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.
We are pleased to announce that as of March 4, 2025, an updated Rich Text Editor has been introduced in the MyFitnessPal Community. To learn more about the changes, please click here. We look forward to sharing this new feature with you!
Do you think obese/overweight people should pay more for health insurance?
Replies
-
Packerjohn wrote: »
My question was, you are a huge supporter of universal health care. What would you be willing to pay in taxes to fund universal health care?
Same thing us Canadians pay.
I make 45K a year. Of that $9508 goes to taxes. BUT I never have to pay to visit the doctor, I never have to pay for surgeries or exams or anything of that nature. The year I had ulcers I paid $0 for countless exams and care.
I never worry about: There's this weird swelling in my leg, how am I going to pay to have it checked out?
I never worry about breaking a leg... and how I'm going to get help.
10 -
Same thing us Canadians pay.
I make 45K a year. Of that $9508 goes to taxes. BUT I never have to pay to visit the doctor, I never have to pay for surgeries or exams or anything of that nature. The year I had ulcers I paid $0 for countless exams and care.
I never worry about: There's this weird swelling in my leg, how am I going to pay to have it checked out?
I never worry about breaking a leg... and how I'm going to get help.
That is what I want for the US. (:4 -
CallyBeth08 wrote: »
That is what I want for the US. (:
This is what I don't get about the argument against universal health care in the U.S.. My fiance has a relatively low insurance premium (only $200/month), but that is still almost 10% of his gross income. On top of that, he has a pre-existing condition that costs $50/month to fill just one prescription and a $1,500 deductible. So 10% of his income goes to healthcare already.1 -
Same thing us Canadians pay.
I make 45K a year. Of that $9508 goes to taxes. BUT I never have to pay to visit the doctor, I never have to pay for surgeries or exams or anything of that nature. The year I had ulcers I paid $0 for countless exams and care.
I never worry about: There's this weird swelling in my leg, how am I going to pay to have it checked out?
I never worry about breaking a leg... and how I'm going to get help.
Per capita cost of healthcare in Canada is 6600 Canadian dollars
https://www.statista.com/statistics/436378/total-health-spending-per-capita-canada/
I'm not super familiar with Canadian tax, but I'm pretty sure the 9500 you mention in taxes covers many other costs. You are most likely having your healthcare subsidized by someone else.
Without making a judgement if governmet should pay n the US we would have to find a revenue stream
My question is where is this coming from and how much are people willing to pay in taxes from THEIR pockets and how does the difference get made up?0 -
Packerjohn wrote: »
Per capita cost of healthcare in Canada is 6600 Canadian dollars
https://www.statista.com/statistics/436378/total-health-spending-per-capita-canada/
I'm not super familiar with Canadian tax, but I'm pretty sure the 9500 you mention in taxes covers many other costs. You are most likely having your healthcare subsidized by someone else.
Without making a judgement if governmet should pay n the US we would have to find a revenue stream
My question is where is this coming from and how much are people willing to pay in taxes from THEIR pockets and how does the difference get made up?
You're right. That $9500 I pay in taxes doesn't JUST cover healthcare, but that is ALL I pay in taxes. I have no other taxes or expenses. If I want I can get health insurance to cover expenses the universal healthcare doesn't cover (eye exams, dental work, prescription medicine) but I don't. Despite this, I have never had a health bill that led to me being in debt, or me being in desperate financial trouble.
As I age I realize I'll probably need health insurance on the side but that costs $70 a month. For me.1 -
Packerjohn wrote: »
Per capita cost of healthcare in Canada is 6600 Canadian dollars
https://www.statista.com/statistics/436378/total-health-spending-per-capita-canada/
I'm not super familiar with Canadian tax, but I'm pretty sure the 9500 you mention in taxes covers many other costs. You are most likely having your healthcare subsidized by someone else.
Without making a judgement if governmet should pay n the US we would have to find a revenue stream
My question is where is this coming from and how much are people willing to pay in taxes from THEIR pockets and how does the difference get made up?
As I wrote above, my fiancé already spends about 10% of his gross income in taxes. If we moved to Universal Health Care, his taxes could be increased 10% and he wouldn't notice the difference in take-home pay (maybe $10 less per paycheck). If everyone's taxes increased by 10%, but no one was paying out of pocket premiums, the top 10% would end up paying comparatively more, and the bottom 90% comparatively less, because a lot of people are facing premiums that are more than 10% of their gross income.1 -
JMcGee2018 wrote: »
As I wrote above, my fiancé already spends about 10% of his gross income in taxes. If we moved to Universal Health Care, his taxes could be increased 10% and he wouldn't notice the difference in take-home pay (maybe $10 less per paycheck). If everyone's taxes increased by 10%, but no one was paying out of pocket premiums, the top 10% would end up paying comparatively more, and the bottom 90% comparatively less, because a lot of people are facing premiums that are more than 10% of their gross income.
If your fiance makes 2000 a month he's most likely not paying any Federal income tax or a very minimal amount.
Healthcare is the US is over $10k a year.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/436378/total-health-spending-per-capita-canada/
Just having "the rich" pay more doesn't fix the issues
The US cost per person is about twice what it is for other developed countries. This is the issue1 -
Packerjohn wrote: »
If your fiance makes 2000 a month he's most likely not paying any Federal income tax or a very minimal amount.
Healthcare is the US is over $10k a year.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/436378/total-health-spending-per-capita-canada/
Just having "the rich" pay more doesn't fix the issues
The US cost per person is about twice what it is for other developed countries. This is the issue
I agree, the US needs to stop subsidizing other countries by not passing along R&D costs. US companies need to make the hard decision to refuse to do business in and with developed countries that refuse to pay their fair share of the cost to develop these treatment regimens and protocols and chemicals.3 -
Packerjohn wrote: »
If your fiance makes 2000 a month he's most likely not paying any Federal income tax or a very minimal amount.
Healthcare is the US is over $10k a year.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/436378/total-health-spending-per-capita-canada/
Just having "the rich" pay more doesn't fix the issues
The US cost per person is about twice what it is for other developed countries. This is the issue
He gets some taxes back, but not all, and he lives off of the <2k he gets per month, not the tax refund he gets once a year (that goes into a retirement account). The cost per person would go down if the middle men (i.e. insurance companies) were eliminated. It's why the U.S. has the highest cost of health care.
And I'm not having "the rich" pay more, I am having them pay the same: 10% (or whatever % makes sense). It ends up being more money, but it is a fair, flat tax increase across the board. And if none of that 10% can be included in tax returns, that's fine too.3 -
JMcGee2018 wrote: »
This is what I don't get about the argument against universal health care in the U.S.. My fiance has a relatively low insurance premium (only $200/month), but that is still almost 10% of his gross income. On top of that, he has a pre-existing condition that costs $50/month to fill just one prescription and a $1,500 deductible. So 10% of his income goes to healthcare already.
A lot of the arguments (not to debate politics) stem from the conservative end of the country. With the American freedom of making as much money as you can, they (at least those I've spoken to- maybe not all of conservatives) believe that creating a universal healthcare will rob skilled workers from an income they really deserve, and some weirdly believe the government will cover things like cosmetic surgery under our tax dollars. As well as wanting to keep the government out of every aspect of their life.
Which has never made much sense to me seeing as the police/fire/school are run by state government. Why not health?
And it kind of annoys me, because there are some advances in medicine (or alternative options) available in other developed countries that we're not able to access in the states because the insurance companies have labled it as "too risky". Which mean even if the success rate is high in other countries, doctors here can lose their license for preforming it. But alas, that's a whole other tangent lol.
But yeah, if your fiance is already paying 10% of his income into healthcare, changing over isn't going to cause that much of a commotion- if any.3 -
CallyBeth08 wrote: »
A lot of the arguments (not to debate politics) stem from the conservative end of the country. With the American freedom of making as much money as you can, they (at least those I've spoken to- maybe not all of conservatives) believe that creating a universal healthcare will rob skilled workers from an income they really deserve, and some weirdly believe the government will cover things like cosmetic surgery under our tax dollars. As well as wanting to keep the government out of every aspect of their life.
Which has never made much sense to me seeing as the police/fire/school are run by state government. Why not health?
And it kind of annoys me, because there are some advances in medicine (or alternative options) available in other developed countries that we're not able to access in the states because the insurance companies have labled it as "too risky". Which mean even if the success rate is high in other countries, doctors here can lose their license for preforming it. But alas, that's a whole other tangent lol.
But yeah, if your fiance is already paying 10% of his income into healthcare, changing over isn't going to cause that much of a commotion- if any.
Could the fact that the "conservatives" would be the ones paying most of the cost lead to their questioning?4 -
Packerjohn wrote: »
Could the fact that the "conservatives" would be the ones paying most of the cost lead to their questioning?
I'd like to see the statistics that show that conservatives pay into taxes more than other Americans. Pretty sure everyone who works pays in their fair share.4 -
CallyBeth08 wrote: »
I'd like to see the statistics that show that conservatives pay into taxes more than other Americans. Pretty sure everyone who works pays in their fair share.
Please define "fair share".
5 -
CallyBeth08 wrote: »
I'd like to see the statistics that show that conservatives pay into taxes more than other Americans. Pretty sure everyone who works pays in their fair share.
Income doesn't always match to taxes paid (after all, people can make money from non-income sources like investments) and party affiliation doesn't always track to "liberal/conservative" (people can identify as liberal Republicans or conservative Democrats), but some polling, at least, suggests that the more you make the more likely you are to identify as a Democrat.
http://www.people-press.org/2016/09/13/2016-party-identification-tables-hispanic/
I would also want to see the statistics showing that conservatives pay more into taxes than other Americans do (and we'd need to clarify what "more" means -- does that mean that most of the money is coming from conservatives as a collective group because they outnumber other Americans, does it mean that conservatives pay a larger portion of their incomes in taxes, etc).5 -
Please define "fair share".
Based on this graphic, they're already paying somewhere in the neighborhood of twice their "Fair share"5 -
It's going to be an interesting political issue.going forward. Union workers, who traditionally have identified with the Democratic party also traditionally have the best employer paid insurance plans.
While this group may get the liberal label due to being a Democrat, their thoughts on healthcare would tend.to be pretty conservative since they feel like they would lose if things change
Sample discussion.
http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/364019-cadillac-tax-is-sticking-point-for-congress3 -
janejellyroll wrote: »
Income doesn't always match to taxes paid (after all, people can make money from non-income sources like investments) and party affiliation doesn't always track to "liberal/conservative" (people can identify as liberal Republicans or conservative Democrats), but some polling, at least, suggests that the more you make the more likely you are to identify as a Democrat.
http://www.people-press.org/2016/09/13/2016-party-identification-tables-hispanic/
I would also want to see the statistics showing that conservatives pay more into taxes than other Americans do (and we'd need to clarify what "more" means -- does that mean that most of the money is coming from conservatives as a collective group because they outnumber other Americans, does it mean that conservatives pay a larger portion of their incomes in taxes, etc).
Actually most investment income is taxed annually unless it is in a tax deferred vehicle such as an IRA or 401k. In that case it is also taxed, just deferred until retirement.1 -
janejellyroll wrote: »
Income doesn't always match to taxes paid (after all, people can make money from non-income sources like investments) and party affiliation doesn't always track to "liberal/conservative" (people can identify as liberal Republicans or conservative Democrats), but some polling, at least, suggests that the more you make the more likely you are to identify as a Democrat.
To some degree, but obviously there are huge variations, including geographical, and the states that tend to be reddest also get more money from the federal gov't.
I live surrounded by people who identify as Dems (as do I, although I have views across the spectrum depending on the issue), but who also make well more than the average and are in the groups that pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes (basically upper middle class -- depending on how that's defined -- income earners, vs. people who get the tax breaks on investment income (not that they don't have some, but it's not the majority). (We are also probably among those most likely to get hosed with the recent tax changes, as are many well-off people in the burbs.)
It's funny since in some areas of the country this is certainly a real thing, whereas many who probably make low enough incomes that they don't really pay federal income tax (other than for SS/Medicare, which is not counted in the stats about what percentage pays federal income tax) are among those more likely to vote Republican. Probably this is why we get the really weird idea that Republicans are "anti elite" when the income of the average Republican voter is higher.
This is verging into politics, which is a problem with this topic, but I'm trying to be even-handed and not make an argument for a political position.
Anyway, I read a book a while back that argued (convincingly) that especially in the poorer (and often redder) states the actual trend was still for people to be more likely to vote Republican with more income, but that that trend was much less pronounced in richer/bluer states (i.e., MA).
Some of this is obscured by the fact that there are other strong correlations when it comes to voting, such as race, sex, age, and marital status, as well as where you live.1 -
Packerjohn wrote: »It's going to be an interesting political issue.going forward. Union workers, who traditionally have identified with the Democratic party also traditionally have the best employer paid insurance plans.
While this group may get the liberal label due to being a Democrat, their thoughts on healthcare would tend.to be pretty conservative since they feel like they would lose if things change
Sample discussion.
http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/364019-cadillac-tax-is-sticking-point-for-congress
Initially -- and it's not surprising -- it was the Republicans/conservatives more willing to touch employer based health care, at least as a theoretical thing. McCain had a plan when he was running that had been created basically by the Heritage Foundation that would have moved toward replacing all employer-based health care with tax credits. Many employers HATE employer based health care (I'm a partner and go to meetings discussing it, and it's really an annoying way these days for employers to have to compensate, but you CANNOT not do it in various fields and expect to compete for employees who rely on it).
Many private non union professional jobs have really good health care too (I've always been lucky in that, but it's de rigueur in my subsection of my field), and that would likely include lots of Republican voters. I think attacking employment based health care is impossible for anyone not actually replacing it with full Medicare for all type insurance (which would be expensive), and those with good health care rightly worry they'd come out the worse.
What they DON'T realize is that the current system they benefit from is probably unsustainable so they can't count on it continuing forever, that the costs are higher than they see (thus already no free market type competition), and that typing health insurance to employment is probably not economically sensible (it certainly is a drag on people leaving to start their own businesses and keeps people in jobs they otherwise hate because the insurance is good/they need certain aspects of it due to family pre existing conditions).1 -
Packerjohn wrote: »
Actually most investment income is taxed annually unless it is in a tax deferred vehicle such as an IRA or 401k. In that case it is also taxed, just deferred until retirement.
I didn't mean that investment income wasn't taxed, I was attempting to express my impression that investment income wasn't necessarily included in the poll that I posted. In any event, investment income is (I believe) taxed differently than salaries are.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »
To some degree, but obviously there are huge variations, including geographical, and the states that tend to be reddest also get more money from the federal gov't.
I live surrounded by people who identify as Dems (as do I, although I have views across the spectrum depending on the issue), but who also make well more than the average and are in the groups that pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes (basically upper middle class -- depending on how that's defined -- income earners, vs. people who get the tax breaks on investment income (not that they don't have some, but it's not the majority). (We are also probably among those most likely to get hosed with the recent tax changes, as are many well-off people in the burbs.)
It's funny since in some areas of the country this is certainly a real thing, whereas many who probably make low enough incomes that they don't really pay federal income tax (other than for SS/Medicare, which is not counted in the stats about what percentage pays federal income tax) are among those more likely to vote Republican. Probably this is why we get the really weird idea that Republicans are "anti elite" when the income of the average Republican voter is higher.
This is verging into politics, which is a problem with this topic, but I'm trying to be even-handed and not make an argument for a political position.
Anyway, I read a book a while back that argued (convincingly) that especially in the poorer (and often redder) states the actual trend was still for people to be more likely to vote Republican with more income, but that that trend was much less pronounced in richer/bluer states (i.e., MA).
Some of this is obscured by the fact that there are other strong correlations when it comes to voting, such as race, sex, age, and marital status, as well as where you live.
This is a good summary of a lot of the different factors that go into this. This is why I would want a statement like "conservatives pay more in taxes" to be explained more clearly. How was this determined, what does "more" mean exactly, etc?2 -
I don't think that they should pay a premium but I do support a discount for voluntarily participating in employer sponsored wellness programs and maintaining healthy goals. My best friend works for a health insurance company and they do this. Noone is required to participate but everyone is encouraged to do so. She was motivated to lose 57 pounds and lower her blood pressure because of the significant savings. This allows those who want to participate to save money but doesn't discriminate against those who choose not to take part.1
-
I have nothing to add, but I'm not in the US so i'm curious. What if you didn't have the ability to pay the bill for the hospital? Or if you had no insurance? Surly a hospital would still give a critically ill person the same service? I mean, no parent would ever be told "we can save your child as long as you can pay X amount..."
right??
My husband had to have urgent surgery a couple of years ago. He did not have insurance at the time. He had to see several doctors during the hospital stay and afterward. We had to fill out paperwork at the hospital and the doctors offices stating inability to pay the huge medical bill. Don't know how they handled it but we never had to pay it. I had still rather have insurance because it really rips your nerves when something like this happens and you don't know how you would possibly afford it.1 -
heiliskrimsli wrote: »
Not all forms of discrimination are bad. Discriminating against bad choices is not a bad thing. Age and nationality aren't choices. Being fat is.
Riiiight! Until YOU are the one being discriminated against.7 -
We just got home from a 2 week cruise.
WOW. Such a change in the overall SIZE of the majority of the passengers from our last cruise 3 years ago. I couldnt get over the mega numbers of truly OBESE people everywhere, and the constant plates of piled high FOOD everywhere, continuously! We were told by others we met, that a large number of "cruisers" are on vacation primarily to EAT.
It was just an eye opener.... if thats how most of the very obese people around us everyday now behave at home, then YES, I believe they should pay higher insurance premiums... So many DO have the ability to stop stuffing and get healthy, but choose NOT TO.
Thats their right, but the rest of the insured people should NOT have to pay higher rates because of it..
Just my .02
3 -
We just got home from a 2 week cruise.
WOW. Such a change in the overall SIZE of the majority of the passengers from our last cruise 3 years ago. I couldnt get over the mega numbers of truly OBESE people everywhere, and the constant plates of piled high FOOD everywhere, continuously! We were told by others we met, that a large number of "cruisers" are on vacation primarily to EAT.
It was just an eye opener.... if thats how most of the very obese people around us everyday now behave at home, then YES, I believe they should pay higher insurance premiums... So many DO have the ability to stop stuffing and get healthy, but choose NOT TO.
Thats their right, but the rest of the insured people should NOT have to pay higher rates because of it..
Just my .02
just to comment on your cruise experience...I am not from the states, but went there to help open a restaurant (a 'chain' that was operating in Canada). We actually had to increase the sizes/portions of most of our recipes in order to compete with what peoples expectations were (Denver Colorado).4 -
We just got home from a 2 week cruise.
WOW. Such a change in the overall SIZE of the majority of the passengers from our last cruise 3 years ago. I couldnt get over the mega numbers of truly OBESE people everywhere, and the constant plates of piled high FOOD everywhere, continuously! We were told by others we met, that a large number of "cruisers" are on vacation primarily to EAT.
It was just an eye opener.... if thats how most of the very obese people around us everyday now behave at home, then YES, I believe they should pay higher insurance premiums... So many DO have the ability to stop stuffing and get healthy, but choose NOT TO.
Thats their right, but the rest of the insured people should NOT have to pay higher rates because of it..
Just my .02
I mean, bigger people do eat more, but it's relatively common for people to eat differently when they're on vacation. I wouldn't assume I knew how someone ate at home just from watching how they ate on a cruise.4 -
Absolutely! I think there should be a system of “fines” for any unhealthy habits, including unhealthy eating habits, and most definitely obesity.8
-
I have nothing to add, but I'm not in the US so i'm curious. What if you didn't have the ability to pay the bill for the hospital? Or if you had no insurance? Surly a hospital would still give a critically ill person the same service? I mean, no parent would ever be told "we can save your child as long as you can pay X amount..."
right??
It can be a terrible situation in the US. Yes, patients are treated differently depending on ability to pay. If insurance will pay, a hospital will do tests and procedures that may not be necessary (may even put the patient at unnecessary risk) for the billing. If a patient has no ability to pay, the hospital is legally obligated to save the patient’s life but nothing more. Often this means “stabilizing” an emergency patient then putting him in another ambulance and sending him to a hospital that accepts indigents. I met a woman last year who was a passenger in a car wreck where everyone in the car was badly injured and taken to the nearest hospital (Kaufman county, Texas). Her right hand was crushed and she received emergency surgery. After surgery, it was clear she would need several more surgeries on that hand but she had no insurance and couldn’t pay. The next day they amputated her right hand. Shockingly, they discharged her the next day. The hospital met its legal obligation. It saved her life, not her hand.
Only ERs are required to treat indigents. The biggest killers —heart disease, cancer, hypertension— are not treated in ERs. The ER will intervene if someone is stroking out because of runaway BP, and they will tell that person she needs to be under a doctor’s care and on medication, and then send a huge bill (higher than insurance negotiated rates). If unpaid, the ER bill will go to a collection agency and the patient will be hounded endlessly for payment. Hence the term “medical bankruptcy.” Doctors are not forced to treat patients who can’t pay, and people who can’t pay often don’t get care.
4 -
eturney346 wrote: »Absolutely! I think there should be a system of “fines” for any unhealthy habits, including unhealthy eating habits, and most definitely obesity.
How would my health insurance company know what I was eating? Are you assuming people would accurately self-report even when fines were involved?2
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 394.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.1K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.7K Fitness and Exercise
- 393 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.1K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 16 News and Announcements
- 930 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions