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?
Options
Replies
-
The number of people here who think health care is only for runny noses and other such frivolity is astounding. Cancer happens whether you're fat or thin, and if you pay more for cancer treatment just because you're overweight I think that's horribly unjust.
Judge society not based on how we treat it's strongest members, but it's weakest; do we want to be a country that would throw every disabled person with costly-to-treat conditions on the street? I have no personal stake in healthcare for all--I'm lucky to be healthy. But I would gladly pay my taxes for the sake of societal well-being. Think of the lives we could save. It's in our power.
True, but obesity is actually a risk factor for cancer. Statistically speaking, if a person were obese and they lost weight their risk of cancer goes down as well as all sorts of other risk factors such as heart disease and diabetes. Insurance premiums are directly correlated to risk factor.
That depends on the type of cancer. 4 out of the 5 people I personally know who have had cancer in the past 5 years were normal BMI their whole lives. The 2 who died were normal BMI. And all 5, interestingly enough, were under 45 at the time of diagnosis. Obesity IS a risk factor for many kinds of cancers, and it IS a good idea to maintain healthy weight, but cancer gets everybody...
Pointing out a trend with risk factors in the total population isn't making a claim that individuals within that population must have that risk factor in order to be impacted.
It's true all types of people get cancer. This doesn't mean that we can't notice trends among the overall population or that individuals should ignore risk factors that may wind up impacting them.1 -
janejellyroll wrote: »The number of people here who think health care is only for runny noses and other such frivolity is astounding. Cancer happens whether you're fat or thin, and if you pay more for cancer treatment just because you're overweight I think that's horribly unjust.
Judge society not based on how we treat it's strongest members, but it's weakest; do we want to be a country that would throw every disabled person with costly-to-treat conditions on the street? I have no personal stake in healthcare for all--I'm lucky to be healthy. But I would gladly pay my taxes for the sake of societal well-being. Think of the lives we could save. It's in our power.
True, but obesity is actually a risk factor for cancer. Statistically speaking, if a person were obese and they lost weight their risk of cancer goes down as well as all sorts of other risk factors such as heart disease and diabetes. Insurance premiums are directly correlated to risk factor.
That depends on the type of cancer. 4 out of the 5 people I personally know who have had cancer in the past 5 years were normal BMI their whole lives. The 2 who died were normal BMI. And all 5, interestingly enough, were under 45 at the time of diagnosis. Obesity IS a risk factor for many kinds of cancers, and it IS a good idea to maintain healthy weight, but cancer gets everybody...
Pointing out a trend with risk factors in the total population isn't making a claim that individuals within that population must have that risk factor in order to be impacted.
It's true all types of people get cancer. This doesn't mean that we can't notice trends among the overall population or that individuals should ignore risk factors that may wind up impacting them.
I get that, but the poster said, "if a person were obese and they lost weight their risk of cancer goes down." That's not true for all cancers, or even cancer in general. It's true for some cancers - mostly those of the digestive system (and some hormone sensitive cancers.) I know what you're saying, but I don't want people to get the idea that they are low risk for "cancer" in general just because they are healthy BMI or that it's their fault they got cancer because they're fat. It really does depend on the type of cancer. Sorry, I'm just a "specifics" kind of person.
2 -
janejellyroll wrote: »The number of people here who think health care is only for runny noses and other such frivolity is astounding. Cancer happens whether you're fat or thin, and if you pay more for cancer treatment just because you're overweight I think that's horribly unjust.
Judge society not based on how we treat it's strongest members, but it's weakest; do we want to be a country that would throw every disabled person with costly-to-treat conditions on the street? I have no personal stake in healthcare for all--I'm lucky to be healthy. But I would gladly pay my taxes for the sake of societal well-being. Think of the lives we could save. It's in our power.
True, but obesity is actually a risk factor for cancer. Statistically speaking, if a person were obese and they lost weight their risk of cancer goes down as well as all sorts of other risk factors such as heart disease and diabetes. Insurance premiums are directly correlated to risk factor.
That depends on the type of cancer. 4 out of the 5 people I personally know who have had cancer in the past 5 years were normal BMI their whole lives. The 2 who died were normal BMI. And all 5, interestingly enough, were under 45 at the time of diagnosis. Obesity IS a risk factor for many kinds of cancers, and it IS a good idea to maintain healthy weight, but cancer gets everybody...
Pointing out a trend with risk factors in the total population isn't making a claim that individuals within that population must have that risk factor in order to be impacted.
It's true all types of people get cancer. This doesn't mean that we can't notice trends among the overall population or that individuals should ignore risk factors that may wind up impacting them.
I get that, but the poster said, "if a person were obese and they lost weight their risk of cancer goes down." That's not true for all cancers, or even cancer in general. It's true for some cancers - mostly those of the digestive system (and some hormone sensitive cancers.) I know what you're saying, but I don't want people to get the idea that they are low risk for "cancer" in general just because they are healthy BMI or that it's their fault they got cancer because they're fat. It really does depend on the type of cancer. Sorry, I'm just a "specifics" kind of person.
You're missing two key words at the beginning of that sentence: "Statistically speaking."
From the POV of statistics, it's absolutely accurate. Some people are in categories that do put them at a lower risk for cancer than other people. Recognizing this doesn't mean that one is arguing people in these categories are immune to cancer and don't have to worry about it. And it doesn't mean that I think anyone is at fault for getting cancer.1 -
insurance ONLY cares about statistics. It doesn't give a rats but about anecdotes or what happened to "your friend that one time."2
-
No I do not... but smokers yes I do. They are electing to put harmful carcinogenic elements in their body despite all the science.0
-
The number of people here who think health care is only for runny noses and other such frivolity is astounding. Cancer happens whether you're fat or thin, and if you pay more for cancer treatment just because you're overweight I think that's horribly unjust.
Judge society not based on how we treat it's strongest members, but it's weakest; do we want to be a country that would throw every disabled person with costly-to-treat conditions on the street? I have no personal stake in healthcare for all--I'm lucky to be healthy. But I would gladly pay my taxes for the sake of societal well-being. Think of the lives we could save. It's in our power.
True, but obesity is actually a risk factor for cancer. Statistically speaking, if a person were obese and they lost weight their risk of cancer goes down as well as all sorts of other risk factors such as heart disease and diabetes. Insurance premiums are directly correlated to risk factor.
That depends on the type of cancer. 4 out of the 5 people I personally know who have had cancer in the past 5 years were normal BMI their whole lives. The 2 who died were normal BMI. And all 5, interestingly enough, were under 45 at the time of diagnosis. Obesity IS a risk factor for many kinds of cancers, and it IS a good idea to maintain healthy weight, but cancer gets everybody...
Well yeah, obviously. My point was that their overall risk of cancer would decrease because they lost weight which is absolutely true.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »The number of people here who think health care is only for runny noses and other such frivolity is astounding. Cancer happens whether you're fat or thin, and if you pay more for cancer treatment just because you're overweight I think that's horribly unjust.
Judge society not based on how we treat it's strongest members, but it's weakest; do we want to be a country that would throw every disabled person with costly-to-treat conditions on the street? I have no personal stake in healthcare for all--I'm lucky to be healthy. But I would gladly pay my taxes for the sake of societal well-being. Think of the lives we could save. It's in our power.
True, but obesity is actually a risk factor for cancer. Statistically speaking, if a person were obese and they lost weight their risk of cancer goes down as well as all sorts of other risk factors such as heart disease and diabetes. Insurance premiums are directly correlated to risk factor.
That depends on the type of cancer. 4 out of the 5 people I personally know who have had cancer in the past 5 years were normal BMI their whole lives. The 2 who died were normal BMI. And all 5, interestingly enough, were under 45 at the time of diagnosis. Obesity IS a risk factor for many kinds of cancers, and it IS a good idea to maintain healthy weight, but cancer gets everybody...
Pointing out a trend with risk factors in the total population isn't making a claim that individuals within that population must have that risk factor in order to be impacted.
It's true all types of people get cancer. This doesn't mean that we can't notice trends among the overall population or that individuals should ignore risk factors that may wind up impacting them.
I get that, but the poster said, "if a person were obese and they lost weight their risk of cancer goes down." That's not true for all cancers, or even cancer in general. It's true for some cancers - mostly those of the digestive system (and some hormone sensitive cancers.) I know what you're saying, but I don't want people to get the idea that they are low risk for "cancer" in general just because they are healthy BMI or that it's their fault they got cancer because they're fat. It really does depend on the type of cancer. Sorry, I'm just a "specifics" kind of person.
You're missing two key words at the beginning of that sentence: "Statistically speaking."
From the POV of statistics, it's absolutely accurate. Some people are in categories that do put them at a lower risk for cancer than other people. Recognizing this doesn't mean that one is arguing people in these categories are immune to cancer and don't have to worry about it. And it doesn't mean that I think anyone is at fault for getting cancer.
Thank you, you explained this better than I did, but what you say is absolutely what I meant. I was not at all implying that people of a healthy weight couldn't get cancer. I lost my brother in law who was in fantastic shape to pancreatic cancer so I am well aware that cancer can get anyone.0 -
If you take a group of 1000 people at a healthy weight, and group of 1000 people who are overweight, over a equal periods the fitter group will incur LESS health care expenses than the fatter group. Therefore the fitter people should pay lower premiums.
Anecdotes about individuals in either group are pointless. You can't know WHICH of those people will get sick and need money. But you CAN know that SOMEBODY in that group will need money. This is the fundamental basis of the entire institution of insurance, and has been since the first insurance schemes were established at Lloyd's Coffee Shop in London in the 1600s to insure merchant ships.2 -
If you take a group of 1000 people at a healthy weight, and group of 1000 people who are overweight, over a equal periods the fitter group will incur LESS health care expenses than the fatter group. Therefore the fitter people should pay lower premiums.
Anecdotes about individuals in either group are pointless. You can't know WHICH of those people will get sick and need money. But you CAN know that SOMEBODY in that group will need money. This is the fundamental basis of the entire institution of insurance, and has been since the first insurance schemes were established at Lloyd's Coffee Shop in London in the 1600s to insure merchant ships.
I would argue against this - the fatter group may incur more diseases/chronic conditions, but statistically speaking, the fitter group is far more likely to incur injuries which often times offset any medical cost savings from the lack of chronic issues. Just my N=1 experience on this - my daughter broke her wrist and the costs incurred with that single injury out-weighed several YEARS of my maintenance medications.2 -
If you take a group of 1000 people at a healthy weight, and group of 1000 people who are overweight, over a equal periods the fitter group will incur LESS health care expenses than the fatter group. Therefore the fitter people should pay lower premiums.
Anecdotes about individuals in either group are pointless. You can't know WHICH of those people will get sick and need money. But you CAN know that SOMEBODY in that group will need money. This is the fundamental basis of the entire institution of insurance, and has been since the first insurance schemes were established at Lloyd's Coffee Shop in London in the 1600s to insure merchant ships.
I would argue against this - the fatter group may incur more diseases/chronic conditions, but statistically speaking, the fitter group is far more likely to incur injuries which often times offset any medical cost savings from the lack of chronic issues. Just my N=1 experience on this - my daughter broke her wrist and the costs incurred with that single injury out-weighed several YEARS of my maintenance medications.
You could argue against this all you want, but you would be dead wrong. Your own personal experience does not invalidate decades of data. Statistically speaking @jdlobb was 100% correct.0 -
If you take a group of 1000 people at a healthy weight, and group of 1000 people who are overweight, over a equal periods the fitter group will incur LESS health care expenses than the fatter group. Therefore the fitter people should pay lower premiums.
Anecdotes about individuals in either group are pointless. You can't know WHICH of those people will get sick and need money. But you CAN know that SOMEBODY in that group will need money. This is the fundamental basis of the entire institution of insurance, and has been since the first insurance schemes were established at Lloyd's Coffee Shop in London in the 1600s to insure merchant ships.
I would argue against this - the fatter group may incur more diseases/chronic conditions, but statistically speaking, the fitter group is far more likely to incur injuries which often times offset any medical cost savings from the lack of chronic issues. Just my N=1 experience on this - my daughter broke her wrist and the costs incurred with that single injury out-weighed several YEARS of my maintenance medications.
You could argue against this all you want, but you would be dead wrong. Your own personal experience does not invalidate decades of data. Statistically speaking @jdlobb was 100% correct.
Got any links to the data?0 -
If you take a group of 1000 people at a healthy weight, and group of 1000 people who are overweight, over a equal periods the fitter group will incur LESS health care expenses than the fatter group. Therefore the fitter people should pay lower premiums.
Anecdotes about individuals in either group are pointless. You can't know WHICH of those people will get sick and need money. But you CAN know that SOMEBODY in that group will need money. This is the fundamental basis of the entire institution of insurance, and has been since the first insurance schemes were established at Lloyd's Coffee Shop in London in the 1600s to insure merchant ships.
I would argue against this - the fatter group may incur more diseases/chronic conditions, but statistically speaking, the fitter group is far more likely to incur injuries which often times offset any medical cost savings from the lack of chronic issues. Just my N=1 experience on this - my daughter broke her wrist and the costs incurred with that single injury out-weighed several YEARS of my maintenance medications.
chronic illness costs WAY more than all but the most severe accidental injuries. Your personal anecdote is not remotely a counter to this point. I'm a little shocked you might think it was.0 -
Seriously folks. Please just use your brains for like, one second.
If there were any evidence that fit people were going to be more costly to insure than fat people, insurance companies would charge them more. Insurance doesn't have some cultural bias against fat folks. It's not trying to shame anyone.
It's math. All math. Pure and simple. Simple, unfeeling, unsympathetic, math.2 -
Seriously folks. Please just use your brains for like, one second.
If there were any evidence that fit people were going to be more costly to insure than fat people, insurance companies would charge them more. Insurance doesn't have some cultural bias against fat folks. It's not trying to shame anyone.
It's math. All math. Pure and simple. Simple, unfeeling, unsympathetic, math.
but my feeels!
3 -
^^^This. Before I purchased additional life insurance I lost weight became fit. Why, because it would likely lower my premiums. They had already rejected me once because a sibling had skin cancer. Its all in the numbers.0
-
For the 2nd time. Insurance also starts at the statistical norm. For Americans this is ALREADY guessing that you're fat, sedentary, and eat poorly. Because 'murica. If you're not these things, almost every insurance company will give you discounts.2
-
If you take a group of 1000 people at a healthy weight, and group of 1000 people who are overweight, over a equal periods the fitter group will incur LESS health care expenses than the fatter group. Therefore the fitter people should pay lower premiums.
Anecdotes about individuals in either group are pointless. You can't know WHICH of those people will get sick and need money. But you CAN know that SOMEBODY in that group will need money. This is the fundamental basis of the entire institution of insurance, and has been since the first insurance schemes were established at Lloyd's Coffee Shop in London in the 1600s to insure merchant ships.
I would argue against this - the fatter group may incur more diseases/chronic conditions, but statistically speaking, the fitter group is far more likely to incur injuries which often times offset any medical cost savings from the lack of chronic issues. Just my N=1 experience on this - my daughter broke her wrist and the costs incurred with that single injury out-weighed several YEARS of my maintenance medications.
You could argue against this all you want, but you would be dead wrong. Your own personal experience does not invalidate decades of data. Statistically speaking @jdlobb was 100% correct.
Got any links to the data?
https://stateofobesity.org/healthcare-costs-obesity/
Its pretty clearly stated in the link above. Here is a preview:
"Obese adults spend 42 percent more on direct healthcare costs than adults who are a healthy weight."1 -
how is it remotely controversial that fat people are less healthy than fit people? Have we really gone that far down the "acceptance" and "healthy at any weight" "big boned" *kitten* rabbit hole that people actually believe this?2
-
For the 2nd time. Insurance also starts at the statistical norm. For Americans this is ALREADY guessing that you're fat, sedentary, and eat poorly. Because 'murica. If you're not these things, almost every insurance company will give you discounts.
I don't get any discounts for my weight, activity level, and diet (that I'm aware of).1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 394 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 939 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions