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
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »CallyBeth08 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »CallyBeth08 wrote: »JMcGee2018 wrote: »CallyBeth08 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »CallyBeth08 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »CallyBeth08 wrote: »I don't think it should cost more for anyone. Whether they're overweight, a smoker, or (though it's not an issue since the ACA) have a pre-existing condition.
I think in order to help overweight people deal with the issues, there should be added nutrion classes/health class that further teach people the proper way to eat. I don't think there is enough basic nutritional education, because more and more families are headed down the same road from bad eating habits learned from older generations.
I don't believe people are stupid or bad parents for passing down the habits, everyone's doing the best they can,- but when you have to pay additional fees just to visit a nurtionist, just to be a part of the gym (the doctors office I used to attend had their own gym, which was a substantial fee if you wanted to use), less people are going to try to change. Less people will try to lose weight.
Which is why I'm a huge supporter of the universal healthcare plan. Medical is run federally by taxes, and not the insurance people. Would bring down the cost of medical expenses, and provide easier access for those who want to change. I'd be more than willing to pay taxes for free nutrition classes/weightloss surgery, if I knew another person would learn something and/or change their life around.
In short, charging more would deter people from seeking help to change, alot more than it would to make them want to change. You can be disabled and on government assistance if you're too big. Upping the price wont do anything. A cheaper, even free (as in no hospital/insurance bill coming later) is more inviting to the people who desperately need help.
(Kind of like charging an overweight person for two seats on an airplane. More often than not the person just stops flying that airline, or flying altogether- than they do changing their life around.)
Couple questions. Would you make nutrition education mandatory to get a discount on insurance if obese?
Also, what would you be willing to pay in taxes for a family of 4 to support universal healthcare?
To an extent nutrional education is mandatory. One semester class in highschool is what our government thinks is needed. In that class they cover just the tip top of all the basics. From sex, stages of life, obesity, and CPR training. Nothing in depth.
If the healthcare system doesn't change, I think that would be a very cool incentive. Just like insurance companies offer deductions for completion of defensive driving class, completion of different nutrition courses would be a cool way to get a deduction from your medical insurance bill.
As for the second question, I'm not sure I understand it. Looking at taxes as a small percentage from everyone in the country, yeah- I can spare $10-$20 bucks to add the the pot. We are a nation that is supposed to be united, so I will take care of my people. As much as I am able.
If our collected money goes toward 100 peoples weightloss surgery, that's 100 people who will be able to get back to work/spend more money in the economy than into the health system. (Would rather that, than have my tax money go to their disability/welfare caused by the preventable/ bad health- for the next twenty years of their and my life.).
With universal healthcare, aside from insurance companies being taken out of the equation, the salary for doctors would go down (still more than enough for a comfortable life, just not triple digit. Taxes wouldn't be able to cover it.), which would also make the tuition for medical school go down. Would probably still be expensive, don't get me wrong, but manageable compared to what it is right now. With those prices plummeting, the cost to be cared for wouldn't be nearly as expensive as it is right now.
So in theory, our taxes would go further. At the rate our nation is going, if the health predicament we're in doesn't change, the majority of our nation's budget (if I remember correctly the statistics said somewhere around 80%) will go towards healthcare and healthcare alone in twenty some odd years.
I'll see if I can find the stats to share the link.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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
-
crazyycatladyy1 wrote: »IMO, until the US healthcare system isn't a FOR PROFIT venture, people will end up spending their retirement income and savings on it. See how much it costs to get hospitalized or how much medication costs for people who need it. It's pretty astounding and outrageous.
We could pay for ALL AMERICANS healthcare, it's just that our government chooses to spend more of taxes towards the military might instead.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Dd was hospitalized a couple weeks ago and so far we have a $7,000 hospital bill pending. That will probably be for the ER (which in the past has run us around $1,000), and then most likely her one night stay, (since the claim is pending it doesn't have the breakdown available yet for what services it's for).
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: »NO ... it's discrimination. Should we charge based on age, nationality or better yet ... lower income individuals since we know it is more expensive to eat healthy?? Absolutely not ... but providing resources to programs that encourage healthier eating and fitness could help.
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
-
crazyycatladyy1 wrote: »IMO, until the US healthcare system isn't a FOR PROFIT venture, people will end up spending their retirement income and savings on it. See how much it costs to get hospitalized or how much medication costs for people who need it. It's pretty astounding and outrageous.
We could pay for ALL AMERICANS healthcare, it's just that our government chooses to spend more of taxes towards the military might instead.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Dd was hospitalized a couple weeks ago and so far we have a $7,000 hospital bill pending. That will probably be for the ER (which in the past has run us around $1,000), and then most likely her one night stay, (since the claim is pending it doesn't have the breakdown available yet for what services it's for).
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 -
CallyBeth08 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »CallyBeth08 wrote: »JMcGee2018 wrote: »CallyBeth08 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »CallyBeth08 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »CallyBeth08 wrote: »I don't think it should cost more for anyone. Whether they're overweight, a smoker, or (though it's not an issue since the ACA) have a pre-existing condition.
I think in order to help overweight people deal with the issues, there should be added nutrion classes/health class that further teach people the proper way to eat. I don't think there is enough basic nutritional education, because more and more families are headed down the same road from bad eating habits learned from older generations.
I don't believe people are stupid or bad parents for passing down the habits, everyone's doing the best they can,- but when you have to pay additional fees just to visit a nurtionist, just to be a part of the gym (the doctors office I used to attend had their own gym, which was a substantial fee if you wanted to use), less people are going to try to change. Less people will try to lose weight.
Which is why I'm a huge supporter of the universal healthcare plan. Medical is run federally by taxes, and not the insurance people. Would bring down the cost of medical expenses, and provide easier access for those who want to change. I'd be more than willing to pay taxes for free nutrition classes/weightloss surgery, if I knew another person would learn something and/or change their life around.
In short, charging more would deter people from seeking help to change, alot more than it would to make them want to change. You can be disabled and on government assistance if you're too big. Upping the price wont do anything. A cheaper, even free (as in no hospital/insurance bill coming later) is more inviting to the people who desperately need help.
(Kind of like charging an overweight person for two seats on an airplane. More often than not the person just stops flying that airline, or flying altogether- than they do changing their life around.)
Couple questions. Would you make nutrition education mandatory to get a discount on insurance if obese?
Also, what would you be willing to pay in taxes for a family of 4 to support universal healthcare?
To an extent nutrional education is mandatory. One semester class in highschool is what our government thinks is needed. In that class they cover just the tip top of all the basics. From sex, stages of life, obesity, and CPR training. Nothing in depth.
If the healthcare system doesn't change, I think that would be a very cool incentive. Just like insurance companies offer deductions for completion of defensive driving class, completion of different nutrition courses would be a cool way to get a deduction from your medical insurance bill.
As for the second question, I'm not sure I understand it. Looking at taxes as a small percentage from everyone in the country, yeah- I can spare $10-$20 bucks to add the the pot. We are a nation that is supposed to be united, so I will take care of my people. As much as I am able.
If our collected money goes toward 100 peoples weightloss surgery, that's 100 people who will be able to get back to work/spend more money in the economy than into the health system. (Would rather that, than have my tax money go to their disability/welfare caused by the preventable/ bad health- for the next twenty years of their and my life.).
With universal healthcare, aside from insurance companies being taken out of the equation, the salary for doctors would go down (still more than enough for a comfortable life, just not triple digit. Taxes wouldn't be able to cover it.), which would also make the tuition for medical school go down. Would probably still be expensive, don't get me wrong, but manageable compared to what it is right now. With those prices plummeting, the cost to be cared for wouldn't be nearly as expensive as it is right now.
So in theory, our taxes would go further. At the rate our nation is going, if the health predicament we're in doesn't change, the majority of our nation's budget (if I remember correctly the statistics said somewhere around 80%) will go towards healthcare and healthcare alone in twenty some odd years.
I'll see if I can find the stats to share the link.
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.
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.
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?
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".
I second this question. If person A pays a marginal rate of 10% on each dollar earned and person B is paying a 25% marginal rate, one is being taxed unfairly.
Now if you think that people should pay more, I wouldn't stop any of you from sending your money to the treasury so that you can put your money where your stated values are.
But please, don't decide that I should pay 25% on each additional dollar I earn while someone else only pays 10%. That's not fair to me nor my family.
2 -
tbright1965 wrote: »CallyBeth08 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »CallyBeth08 wrote: »JMcGee2018 wrote: »CallyBeth08 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »CallyBeth08 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »CallyBeth08 wrote: »I don't think it should cost more for anyone. Whether they're overweight, a smoker, or (though it's not an issue since the ACA) have a pre-existing condition.
I think in order to help overweight people deal with the issues, there should be added nutrion classes/health class that further teach people the proper way to eat. I don't think there is enough basic nutritional education, because more and more families are headed down the same road from bad eating habits learned from older generations.
I don't believe people are stupid or bad parents for passing down the habits, everyone's doing the best they can,- but when you have to pay additional fees just to visit a nurtionist, just to be a part of the gym (the doctors office I used to attend had their own gym, which was a substantial fee if you wanted to use), less people are going to try to change. Less people will try to lose weight.
Which is why I'm a huge supporter of the universal healthcare plan. Medical is run federally by taxes, and not the insurance people. Would bring down the cost of medical expenses, and provide easier access for those who want to change. I'd be more than willing to pay taxes for free nutrition classes/weightloss surgery, if I knew another person would learn something and/or change their life around.
In short, charging more would deter people from seeking help to change, alot more than it would to make them want to change. You can be disabled and on government assistance if you're too big. Upping the price wont do anything. A cheaper, even free (as in no hospital/insurance bill coming later) is more inviting to the people who desperately need help.
(Kind of like charging an overweight person for two seats on an airplane. More often than not the person just stops flying that airline, or flying altogether- than they do changing their life around.)
Couple questions. Would you make nutrition education mandatory to get a discount on insurance if obese?
Also, what would you be willing to pay in taxes for a family of 4 to support universal healthcare?
To an extent nutrional education is mandatory. One semester class in highschool is what our government thinks is needed. In that class they cover just the tip top of all the basics. From sex, stages of life, obesity, and CPR training. Nothing in depth.
If the healthcare system doesn't change, I think that would be a very cool incentive. Just like insurance companies offer deductions for completion of defensive driving class, completion of different nutrition courses would be a cool way to get a deduction from your medical insurance bill.
As for the second question, I'm not sure I understand it. Looking at taxes as a small percentage from everyone in the country, yeah- I can spare $10-$20 bucks to add the the pot. We are a nation that is supposed to be united, so I will take care of my people. As much as I am able.
If our collected money goes toward 100 peoples weightloss surgery, that's 100 people who will be able to get back to work/spend more money in the economy than into the health system. (Would rather that, than have my tax money go to their disability/welfare caused by the preventable/ bad health- for the next twenty years of their and my life.).
With universal healthcare, aside from insurance companies being taken out of the equation, the salary for doctors would go down (still more than enough for a comfortable life, just not triple digit. Taxes wouldn't be able to cover it.), which would also make the tuition for medical school go down. Would probably still be expensive, don't get me wrong, but manageable compared to what it is right now. With those prices plummeting, the cost to be cared for wouldn't be nearly as expensive as it is right now.
So in theory, our taxes would go further. At the rate our nation is going, if the health predicament we're in doesn't change, the majority of our nation's budget (if I remember correctly the statistics said somewhere around 80%) will go towards healthcare and healthcare alone in twenty some odd years.
I'll see if I can find the stats to share the link.
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.
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.
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?
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".
I second this question. If person A pays a marginal rate of 10% on each dollar earned and person B is paying a 25% marginal rate, one is being taxed unfairly.
Now if you think that people should pay more, I wouldn't stop any of you from sending your money to the treasury so that you can put your money where your stated values are.
But please, don't decide that I should pay 25% on each additional dollar I earn while someone else only pays 10%. That's not fair to me nor my family.
""Now if you think that people should pay more, I wouldn't stop any of you from sending your money to the treasury so that you can put your money where your stated values are.""
^^^Yes!! THIS! ^^^0 -
Barring a medical condition, I would tend to agree yes. Just like you do for life insurance. It's a complicated scenario because you can't very well lump one self-inflicted disease into a category over another so you would have to put in a lot more stuff other than obesity into this question.
That said, yes, overall without getting into crazy details I would think if you have caused a medical or health related illness yourself, others should not be subsidizing your treatment with their own money they've worked hard to gain.
In the Canadian Armed Forces if you get a sunburn that affects your training or performance, you are charged under self-inflicted wound because they issue you sunscreen. If you are dehydrated because you didn't drink enough water, under charge because you've been issued water.
Life is about constantly just making decisions and everyone is accountable to those decisions they've made. Medical should be no different with certain clauses.2 -
I don't think anyone should have to pay for health insurance.12
-
mudknuckles wrote: »I don't think anyone should have to pay for health insurance.
In your world do all the medical people work for free and medical facilities sprout up at no cost under a rainbow? Maybe a few unicorns prancing around too?
Someone in some way has to pay.3 -
mudknuckles wrote: »I don't think anyone should have to pay for health insurance.
Free healthcare provided by the government? I wonder where the money for that come comes from
6 -
There needs to be serious overhaul of our current insurance situation in the US before we could even discuss whether obese people should pay more for healthcare.
Generally, I agree they should. I am obese, I weigh a little over 220 lbs. However, even in my mid 30's I have no weight related diseases, I have no diseases period. I'm in 95th percentile for health of people my age, only reason it's not higher is my weight. I have slightly low blood pressure, great insulin response, great immune system, no preexisting conditions, perfect thyroid function, perfect cholesterol, etc. Even my resting heart rate is really low for someone who isn't fit, generally hovers about 52 - 55 BPM.
I paid more for my prenatal care because of my weight, and I had a totally normal pregnancy and delivery. I'm still a little conflicted over that, but I can see why extra precautions are normally needed.
We pay way more than we should for healthcare as a whole. My labor and delivery, which was entirely normal and 48 hours in and out the door cost 21k. I recently had a procedure done that required the Dr. to spend about 45 minutes with me and the total cost was 1,800. The cost itself, if the profit margins were more reasonable, should have been $300 - $500 dollars. A birth I could see being 7k. But these prices alone, then the insurance premiums, is a total scam.1 -
mudknuckles wrote: »I don't think anyone should have to pay for health insurance.
Then who pays the doctors, hospitals, etc?
It's great to say something is free. Does that mean you are going to donate enough money so that others don't pay?
Because that's the crux of such issues. Someone says something should be free. Seldom is that person using their time, talent and treasure to provide it. Instead, they expect to impose their values on another.
Often, they'll be the first to decry when someone else wants to impose their values on another, but then turn around and demand that politicians impose their values on another.
Anyone who wants to make healthcare free is still free to donate their time, talent and treasure to making that happen. But please, keep out of my wallet with demands that taxpayers be party to plans and programs that pay for others.
It's government interference in the marketplace that has us where we are today. I don't think the same group of knuckleheads are going to fix this in a fashion that is good for the taxpayer and/or consumer.
3 -
mudknuckles wrote: »I don't think anyone should have to pay for health insurance.
So you mean we should pay through taxes? We are still paying, if we pay taxes. I think that's a better approach too, at least for basic care/coverage, with the ability to buy additional to add on, but it doesn't mean people aren't paying for it.2 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »mudknuckles wrote: »I don't think anyone should have to pay for health insurance.
So you mean we should pay through taxes? We are still paying, if we pay taxes. I think that's a better approach too, at least for basic care/coverage, with the ability to buy additional to add on, but it doesn't mean people aren't paying for it.
Actually, paying through taxes is the MOST unfair means. Those who make more, but choose a healthy lifestyle are not allowed to benefit from their choices because they are paying based on income, not risk.
There needs to be a risk rating component so that people who make poor choices experience some fiscal consequences for choosing to eat at the drive through more than fresh fruits and vegetables.
The absolute worst plan is to have people pay based on income.
Now if you want to make a government program where everyone pays the same premium, that's far more fair than paying a percentage of ones income for coverage.6
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K 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
- 388 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
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 918 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions