• 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
ChrisL said:
Well, like I've said, we've already had a very similar plan in place here in Massachusetts since 2006, and I've had several different policies and have never been asked such questions. LIFE insurance OTOH does ask those types of questions. Now, if they start doing this, then it kind of totally blows the whole plan out of the water. People will not be saving any money, people will be dropping their insurance because it will be cheaper for some of them to take the hit in tax penalties, etc.
Click to expand...

That's part of why it's a very poor plan.
 
ChrisL said:
Lol! "Yes it is" doesn't really address my question. You mean "yes you are serious?" Anyhow, I couldn't disagree more. This just gives the insurance companies another way to nickle and dime people to death and now they are FORCED (essentially) to buy health insurance regardless of how much they will be charged for it.
Click to expand...

"Yes it is" means that it's possible that the applicant for health insurance might live with a smoker, and not be one themselves.

And, who could be against discounts as an incentive to lead healthier lifestyles?
 
Dittohead not! said:
"Yes it is" means that it's possible that the applicant for health insurance might live with a smoker, and not be one themselves.

And, who could be against discounts as an incentive to lead healthier lifestyles?
Click to expand...

The health insurance companies are not going to give you a discount. They don't really care about you, only your money.
 
ChrisL said:
The health insurance companies are not going to give you a discount. They don't really care about you, only your money.
Click to expand...

Correct, but they need to compete for your business. If Company A is offering a discount, the Company B has to follow suit or lose customers.
 
I could possibly understand charging more for lifestyle choices like obesity and smoking if it lowered health insurance prices for everyone else, but it doesn't, they just pocket the extra money. I haven't ever heard of health insurance dropping in price from one year to the next.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Correct, but they need to compete for your business. If Company A is offering a discount, the Company B has to follow suit or lose customers.
Click to expand...

No they do not. There is no real competition between health insurance companies. I believe that was a republican idea, to open up the market across state lines to make it more competitive.

Understanding the controversy of selling health insurance across state lines

Over the past several years, lawmakers have introduced proposals that would make this possible. In January 2011, U.S. Rep. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., introduced legislation called the Health Care Choices Act. If it becomes law, it would allow health insurance products to be sold across state lines.
Click to expand...
 
ChrisL said:
No they do not. There is no real competition between health insurance companies. I believe that was a republican idea, to open up the market across state lines to make it more competitive.

Understanding the controversy of selling health insurance across state lines
Click to expand...
It was more of a Republican talking point. The fact of the matter is that insurance can be sold across state lines now, just as long as the seller abides by the regulations of the state in which they are doing business. Since the states, and not the federal government, were regulating insurance before "Obamacare", the requirement that insurers abide by those regulations was in place so that they wouldn't set up shop in the state with the loosest regulations and then sell nationwide according to those regulations. The rule is obsolete now as there is federal regulation, so sure, they should be allowed to sell across state lines. Nevertheless, there is plenty of opportunity for competition even within states.
 
ChrisL said:
It's wrong. My health insurance company has never asked if I smoke or not. Is that a question you had to answer to get health insurance coverage?
Click to expand...

No, because I am on a group policy. They didn't ask about pre-existing conditions either. Same reason. Likely why you weren't asked.

Now, some employers going for a better group rate might, who by policy don't hire smokers, ask if you are a smoker .
 
Dittohead not! said:
Yes, it is.

I'm not sure we want to encourage them to move out, but maybe. If the smoker has no more consideration that to smoke inside the house, we could be doing the non smoker a favor.
Click to expand...


Well it doesn't trip the risk meter for actuaries. How do we know this, because insurance companies are not precluded from charging extra for that risk, and they do not.
 
Dittohead not! said:
It was more of a Republican talking point. The fact of the matter is that insurance can be sold across state lines now, just as long as the seller abides by the regulations of the state in which they are doing business. Since the states, and not the federal government, were regulating insurance before "Obamacare", the requirement that insurers abide by those regulations was in place so that they wouldn't set up shop in the state with the loosest regulations and then sell nationwide according to those regulations. The rule is obsolete now as there is federal regulation, so sure, they should be allowed to sell across state lines. Nevertheless, there is plenty of opportunity for competition even within states.
Click to expand...

There isn't any competition quite obviously. Health insurance companies want your money and want to be profitable. That is all. I am highly doubtful that anyone is going to get a "discount" because those things cannot be proven, unless you have someone watching you 24/7.

With car insurance, NOT getting into an accident is a much simpler measurement for giving a drivers discount, and I'm still quite sure those companies are nickle and diming people to death in OTHER ways.
 
clownboy said:
No, because I am on a group policy. They didn't ask about pre-existing conditions either. Same reason. Likely why you weren't asked.

Now, some employers going for a better group rate might, who by policy don't hire smokers, ask if you are a smoker .
Click to expand...

Yes, I am on a group policy Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Massachusetts.
 
clownboy said:
Well it doesn't trip the risk meter for actuaries. How do we know this, because insurance companies are not precluded from charging extra for that risk, and they do not.
Click to expand...

LOL! I'm sure if they could make extra money this way, they would have already employed it LONG ago. :lol:
 
ChrisL said:
There isn't any competition quite obviously. Health insurance companies want your money and want to be profitable. That is all. I am highly doubtful that anyone is going to get a "discount" because those things cannot be proven, unless you have someone watching you 24/7.

With car insurance, NOT getting into an accident is a much simpler measurement for giving a drivers discount, and I'm still quite sure those companies are nickle and diming people to death in OTHER ways.
Click to expand...

Oh, there is no question that they're nickle and diming people in other ways, however, there is still competition to help keep prices down. If Company A raises its rates by 30% after a three month contract, which has been my experience over and over again, then the customer has the option of shopping around and getting a better deal.

I had one auto insurer raise my rates like that. When I shopped around and got a better deal, the agent had the nerve to ask me why I hadn't asked him for a quote! Your quote was what you wanted to charge me before you knew I was shopping around, of course.

Health insurers are no different. They'll play the same sorts of games. The real difference is that their expenses, that is to say, what they have to pay out for procedures keeps going up faster than the rate of inflation. That is the big gorilla in the room that no one seems willing to address: Medical procedures costs are soaring, and the provider's incentive is to keep raising them and to provide service whether it is necessary or not.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Oh, there is no question that they're nickle and diming people in other ways, however, there is still competition to help keep prices down. If Company A raises its rates by 30% after a three month contract, which has been my experience over and over again, then the customer has the option of shopping around and getting a better deal.

I had one auto insurer raise my rates like that. When I shopped around and got a better deal, the agent had the nerve to ask me why I hadn't asked him for a quote! Your quote was what you wanted to charge me before you knew I was shopping around, of course.

Health insurers are no different. They'll play the same sorts of games. The real difference is that their expenses, that is to say, what they have to pay out for procedures keeps going up faster than the rate of inflation. That is the big gorilla in the room that no one seems willing to address: Medical procedures costs are soaring, and the provider's incentive is to keep raising them and to provide service whether it is necessary or not.
Click to expand...

Yes, I've talked about this a lot in the past, that our actual problem is the rising and already exorbitant costs of health care. I would think that, in order to solve this issue, it would take someone (a politician with clout of course) who has inside knowledge of the healthcare industry. I was reading some interesting posts last week here about how a poster went to a hospital for some blood work and was charged an outrageous amount, but when they went to a local clinic for the same blood tests, it was like half the cost.
 
ChrisL said:
Yes, I've talked about this a lot in the past, that our actual problem is the rising and already exorbitant costs of health care. I would think that, in order to solve this issue, it would take someone (a politician with clout of course) who has inside knowledge of the healthcare industry. I was reading some interesting posts last week here about how a poster went to a hospital for some blood work and was charged an outrageous amount, but when they went to a local clinic for the same blood tests, it was like half the cost.
Click to expand...

Part of the problem is that there is very little in the way of information that would allow you to shop around in order to find the best price. In addition, there is very little reason to shop around because someone else is paying for it..........my wife has patients badger her for equipment they do not need. When she explains they do not need it and she will not prescribe it, they get rather upset and generally go on a rant about how it is free anyway. Free to whom? (Yes. I am a big proponent of personal health care savings programs)
 
BretJ said:
Part of the problem is that there is very little in the way of information that would allow you to shop around in order to find the best price. In addition, there is very little reason to shop around because someone else is paying for it..........my wife has patients badger her for equipment they do not need. When she explains they do not need it and she will not prescribe it, they get rather upset and generally go on a rant about how it is free anyway. Free to whom? (Yes. I am a big proponent of personal health care savings programs)
Click to expand...

I also think that the ones who offer the best coverages are already the most expensive policies to have. It just doesn't make sense that you are going to get any kind of good coverage at a discounted price. I've known several people who had really terrible insurance, but they paid a lot less probably. Lol!

Right, when people don't have to pay for something out of their own pockets and don't understand how the insurance works, then they just assume it's "free." They don't realize that we ALL pay in the end.
 
ChrisL said:
I also think that the ones who offer the best coverages are already the most expensive policies to have. It just doesn't make sense that you are going to get any kind of good coverage at a discounted price. I've known several people who had really terrible insurance, but they paid a lot less probably. Lol!

Right, when people don't have to pay for something out of their own pockets and don't understand how the insurance works, then they just assume it's "free." They don't realize that we ALL pay in the end.
Click to expand...
There's nothing like "free" to bring the costs of things up.
 
ChrisL said:
I also think that the ones who offer the best coverages are already the most expensive policies to have. It just doesn't make sense that you are going to get any kind of good coverage at a discounted price. I've known several people who had really terrible insurance, but they paid a lot less probably. Lol!

Right, when people don't have to pay for something out of their own pockets and don't understand how the insurance works, then they just assume it's "free." They don't realize that we ALL pay in the end.
Click to expand...

I agree. However, I was referring to a lack of information from health care providers. I generally cannot contact a few hospitals and and expect to get an estimate of costs for a procedure. I guess there is no reason to get the best value for the money in health care. It is free after all.....
 
BretJ said:
I agree. However, I was referring to a lack of information from health care providers. I generally cannot contact a few hospitals and and expect to get an estimate of costs for a procedure. I guess there is no reason to get the best value for the money in health care. It is free after all.....
Click to expand...

Well, I don't think health care providers are insurance experts either. They have billing departments for that stuff. I'm not against the federal government laying some basic ground rules for insurance companies to make it easier for them, so that they can offer coverage out of their own state to other people in other states. That would open up competition (like it did with the car insurance companies). However, HOW much difference for the same level of coverage is there going to be from one company to another? Especially when considering just how expensive healthcare really is?
 
ChrisL said:
Well, I don't think health care providers are insurance experts either. They have billing departments for that stuff. I'm not against the federal government laying some basic ground rules for insurance companies to make it easier for them, so that they can offer coverage out of their own state to other people in other states. That would open up competition (like it did with the car insurance companies). However, HOW much difference for the same level of coverage is there going to be from one company to another? Especially when considering just how expensive healthcare really is?
Click to expand...
I personally would like the feds to require health care providers to at least provide cost estimates of services provided. There are always unforeseen issues that can come up, but as you pointed out, if one provider charges more than another for those tests and gets the same outcome, I would go for the cheaper provider. If one hospital charges $5000 to perform an endoscopy and gets the same outcome as a hospital performing the same procedure for $15,000, I would go for the cheaper.
 
JumpinJack said:
For a guy who is too scared to publicize his political leanings, you sure have strong opinions. For me, I opt to be kind.
Click to expand...


Political leanings mean nothing in relation to how one lives their health lifestyle, so there's that.


Be kind? Are you so sure you're being kind by telling medically fat kids and or adults that they're healthy?

Will they think you so kind when they're 55 and in the hospital dying of some diseases amplified via them being fat?
Will they think you so kind when they realize they can't get a pretty girlfriend?
Will they think you so kind when they earn a decent living yet still cannot attain a quality mate or high self esteem due to their weight?

Something very much tells me no. I very much do not believe you or anyone else is being "kind" by attempting to blur the lines of what actually amounts to being fat.



People need to be told they're a fatass, and to their face with vitriol. They deserve to face temporary humiliation if it will push them to change to where they will live another 20 years or get to marry who they want. I would argue anything less is being extremely cruel to them. Life is actually very much a zero sum game.
 
Ryan5 said:
Political leanings mean nothing in relation to how one lives their health lifestyle, so there's that.


Be kind? Are you so sure you're being kind by telling medically fat kids and or adults that they're healthy?

Will they think you so kind when they're 55 and in the hospital dying of some diseases amplified via them being fat?
Will they think you so kind when they realize they can't get a pretty girlfriend?
Will they think you so kind when they earn a decent living yet still cannot attain a quality mate or high self esteem due to their weight?

Something very much tells me no. I very much do not believe you or anyone else is being "kind" by attempting to blur the lines of what actually amounts to being fat.



People need to be told they're a fatass, and to their face with vitriol. They deserve to face temporary humiliation if it will push them to change to where they will live another 20 years or get to marry who they want. I would argue anything less is being extremely cruel to them. Life is actually very much a zero sum game.
Click to expand...

Interesting. I wonder if you say such things to fat people often, when you don't have the anonymity of being online that is? :mrgreen:
 
BretJ said:
I personally would like the feds to require health care providers to at least provide cost estimates of services provided. There are always unforeseen issues that can come up, but as you pointed out, if one provider charges more than another for those tests and gets the same outcome, I would go for the cheaper provider. If one hospital charges $5000 to perform an endoscopy and gets the same outcome as a hospital performing the same procedure for $15,000, I would go for the cheaper.
Click to expand...

Oh, so would I. You would be crazy not to, IMO. :lol: I don't know why they can't give estimations if you have some planned procedure. I don't see any reasons why they shouldn't be able to advertise prices. That could help bring down prices and make things more competitive in the health care industry.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom