedom to protect your kids from the dangers of healthy eating if that's your choice. My own mom sent me to school with a sack lunch. It's cool. No sweat, man. Nobody's threatening anybody's freedoms here.
My point was that anytime people look at something that shouldn't be controversial (healthy school lunches) with political bias, they get over-the-top outraged if the "wrong" person is advocating it. But they'll be totally on board if their guy suggests it. It's absurd.
There was no demagoguery in my comment. It was not a shameless political plug, as much as you'd like it to be. In real life, people consider me to be fairly moderate, even though you clearly think I'm some sort of leftist extremist because I mentioned the dreaded Obama by name. That's kind of hilarious. A while ago someone accused me of being a right-winger. Whatever makes people feel better I guess...
If you're perceived as being "on the wrong team" your views are poison. It seems as though these days, if you disagree with someone's views or mention the wrong person by name someone gets triggered. I must be one of "those horrible people" from the other side of the political spectrum. LOL. Sometimes people are just people, and not hard-core political drones. Perhaps you should check your attachments?
I do not really care so much where you, or most anyone for that matter, lies on the political spectrum. I long ago severed any and all ideological affiliations in my life as I find they lead to dogmatic behavior and act as a barrier to critical thinking ability. I do hate all politicians with a passion, however, which likely explains my reaction. if I came off as flippant that was not my intention.
My point was a merely philosophical one in regards to the OP's insurance issue, which you are free to respond to if you so desire.1 -
This entire thread is predicated on an odd premise, leaving aside the derailment of this thread into amusing political side-debates.
Assuming we're talking about *actual* medical insurance (as opposed to the so-called "insurance" that's legally mandated in the US today) our own individual opinions as to what insurance companies should charge a given individual based on their overall health condition and health behaviors is irrelevant - this is a calculation simply based on actuarial tables.
Actuarially speaking, the data is extremely clear. As BMI increases, so does mortality and morbidity:
http://www.theactuary.com/archive/old-articles/part-6/stat-attack-3A-obesity---the-big-issue/
So then, the answer is, yes, obviously insurance companies should charge more for obese individuals, if they wish to remain viable in a free market for health insurance (which no country in the world has anyways).6 -
No, slippery slope.1
-
@fatblatta obviously in a true free market, people who make risky decisions would pay more for health care, because they would bear the financial consequences directly. You wouldn't need to "penalize" them.
This is the root cause of the issue - we have nothing resembling a free market since 1963 when the US government catered to employer based insurance. Collusion between government, the insurance industry, and established corporations = disaster for the populace.
@fatblatta there are quite a few flavors of libertarians here.3 -
onlytruemanhere83 wrote: »Probably not. It would be effectively discriminating a mental health issue in my opinion
How is a different price discrimination? Especially when the rules are clear up front and people choose to put themselves in the high risk high price category?
If you want to talk about discriminating against people with mental health issues, there are hundreds of thousands of Americans living like dogs, sleeping on sidewalks, eating from garbage cans. Many of them are schizophrenic or have other debilitating mental health issues.4 -
NorthCascades wrote: »onlytruemanhere83 wrote: »Probably not. It would be effectively discriminating a mental health issue in my opinion
How is a different price discrimination? Especially when the rules are clear up front and people choose to put themselves in the high risk high price category?
If you want to talk about discriminating against people with mental health issues, there are hundreds of thousands of Americans living like dogs, sleeping on sidewalks, eating from garbage cans. Many of them are schizophrenic or have other debilitating mental health issues.
There was a push in the 1980s to not violate their civil rights by institutionalizing them against their will, which had a direct effect on many mentally ill people becoming homeless. They can't manage their own affairs and refuse treatment/medication, which makes it difficult for them to maintain housing, but we can't forcibly put them in institutions.
It's a very difficult situation, but I think quite different from the obesity problem in the United States.4 -
I agree that homelessness is a difficult, complex, and tragic situation. I also agree that it's very different from obesity. The reason I posted about it here is as a reality check to those claiming unfair discrimination on mental health grounds against the obese.2
-
NorthCascades wrote: »I agree that homelessness is a difficult, complex, and tragic situation. I also agree that it's very different from obesity. The reason I posted about it here is as a reality check to those claiming unfair discrimination on mental health grounds against the obese.
Oh no doubt there are people who have mental illness that contributes to their obesity, but I would suggest that is the minority of cases considering the prevalence of obesity.2 -
heiliskrimsli wrote: »
I responded to a comment regarding coveting what my neighbor has because I don't want to shoulder the cost of everyone who thinks they're entitled to handouts. The point was not the actual location of the person who expects the handout, but in which direction the coveting is happening.
You're focusing on the wrong part of that statement. It's either because you really don't understand it, or you're only interested in starting a fight. Either way it's pretty lame.
Since when does not being charged more for health insurance because you're obese count as a "handout" or "entitlement?"1 -
heiliskrimsli wrote: »
I responded to a comment regarding coveting what my neighbor has because I don't want to shoulder the cost of everyone who thinks they're entitled to handouts. The point was not the actual location of the person who expects the handout, but in which direction the coveting is happening.
You're focusing on the wrong part of that statement. It's either because you really don't understand it, or you're only interested in starting a fight. Either way it's pretty lame.
Since when does not being charged more for health insurance because you're obese count as a "handout" or "entitlement?"
One could argue the obese person has a condition that causes extra medical costs and that person can in most cases control the issue. If there is no penalty on the insurance for this situation, others are picking up the cost. Some could consider this a handout or entitlement.4 -
I am a vegan. healthy weight, and I exercise regularly. In fact at 56 I can hold an 8 minute mile in a half marathon. I do not eat processed food or refined sugar. Still I suffer from hypertension and high cholesterol. It is tempting to draw conclusions by simply observing others and their behavior. There was a time before ACA when health insurance companies refused to underwrite a policy for my family because both my husband and I am are private pilots and motorcycle enthusiasts. I will not live a life bereft of passion simply to bend to the rules and whims of Big Business ( and I lived many years without insurance because of these beliefs). As long as the human body is viewed by the insurance, food, and pharmaceutical industries as a profit center, we will be 'guided' to believe assumptions that are categorically opposed to our best interests. #allroadsleadtoasinglepayer4
-
Packerjohn wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »
I responded to a comment regarding coveting what my neighbor has because I don't want to shoulder the cost of everyone who thinks they're entitled to handouts. The point was not the actual location of the person who expects the handout, but in which direction the coveting is happening.
You're focusing on the wrong part of that statement. It's either because you really don't understand it, or you're only interested in starting a fight. Either way it's pretty lame.
Since when does not being charged more for health insurance because you're obese count as a "handout" or "entitlement?"
One could argue the obese person has a condition that causes extra medical costs and that person can in most cases control the issue. If there is no penalty on the insurance for this situation, others are picking up the cost. Some could consider this a handout or entitlement.
I'm sure you'll be expecting your handout, er I mean insurance payout if you develop skin cancer.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