• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

Should medically judged fat people pay higher medical costs?

  • Yes

    Votes: 31 42.5%

  • No

    Votes: 42 57.5%
  • Total voters
    73
Ryan5 said:
Should medically judged fat people pay higher medical costs?
Click to expand...

No, unless rates are also going to go up for everyone else who is involved in voluntarily unhealthy behaviors. The whole purpose of insurance is to spread the risk around. Charging more to people who are higher risk defeats the purpose.
 
Ryan5 said:
Some of those aren't preventable.....

How can you even begin to compare those??? Tells us a lot about your intelligence..
Click to expand...

I think given the track the government is on, eventually people who have unhealthy eating habits will be deemed enemy's of social equality and a drain on government resources. The government will then step in and make these people wards of the state, sentenced to social re-orientation camps with a focus on proper eating habits in a socially just world. I would guess they would be allowed to go free once they have shown proper respect for the state, and the nature of their gluttony.

In the end, they will only have a short term impact on health care costs. Of course, this would be in the future, and depend on the government to continue it's program of control over peoples lives.

:cool:
 
No. Your attempt at shaming people who don't fit your societal standards will not affect the people whose pictures you posted. They can afford higher costs for healthcare. Your idea will disproportionately affect the poor, who many of already can't afford quality healthcare, and those who still choose to go to a doctor despite the increased cost will be more likely to become more obese because they will have to turn to cheap, unhealthy food, as many of the poor already have done.
 
Helix said:
as i said in the post. they screwed the poor smokers right to the wall. it was insane. glad i quit, and thank you Allen Carr.
Click to expand...

Smoking is a choice. Why should non smokers have to pay for the diseases associated with smoking?
 
For those who think yes, what about folks doctors judge are too thin?
 
Maenad said:
Smoking is a choice. Why should non smokers have to pay for the diseases associated with smoking?
Click to expand...

Same reason we subsidize all sorts of crazy dangerous behaviors people do that gets them injured.
 
Helix said:
Just smokers. Big surprise.
Click to expand...

See, that's what bothers me. Smoking is bad for you, no question, but it seems that smokers are the only ones who are called out on their behavior. Well that is until the fat people got called out in this thread.
 
Maenad said:
Smoking is a choice. Why should non smokers have to pay for the diseases associated with smoking?
Click to expand...

Too much opportunity for the health care industry to **** everyone if we go further down that road. No thanks.
 
SocialDemocrat said:
No. Your attempt at shaming people who don't fit your societal standards will not affect the people whose pictures you posted. They can afford higher costs for healthcare. Your idea will disproportionately affect the poor, who many of already can't afford quality healthcare, and those who still choose to go to a doctor despite the increased cost will be more likely to become more obese because they will have to turn to cheap, unhealthy food, as many of the poor already have done.
Click to expand...

Encouraging and rewarding healthy lifestyles is not 'shaming.'

Let me give you a real life situation: Methamphetamine producers/dealers frequently get severe burns over large portions of their bodies when a batch blows up all over them. I know of one burn unit that had to treat so many injured, uninsured meth producers that it was well on the way to closing its doors due to lack of funding. In fact, it may already have, I have not talked to anyone who would know lately. Treatment of serious burns involves long expensive hospitalizations, expensive surgeries like skin grafts, and expensive medications to prevent or treat infections. So, we are all equal in your eyes. Go cook yourself along with your batch of meth and Dr. Feelgood will treat you with the most modern methods available to medical science with no regard for the cost to people who likely are just scraping by in their own households to pay the bills.

That is a really lopsided house you are building there. People really need to expect to have to be responsible for the choices they make in life. Granted there are many illnesses that are not so clear cut, and with medications that cause metabolic changes, obesity is one. But cooking meth , smoking, doing drugs, driving while drunk, and many other things are choices. Making those choices should come with a price for the person who made them.
 
This forum is full of fat people. You'll never get them to admit they got there because of lifestyle choices. Seriously though, many overweight people hide behind medical reasons such as hypothyroidism, Cushing's Syndrome & PW Syndrome for what is clearly a lifestyle choice over the course of MANY years. 90% of gay person will not get AIDS, 90% of white people will not die of cancer, 90% of people who drive cars will not get into a car crash, but upwards of 90% of people with weight problems are there because of lifestyle choices, poor diets and lack of exercise. Even in the case where genetics and illness are involved, there are ways to push back obesity. So yes, barring any problems with genetics or illness, fat people should pay higher premiums on average.
 
Once again, how about thin people?
 
CRUE CAB said:
What about epileptics? Or mentally retarded? Or diabetics?
Click to expand...

Being fat is a condition of epilepsy? Of mental retardation?

On the other hand obesity is often a major contributor to the onset of Type II diabetes. There is a great deal of research that indicates major weight loss and physical activity can and does greatly lessen the affects of diabetes II to the point of reducing or obviating the need for medication while improving circulation, reducing blood pressure and cholesterol and thus reducing overall medical costs.

There is a direct correlation of lifestyle and diabetes II.
 
Last edited:
clownboy said:
Same reason we subsidize all sorts of crazy dangerous behaviors people do that gets them injured.
Click to expand...

The research is there that smoking is hazardous to your health. Living prudently, using good hygiene, eating a healthy diet, driving while sober are all things that should be rewarded, not punished by making the person promoting his/her own good health pay for the bad habits of others which have been statistically shown to cause illness.
 
Risky Thicket said:
Being fat is a condition of epilepsy? Of mental retardation?

On the other hand obesity is often a major contributor to the onset of Type II diabetes. There is a great deal of research that indicates major weight loss and physical activity can and does greatly lessen the affects of diabetes II to the point of reducing or obviating the need for medication, improving circulation, reducing blood pressure and cholesterol and thus reduces overall medical costs.
Click to expand...

Actually, the antiseizure drugs do cause metabolic changes and weight gain. Mental retardation as well as other birth defects are often tied to something like substance abuse.
 
Maenad said:
The research is there that smoking is hazardous to your health. Living prudently, using good hygiene, eating a healthy diet, driving while sober are all things that should be rewarded, not punished by making the person promoting his/her own good health pay for the bad habits of others which have been statistically shown to cause illness.
Click to expand...

So, studies have shown it is definitely not healthy living in a city with an inversion layer. Should the folks living in LA and Sacramento pay more? And you still haven't answered, what about the thin folks? What about bicycle riders - it's a very dangerous activity.
 
Ryan5 said:
Some of those aren't preventable.....

How can you even begin to compare those??? Tells us a lot about your intelligence..
Click to expand...

Age is not preventable either yet PPACA allows for up to a 300% premium rate increase based on age alone.
 
Ugh.... being a libertarian it KILLS me to say this, but subsidizing insurance isn't the answer to address costs for health realted procedures. I personally (And yes as a libertarian kills me to say this) believe that health care is such an intresnic necessity in our society that I think the fed should PRICE FIX all medical procedures and supplies from manufacturing up. IE... a Max allowable profit margin for manufacturers or private doctors. Subsidized insurance is a failure and fails to address the elephant which is the OBSENELY profitable medical sector.
 
clownboy said:
So, studies have shown it is definitely not healthy living in a city with an inversion layer. Should the folks living in LA and Sacramento pay more? And you still haven't answered, what about the thin folks? What about bicycle riders - it's a very dangerous activity.
Click to expand...

I think you have posed a very good question regarding air quality. I have to confess that is one I hadn't really considered. I know it is worse in some areas. At the time I moved away from here dirty streaky roofs were only seen in big cities. Now, even out here in rural Kentucky, my roof looks just like the ones in large cities. Respiratory isn't really my area, and I can't cite any studies on that aspect other than the ones on smoking which are generally common knowledge. Sorry. I assume you mean riding bicycles and not motor bikes. The cardiovascular benefit of riding a bicycle should offset the danger if you ride where it is safe to do so and take all the proper precautions.
 
MasterLiberty said:
Ugh.... being a libertarian it KILLS me to say this, but subsidizing insurance isn't the answer to address costs for health realted procedures. I personally (And yes as a libertarian kills me to say this) believe that health care is such an intresnic necessity in our society that I think the fed should PRICE FIX all medical procedures and supplies from manufacturing up. IE... a Max allowable profit margin for manufacturers or private doctors. Subsidized insurance is a failure and fails to address the elephant which is the OBSENELY profitable medical sector.
Click to expand...

So you believe that it is OK for a person to go out and do things that will destroy his body and then the populace has the responsibility to replace his heart, liver, lungs, whatever he has destroyed of his own free will? That seems like a pretty lopsided house you live in there, ML.
 
Ryan5 said:
Should medically judged fat people pay higher medical costs?
Click to expand...

If smokers should, then yeah. Same with drinkers and druggers. Smokers get demonized by society in general these days, when obesity seems to be associated with far more medical problems.
 
Perhaps this post really should be a thread of its own. But smoking has been mentioned as costly to the system which it definitely is if someone gets a lung transplant. But here is an aspect that many have never considered:

WASHINGTON — Smoking takes years off your life and adds dollars to the cost of health care. Yet nonsmokers cost society money, too — by living longer.

It's an element of the debate over tobacco that some economists and officials find distasteful.

House members described huge health care costs associated with smoking as they approved landmark legislation last week giving the Food and Drug Administration authority to regulate tobacco products. No one mentioned the additional costs to society of caring for a nonsmoking population that lives longer.

Supporters of the FDA bill cited figures from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that smokers cost the country $96 billion a year in direct health care costs, and an additional $97 billion a year in lost productivity.

A White House statement supporting the bill, which awaits action in the Senate, echoed the argument by contending that tobacco use "accounts for over a $100 billion annually in financial costs to the economy."


However, smokers die some 10 years earlier than nonsmokers, according to the CDC, and those premature deaths provide a savings to Medicare, Social Security, private pensions and other programs.

Vanderbilt University economist Kip Viscusi studied the net costs of smoking-related spending and savings and found that for every pack of cigarettes smoked, the country reaps a net cost savings of 32 cents.
Click to expand...

Do smokers cost society money? - USATODAY.com

Obviously I can't post the entire article, but it is worth going to the link and reading it. The people who cost society the most are those who live the longest requiring expensive end of life care. Not smokers who die in early to mid 50s.
 
Maenad said:
So you believe that it is OK for a person to go out and do things that will destroy his body and then the populace has the responsibility to replace his heart, liver, lungs, whatever he has destroyed of his own free will? That seems like a pretty lopsided house you live in there, ML.
Click to expand...

Something about glass houses here. We all, or at least everyone I've ever come across, have at least one habit/way of doing things that falls well within that damaging category. And no, not all of society pays, just the other folks in their shared pool called insurance.
 
Cyclists breathe car fumes, motorcyclists are regularly knocked off their bikes, climbers fall off mountains. The most equitable way to deal with health risk is the spread it among the maximum number along with the cost. UHC, with education for those at higher risk among the general population, is the logical answer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom