• 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
It's easy to "prove" one's own point using extremes. Problem is, it doesn't really prove anything as it doesn't address the vast majority in between.

Standards could be set just as they are with life insurance.
 
Good/bad driving is easier to assess than good/bad health. Body type and/or weight is a horribly imperfect measure. Might as well flip a coin or have a computer pick people at random for higher rates.


Ummm having good or bad health is extremely easy to assess and body weight is an extremely accurate indicator of a persons health..



Something tells me doctors don't tell the 240 pound person "You're doing great Fred".
 
It's fairly obvious that you do not have a useful understanding of type 2 diabetes, or the genetic condition that underlies it; and you do not have any grasp of how difficult this condition makes it for some of those who have it to maintain the balance that you so simplistically think you understand between calories taken in, and calories used through exercise.

Yes, anyone with this condition can, in theory, maintain a healthy weight, but for many, it is not nearly as easy as you think it is. I've been extraordinarily fortunate in this respect, but most others on my father's side of the family have not been.

Type 2 Diabetes runs in my family as well. For that matter so does heart disease and cancer. However, with regular cardio exercise and strength training, maintaining a whole foods diet that is high in fruits and vegetables, avoiding processed and fast food, not smoking, and avoiding heavy drinking, one can almost eliminate their chance of ever developing type 2 diabetes even with a strong family history of it.

As to the opening poll, the question as I see it, is should personal health choices be factored into the costs of health insurance premiums just like driving habits are factored into auto insurance premiums.
 
Ummm having good or bad health is extremely easy to assess and body weight is an extremely accurate indicator of a persons health..

Something tells me doctors don't tell the 240 pound person "You're doing great Fred".

What leeway would you allow? (If you were the Health Czar)

If a person's ideal weight for their height were 165 lbs, would you allow 170? 190? 210? Obviously 240 would be unacceptable, based on your comment above. Would you allow no leeway at all?
 
Last edited:
Good/bad driving is easier to assess than good/bad health. Body type and/or weight is a horribly imperfect measure. Might as well flip a coin or have a computer pick people at random for higher rates.

It's pretty easy to determine body fat percentage.
 
Type 2 Diabetes runs in my family as well. For that matter so does heart disease and cancer. However, with regular cardio exercise and strength training, maintaining a whole foods diet that is high in fruits and vegetables, avoiding processed and fast food, not smoking, and avoiding heavy drinking, one can almost eliminate their chance of ever developing type 2 diabetes even with a strong family history of it.

As to the opening poll, the question as I see it, is should personal health choices be factored into the costs of health insurance premiums just like driving habits are factored into auto insurance premiums.

Actually, driving habits are only a small factor. Chances of the company having to pay out factors more. A good driver would pay a pittance in rural Nebraska, but would have their rates increased dramatically if the same good driver moved to Chicago. Nothing about the driver changed, only their environment changed.

Using the same rationale, should location be a factor in health insurance? Access to good facilities would make a difference. Urban areas would most likely have more and better healthcare facilities. Water and air quality would make a difference. Do you walk to work downtown and increase the chance of being hit by a car? Should a person who works from home get a discount because they don't have to deal with all the crazy people out there? We should factor in everything that has a potential negative effect, shouldn't we?
 
What leeway would you allow? (If you were the Health Czar)

If a person's ideal weight for their height were 165 lbs, would you allow 170? 190? 210? Obviously 240 would be unacceptable, based on your comment above. Would you allow no leeway at all?



I hate to tell you this, but when any person goes in to see a medical professional who's responsible for their health (a doctor for instance), that professional will usually tell them if they are obese or not and, believe it or not, that medical professional isn't in on some "Obama conspiracy". That professional has no motive.

There does exist a healthy human weight index and a non healthy one for your height..

This stuff is not easily blurred as you'd claim. The medical field is pretty precise.

 
I hate to tell you this, but when any person goes in to see a medical professional who's responsible for their health (a doctor for instance), that professional will usually tell them if they are obese or not and, believe it or not, that medical professional isn't in on some "Obama conspiracy". That professional has no motive.

There does exist a healthy human weight index and a non healthy one for your height..

This stuff is not easily blurred as you'd claim. The medical field is pretty precise.
So, if I understand you correctly, the charts are infallible and should be followed to the letter... or number. There are no legitimate mitigating factors for anybody. One either falls in the good zone, or they don't. Period. Am I interpreting your statement correctly?
 
Actually, driving habits are only a small factor. Chances of the company having to pay out factors more. A good driver would pay a pittance in rural Nebraska, but would have their rates increased dramatically if the same good driver moved to Chicago. Nothing about the driver changed, only their environment changed.

Using the same rationale, should location be a factor in health insurance? Access to good facilities would make a difference.

It already is. Health insurance rates have varied widely throughout the country for decades now. Where health insurance differs from any other form of insurance is that it largely does not take into account personal health choices.

Urban areas would most likely have more and better healthcare facilities. Water and air quality would make a difference. Do you walk to work downtown and increase the chance of being hit by a car? Should a person who works from home get a discount because they don't have to deal with all the crazy people out there? We should factor in everything that has a potential negative effect, shouldn't we?

All this is already accounted for in rates.
 
So, if I understand you correctly, the charts are infallible and should be followed to the letter... or number. There are no legitimate mitigating factors for anybody. One either falls in the good zone, or they don't. Period. Am I interpreting your statement correctly?



No, you're simply being irrational.

Exceptions do exist but unlike you claim, most people do not fall into those exceptions who are in fact overweight. Completely negating your "There's so many exceptions!! What about body type!!".

That's actually not true, there aren't so many legitimate exceptions as you'd claim. Body type does not determine whether you're overweight. You have the ability to change that.
 
...and be mislead by it.

Not really. If you are an adult male with a body fat percentage of over 27% then you are clinically obese regardless of race, age, body type and so on. If you are an adult woman with a body fat percentage of over 40% you are clinically obese.
 
Not really. If you are an adult male with a body fat percentage of over 27% then you are clinically obese regardless of race, age, body type and so on. If you are an adult woman with a body fat percentage of over 40% you are clinically obese.

Indeed.

Amazing people are actually out there trying to claim "Exceptions" can explain the vast majority of obesity issues or that somehow the obesity lines are blurred officially.. Truly scary stuff just reading such posts.
 
No, you're simply being irrational.

Exceptions do exist but unlike you claim, most people do not fall into those exceptions who are in fact overweight. Completely negating your "There's so many exceptions!! What about body type!!".

That's actually not true, there aren't so many legitimate exceptions as you'd claim. Body type does not determine whether you're overweight. You have the ability to change that.
No, I'm trying to find out where you stand. You say exceptions do exist. Can you name a few? That would go a long way in determining if you're rational or irrational. So far you are the one who has come off as irrational as you are the one who seems to be saying that everybody, bar none, fits in the same box.
 
No, I'm trying to find out where you stand. You say exceptions do exist. Can you name a few? That would go a long way in determining if you're rational or irrational. So far you are the one who has come off as irrational as you are the one who seems to be saying that everybody, bar none, fits in the same box.


Everyone, minus rare, extreme exceptions that are not common at all, is capable of being a healthy weight, even people with diabetes.

Body type or your parents genes do not mean you have to be overweight. It's all about what the actual person does in their life that is the determinate factor.


You are simply angry and so you run around blurring the lines or attempting to that "Obesity is so hard to determine and there's tons of exceptions". That is not true and you know it.

 
Everyone, minus rare, extreme exceptions that are not common at all, is capable of being a healthy weight, even people with diabetes.

Body type or your parents genes do not mean you have to be overweight. It's all about what the actual person does in their life that is the determinate factor.

You are simply angry and so you run around blurring the lines or attempting to that "Obesity is so hard to determine and there's tons of exceptions". That is not true and you know it.
When challenged, you're not even willing to pretend to have an open mind. Got it. :thumbs:
 
What leeway would you allow? (If you were the Health Czar)

If a person's ideal weight for their height were 165 lbs, would you allow 170? 190? 210? Obviously 240 would be unacceptable, based on your comment above. Would you allow no leeway at all?
. I think that body fat percent is a more accurate measure of obesity and health risk.
 
When challenged, you're not even willing to pretend to have an open mind. Got it. :thumbs:

Body mass index (BMI) | Better Health Channel

Risks of being overweight and physically inactive

If you are overweight (BMI over 25) and physically inactive, you may develop:
cardiovascular (heart and blood circulation) disease
gallbladder disease
high blood pressure (hypertension)
type 2 diabetes
osteoarthritis
certain types of cancer, such as colon and breast cancer
depression and other mental health disorders.



Again, these are many symptoms OF obesity. They are NOT exceptions that mean "You are unable to control your weight" as you nonsensically claim.


Again, you are simply irrational on this issue. Yet that's not honestly surprising and adds up directly with our cultural irrationality on the issue.
 
It's all about what the actual person does in their life that is the determinate factor.

So then it would appear that you want someone to dictate what a "actual person does in their life". Just so that you can hopefully keep insurance rates down. Your logic leads straight to 'death panels' as a logical way to keep those insurance rates down.

Basically Fred is fat and unhealthy, to hell with the fat ass he is raising our insurance rates!. I can see the propagandists slogans already: Everyone wake up! The fat people are destroying this country! Only TRUE Americans are not fat! Load up the fatties and send them to a camp!
 
I understand that, but the vast majority of people can, yet choose not to. The vast majority of people that are clinically obese were not victims of a horrific accident.

How do you know? :lol: Have you done some polling recently? All I know is that I type for a trauma center in California, and I type about patients who are seriously hurting. I mean SERIOUSLY hurting. Automobile accidents are common and they really, really mess you up bad.
 
So then it would appear that you want someone to dictate what a "actual person does in their life". Just so that you can hopefully keep insurance rates down. Your logic leads straight to 'death panels' as a logical way to keep those insurance rates down.

Basically Fred is fat and unhealthy, to hell with the fat ass he is raising our insurance rates!. I can see the propagandists slogans already: Everyone wake up! The fat people are destroying this country! Only TRUE Americans are not fat! Load up the fatties and send them to a camp!

Or, they could just pay a bit more for their health insurance.

Or, better yet, people who live a healthy lifestyle could be given a discount.
 
Body mass index (BMI) | Better Health Channel

Risks of being overweight and physically inactive

If you are overweight (BMI over 25) and physically inactive, you may develop:
cardiovascular (heart and blood circulation) disease
gallbladder disease
high blood pressure (hypertension)
type 2 diabetes
osteoarthritis
certain types of cancer, such as colon and breast cancer
depression and other mental health disorders.



Again, these are many symptoms OF obesity. They are NOT exceptions that mean "You are unable to control your weight" as you nonsensically claim.


Again, you are simply irrational on this issue. Yet that's not honestly surprising and adds up directly with our cultural irrationality on the issue.

Unfortunately, this BMI standard is really just an adjusted lbs per inch of height metric, and doesn't take into consideration build or bodyfat or muscle or bone mass. It's no better than the old height/weight charts of 20 years ago.

My BMI is well over 25, yet no one in their right mind would call me fat, or overweight, or even pudgy or soft. BMI is really a standard created for dimwitted doctors who are to ignorant to understand body composition analysis.
 
So then it would appear that you want someone to dictate what a "actual person does in their life". Just so that you can hopefully keep insurance rates down. Your logic leads straight to 'death panels' as a logical way to keep those insurance rates down.


Wrong.

What I and most rational, normal weight Americans want is simply for medically judged (by a doctor) obese Americans to be told:

"Hi, Sir or M'am, your medical file says medically obese so the charge will be $300.00 today. Thank you."

and then

"Hi Sir or Ma'm, your medical file says normal medical weight for age, so the charge will be $150.00 today. Thank you."


THAT is what we want. We do not want to keep being charged to pay for your daily box of sugar donuts and Twinkies via increased medical bills for all.


VkYKAUB.png
 
Last edited:
Wrong.

What I and most rational, normal weight Americans want is simply for medically judged (by a doctor) obese Americans to be told:

"Hi, Sir or M'am, your medical file says medically obese so the charge will be $300.00 today. Thank you."

and then

"Hi Sir or Ma'm, your medical file says normal medical weight for age, so the charge will be $150.00 today. Thank you."


THAT is what we want. We do not want to keep being charged to pay for your daily box of sugar donuts and Twinkies via increased medical bills for all.

I think most of the obese people are poor. Now what?
 
Back
Top Bottom