Should medically judged fat people pay higher medical costs? [W:87]

clownboy said:

In your worldview the admitting staff should evaluate general fitness and charge accordingly. Maybe we could have you do a few pushups before we treat you.

Where and how you choose to live is a much better indicator of your future general health picture, mixed in with your genetic profile.

Click to expand...

Again with your lunacy.

A doctor would diagnose you as medically fat.


Just wow. You peoples propagandist attempts are pathetic.

Ryan5 said:

Liberty? Are you kidding? (horrifyingly you're not)


How is it Liberty that fit Americans have to pay for fat Americans deteriorating health? It isn't fair.


I don't want to pay more money for a routine doctors appointment at age 26 because the healthcare industry bases their charges off 230 pound 55 year old's who've never exercised in their lives. What about my Liberty? Why can't the Hospital just charge you more for being fat and I pay less and have more of my own money for my own interests? That sounds more like Liberty to me.

Click to expand...

I am not 55 nor fat, so your point is mute. How about you just step up to plate instead of complaining about what other people are doing?

But at 26 what medical services do you actually use? Unless you have been injured or have some disease you dont really need any medical services. You will need medical services when you start ages (when are not so wet behind the ears). The older insurance customers have already paid dearly to insurance companies through out their life. I know that Have paid a great deal of my income to insurance companies. And you will too. And when I was 26 there were fat people too. What you are saying is that people other than yourself dont deserve to pay the same amount for a service that you have because you have a opinion about them.

In the bold above shows that you are just being emotional and not rational. Really fat people dont live very long.

OnWisconsin said:

I'm not sure the point you are trying to make. Are you claiming that health insurance offers no discounts for lifestyle choices? Im pretty sure there are plans out there that offer discounts for not smoking and for other positive lifestyle choices.

Also, you have a little more control over the outcome when it pertains to driving a car. When health is concerned, you could be a very healthy person, work out every day, eat healthy and still contract cancer.

Click to expand...

Yes, there are policies that give discounts for healthy choices, just as there should be. That is the subject of this thread, should overweight people pay more for health insurance.

And yes, you do have a point that you can make all of the right choices and still wind up with an expensive disease. That's why we all have to have insurance. You can make all the right choices behind the wheel, too, and still be creamed by one of the imbeciles we all see every day on the highways.

As for universal care (your other post), yes, I'd support a universal catastrophic cost sort of policy that would cover everyone for the simple reason that it could save a ton of money. It may not be a libertarian position, but it certainly is a practical issue.

clownboy said:

You know, you're much more likely to have that back condition if you're tall. Should tall people pay more?

Click to expand...

Perhaps, but being tall is not a choice.

shavingcollywob said:

I'm confused why you and Crue Cab think these are actually good points.

I think it's perfectly reasonable for any health insurer to charge a high risk person more for insurance. I don't even see an argument against this.

Click to expand...

I don't think they're necessarily good points; I'm merely pointing out that, rarely, do health insurance companies charge or rate a policy by one's occupation or hobbies. And with Obamacare? It's not done at all. CrueCab's obesity complaint was merely the tip of the iceberg.

Before Obamacare, if one was purchasing their health insurance individually rather than obtaining it through their employer's group plan, obese people (of a certain % of "obese") were denied insurance all together. No more though.

OnWisconsin said:

Back surgery's can be quite expensive, and also quite lingering when it comes to lifelong issues.

Would you support universal healthcare then? If you think about it what we have now (shared risk) in private insurance is actually quite socialistic.

Click to expand...

I would support universal MAJOR MEDICAL INSURANCE, but not socialized medical care. The difference being that under universal major medical, the consumer picks up the tab for small insigificant stuff, and we all share in the cost of financially devisting care. Also, I don't really trust our government to be able to run our doctors offices and hospitals, I trust that to the private sector much more.

imagep said:

I would support universal MAJOR MEDICAL INSURANCE, but not socialized medical care. The difference being that under universal major medical, the consumer picks up the tab for small insigificant stuff, and we all share in the cost of financially devisting care. Also, I don't really trust our government to be able to run our doctors offices and hospitals, I trust that to the private sector much more.

Click to expand...

Oh, I so agree with you. I'm certain that the fact that we have relatively small deductibles accounts for the fact that the cost of medical care has skyrocketed. It's very difficult to get prices from hospitals and doctors. Why is that? Because the price fluctuates depending upon whether or not you have insurance and what kind of insurance you have. The consumer has been left out of the loop when it comes to competitive shopping. A recipe for disaster, in my opinion.

imagep said:

I would support universal MAJOR MEDICAL INSURANCE, but not socialized medical care. The difference being that under universal major medical, the consumer picks up the tab for small insigificant stuff, and we all share in the cost of financially devisting care. Also, I don't really trust our government to be able to run our doctors offices and hospitals, I trust that to the private sector much more.

Click to expand...

Fair enough.. I simply think that profit motive, when it pertains to health insurance (not health care) ultimately leads to increased cost and reduction in quality. We see it all the time, premiums go up and coverage goes down. There has to be a better way and honestly I don't think this has a partisan solution but rather a humanist one.

OnWisconsin said:

Fair enough.. I simply think that profit motive, when it pertains to health insurance (not health care) ultimately leads to increased cost and reduction in quality. We see it all the time, premiums go up and coverage goes down. There has to be a better way and honestly I don't think this has a partisan solution but rather a humanist one.

Click to expand...

The plan that I proposed to congress was that we would create insurance groups based upon that last 4 digits our social security cards, so that each group was statistically identical, and then bid contracts for a pre-designed major medical insurance plan to private insurance companies, who would competively bid on them. The profit motive would still exist, but insurance companies would have no need for advertising expenses or sales people and could significiantly reduce operating expenses. Every couple of years the policies would be up for bidding again. The fact that there would be a "consumer pays" portion would incentivize consumers to shop for care based on price and quality, thus giving doctors reasons to price compete for business.

imagep said:

The plan that I proposed to congress was that we would create insurance groups based upon that last 4 digits our social security cards, so that each group was statistically identical, and then bid contracts for a pre-designed major medical insurance plan to private insurance companies, who would competively bid on them. The profit motive would still exist, but insurance companies would have no need for advertising expenses or sales people and could significiantly reduce operating expenses. Every couple of years the policies would be up for bidding again. The fact that there would be a "consumer pays" portion would incentivize consumers to shop for care based on price and quality, thus giving doctors reasons to price compete for business.

Click to expand...

I suspect prices would not go down at all no matter if there was no need to spend money on certain things. Reduced operating costs would translate to better profits. Remember that we are talking about insurance companies, they are never going to lower prices they will just bid accordingly to maintain their edge. The larger ones will just buyout the company with the most winning bids. Then back to normal.

For your idea to work there would have to be tough regulations.

FreedomFromAll said:

I suspect prices would not go down at all no matter if there was no need to spend money on certain things.

Click to expand...

As far as medical costs, everyone one spends something under my plan. Maybe you missed it, but my suggestion was for a universal major medical policy, not a comprehensive 100% paid for plan. Major medical policies typically only cover major medical expenses - thats why they are called "major medical". But even then, there does need to be a customer pays portion, even if it is just a few percent of the cost, so that the customer will have incentive to price shop.

Reduced operating costs would translate to better profits. Remember that we are talking about insurance companies, they are never going to lower prices they will just bid accordingly to maintain their edge. The larger ones will just buyout the company with the most winning bids. Then back to normal.

Click to expand...

Price competition is what keeps prices in check. By having a bidding system, the lowest bidder would get his choice of how many groups he chooses to insure, then as per normal auction rules, an offer is made to the next lowest bidders to match the price for their choice of remaining groups, if all the groups aren't selected, then the second lowest bidder get's his choice of groups at the price it bid, and then any remaining groups are offered at that price to the next highers bidders, so on and so forth.

Even if a large company did purchase other companies that were the low bidders, so what? They would still be stuck with the contracts at the price the low bidders bid.

For your idea to work there would have to be tough regulations.

Click to expand...

I actually think that we would need fewer regulations under my idea, with the exception that the guberment would have to create the plan, and all plans would be identical. Maybe the insurance company would have to promise to make payment to the provider within X number of days, and a few other small things that they should do anyway. No biggie.

imagep said:

As far as medical costs, everyone one spends something under my plan. Maybe you missed it, but my suggestion was for a universal major medical policy, not a comprehensive 100% paid for plan. Major medical policies typically only cover major medical expenses - thats why they are called "major medical". But even then, there does need to be a customer pays portion, even if it is just a few percent of the cost, so that the customer will have incentive to price shop.



Price competition is what keeps prices in check. By having a bidding system, the lowest bidder would get his choice of how many groups he chooses to insure, then as per normal auction rules, an offer is made to the next lowest bidders to match the price for their choice of remaining groups, if all the groups aren't selected, then the second lowest bidder get's his choice of groups at the price it bid, and then any remaining groups are offered at that price to the next highers bidders, so on and so forth.

Even if a large company did purchase other companies that were the low bidders, so what? They would still be stuck with the contracts at the price the low bidders bid.




I actually think that we would need fewer regulations under my idea, with the exception that the guberment would have to create the plan, and all plans would be identical. Maybe the insurance company would have to promise to make payment to the provider within X number of days, and a few other small things that they should do anyway. No biggie.

Click to expand...

Its not that I dont like your plan (it beats the hell out many others ideas that i have heard) It just seems that given enough time there wouldnt be much difference between your plan and the current mess. It would take some type of law that forbid any changes to your plan by lobbying efforts etc. Also I just dont trust that everything will just work out on its own, that big business will do the right thing just because of the design of your plan. Bidding doesnt always work out as a good thing for the customer or at the very least certain sections of society.

But your plan sounds like a good starting point that needs a lot of bickering over to hash out the details. All good plans start out as a idea then evolve as other people contribute. I suggest rethinking the 'it will all workout' part of your plan. That is the part that catches in my throat.

I'm always just amazed that people just let themselves go so much in America even when they're in the public eye.. Must have something to do with being so easily able to blend in with all the other fat asses in America. Nobody's going to judge them! As an Americans myself it just sickens me. Such bad influences on our children. I don't think fat people should be allowed to serve in public office. It's a bad example.

and again

Ryan5 said:

I'm always just amazed that people just let themselves go so much in America even when they're in the public eye.. Must have something to do with being so easily able to blend in with all the other fat asses in America. Nobody's going to judge them! As an Americans myself it just sickens me. Such bad influences on our children. I don't think fat people should be allowed to serve in public office. It's a bad example....

Click to expand...

I have to give you credit for being a non-partisan fat people hater.

Most posters on this forum would have only used people of the opposing party to use as fat fat fatty examples.

It's discrimination, I tell you. What we need are some fat pride parades.

If smokers are required to pay more for health insurance, obese people should be required to pay more, and it will happen. They should have started charging obese people more before smokers, as obesity is a much larger expense to our health care system than smokers are. The cost of smokers to our health care system is miniscule compared to obese people, and that's not to mention the obese people who also smoke.

Ryan5 said:

Oh this is such bs I'm sorry.

The man is FAT. Who cares about some distinction between obese and fat if we aren't talking about sumo wrestlers? They're the same thing.

The guy is medically fat (OR IF THAT OFFENDS YOU, dun dun dun, overweight!!!!!). He is not healthy with that stomach. Anyone who says he's healthy with that stomach is delusional beyond help (which I'm not denying some probably are).


I can't stand it when I'm at work and some fat guy who CLEARLY is about 40 pounds overweight (FAT) starts to rant about what great shape he's in. We need to call a fat person a fat person in this country already. It's become insane.



(Hypothetical) Look, I think it's great that you aren't 300 pounds at 34. I really do. But let's also be honest. Being visibly fat while still not being 300 pounds isn't a whole lot better from a medical standpoint. You're still royally screwed over.

Click to expand...

For a guy who is too scared to publicize his political leanings, you sure have strong opinions. For me, I opt to be kind. That's the decent thing, IMO. No one ever said on his death bed, "I wish I hadn't been so kind to people." Fat is a derogatory term, IMO, unless you're talking in a medical sense, like body fat percentage. The correct terminology, if you want to use "fat," is "overfat." Because everyone has fat. We are supposed to. It's harmful to be overfat, though.

But stick with simple three letter words, if you're more comfortable with that.

Bob Blaylock said:

Sugar isn't a poison.

Sugar is the fuel on which our bodies run. Without it, we would die.

The problem with diabetes (both type 1 and type 2) is that it interferes with our ability to properly process sugar in order to get the energy from it that we need to function. Instead, it just accumulates in the blood, where too much of it leads to all sorts of damage all over the body. With type 2, it also tends to get converted in excessive amounts to fat, even when not enough of it is being processed into energy.

Click to expand...

I should have said "refined sugar." But no, BTW, the body does not need sugar to function. Some people live on a protein-fat diet alone. Some native people, like Eskimos, traveling groups of...what are they...lap-something tribes? And of course people who believe that protein-fat diets are the way to live.

JumpinJack said:

...of course people who believe that protein-fat diets are the way to live.

Click to expand...

Like that Doctor Atkins.

But didn't he die a few years back? Arteries clogged with all that fat he was eating.

imagep said:

Like that Doctor Atkins.

But didn't he die a few years back? Arteries clogged with all that fat he was eating.

Click to expand...

He was pretty damn old though, like 72.

imagep said:

Like that Doctor Atkins.

But didn't he die a few years back? Arteries clogged with all that fat he was eating.

Click to expand...

Yes. He died before his time, all right. But actually the Atkins diet is MAINLY protein with a somewhat high % of fat, and LIMITED carbs. It's not a no-carb diet. There are some no-carb diets, though.

I don't believe a protein-fat only diet is healthy. I'm just saying the fact that man has existed on earth in places where they had only protein & fat to live, and they did live without carbs quite well. (Carbs, as you know, converts to sugar in the blood.)

My idea of a healthy diet is fruits & veggies with some hi-fiber carbs, fish.

Dittohead not! said:

It's discrimination, I tell you. What we need are some fat pride parades.

Click to expand...

:lamo Then we'll have to have skinny pride parades too!

I don't think we should start charging more for "high risk" people. Where does it end? There are also different risks related to gender, ethnicity, etc. Having a past history of being overweight and smoking, etc., is also going to be a risk.

Also, I think that poor people are at the highest risk for poor health overall, so we would be "punishing" the poor with higher premiums? It doesn't make sense if you think about it. The whole point is to share the expenses so that no one group of people has a difficult time affording health care right?

No, they need their own risk pools. Separate the pools by risks and rates should be set accordingly.

I still think the bigger picture of cost of care is not being addressed here. If it didn't cost so much to go to the Dr. or hospital, it wouldn't be as big a problem. Congress won't tackle that problem though, they would rather everyone subsidize the insurance industry's profits. Vote NO this mid-term for those whose top donors are finance or insurance industries.