Do you think obese/overweight people should pay more for health insurance?

Carillon_Campanello wrote: »

Slippery slope IMHO.
1st...smokers.
2nd...obesity.
next????
Genetic predispositions based on DNA.
What you ate for dinner.
How much sleep you get.
How fast you drive your car to work.
What type of activities you do or don't participate in after work hours.

Where does it stop?
Corporations already have the power of PACs pushing corporate agendas.
Do we really want to encourage them to take more power when it comes to how they price health insurance based on varying factors?

"Careful what you wish, you may regret it. Careful what you wish, you just might get it"

And of course it will all be in the name of "saving the company a few bucks" and "controlling skyrocketing insurance costs" which invariably get passed to you anyway. Yes...even the healthy "you" in the form of cost increases that outpace standard of living wage increases.

This sums up the slippery slope. Do you charge someone who's a diabetic more. How about a cancer patient. Or do you charge your woman because of the fact that she can have a child which will add increased Health costs including the health cost that child will have over a lifetime.

When I was Heavy my doctor used to scratch his head. He would take a look at my physical results and they didn't make any sense at all for somebody my weight. Perfect blood pressure all the blood chemistry was perfect or at the top of what's considered healthy. Yet I worked with a bunch of skinny guys who are on so many medications for cholesterol and high blood pressure hypertension and yet you look at them and you would go there's nothing wrong with them.

BootyEvolve wrote: »

I think the extreme obese should because what are they going to do if the need an MRI and can't fit into the machine because of size or weight.

Wouldn't it makes more sense to have them pay extra for the one off special MRI than raise their insurance premiums on the off-chance they might need one?

BabyBear76 wrote: »

...anyone who is athletic would often fall into the overweight or even obese category...

Anyone who is athletic...? I think you mean SOME people who are athletic would fall into the overweight/obese range. But exceptions should be made for healthy, athletic people. BMI is only one measure of health risk.

My husband was told by his doctor that (although his weight puts him above the typical normal BMI) he is not considered overweight or at risk because his body fat and lean mass (and a bunch of other risk factors) are all excellent. His chart states that he is fit and athletic. He has not been penalized for his weight in his insurance program.

I, myself, am considered fit and "athletic," (although I'm not sure exactly what the definition is) and I'm well within normal BMI standards.

My brother-in-law is a professional endurance athlete and he is also within normal BMI.

I get what you mean by BMI as a strict, stand-alone number not always being a fair measure of health risk, but for the average person, it's a fair estimate. BMI should be used to assess risk, but it shouldn't be the only measure...

tomteboda wrote: »

I say that people who use health care should have to pay more for insurance. Put a 50% increase on your premium for each doctor visit. Another 50% increase for every prescription. 50% if you need lab tests or any scans. It's not fair healthy people pay for sick people.

It's not fair that some people get sick and others don't!

yes

VeronicaA76 wrote: »

jenilla1 wrote: »

BabyBear76 wrote: »

...anyone who is athletic would often fall into the overweight or even obese category...

Anyone who is athletic...? I think you mean SOME people who are athletic would fall into the overweight/obese range. But exceptions should be made for healthy, athletic people. BMI is only one measure of health risk.

My husband was told by his doctor that (although his weight puts him above the typical normal BMI) he is not considered overweight or at risk because his body fat and lean mass (and a bunch of other risk factors) are all excellent. His chart states that he is fit and athletic. He has not been penalized for his weight in his insurance program.

I, myself, am considered fit and "athletic," (although I'm not sure exactly what the definition is) and I'm well within normal BMI standards.

My brother-in-law is a professional endurance athlete and he is also within normal BMI.

I get what you mean by BMI as a strict, stand-alone number not always being a fair measure of health risk, but for the average person, it's a fair estimate. BMI should be used to assess risk, but it shouldn't be the only measure...

Oops, I tend to type faster than I think at times. I did mean, Many people that are athletic.

US Military runs into this issue with bodybuilders, as such everyone is classified first by BMI. If you fail BMI standards then the measuring tape and calipers come out and a body fat analysis is conducted. If you fail this body fat is tested again. If you fail this you are put on a weight management plan consisting of monitored diet and exercise.

theresejesu wrote: »

Packerjohn wrote: »

theresejesu wrote: »

Packerjohn wrote: »

theresejesu wrote: »

Packerjohn wrote: »

theresejesu wrote: »

Packerjohn wrote: »

Rhumax67 wrote: »

No they shouldn't pay more. Not when government policies encourage eating unhealthy foods

What are these unhealthy foods you speak of?

Well as I stated above,

In essence, all grains, all legumes and the nightshades have lectins we cannot handle and contain lectins that promote and cause obesity in addition to many other health problems.

Maybe Packerjohn has a somewhat different list.

My bad, didn't see your reply at first.

My belief and it will be backed up by most scientists is that the calories in vs calories our is the main driver in determining weight gain. Could some of the items you mention contribute, maybe, but you are looking at the nits and ignoring the elephant in the room (no pun intended), excess calories causing obesity.

I don't have a list of any foods where their caloric content contributes more to obesity than any other item when compared to each other.

If most scientists have neglected to account for elements such as lectins (which they have since they haven't even on the radar for most), then logically their results would be skewed.

So you are saying the thought of a few outliers in the scientific community trump the vast majority who say calories in/out are the basis for weight gain or loss? Why aren't the majority on this program?

I would think answer is obvious. Old paradigms tend to die hard. People resist change, even in science. It takes time for new ideas to find purchase because it requires those holding to an old paradigm to be openminded enough to aggressively challenge it. Many are not. They can be quite vested in an idea and resistant to new ones.

Why didn't science recognize sooner tbat dat and cholesterol weren't the boogy man the were made out to be 50 years ago? Why did it take until a few years ago for Harvard to finally admit this? Was it for lack of knowledge?

Heck no. The research had already been superabundant that disproved the lipid hypothesis of heart disease originally proposed by Ancel Keyes with his conveniently heavily biased study was wrong. Look up Dr. McCully and his research into homocysteine, performed and reported to Harvard, and published. What did Harvard do? They punished him for daring to contradict the lipid hypothesis with solid research. His research continued elsewhere and was picked up by researchers around the world. It is only now, decades later, medicine is just beginning to catch up.

There are a lot of politics in research, and funding is tied to those politics. Old paradigms have a great deal of time, effort and money tied up in them. Entire industries spring up worth billions of dollars. Do you truly believe there would not be political and financial interests involved in trying to ignore and/or squash new evidence if it discredits the old entrenched paradigm, especially if it means loss?

This idea of lectins and their involvement not only in weight gain but also diabetes, heart disease, autoimmune diseases, neurologic diseases, endocrine diseases, and the list goes on....imagine the impact on the corn industry, wheat industry, agriculture in general, the meat industry if people suddenly decided to stop eating grains, corn, soy, legumes and animal products from animals that were feed the same?

Follow the money and egos.

And look at the evidence for yourself. I did.

Although I'm a college educated individual with a fairly diverse background, I don't have enough background in nutrition to refute mainstream individuals with PhD behind their name in their field of specialization. What sort of evidence are you looking at? Something that a random individual puts out? Do you have the educational background to split the reasonable from the BS?

Right or wrong, if most of the recognized experts in a field are directionally on the same page, I'm going with their thoughts.

Not at all.

Take a look a Dr. Gundry
Cardiologist
Heart Surgeon
Heart Transplant Surgeon Adult and Pediatric (he and his partner have done more pediatric heart transplants than anyone else in the world)
Researcher - has almost 400 published research articles
Inventor of medical devices used in heart surgery
Pioneer in Xenotransplantation - taking plant materials and turning them into translatable tissues. The spinach leaf that was turned into beating, living heart tissue earlier this year.

Look at Dr. Sinclair, world renowned researcher in life extension and reversal of aging at Harvard. One of Time's Top 100 Men of the Year in 2014 for his discovery in 2013 where he successfully took 2 year old mice and in one week after administration of NMN, they essentially had the celks of 6 month old mice. He's now announced he has a pill that should be to market in three years to reversevaging.

These are not just some individuals.

My educational background? BSN. CCU/Cardiovascular Recovery/L&D including high risk.
I'm very careful about what I try and suggest.

So I did look up a little more of your "evidence." The TIME snippet on him mentions he found genes on yeast that allowed them to get by on fewer calories and extend their life spans.

Here's the rest:

• Last year, Sinclair upped his game and pinned down a chemical known as NAD that actually reverses the aging process in cells. NAD levels tend to drop by as much as 50% as we get older; if we could restore what’s lost, aging cells might behave as if they were younger. Immortality is out of reach, but living more years with a body that’s robust enough to make the most of them is a real possibility.

"If," "might" and "possibility" are used to describe his research on aging.

Nothing about mice or reversing aging, though his website for his research group does mention reversing the signs of aging. I have about 10 face creams at home that do that. Reversing the signs of aging and actually reversing aging are two entirely different things.

Thanks for the encouragement to look things up. Now I know your statements don't have research to back them up.

I am conflicted on this topic. I see the thought process for both sides. I also see what a slippery slope this can be.

I am inclined to say "heck yeah!" to the question. So, if you had to have an answer, mine would be yes. But, with reservation.

So, why a reservation? One simple concern: who decides what "healthy" is and who decides what "healthy behavior" is? The government? O M G! That concerns me. The less governmental input into our lives, the better. Let's not get into a political debate on this...just expressing my concern and why.

So, last week "they" decide that smokers should be taxed. So, the price of cigs goes up in the form of a tax. Where does that additional revenue stream *really* go?

This week "they" decide that people who drink alcohol should be taxed. So, the price of alcohol goes up in the form of a tax. Okay....

What is going to happen next week? People with a gym membership but who go only once a week? And the following week? What happens the following week? People who go to Hooters and order the "All you can eat Wings"? My concern is - who gets to decide whom we tax and why? And not even going to bring up the "where does that additional revenue stream really go" concern! Okay, I guess that I just did.

I strongly fear governmental involvement in health care or anything close to health care. Which may or may not be a part of this discussion.

Let's take the government and taxes out of the equation. So, insurance companies would be "they" and insurance premiums would be "taxes". I still have the same concerns. One week this 'group' is determined to be 'unhealthy' and next week another group is determined to be 'unhealthy'. This is a very slippery slope. Where does it stop? Who stops it? What kind of say do we - as consumers - have in what is decided? Remember, we are consumers in health insurance. I think that most people nowadays forget this. We are absolutely consumers here. Could it open up competition in the way of insurance providers who would not do this? Maybe.

So, what is the answer? I don't know.

I mean, education is always the right answer. Right? But how do we educate people with respect to fitness?

Not being ugly with this - I promise. But, have you gone to a Starbucks lately? 70% of the people in there are really over-weight. Same in the grocery store. Same in the office building where you and I work. This is a very big problem here in the US.

No! Why would we want the government to get any more involved than they already are? Obesity is not a cookie cutter topic. Causes for obesity or higher BMI's can change from person to person - one person may be heavy due to diet, one may be heavy due to an underlying medical condition, or one be may be athletic who naturally has a higher BMI. Who's going to sit through the billions of people and decide who is fit enough not to pay a premium?
The issue is food. Why not tax the corporations more instead? Why go after the individual when easy and fast food is so accessible? Why shouldn't these death traps pay the premium? Tax soda more and the companies that make them. Tax McDonald's more; both the food and the corporation. Wouldn't it be better to make the "bad food" go away than have all of these outrageous prices for the "good food"? Wouldn't it be better to give the little guy a break instead of letting big business get off without any of the burden?

Angel49kitty wrote: »

This is definitely a difficult topic, for sure.

There are a lot of factors: thyroid, medications, genetics, illness, diet, exercise, etc.

How do you draw the line between "this person is only overweight because of their thyroid which they have no choice about" and "this person is overweight because they decide to eat at McDonald's every day"? It's finicky, because how do you determine what is enough 'proof' of pre-existing medical illness? Especially if someone couldn't previously get treatment/diagnosis without health insurance.

I think it's kind of sad when people want to condemn others who may only be overweight because they don't have insurance to get medical help (example: thyroid medication is expensive). It makes me glad that I live in Canada, where everyone is treated as an equal in regards to medical care.

Thyroid impacts Resting Energy Expenditure (REE) by ~5%. That's 80 kcals/day out of a 1600 kcal/day budget. ...and that's the impact with no thyroid supplementation.

Synthroid or generics cost between .5-1.5 USD/day (variations on potency & brand).