Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Do you think obese/overweight people should pay more for health insurance?
Replies
-
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 -
tbright1965 wrote: »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.
I disagree, but it's basically a separate topic.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.
Health insurance isn't based on risk now. The proposal is that a risk element be included, such as a penalty or discount for meeting specific requirements (could be a whole bunch of things).
Right now, in the US, that's permitted through an employer-based health incentive plan (it's framed as a discount, but there's no real difference). Most people don't have those and haven't had those -- I've had employer based health care since I started working and was covered by my mother's before that, and none of it has ever been based on risk.
Pure risk-based for health care costs is a bad idea (and why a true insurance model would be bad), because a HUGE amount of risks and stuff that happens has nothing to do with anything you did, or it's impossible to tell. Someone gets cancer -- would they if they'd had a healthier lifestyle or never been overweight? Quite likely, yes, even if lifestyle factors are risk factors for that cancer. And in any case no one knows.
Expensive health problems are likely to happen to everyone, even if we live the most perfect healthy lives; it results from age.
So the question is, what's the best way to improve health care results, get people to reduce risk factors, reduce costs overall? IMO, there may be a role for incentives (however health care is funded), but also I think making sure people get routine health care, have prenatal health care and so on are important.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.
How on earth would that be monitored, whether true insurance (i.e., similar to car insurance or fire insurance) or some other plan? You can give incentives/penalties for BMI and for test results (although it's very obvious that many other factors play into test results -- my dad had high cholesterol at one point despite never being overweight and being active, my cholesterol has always been good, even when I was fat). But you can't make it depend on people eating vegetables or not going to drive ins.
It's also funny since I thought one the horror story told about gov't interference is that the gov't could make you by broccoli! (See https://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/14/business/how-broccoli-became-a-symbol-in-the-health-care-debate.html)0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »tbright1965 wrote: »Actually, paying through taxes is the MOST unfair means.
I disagree, but it's basically a separate topic.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.
Health insurance isn't based on risk now. The proposal is that a risk element be included, such as a penalty or discount for meeting specific requirements (could be a whole bunch of things).
Right now, in the US, that's permitted through an employer-based health incentive plan (it's framed as a discount, but there's no real difference). Most people don't have those and haven't had those -- I've had employer based health care since I started working and was covered by my mother's before that, and none of it has ever been based on risk.
Pure risk-based for health care costs is a bad idea (and why a true insurance model would be bad), because a HUGE amount of risks and stuff that happens has nothing to do with anything you did, or it's impossible to tell. Someone gets cancer -- would they if they'd had a healthier lifestyle or never been overweight? Quite likely, yes, even if lifestyle factors are risk factors for that cancer. And in any case no one knows.
Expensive health problems are likely to happen to everyone, even if we live the most perfect healthy lives; it results from age.
So the question is, what's the best way to improve health care results, get people to reduce risk factors, reduce costs overall? IMO, there may be a role for incentives (however health care is funded), but also I think making sure people get routine health care, have prenatal health care and so on are important.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.
How on earth would that be monitored, whether true insurance (i.e., similar to car insurance or fire insurance) or some other plan? You can give incentives/penalties for BMI and for test results (although it's very obvious that many other factors play into test results -- my dad had high cholesterol at one point despite never being overweight and being active, my cholesterol has always been good, even when I was fat). But you can't make it depend on people eating vegetables or not going to drive ins.
It's also funny since I thought one the horror story told about gov't interference is that the gov't could make you by broccoli! (See https://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/14/business/how-broccoli-became-a-symbol-in-the-health-care-debate.html)
Part of the problem is we don't treat health insurance as insurance against catastrophic events. Most want it to pay for everything, and then you get all the friction of cost shifting, etc.
Now there are plans that offer that. HCSA where you can save and carry over health care dollars in a tax free account, and then a catastrophic plan that kicks in for that unexpected cancer diagnosis.
BMI monitoring, or even a basic panel of blood and urine tests every year to help set the relative risk wouldn't be a bad thing. We already have to be risk rated for life insurance, for car insurance, and even our homeowners to a certain extent. Why do people think it's ok to not apply risk rating to health insurance?
Sure, you can't have big brother watching to see if someone is eating broccoli or Big Macs, but I do believe in the majority of cases that will show up in the lab work. Blood Glucose, liver panel functions and other tests are going to give a general idea what's going in someone's mouth. I'm sure there are similar strength, aerobic and flexibility tests that would determine if people are active or sedentary. Probably a much better examination as well. If nothing else, it will get people thinking about it if in addition to their labwork, they were evaluated physically.
Heck, the Army tested us periodically and measured our height and weight. If we couldn't run 2 miles fast enough after having been tested for the number of pushups and situps we could do in a two minute period each, then what would be wrong with some sort of physical skills test as part of your physical?
Especially if you want the insurance company to protect you against catastrophic events, it seems only fair that they have an idea of the risk you present.
Voluntary links to MFP, Fitbit or a host of other tracking apps will see if people are biking or binge watching Netflix for the most part. Some sort of treadmill, stairclimber or similar test could measure aerobic conditioning. Tests for flexibility and strength could be done as well.
Could probably do much of that in the time I'm waiting for the DR to show up for my appt.2 -
tbright1965 wrote: »
Sure, you can't have big brother watching to see if someone is eating broccoli or Big Macs, but I do believe in the majority of cases that will show up in the lab work. Blood Glucose, liver panel functions and other tests are going to give a general idea what's going in someone's mouth.
These tests test for specific problems/potential problems -- they are not diagnostic tests to see if someone sometimes eats hamburgers.
Do the conditions they test for sometimes respond well to dietary changes? Absolutely. But to make this a people who eat broccoli versus people who eat Big Macs things is a vast over-simplification. Overweight people sometimes eat vegetables, fit people sometimes eat Big Macs. Health conditions strike people in both categories (although it does seem like many illnesses/conditions are associated with excess weight).1 -
tbright1965 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »tbright1965 wrote: »Actually, paying through taxes is the MOST unfair means.
I disagree, but it's basically a separate topic.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.
Health insurance isn't based on risk now. The proposal is that a risk element be included, such as a penalty or discount for meeting specific requirements (could be a whole bunch of things).
Right now, in the US, that's permitted through an employer-based health incentive plan (it's framed as a discount, but there's no real difference). Most people don't have those and haven't had those -- I've had employer based health care since I started working and was covered by my mother's before that, and none of it has ever been based on risk.
Pure risk-based for health care costs is a bad idea (and why a true insurance model would be bad), because a HUGE amount of risks and stuff that happens has nothing to do with anything you did, or it's impossible to tell. Someone gets cancer -- would they if they'd had a healthier lifestyle or never been overweight? Quite likely, yes, even if lifestyle factors are risk factors for that cancer. And in any case no one knows.
Expensive health problems are likely to happen to everyone, even if we live the most perfect healthy lives; it results from age.
So the question is, what's the best way to improve health care results, get people to reduce risk factors, reduce costs overall? IMO, there may be a role for incentives (however health care is funded), but also I think making sure people get routine health care, have prenatal health care and so on are important.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.
How on earth would that be monitored, whether true insurance (i.e., similar to car insurance or fire insurance) or some other plan? You can give incentives/penalties for BMI and for test results (although it's very obvious that many other factors play into test results -- my dad had high cholesterol at one point despite never being overweight and being active, my cholesterol has always been good, even when I was fat). But you can't make it depend on people eating vegetables or not going to drive ins.
It's also funny since I thought one the horror story told about gov't interference is that the gov't could make you by broccoli! (See https://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/14/business/how-broccoli-became-a-symbol-in-the-health-care-debate.html)
Part of the problem is we don't treat health insurance as insurance against catastrophic events. Most want it to pay for everything, and then you get all the friction of cost shifting, etc.
I'm not totally against a catastrophic model, but the problem is there are other major costs, specifically those associated with chronic conditions and aging. For aging we have Medicare already, but chronic conditions are a problem, especially given drug costs, and the issue with pre-existing conditions is of course one thing that almost everyone agrees makes the pure insurance model a problem.
Most people don't buy their own health insurance, also, but have employer based. Generally most going from employer based to a pure insurance model would perceive a loss.
The other issue is encouraging routine visits, preventative care, which is supposed to save costs over time (and should be a venue to work with people on improving lifestyle and losing weight, and prenatal care actually saves costs at/after the birth).BMI monitoring, or even a basic panel of blood and urine tests every year to help set the relative risk wouldn't be a bad thing. We already have to be risk rated for life insurance, for car insurance, and even our homeowners to a certain extent. Why do people think it's ok to not apply risk rating to health insurance?
Why? Because the fact I may be born with T1 diabetes or a chronic autoimmune condition or had cancer may result in much higher costs going forward, but we don't think that bad luck is a reason that person should have to pay more (or be unable to get insurance).I do believe in the majority of cases that will show up in the lab work. Blood Glucose, liver panel functions and other tests are going to give a general idea what's going in someone's mouth.
I think you are wrong here. For some it will, for some it won't. Some will have bad tests eating a good diet, some will eat bad diets and have good tests. It's all risk, not result. Insurance companies (under an insurance model) should care about risk, but this idea that bad health is only (and always) related to poor lifestyle choices is wrong.
But at any rate you are agreeing that the risk analysis would be based on BMI and test results, not what the person is actually eating, right?Heck, the Army tested us periodically and measured our height and weight. If we couldn't run 2 miles fast enough after having been tested for the number of pushups and situps we could do in a two minute period each, then what would be wrong with some sort of physical skills test as part of your physical?
This would be an insurance company physical? Yearly, in connection with qualifying for health insurance?Especially if you want the insurance company to protect you against catastrophic events, it seems only fair that they have an idea of the risk you present.
Voluntary links to MFP, Fitbit or a host of other tracking apps will see if people are biking or binge watching Netflix for the most part. Some sort of treadmill, stairclimber or similar test could measure aerobic conditioning. Tests for flexibility and strength could be done as well.
The insurance company is doing this and using it as a basis to determine premium? Do they get to deny coverage based on it? (For example, you said you would run 30 miles a week, but only logged 10 per week at MFP?)0 -
I am not the one using the word always.
What is the normative result? Are the George Burns' of life a statistically common outcome or an outlier? Most don't drink and smoke and live to be 100+ years old.
Likewise, most who spend more time eating fast food than fresh food are not skinny/normal BMI.
I'm saying if people eat too much, even of healthy food, they'll get fat. Eat 50 bananas a day and unless you are an Olympic swimmer or similar, you'll probably gain weight. (Do we really have millions who are overeating bananas each day?)
Or is the more normative circumstance people who have a dozen take-out meals each week?0 -
tbright1965 wrote: »I am not the one using the word always.
What is the normative result? Are the George Burns' of life a statistically common outcome or an outlier? Most don't drink and smoke and live to be 100+ years old.
Likewise, most who spend more time eating fast food than fresh food are not skinny/normal BMI.
I'm saying if people eat too much, even of healthy food, they'll get fat. Eat 50 bananas a day and unless you are an Olympic swimmer or similar, you'll probably gain weight. (Do we really have millions who are overeating bananas each day?)
Or is the more normative circumstance people who have a dozen take-out meals each week?
Most people don't live to be 100+, so I'm unsure exactly what you're getting at here.
Your initial comment was about tests designed for other conditions being used to tell who was eating broccoli and who was eating Big Macs. My point is that the world isn't neatly divided into those two categories. Most people eat a variety of things and using liver function tests to try to separate the vegetable eaters from the hamburger eaters isn't just using the test to do something it was never designed to do, it's trying to establish a distinction that doesn't exist for very many people.
If people eat too much of anything, they will get fat. The truth of that statement is another reason why trying to separate the world into those who eat broccoli and those who eat hamburgers won't achieve the results you seem to think it will.
I never ate take-out when I was overweight. So even if I had to take a liver function test to see if I tested positive for hamburger, it would be negative. What's the point?1 -
janejellyroll wrote: »What's the point?
I thought my point was obvious, we shouldn't ignore rating on risk.
Now we can debate how best to do that. But I believe risk should be a part of rating health insurance policies.
There are others who have no problem with passing along the costs of their choices to others. (And not just here, it's the human condition.
I see many cite these edge cases. So my question is how many of these cases are there vs the typical outcomes?
I've seen numbers that indicated that roughly 2/3rds of Americans are overweight. They don't all have some sort of disease "making" them this way. Right?
Shifting the costs to the taxpayer is exactly the WRONG way to see changed behavior in those who can address their condition by behavior modification. I.E. eat an apple instead of a cupcake.
That's my point.
If you want to pay for people to eat cupcakes instead of apples, I'd not prevent you from doing so.
I don't wish to be on the hook for those who make the choice of cupcakes over apples most of the time.
Does that mean I believe everyone does that? No.
Does that mean I don't believe there are people who don't have problems where even eating apples will be an issue for them? No. But I do believe that the population of those folks is very small. Most people are simply making bad choices or eating on autopilot.
My best anecdote is the box of Thin Mints or a pint of Ice Cream or a Bag of Chips. For many, those are single servings.
How can that be good? They don't have a disease, they simply don't pay attention to what is going in their mouth. I can be that person too, and have been, so I throw the stone with awareness that I might be a valid target as well.
Someone posted a video in one of the CICO threads where a woman was complaining that she had a slow metabolism. BBC news story IIRC. So they tested her. Normal metabolism. Had her do a video diary of what she ate, then a logbook diary.
Also some sort of bloodtest that could determine her CI based on some chemistry magic.
Bottom line, when she thought she was eating 1000 calories each day, it was closer to 3000.
How many believe they have some disease when in reality they are bad at math or remembering what they ate? Or they simply didn't read the label?
Sorry, ranted on too long about what's my point.
3 -
I would like to see several things happen
1) Everybody pays something even if it is deducted out of a benefit check. All players need to have some skin in the game.
2) Break up the state line boundaries. A national pool is much bigger and would allow associations to form large groups.
3) Git rid of the first dollar covered with a $5 co-pay. We don't go and repaint the car after a scratch with a $5 co-pay.
4) Find a way to control the lawsuits and the belief that any adverse event should amount to a lottery win. The attorneys are the only big winners here. Today you go into a hospital room and the poorest patient families are there with their cell phones out recording everything for the event to happen.
I currently pay $2300.00 monthly to cover my spouse and me. I also have a $3000.00 deductible that I use a medical savings account to cover. I have had this policy for decades but have never used it. It is to protect me in the event something like cancer occurs. It really ticks me off when I see younger people with a $1000 I-Phone and they won't spend $150.00 a month on health insurance. When you are young insurance is still relatively cheap. It is when you age a bit and have assets that it get so un-affordable, it is literally a house payment now. Please don't tell me the government need to provide it, there is nothing the government does well or affordable.3 -
tbright1965 wrote: »I am not the one using the word always.
What is the normative result? Are the George Burns' of life a statistically common outcome or an outlier? Most don't drink and smoke and live to be 100+ years old.
But you said something different. You suggested that we could know who eats a poor diet and who doesn't based on test results. Especially for a younger person, unlikely. I agree obesity and poor diet are risk factors, but not that we can know who is and who isn't from test results. Calling a system that charges more for doing poorly on a cholesterol test one that "charges more for eating McD and not vegetables" is not accurate.Or is the more normative circumstance people who have a dozen take-out meals each week?
I got fat (I'm not now) without eating fast food, as I dislike it, and I always ate lots of vegetables. I was fat, though, so I would have been paying extra for being fat, which I don't really have a big problem with (a penalty or the absence of a discount). But let's not pretend it's about not eating vegetables or eating fast food and let's not pretend insurance companies COULD distinguish on that basis.
Oh, also, when I was fat I had great test results. I understood (and strongly believe) it is still a risk factor, but charging more based on poor test results would have included a thin friend of mine who has cholesterol issues, no one knows why (she eats fine, probably not too different from how I do), and my dad (at one point), even though he was normal weight and ran marathons and biked a lot.
But my cholesterol was good and for that matter my blood sugar was good (never been close to having an insulin issue), and I did fine on all other tests. So claiming you can tell stuff from tests is often not the case (especially for younger people, although I wasn't that young).
So let's stop pretending people are paying more for not eating vegetables and eating fast food a lot (who knows) and just say you want people to pay more for bad test results (so you'd pay more, as I understand it, right?) and BMI.1 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »
So let's stop pretending people are paying more for not eating vegetables and eating fast food a lot (who knows) and just say you want people to pay more for bad test results (so you'd pay more, as I understand it, right?) and BMI.
But that isn't what I said.
I'm pretty sure I PROPOSED it.
I want people to face the fiscal consequences of their choices. I actually said that, full stop. I SUGGESTED testing.
If you know a better way, speak up.
But don't assume that just because I may not have suggested a fool proof way of demonstrating poor choices that I simply want people to pay for bad test results.
I was patently clear that I didn't want the risk of bad choices passed along to others. So please, don't put words in my mouth.4 -
No. It depends on your actual health. My company has a health risk assessment every year in the fall. I get a discount on my insurance because my waist to hip ratio is 10+ inches, my glucose is low, my HDL is high, my bad cholesterol is low, the rest of what they check is always in the green ranges. I also don't smoke and that gets me some extra points.The only thing I fail is weight/BMI, but since my other blood work and blood pressure are fine, I get enough points to pass and every year I improve that score by lowering my weight and keeping everything else in the green. Why should I have to pay more? I pay $5000 a year in premiums and rarely even go to the doctor. Meanwhile, someone in the "healthy" weight range has high cholesterol, blood pressure, etc., but they pass with flying colors because they get a boost from having a low weight and BMI...but I'm not taking medication like they are. Shouldn't they pay more?
I think if your employer is going to impose that kind of thing, they should be testing everyone in the company before assigning rates.1 -
tbright1965 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »
So let's stop pretending people are paying more for not eating vegetables and eating fast food a lot (who knows) and just say you want people to pay more for bad test results (so you'd pay more, as I understand it, right?) and BMI.
But that isn't what I said.
I'm pretty sure I PROPOSED it.
You said that people should pay more for eating fast food and less for eating vegetables.
I asked how on earth the insurance company would be able to track that (and also if they would be able to use it as a basis to deny coverage, if you weren't fully upfront about your fast food habits or vegetable aversions).
You said that tests would show it.
So what you really mean is NOT that insurance companies will charge more based on diet (which doesn't seem possible to administer), but that they would charge more based on test results.
If I am not understanding this properly, what ARE you proposing when you say diet should be relevant to costs?1 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »tbright1965 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »
So let's stop pretending people are paying more for not eating vegetables and eating fast food a lot (who knows) and just say you want people to pay more for bad test results (so you'd pay more, as I understand it, right?) and BMI.
But that isn't what I said.
I'm pretty sure I PROPOSED it.
You said that people should pay more for eating fast food and less for eating vegetables.
I asked how on earth the insurance company would be able to track that (and also if they would be able to use it as a basis to deny coverage, if you weren't fully upfront about your fast food habits or vegetable aversions).
You said that tests would show it.
So what you really mean is NOT that insurance companies will charge more based on diet (which doesn't seem possible to administer), but that they would charge more based on test results.
If I am not understanding this properly, what ARE you proposing when you say diet should be relevant to costs?
Context is everything.
So if it wasn't clear before, is it clear now? Or are you still insisting on putting words in my mouth?
If someone makes poor food and fitness choices, why should others pay?
Now I may not know how to figure that out. What are your suggestions?
If blood work, urine tests, tests of cardiovascular response, flexibility and so on will not catch that, what will?
Why should the person who makes good choices be passed the fiscal responsibility of those who don't?5 -
tbright1965 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »tbright1965 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »
So let's stop pretending people are paying more for not eating vegetables and eating fast food a lot (who knows) and just say you want people to pay more for bad test results (so you'd pay more, as I understand it, right?) and BMI.
But that isn't what I said.
I'm pretty sure I PROPOSED it.
You said that people should pay more for eating fast food and less for eating vegetables.
I asked how on earth the insurance company would be able to track that (and also if they would be able to use it as a basis to deny coverage, if you weren't fully upfront about your fast food habits or vegetable aversions).
You said that tests would show it.
So what you really mean is NOT that insurance companies will charge more based on diet (which doesn't seem possible to administer), but that they would charge more based on test results.
If I am not understanding this properly, what ARE you proposing when you say diet should be relevant to costs?
Context is everything.
So if it wasn't clear before, is it clear now? Or are you still insisting on putting words in my mouth?
If someone makes poor food and fitness choices, why should others pay?
Now I may not know how to figure that out. What are your suggestions?
If blood work, urine tests, tests of cardiovascular response, flexibility and so on will not catch that, what will?
Why should the person who makes good choices be passed the fiscal responsibility of those who don't?
Let me repeat:
If I am not understanding this properly, what ARE you proposing when you say diet should be relevant to costs?
It still looks to me like you are suggesting that people should pay more based on their various test results. If so, why not own it?
Edit: my own view is that insurance companies will not be able to determine how people are eating. Instead, the options would be something like a workplace fitness program where you get a discount for participating and doing certain things. (I have no problem with it, but some do, and I understand the research so far suggests they aren't actually making a difference, although I had some nits with it so am not 100% convinced they aren't helpful.) OR (or in addition to), the topic of the thread, charging more for having an obese BMI (or, if you challenge it, an obese BF%). I am not that bothered by that, but that's not the same thing as this charge people for eating fast food and not vegetables thing.0 -
Because most people get fat because they make poor food choices.
I'm sure you can find an edge case.
Are you really telling me that the 2/3rd of Americans who are overweight are overweight because they eat too much broccoli?
Frankly, I really don't care what they eat.
However, I don't believe they are overweight because they eat too much broccoli.
Do you?
People don't get fat from sitting around and breathing. The biology doesn't work that way. Something has to go in their mouths. Given the high incidence of diabetes, heart disease and obesity, I'm not convinced they are getting fat because they are eating too many fruits and vegetables.
Now if you have data that indicates the vast majority of obese people are consuming the bulk of their calories in fruits, vegetables, fish, lean meats and low fat dairy, I'd like to see it.
What would ultimately be measured are the results of poor choices. No, I really don't care how they got there. But I'm willing to wager that the vast majority of those who are obese are obese because too many fast or processed foods and not enough more healthy choices.
Again, unless you have data that suggest that the 2/3rds who are obese are by and large consistently making good food and exercise choices and are merely victims of bad genetics.
But it's my contention that that figure is closer to 1% than it is a majority of the 2/3rds who are obese.
3 -
tbright1965 wrote: »Because most people get fat because they make poor food choices.
Obviously people get fat because they eat too much (too many calories), which is a result of making bad food choices (or not thinking about what they eat), whether they eat vegetables or fast food or both.
But you are changing the topic. Again, you said: "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."
I said (and janejellyroll also asked some questions): "How on earth would that be monitored, whether true insurance (i.e., similar to car insurance or fire insurance) or some other plan? You can give incentives/penalties for BMI and for test results (although it's very obvious that many other factors play into test results -- my dad had high cholesterol at one point despite never being overweight and being active, my cholesterol has always been good, even when I was fat). But you can't make it depend on people eating vegetables or not going to drive ins."
Again, this digression is not about the question "should people pay more if they have an obese BMI." I think that's probably a bad idea, but I am okay with various financial incentives for keeping in shape/not being obese, depending on how they are defined.
My point was that it's obviously not realistic to think you could be charged more based on how you eat as in whether in the past year you met the recommended amount of vegetables more often than not or never ate them or went to McD's every other day or not at all. (Similarly, you can be a poor or reckless driver and so long as you get away with it your car insurance won't reflect it.)I'm sure you can find an edge case.
It's NOT an edge case to say plenty of fat people don't eat a lot of fast food (given the percentages who are fat you can't generalize about them, except that they all eat more than they should for their activity level, or did in the past). It's also not an edge case to say lots of fat people eat vegetables (I ate tons of vegetables, far more than most people, when I was fat, as I do now -- I also ate too much overall, and eating vegetables didn't mean I wasn't fat or that fat is not a risk factor).
Nor is it an edge case to say that plenty of people who aren't fat and eat well do poorly on health tests, even if fat people, on average, do worse. So if you want to base insurance costs on BMI or tests, that's fine, we can discuss that. You are the one who changed the topic to this idea of charging based on whether your diet is nutritionally sound or not, or fast food consumption.Are you really telling me that the 2/3rd of Americans who are overweight are overweight because they eat too much broccoli?
I am saying they could easily be fat WHILE eating a good bit of broccoli and other vegetables (Americans in general eat far too few vegetables, obv, but there are lots of exceptions and they aren't all thin). They could also be overweight when not eating much fast food.Frankly, I really don't care what they eat.
Great!
So can we stop pretending fat people must eat nutritionally poor, stereotypical diets (or that the only healthy diet has no foods that are easy to overeat in it)? Your proposal ISN'T that people should pay more for eating fast food and not vegetables. It's that they should pay more (if the insurance co wishes to charge them more) for being obese (or, I guess, just overweight, based on the latest). (And I of course agree that people get overweight because they eat too much, even if what they eat is different from your stereotype of them rushing through the drive in daily.)
Presumably the insurance co can also charge more for bad test results, if we are using a pure insurance model? That's what the underwriting would say.4 -
tbright1965 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »What's the point?
I thought my point was obvious, we shouldn't ignore rating on risk.
Now we can debate how best to do that. But I believe risk should be a part of rating health insurance policies.
There are others who have no problem with passing along the costs of their choices to others. (And not just here, it's the human condition.
I see many cite these edge cases. So my question is how many of these cases are there vs the typical outcomes?
I've seen numbers that indicated that roughly 2/3rds of Americans are overweight. They don't all have some sort of disease "making" them this way. Right?
Shifting the costs to the taxpayer is exactly the WRONG way to see changed behavior in those who can address their condition by behavior modification. I.E. eat an apple instead of a cupcake.
That's my point.
If you want to pay for people to eat cupcakes instead of apples, I'd not prevent you from doing so.
I don't wish to be on the hook for those who make the choice of cupcakes over apples most of the time.
Does that mean I believe everyone does that? No.
Does that mean I don't believe there are people who don't have problems where even eating apples will be an issue for them? No. But I do believe that the population of those folks is very small. Most people are simply making bad choices or eating on autopilot.
My best anecdote is the box of Thin Mints or a pint of Ice Cream or a Bag of Chips. For many, those are single servings.
How can that be good? They don't have a disease, they simply don't pay attention to what is going in their mouth. I can be that person too, and have been, so I throw the stone with awareness that I might be a valid target as well.
Someone posted a video in one of the CICO threads where a woman was complaining that she had a slow metabolism. BBC news story IIRC. So they tested her. Normal metabolism. Had her do a video diary of what she ate, then a logbook diary.
Also some sort of bloodtest that could determine her CI based on some chemistry magic.
Bottom line, when she thought she was eating 1000 calories each day, it was closer to 3000.
How many believe they have some disease when in reality they are bad at math or remembering what they ate? Or they simply didn't read the label?
Sorry, ranted on too long about what's my point.
A liver function test isn't going to disclose whether someone is sometimes eating cupcakes.
When I ask "What's the point?" I'm specifically talking about your proposal to use diagnostic tests designed for specific purposes (liver function, etc) and trying to somehow use that data to determine what people are eating.
If someone is overweight and losing weight will reduce their risk of chronic disease (which I believe to be shown by the evidence), it's irrelevant if they're eating apples or Big Macs. Whether their excess weight comes from whole grains or pizza (or, a combination of the two), losing weight is what is important. Can poor food choices be contributing to that? In some cases, probably.
But I'm not seeing the point of over-complicating things. If someone is overweight, getting to the root of that (consuming excess energy) is going to be more useful to assuming they eat too many hamburgers (I gained all my excess weight without ever eating a single burger).2 -
tbright1965 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »tbright1965 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »
So let's stop pretending people are paying more for not eating vegetables and eating fast food a lot (who knows) and just say you want people to pay more for bad test results (so you'd pay more, as I understand it, right?) and BMI.
But that isn't what I said.
I'm pretty sure I PROPOSED it.
You said that people should pay more for eating fast food and less for eating vegetables.
I asked how on earth the insurance company would be able to track that (and also if they would be able to use it as a basis to deny coverage, if you weren't fully upfront about your fast food habits or vegetable aversions).
You said that tests would show it.
So what you really mean is NOT that insurance companies will charge more based on diet (which doesn't seem possible to administer), but that they would charge more based on test results.
If I am not understanding this properly, what ARE you proposing when you say diet should be relevant to costs?
Context is everything.
So if it wasn't clear before, is it clear now? Or are you still insisting on putting words in my mouth?
If someone makes poor food and fitness choices, why should others pay?
Now I may not know how to figure that out. What are your suggestions?
If blood work, urine tests, tests of cardiovascular response, flexibility and so on will not catch that, what will?
Why should the person who makes good choices be passed the fiscal responsibility of those who don't?
If we don't yet know how to determine if people are making "poor choices" (however you wish to define that), then it seems premature to insist that the people making them pay more.
2 -
No. many body builders who have really low BF% are considered obese or overweight due to the lousy BMI metric.
The use of BMI by health insurance as metric of your overall health needs to be eliminated completely, its a complete farse that for many is terribly inaccurate.4
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 422 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions