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?

1…4445464749

Replies

  • lemurcat2
    lemurcat2 Posts: 7,885 Member
    MargaretYakoda wrote: »
    autobahn66 wrote: »
    For my whole childhood I watch ads for foods which should, by all rights not exist, never mind be fed to children.

    I don’t know if this was the case where you live, but I remember when Nutella was advertised here in the US as a healthy breakfast choice for children.

    I mean, sure. Nutella is delicious. But it’s not exactly a healthy breakfast option. It’s a treat. And should never have been allowed to be advertised as anything otherwise.

    Interesting--I find many people I know in the US have never tried nutella (I haven't), and I've never seen an ad for it. I mostly know of it from Europeans, although it's not a surprising thing to find on the menu as part of some dish in a brunch restaurant (there's a Nutella Cafe here, although I've never been). Never heard it advertised as a "healthy breakfast," so googled and found this: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/nutella-health-claims-net-305-million-settlement-in-class-action-lawsuit/

    Have to admit I agree with this: https://slate.com/human-interest/2011/08/nutella-lawsuit-why-it-s-bunk.html
  • MargaretYakoda
    MargaretYakoda Posts: 2,985 Member
    edited July 2021
    lemurcat2 wrote: »
    MargaretYakoda wrote: »
    autobahn66 wrote: »
    For my whole childhood I watch ads for foods which should, by all rights not exist, never mind be fed to children.

    I don’t know if this was the case where you live, but I remember when Nutella was advertised here in the US as a healthy breakfast choice for children.

    I mean, sure. Nutella is delicious. But it’s not exactly a healthy breakfast option. It’s a treat. And should never have been allowed to be advertised as anything otherwise.

    Interesting--I find many people I know in the US have never tried nutella (I haven't), and I've never seen an ad for it. I mostly know of it from Europeans, although it's not a surprising thing to find on the menu as part of some dish in a brunch restaurant (there's a Nutella Cafe here, although I've never been). Never heard it advertised as a "healthy breakfast," so googled and found this: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/nutella-health-claims-net-305-million-settlement-in-class-action-lawsuit/

    Have to admit I agree with this: https://slate.com/human-interest/2011/08/nutella-lawsuit-why-it-s-bunk.html

    It was definitely advertised as “part of a healthy breakfast”
    And ya. People often don’t put much critical thinking into food choices that are advertised at us as “healthy”

    I had an elderly German friend back then who advised me Nutella is a treat, not a fruit. So I didn’t get in the habit of slathering it on anything too thickly.

    In fact, when I worked at a daycare very occasionally we would give it to the school aged kids as their afternoon snack. My boss had purchased it originally thinking it was a healthy choice.

    So, I showed her my trick.
    On butter flavored rice cakes. Spread the Nutella as thinly as you can possibly manage. Sweet, salty, buttery, crunchy. And chocolate.
    It’s absolutely divine that way. And you can make the jar last a very long time.
  • autobahn66
    autobahn66 Posts: 59 Member
    MargaretYakoda wrote: »
    autobahn66 wrote: »
    For my whole childhood I watch ads for foods which should, by all rights not exist, never mind be fed to children.

    I don’t know if this was the case where you live, but I remember when Nutella was advertised here in the US as a healthy breakfast choice for children.

    I mean, sure. Nutella is delicious. But it’s not exactly a healthy breakfast option. It’s a treat. And should never have been allowed to be advertised as anything otherwise.

    Oh yes!

    I also remember when they got in trouble with the ASA in the UK for exactly this - they said it has The equivalent of a glass of skimmed milk in every jar. Completely ignoring the fact that there was tons of fat from the nuts and oils. They called it "part of a balanced breakfast". That particular ad got pulled, but the theme of children eating it for breakfast continued on.
  • ninerbuff
    ninerbuff Posts: 48,961 Member
    Theoldguy1 wrote: »
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    Well because our insurance for health is a FOR PROFIT venture, then YES, they should. The high rates for insurance are because of the high cost of health care in the US. Maybe cap it, but people who DON'T go to the hospital or need their insurance much because they take care of themselves should have lower rates.

    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
    9285851.png

    Some hospitalizations are not avoidable.

    However the 2 highest causes of preventable death (and large contributors to health care costs are smoking and obesity.

    Insurers charge extra for smokers but not obesity?
    No I agree to a point. It's just that some insurance companies are so expensive, that obese patient may NEVER have any due to cost. And if something happens to them anyway, it's still gotta be paid for. As I said, there should be a cap and people who have better health and can prove it, should get LOWER rates overall.

    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
    9285851.png

  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,763 Member
    Wiseandcurious wrote: »


    I think the much bigher question our American friends should be pondering is who tricked them to think of healthcare as necessarily insurance based at all.

    I think it would be a huge mistake to assume that the average American likes our health care system, thinks it is the best way to allocate health resources, or that we aren't aware that other countries arrange things differently.
  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,763 Member
    rheddmobile wrote: »
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    I'd been thinking about some of the above points recently as I've resumed business travel. When I'm at home and I have the luxury of time to select and prepare my own food, it's now almost effortless to hit my calorie goals. I can bulk up meals with lower calorie vegetables to ensure satiety, I can limit my access to tempting high calorie foods, and I can adjust recipes to lower the calorie count. All of these are much harder to do when I'm on the road. When I'm at home I rarely feel like I'm "on a diet," but when I'm travelling I feel that way most of the time (even though I'm eating to maintain my weight).

    In many ways, one has to eat "abnormally" to maintain a healthy weight because our default food culture is kind of messed up. To a big degree, I think people who lose weight and maintain that loss over time do it because we've found ways to adjust how we eat. I'm sympathetic to the people who say they're overweight even though they eat "normally," because it's the truth. There are people who are overweight because of eating disorders, but there are also plenty of people who aren't. It's just ridiculously easy to autopilot your way through the day and eat way more than you need. And in some contexts -- lack of time, lack of food prep skills/space, or lack of money -- it is very hard to alter your calorie intake in a way that is sustainable.

    Try eating out as a diabetic! It’s even worse. I actually eat out pretty often but only because I time my eating to my runs so that I can consume amounts of carbs which would swamp me on a non-run day. There are a handful of local restaurants which provide low-calorie, reasonable food which fits into my diet, and all of them are run by people born in countries other than the US.

    I’m a self-employed introvert. If I had a more active social life which regularly required me to eat out at restaurants picked by others, maintaining my weight and blood glucose would become an exercise in self-denial - I would have to learn to sit and watch others eat while not partaking.

    Absolutely -- for everything I stated, it's even harder if you have diabetes or are dealing with something like a gluten intolerance or an allergy.
  • lemurcat2
    lemurcat2 Posts: 7,885 Member
    MargaretYakoda wrote: »
    lemurcat2 wrote: »
    MargaretYakoda wrote: »
    autobahn66 wrote: »
    For my whole childhood I watch ads for foods which should, by all rights not exist, never mind be fed to children.

    I don’t know if this was the case where you live, but I remember when Nutella was advertised here in the US as a healthy breakfast choice for children.

    I mean, sure. Nutella is delicious. But it’s not exactly a healthy breakfast option. It’s a treat. And should never have been allowed to be advertised as anything otherwise.

    Interesting--I find many people I know in the US have never tried nutella (I haven't), and I've never seen an ad for it. I mostly know of it from Europeans, although it's not a surprising thing to find on the menu as part of some dish in a brunch restaurant (there's a Nutella Cafe here, although I've never been). Never heard it advertised as a "healthy breakfast," so googled and found this: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/nutella-health-claims-net-305-million-settlement-in-class-action-lawsuit/

    Have to admit I agree with this: https://slate.com/human-interest/2011/08/nutella-lawsuit-why-it-s-bunk.html

    It was definitely advertised as “part of a healthy breakfast”

    Yes, the link I included about the silly lawsuit said as much, although it also said it was shown as part of a breakfast that actually would have been fine.

    For some reason, I've never had a huge interest in trying it.
  • daniellgeyer
    daniellgeyer Posts: 2 Member
    MargaretYakoda wrote: »
    autobahn66 wrote: »
    For my whole childhood I watch ads for foods which should, by all rights not exist, never mind be fed to children.

    I don’t know if this was the case where you live, but I remember when Nutella was advertised here in the US as a healthy breakfast choice for children.

    I mean, sure. Nutella is delicious. But it’s not exactly a healthy breakfast option. It’s a treat. And should never have been allowed to be advertised as anything otherwise.

    I agree. Nutella is hazelnut flavored frosting. It IS delicious - just like most frosting is. But it is dessert. If you want to eat dessert for breakfast, go for it - but just call it what it is.
  • glassyo
    glassyo Posts: 7,732 Member
    daniellgeyer wrote: »
    MargaretYakoda wrote: »
    autobahn66 wrote: »
    For my whole childhood I watch ads for foods which should, by all rights not exist, never mind be fed to children.

    I don’t know if this was the case where you live, but I remember when Nutella was advertised here in the US as a healthy breakfast choice for children.

    I mean, sure. Nutella is delicious. But it’s not exactly a healthy breakfast option. It’s a treat. And should never have been allowed to be advertised as anything otherwise.

    I agree. Nutella is hazelnut flavored frosting. It IS delicious - just like most frosting is. But it is dessert. If you want to eat dessert for breakfast, go for it - but just call it what it is.

    My coworker has been known to eat bread with caramel drizzled on it for breakfast.

    I like Nutella but I keep forgetting I don't LOVE nutella whenever I buy it. I would much rather have the cookie butter from trader joe's. Which is probably why I rarely buy it. :)
  • Theoldguy1
    Theoldguy1 Posts: 2,493 Member
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    Theoldguy1 wrote: »
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    Well because our insurance for health is a FOR PROFIT venture, then YES, they should. The high rates for insurance are because of the high cost of health care in the US. Maybe cap it, but people who DON'T go to the hospital or need their insurance much because they take care of themselves should have lower rates.

    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
    9285851.png

    Some hospitalizations are not avoidable.

    However the 2 highest causes of preventable death (and large contributors to health care costs are smoking and obesity.

    Insurers charge extra for smokers but not obesity?
    No I agree to a point. It's just that some insurance companies are so expensive, that obese patient may NEVER have any due to cost. And if something happens to them anyway, it's still gotta be paid for. As I said, there should be a cap and people who have better health and can prove it, should get LOWER rates overall.

    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
    9285851.png

    Same situation as with a smoker unfortunately.
  • panda4153
    panda4153 Posts: 417 Member
    daniellgeyer wrote: »
    MargaretYakoda wrote: »
    autobahn66 wrote: »
    For my whole childhood I watch ads for foods which should, by all rights not exist, never mind be fed to children.

    I don’t know if this was the case where you live, but I remember when Nutella was advertised here in the US as a healthy breakfast choice for children.

    I mean, sure. Nutella is delicious. But it’s not exactly a healthy breakfast option. It’s a treat. And should never have been allowed to be advertised as anything otherwise.

    I agree. Nutella is hazelnut flavored frosting. It IS delicious - just like most frosting is. But it is dessert. If you want to eat dessert for breakfast, go for it - but just call it what it is.

    A whole new debate comes to mind, is Nutella appropriate for breakfast or not?? 🤣 Personally, I say yes, but I’m an IIFYM girl eat what you want when you want if it fits in your goals no matter the time of day lol.
  • MargaretYakoda
    MargaretYakoda Posts: 2,985 Member
    panda4153 wrote: »
    daniellgeyer wrote: »
    MargaretYakoda wrote: »
    autobahn66 wrote: »
    For my whole childhood I watch ads for foods which should, by all rights not exist, never mind be fed to children.

    I don’t know if this was the case where you live, but I remember when Nutella was advertised here in the US as a healthy breakfast choice for children.

    I mean, sure. Nutella is delicious. But it’s not exactly a healthy breakfast option. It’s a treat. And should never have been allowed to be advertised as anything otherwise.

    I agree. Nutella is hazelnut flavored frosting. It IS delicious - just like most frosting is. But it is dessert. If you want to eat dessert for breakfast, go for it - but just call it what it is.

    A whole new debate comes to mind, is Nutella appropriate for breakfast or not?? 🤣 Personally, I say yes, but I’m an IIFYM girl eat what you want when you want if it fits in your goals no matter the time of day lol.

    There are no bad foods. Only unwise portions.

    I haven’t tried it, but I bet a half teaspoon of Nutella melted in a bowl of oatmeal is pretty good.

    However, if we want chocolate flavored oatmeal in our house we use the chocolate banana chips we make.
    Recipe: Mashed brown bananas. Mix in cocoa powder until it’s a nice warm brown color. (Ten bananas to a quarter teaspoon of cocoa powder is a good start)
    Spread on a silicone sheet and dehydrate on a low setting until crispy.

    Absolutely fantastic in oatmeal. And no extra fat, or sugar beyond what’s naturally in the banana.
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    This content has been removed.
  • JessD9031
    JessD9031 Posts: 581 Member
    MadMaxMFP01 wrote: »
    @JessD9031 your thoughts?

    Why you wanna poke the bear Max? I am trying so hard to be good.
  • MargaretYakoda
    MargaretYakoda Posts: 2,985 Member
    wunderkindking wrote: »
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    Well because our insurance for health is a FOR PROFIT venture, then YES, they should. The high rates for insurance are because of the high cost of health care in the US. Maybe cap it, but people who DON'T go to the hospital or need their insurance much because they take care of themselves should have lower rates.

    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
    9285851.png

    I mean the flip of this is that people dont' go to the hospital much because they can't afford it, miss a bunch of routine care, and when they're finally in dire straits their care cost a lot more and drives it up anyway.
    Or people who wind up going broke due to medical debt (or both) and still end up driving costs through the roof in MANY directions at once.

    So ultimately there are a lot of ways to drive costs of things up and maybe the solution isn't to make health care MORE expensive.

    I spent many years without medical insurance. And this is spot on.
    Or…. Some doctors will cut down on costs by simply refusing to treat you.

    I won’t go into the long stories. But I’ve had it happen. Situations where standard of care would have meant immediate hospitalization? Once they knew I had no insurance? Pain meds (sometimes) and out the door. KTHXBAI.
  • KosmosKitten
    KosmosKitten Posts: 10,476 Member
    edited August 2021
    lemurcat2 wrote: »
    I believe the strange part wasn't the 0 out of pocket, but the $8K total cost, which does seem so low as to be strange, but I would guess that Tricare negotiated a good deal for themselves, as they may have the power to.

    They do that quite often, by what I've seen. My costs for having to fly back from Japan on emergency medical leave, be seen by a specialist and give birth in a facility far away from where my husband was stationed? $0. I didn't pay anything at all.

    The same holds true for my husband's mother, who has been battling a thyroid related issue (not cancer, but related to it) for close to 20 years now. Without Tricare, I cannot imagine what their out-of-pocket costs would be. She's constantly in and out of the hospital due to recurrent infections and she's become so antibiotic resistant that she's on that upper tier level of drugs.. the ones that cost $1-$3k per dose. :grimace:

    There are still out-of-pocket expenses they pay, but it's nowhere as bad as what I recently witnessed my dad have to pay for my stepmother when she was treated for (and sadly succumbed to) uterine cancer. Just.. yikes.

    Per the OP, no: I don't like the idea of charging obese people more for health insurance since obesity is not always the result of lifestyle choices. The aforementioned in-law is a great example. She is morbidly obese now due to her medical condition. She quite literally has maybe 1/3 of her thyroid and cannot take synthetic thyroid medication due to the other associated medical issues particular to her diagnosis. She eats healthier than I ever could hope to and maybe consumes 500 - 800 cal. per day and that's merely to stabilize her weight since her thyroid is essentially non-functioning. She cannot exercise due to the severe lipedema in her legs (again the result of her particular medical condition).

    I do understand that her case is quite rare; most people are overweight due to the choices they make (knowingly or unknowingly). I just don't feel that charging them more is going to help anyone in the long run. I do agree with an incentivized program, though. Gamifying it makes it more interesting, similar to certain weight loss strategies or apps (like Fitocracy). It's also less stigmatizing and I feel that you'd draw more people to healthy outcomes that way.

    Honey draws more flies than vinegar and all that.
  • lemurcat2
    lemurcat2 Posts: 7,885 Member
    edited August 2021
    KosmosKitten wrote: »
    lemurcat2 wrote: »
    I believe the strange part wasn't the 0 out of pocket, but the $8K total cost, which does seem so low as to be strange, but I would guess that Tricare negotiated a good deal for themselves, as they may have the power to.

    They do that quite often, by what I've seen. My costs for having to fly back from Japan on emergency medical leave, be seen by a specialist and give birth in a facility far away from where my husband was stationed? $0. I didn't pay anything at all.

    We weren't talking about the out of pocket, but the total costs which seemed unusually low for the procedures in question. Did you see the total costs Tricare paid and was it shockingly low for the various things paid for? Just vaguely curious about whether they are getting great deals vs some other insurers.
  • KosmosKitten
    KosmosKitten Posts: 10,476 Member
    lemurcat2 wrote: »
    KosmosKitten wrote: »
    lemurcat2 wrote: »
    I believe the strange part wasn't the 0 out of pocket, but the $8K total cost, which does seem so low as to be strange, but I would guess that Tricare negotiated a good deal for themselves, as they may have the power to.

    They do that quite often, by what I've seen. My costs for having to fly back from Japan on emergency medical leave, be seen by a specialist and give birth in a facility far away from where my husband was stationed? $0. I didn't pay anything at all.

    We weren't talking about the out of pocket, but the total costs which seemed unusually low for the procedures in question. Did you see the total costs Tricare paid and was it shockingly low for the various things paid for? Just vaguely curious about whether they are getting great deals vs some other insurers.

    Yes. The costs for the ticket alone to my home state was about $3k at the time; the appointments with the specialist were $600 for the consultation and $350 per appointment. The hospital stay and all the special care we both required (my child was born with some mild complications) was about $24k. The costs that Tricare paid on their end was equivalent to maybe $3.5k total for the entire 4 month ordeal when I got the statement upon getting back to Japan and in that statement, they also listed that I owed nothing. I was shocked that they negotiated such a low fee for themselves!

    I have no idea how they negotiate such good deals for themselves when not utilizing military facilities. It's a mystery. :joy:
  • lemurcat2
    lemurcat2 Posts: 7,885 Member
    That's interesting, thanks!
  • PopGoesTheCoyote
    PopGoesTheCoyote Posts: 94 Member
    Is there a benefit to charging obese people more for healthcare? What is it?
  • mph323
    mph323 Posts: 3,565 Member
    PopGoesTheCoyote wrote: »
    Is there a benefit to charging obese people more for healthcare? What is it?

    I don't think there's any benefit to society in general, since I don't believe charging obese people more for insurance is going to motivate anyone to lose weight without the benefit of support systems like access to a registered dietician and lifestyle counselling.

    For the insurance companies on the other hand, it raises profits, since more money in the pool is amortized over the same number of people.
  • Theoldguy1
    Theoldguy1 Posts: 2,493 Member
    PopGoesTheCoyote wrote: »
    Is there a benefit to charging obese people more for healthcare? What is it?

    Is there a benefit to charging smokers extra?
  • PopGoesTheCoyote
    PopGoesTheCoyote Posts: 94 Member
    Theoldguy1 wrote: »
    PopGoesTheCoyote wrote: »
    Is there a benefit to charging obese people more for healthcare? What is it?

    Is there a benefit to charging smokers extra?

    If you prefer punitive measures because it fulfills a moral code, then sure. But if you prefer to solve health issues, no.
  • Theoldguy1
    Theoldguy1 Posts: 2,493 Member
    PopGoesTheCoyote wrote: »
    Theoldguy1 wrote: »
    PopGoesTheCoyote wrote: »
    Is there a benefit to charging obese people more for healthcare? What is it?

    Is there a benefit to charging smokers extra?

    If you prefer punitive measures because it fulfills a moral code, then sure. But if you prefer to solve health issues, no.

    Punitive measures such as high taxes on cigarettes, higher life and health insurance rates seem to have contributed to reductions in smoking. Smoking related health issues are down.

    No moral code involved, just things that seem to work.
  • autobahn66
    autobahn66 Posts: 59 Member
    Theoldguy1 wrote: »
    PopGoesTheCoyote wrote: »
    Theoldguy1 wrote: »
    PopGoesTheCoyote wrote: »
    Is there a benefit to charging obese people more for healthcare? What is it?

    Is there a benefit to charging smokers extra?

    If you prefer punitive measures because it fulfills a moral code, then sure. But if you prefer to solve health issues, no.

    Punitive measures such as high taxes on cigarettes, higher life and health insurance rates seem to have contributed to reductions in smoking. Smoking related health issues are down.

    No moral code involved, just things that seem to work.

    This is conflating two things together and saying they both work because one works and the other isn't as bad as the positives of the first.

    Increasing the cost of cigarettes reduces the availability of cigarettes: this reduces smoking related harms by reducing the amount people smoke. This can be seen clearly in alcohol deaths in Finland, where the proportion of deaths related to alcohol is inversely proportional to the price.

    Increasing the cost of health insurance reduces the availability of healthcare and causes people to die: a lack of checkups/screening for lung cancer, being dissuaded from going to the doctor until symptoms are unmanageable at home. This increases harm (and deaths) from smoking.

    To reduce smoking related harm the aim should be to reduce the availability of cigarettes and increase healthcare coverage of those who smoke.

    Similarly with obesity: reducing the availability and attractiveness of calorie dense foods as was done to cigarettes and tobacco (specific taxes, minimum prices, advertising bans, plain packaging etc) with increased public health engagement and BETTER healthcare for people who are obese are likely to improve the actual harms (morbidity and early mortality) of obesity.

    Decreasing access to healthcare will offset increased costs to insurance companies, and maintain or improve profitability of offering insurance to obese people, but will obviously squeeze people out at the bottom end of the income scale.

    Of course, in the end, this is a false saving (for the people overall) as obese people still use the healthcare systems at a disproportionate rate, just this shifts from preventative and primary care to emergency care.

Categories