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
-
mutantspicy wrote: »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.
Presumably in any system where BMI was used to help determine insurance rates, there could be a supplemental process to help the bodybuilders impacted by it get a secondary metric (say, body fat) to help determine an appropriate rate for them if they felt they were impacted negatively by the change. We're talking about a very small part of the US population that is in the overweight/obese category when it comes to BMI scores.
It seems like there are way more truly overweight and obese people decrying BMI as a legitimate trending tool due to the "bodybuilder exception" than there are bodybuilders impacted by it.4 -
janejellyroll wrote: »mutantspicy wrote: »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.
Presumably in any system where BMI was used to help determine insurance rates, there could be a supplemental process to help the bodybuilders impacted by it get a secondary metric (say, body fat) to help determine an appropriate rate for them if they felt they were impacted negatively by the change. We're talking about a very small part of the US population that is in the overweight/obese category when it comes to BMI scores.
It seems like there are way more truly overweight and obese people decrying BMI as a legitimate trending tool due to the "bodybuilder exception" than there are bodybuilders impacted by it.
My BF% is sub 20% I'm considered overweight at 195lb. I would need to be almost 30lbs lighter 165lb to be in the normal range, which would mean losing a lot of muscle mass. So no its not just body builders who are affected I used that as an extreme example. And yes there is a corrected BMI scale that takes BF% into account, its far more accurate.3 -
mutantspicy wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »mutantspicy wrote: »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.
Presumably in any system where BMI was used to help determine insurance rates, there could be a supplemental process to help the bodybuilders impacted by it get a secondary metric (say, body fat) to help determine an appropriate rate for them if they felt they were impacted negatively by the change. We're talking about a very small part of the US population that is in the overweight/obese category when it comes to BMI scores.
It seems like there are way more truly overweight and obese people decrying BMI as a legitimate trending tool due to the "bodybuilder exception" than there are bodybuilders impacted by it.
My BF% is sub 20% I'm considered overweight at 195lb. I would need to be almost 30lbs lighter 165lb to be in the normal range, which would mean losing a lot of muscle mass. So no its not just body builders who are affected I used that as an extreme example. And yes there is a corrected BMI scale that takes BF% into account, its far more accurate.
My exact point: there is a supplemental metric that would be available for you.
I maintain that among those who are in the overweight/obese BMI categories in the US, it is likely that those with genuine weight issues outweigh those whose LBM is putting them into the categories. That's what any first screening tool should focus on, the preponderance of cases. You could then have supplemental tools (like body fat) to help determine if anyone is inappropriately being placed into a category.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »mutantspicy wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »mutantspicy wrote: »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.
Presumably in any system where BMI was used to help determine insurance rates, there could be a supplemental process to help the bodybuilders impacted by it get a secondary metric (say, body fat) to help determine an appropriate rate for them if they felt they were impacted negatively by the change. We're talking about a very small part of the US population that is in the overweight/obese category when it comes to BMI scores.
It seems like there are way more truly overweight and obese people decrying BMI as a legitimate trending tool due to the "bodybuilder exception" than there are bodybuilders impacted by it.
My BF% is sub 20% I'm considered overweight at 195lb. I would need to be almost 30lbs lighter 165lb to be in the normal range, which would mean losing a lot of muscle mass. So no its not just body builders who are affected I used that as an extreme example. And yes there is a corrected BMI scale that takes BF% into account, its far more accurate.
My exact point: there is a supplemental metric that would be available for you.
I maintain that among those who are in the overweight/obese BMI categories in the US, it is likely that those with genuine weight issues outweigh those whose LBM is putting them into the categories. That's what any first screening tool should focus on, the preponderance of cases. You could then have supplemental tools (like body fat) to help determine if anyone is inappropriately being placed into a category.
I agree that would be great, but the Insurance companies aren't using BF% as part of the metric yet, and so those with some muscle get graded negatively. So my insurance doesn't punish you, but instead gives you a bonus to your HSA if you hit certain metrics and uncorrected BMI is one of them, which luckily I hit 3 out of the other 4 so I do get the bonus.0 -
mutantspicy wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »mutantspicy wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »mutantspicy wrote: »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.
Presumably in any system where BMI was used to help determine insurance rates, there could be a supplemental process to help the bodybuilders impacted by it get a secondary metric (say, body fat) to help determine an appropriate rate for them if they felt they were impacted negatively by the change. We're talking about a very small part of the US population that is in the overweight/obese category when it comes to BMI scores.
It seems like there are way more truly overweight and obese people decrying BMI as a legitimate trending tool due to the "bodybuilder exception" than there are bodybuilders impacted by it.
My BF% is sub 20% I'm considered overweight at 195lb. I would need to be almost 30lbs lighter 165lb to be in the normal range, which would mean losing a lot of muscle mass. So no its not just body builders who are affected I used that as an extreme example. And yes there is a corrected BMI scale that takes BF% into account, its far more accurate.
My exact point: there is a supplemental metric that would be available for you.
I maintain that among those who are in the overweight/obese BMI categories in the US, it is likely that those with genuine weight issues outweigh those whose LBM is putting them into the categories. That's what any first screening tool should focus on, the preponderance of cases. You could then have supplemental tools (like body fat) to help determine if anyone is inappropriately being placed into a category.
I agree that would be great, but the Insurance companies aren't using BF% as part of the metric yet, and so those with some muscle get graded negatively. So my insurance doesn't punish you, but instead gives you a bonus to your HSA if you hit certain metrics and uncorrected BMI is one of them, which luckily I hit 3 out of the other 4 so I do get the bonus.
Oh, I wasn't aware that some companies were already using BMI to determine insurance rates/HSA payouts.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »mutantspicy wrote: »
My BF% is sub 20% I'm considered overweight at 195lb. I would need to be almost 30lbs lighter 165lb to be in the normal range, which would mean losing a lot of muscle mass. So no its not just body builders who are affected I used that as an extreme example. And yes there is a corrected BMI scale that takes BF% into account, its far more accurate.
My exact point: there is a supplemental metric that would be available for you.
I maintain that among those who are in the overweight/obese BMI categories in the US, it is likely that those with genuine weight issues outweigh those whose LBM is putting them into the categories. That's what any first screening tool should focus on, the preponderance of cases. You could then have supplemental tools (like body fat) to help determine if anyone is inappropriately being placed into a category.
The Army handled this with a supplemental tape test. I am 5'11" and I think they wanted me to weigh ~175 (It's been a generation since I served, so YMMV)
But I'd max the PT test at 195-200#. A two mile time sub 13:00, 70+ push ups and 80+ sit ups in the 2 minutes allocated for each.
When my 18.5-19" neck and 32" waist were measured, I was not overweight for my build.
So BMI tables wouldn't be a good measure. There are ways to determine more accurate Body Fat percentages than putting height and weight into a formula.
2 -
tbright1965 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »mutantspicy wrote: »
My BF% is sub 20% I'm considered overweight at 195lb. I would need to be almost 30lbs lighter 165lb to be in the normal range, which would mean losing a lot of muscle mass. So no its not just body builders who are affected I used that as an extreme example. And yes there is a corrected BMI scale that takes BF% into account, its far more accurate.
My exact point: there is a supplemental metric that would be available for you.
I maintain that among those who are in the overweight/obese BMI categories in the US, it is likely that those with genuine weight issues outweigh those whose LBM is putting them into the categories. That's what any first screening tool should focus on, the preponderance of cases. You could then have supplemental tools (like body fat) to help determine if anyone is inappropriately being placed into a category.
The Army handled this with a supplemental tape test. I am 5'10" and I think they wanted me to weigh ~175 (It's been a generation since I served, so YMMV)
But I'd max the PT test at 195-200#. A two mile time sub 13:00, 70+ push ups and 80+ sit ups in the 2 minutes allocated for each.
When my 18.5-19" neck and 32" waist were measured, I was not overweight for my build.
So BMI tables wouldn't be a good measure. There are ways to determine more accurate Body Fat percentages than putting height and weight into a formula.
I am not proposing that we use the BMI tables to determine body fat percentages.1 -
janejellyroll wrote: »mutantspicy wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »mutantspicy wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »mutantspicy wrote: »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.
Presumably in any system where BMI was used to help determine insurance rates, there could be a supplemental process to help the bodybuilders impacted by it get a secondary metric (say, body fat) to help determine an appropriate rate for them if they felt they were impacted negatively by the change. We're talking about a very small part of the US population that is in the overweight/obese category when it comes to BMI scores.
It seems like there are way more truly overweight and obese people decrying BMI as a legitimate trending tool due to the "bodybuilder exception" than there are bodybuilders impacted by it.
My BF% is sub 20% I'm considered overweight at 195lb. I would need to be almost 30lbs lighter 165lb to be in the normal range, which would mean losing a lot of muscle mass. So no its not just body builders who are affected I used that as an extreme example. And yes there is a corrected BMI scale that takes BF% into account, its far more accurate.
My exact point: there is a supplemental metric that would be available for you.
I maintain that among those who are in the overweight/obese BMI categories in the US, it is likely that those with genuine weight issues outweigh those whose LBM is putting them into the categories. That's what any first screening tool should focus on, the preponderance of cases. You could then have supplemental tools (like body fat) to help determine if anyone is inappropriately being placed into a category.
I agree that would be great, but the Insurance companies aren't using BF% as part of the metric yet, and so those with some muscle get graded negatively. So my insurance doesn't punish you, but instead gives you a bonus to your HSA if you hit certain metrics and uncorrected BMI is one of them, which luckily I hit 3 out of the other 4 so I do get the bonus.
Oh, I wasn't aware that some companies were already using BMI to determine insurance rates/HSA payouts.
Yeah the last two years its becoming common. Its not being used as a penalty like smoking but as an "incentive program" currently.0 -
mutantspicy wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »mutantspicy wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »mutantspicy wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »mutantspicy wrote: »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.
Presumably in any system where BMI was used to help determine insurance rates, there could be a supplemental process to help the bodybuilders impacted by it get a secondary metric (say, body fat) to help determine an appropriate rate for them if they felt they were impacted negatively by the change. We're talking about a very small part of the US population that is in the overweight/obese category when it comes to BMI scores.
It seems like there are way more truly overweight and obese people decrying BMI as a legitimate trending tool due to the "bodybuilder exception" than there are bodybuilders impacted by it.
My BF% is sub 20% I'm considered overweight at 195lb. I would need to be almost 30lbs lighter 165lb to be in the normal range, which would mean losing a lot of muscle mass. So no its not just body builders who are affected I used that as an extreme example. And yes there is a corrected BMI scale that takes BF% into account, its far more accurate.
My exact point: there is a supplemental metric that would be available for you.
I maintain that among those who are in the overweight/obese BMI categories in the US, it is likely that those with genuine weight issues outweigh those whose LBM is putting them into the categories. That's what any first screening tool should focus on, the preponderance of cases. You could then have supplemental tools (like body fat) to help determine if anyone is inappropriately being placed into a category.
I agree that would be great, but the Insurance companies aren't using BF% as part of the metric yet, and so those with some muscle get graded negatively. So my insurance doesn't punish you, but instead gives you a bonus to your HSA if you hit certain metrics and uncorrected BMI is one of them, which luckily I hit 3 out of the other 4 so I do get the bonus.
Oh, I wasn't aware that some companies were already using BMI to determine insurance rates/HSA payouts.
Yeah the last two years its becoming common. Its not being used as a penalty like smoking but as an "incentive program" currently.
My program gives us an HSA payout for getting our metrics checked (including BMI), but it isn't based on our specific results.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »mutantspicy wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »mutantspicy wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »mutantspicy wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »mutantspicy wrote: »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.
Presumably in any system where BMI was used to help determine insurance rates, there could be a supplemental process to help the bodybuilders impacted by it get a secondary metric (say, body fat) to help determine an appropriate rate for them if they felt they were impacted negatively by the change. We're talking about a very small part of the US population that is in the overweight/obese category when it comes to BMI scores.
It seems like there are way more truly overweight and obese people decrying BMI as a legitimate trending tool due to the "bodybuilder exception" than there are bodybuilders impacted by it.
My BF% is sub 20% I'm considered overweight at 195lb. I would need to be almost 30lbs lighter 165lb to be in the normal range, which would mean losing a lot of muscle mass. So no its not just body builders who are affected I used that as an extreme example. And yes there is a corrected BMI scale that takes BF% into account, its far more accurate.
My exact point: there is a supplemental metric that would be available for you.
I maintain that among those who are in the overweight/obese BMI categories in the US, it is likely that those with genuine weight issues outweigh those whose LBM is putting them into the categories. That's what any first screening tool should focus on, the preponderance of cases. You could then have supplemental tools (like body fat) to help determine if anyone is inappropriately being placed into a category.
I agree that would be great, but the Insurance companies aren't using BF% as part of the metric yet, and so those with some muscle get graded negatively. So my insurance doesn't punish you, but instead gives you a bonus to your HSA if you hit certain metrics and uncorrected BMI is one of them, which luckily I hit 3 out of the other 4 so I do get the bonus.
Oh, I wasn't aware that some companies were already using BMI to determine insurance rates/HSA payouts.
Yeah the last two years its becoming common. Its not being used as a penalty like smoking but as an "incentive program" currently.
My program gives us an HSA payout for getting our metrics checked (including BMI), but it isn't based on our specific results.
For us to get the payout you need to be in normal range for 3 of 5 metrics.
0 -
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.
Justice Democrat's candidate Amy Vilela's adult daughter died because a hospital wouldn't examine/treat her for a DVT because she didn't have insurance. They only have to treat emergency cases, not long term illnesses. Esophageal cancer causing you to choke? They'll intubate you so you can breathe, but they won't give you chemo or radiation to actually treat the cancer.1 -
eturney346 wrote: »Absolutely! I think there should be a system of “fines” for any unhealthy habits, including unhealthy eating habits, and most definitely obesity.
Or, conversely, rewards for being healthy. Pay the full amount if you're overweight/obese, get a 10% discount if you're at a healthy weight. This coming from someone who is overweight and willing to pay (literally) for my poor eating decisions in the past, which I am actively working to change.1 -
mutantspicy wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »mutantspicy wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »mutantspicy wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »mutantspicy wrote: »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.
Presumably in any system where BMI was used to help determine insurance rates, there could be a supplemental process to help the bodybuilders impacted by it get a secondary metric (say, body fat) to help determine an appropriate rate for them if they felt they were impacted negatively by the change. We're talking about a very small part of the US population that is in the overweight/obese category when it comes to BMI scores.
It seems like there are way more truly overweight and obese people decrying BMI as a legitimate trending tool due to the "bodybuilder exception" than there are bodybuilders impacted by it.
My BF% is sub 20% I'm considered overweight at 195lb. I would need to be almost 30lbs lighter 165lb to be in the normal range, which would mean losing a lot of muscle mass. So no its not just body builders who are affected I used that as an extreme example. And yes there is a corrected BMI scale that takes BF% into account, its far more accurate.
My exact point: there is a supplemental metric that would be available for you.
I maintain that among those who are in the overweight/obese BMI categories in the US, it is likely that those with genuine weight issues outweigh those whose LBM is putting them into the categories. That's what any first screening tool should focus on, the preponderance of cases. You could then have supplemental tools (like body fat) to help determine if anyone is inappropriately being placed into a category.
I agree that would be great, but the Insurance companies aren't using BF% as part of the metric yet, and so those with some muscle get graded negatively. So my insurance doesn't punish you, but instead gives you a bonus to your HSA if you hit certain metrics and uncorrected BMI is one of them, which luckily I hit 3 out of the other 4 so I do get the bonus.
Oh, I wasn't aware that some companies were already using BMI to determine insurance rates/HSA payouts.
Yeah the last two years its becoming common. Its not being used as a penalty like smoking but as an "incentive program" currently.
Isn't it workplaces that do that? https://www.kff.org/private-insurance/issue-brief/workplace-wellness-programs-characteristics-and-requirements/
I don't know if such a thing exists for individual plans, have not researched it at all, so I suppose it might.
My employer doesn't have a wellness program, but BCBS's "evaluate your own health" thingy (that gets me exactly nothing, but I thought it would be interesting) judges weight as a negative if you are (a) obese by BMI or (b) overweight by BMI AND have a bad waist/hip measurement. I think that's an okay criteria so long as there were an opportunity to use other criteria as an alternative (the 3 out of 4 thing) or the challenge the result based on body fat. (Maybe covered if you are within some percentage point of the range that is healthy so as to prevent frivolous challenges.)0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »mutantspicy wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »mutantspicy wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »mutantspicy wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »mutantspicy wrote: »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.
Presumably in any system where BMI was used to help determine insurance rates, there could be a supplemental process to help the bodybuilders impacted by it get a secondary metric (say, body fat) to help determine an appropriate rate for them if they felt they were impacted negatively by the change. We're talking about a very small part of the US population that is in the overweight/obese category when it comes to BMI scores.
It seems like there are way more truly overweight and obese people decrying BMI as a legitimate trending tool due to the "bodybuilder exception" than there are bodybuilders impacted by it.
My BF% is sub 20% I'm considered overweight at 195lb. I would need to be almost 30lbs lighter 165lb to be in the normal range, which would mean losing a lot of muscle mass. So no its not just body builders who are affected I used that as an extreme example. And yes there is a corrected BMI scale that takes BF% into account, its far more accurate.
My exact point: there is a supplemental metric that would be available for you.
I maintain that among those who are in the overweight/obese BMI categories in the US, it is likely that those with genuine weight issues outweigh those whose LBM is putting them into the categories. That's what any first screening tool should focus on, the preponderance of cases. You could then have supplemental tools (like body fat) to help determine if anyone is inappropriately being placed into a category.
I agree that would be great, but the Insurance companies aren't using BF% as part of the metric yet, and so those with some muscle get graded negatively. So my insurance doesn't punish you, but instead gives you a bonus to your HSA if you hit certain metrics and uncorrected BMI is one of them, which luckily I hit 3 out of the other 4 so I do get the bonus.
Oh, I wasn't aware that some companies were already using BMI to determine insurance rates/HSA payouts.
Yeah the last two years its becoming common. Its not being used as a penalty like smoking but as an "incentive program" currently.
Isn't it workplaces that do that? https://www.kff.org/private-insurance/issue-brief/workplace-wellness-programs-characteristics-and-requirements/
I don't know if such a thing exists for individual plans, have not researched it at all, so I suppose it might.
My employer doesn't have a wellness program, but BCBS's "evaluate your own health" thingy (that gets me exactly nothing, but I thought it would be interesting) judges weight as a negative if you are (a) obese by BMI or (b) overweight by BMI AND have a bad waist/hip measurement. I think that's an okay criteria so long as there were an opportunity to use other criteria as an alternative (the 3 out of 4 thing) or the challenge the result based on body fat. (Maybe covered if you are within some percentage point of the range that is healthy so as to prevent frivolous challenges.)
My Insurance is Aetna, I guessing my company chose this wellness program to get some sort of corporate wide discount. But yeah I do think it is individual to each company.0 -
tbright1965 wrote: »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.
Bravo! Very well said!0 -
tbright1965 wrote: »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.
Bravo! Very well said!
Do you truly believe that American healthcare is (or was before the ACA) better than most European healthcare systems are? Countries with socialized healthcare experience high levels of "government interference," yet have much lower cost per capita (paid by tax dollars, not out of pocket) and also have great outcomes. Government isn't the problem, corporate greed is.5 -
JMcGee2018 wrote: »tbright1965 wrote: »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.
Bravo! Very well said!
Do you truly believe that American healthcare is (or was before the ACA) better than most European healthcare systems are? Countries with socialized healthcare experience high levels of "government interference," yet have much lower cost per capita (paid by tax dollars, not out of pocket) and also have great outcomes. Government isn't the problem, corporate greed is.
Government and corporate both have a hand in high health care costs. Government won't pass regulations that allow sales of insurance over state lines that would remove administrative costs and increase competition. Government is not willing to look at possible regulation of drug prices. The lawyers that run government refuse to take a serious look at tort reform.
There is plenty of blame to share.2 -
JMcGee2018 wrote: »tbright1965 wrote: »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.
Bravo! Very well said!
Do you truly believe that American healthcare is (or was before the ACA) better than most European healthcare systems are? Countries with socialized healthcare experience high levels of "government interference," yet have much lower cost per capita (paid by tax dollars, not out of pocket) and also have great outcomes. Government isn't the problem, corporate greed is.
Yes we did have better healthcare, before ACA, than socialized medicine countries. Routine things like soar throats, flu, an infection, are one thing. It's great that those are paid for. But treatments like cancer treatments, transplants, even joint replacements are something different. People will come to the USA for those treatments very often because the wait time is so long or it's denied. I'd like to see what kind of treatment/ medications I would be getting for my autoimmune diseases under socialized medicine vs our system. Just one of my medications is $4,000. Per month and gets paid by insurance. Wonder if I would get it for free elsewhere?
6 -
Packerjohn wrote: »JMcGee2018 wrote: »tbright1965 wrote: »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.
Bravo! Very well said!
Do you truly believe that American healthcare is (or was before the ACA) better than most European healthcare systems are? Countries with socialized healthcare experience high levels of "government interference," yet have much lower cost per capita (paid by tax dollars, not out of pocket) and also have great outcomes. Government isn't the problem, corporate greed is.
Government and corporate both have a hand in high health care costs. Government won't pass regulations that allow sales of insurance over state lines that would remove administrative costs and increase competition. Government is not willing to look at possible regulation of drug prices. The lawyers that run government refuse to take a serious look at tort reform.
There is plenty of blame to share.
You just hit the nail on the head!!0 -
JMcGee2018 wrote: »tbright1965 wrote: »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.
Bravo! Very well said!
Do you truly believe that American healthcare is (or was before the ACA) better than most European healthcare systems are? Countries with socialized healthcare experience high levels of "government interference," yet have much lower cost per capita (paid by tax dollars, not out of pocket) and also have great outcomes. Government isn't the problem, corporate/government greed is the same.
Amended for accuracy.
Cost is not cheaper in socialized structures. The expenses are all hidden by the bureaucracy. The cost per individual is far more expensive in socialized structures largely due to the massive administration costs.
Government collaborating with big business is the problem.3
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 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
- 911 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions