• 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!

Firms to charge smokers & obese more for healthcare

Ikari said:
No, they do not. First off, not the point of insurance. Second off, tobacco users already pay it in increased tax on tobacco products, third it is thought and behavioral control executed through aggregated "insurance". This is nothing more than trying to make the lot of us act the same within regulated "tolerances". **** it. It's supposed to be a free country. I'll take the additional expenditure to spread out risk (which is what insurance is SUPPOSED to do) rather than trying to force everyone into the same mold. Seriously f'd up **** here.
Click to expand...

it is a free country, and insurance companies are free to charge what they want. precisely why we need universal healthcare. i thought you were a libertarian?
 
j-mac said:
Really? showing ignorance is more controllable than that of genetically inherited obesity. Pfft!

j-mac
Click to expand...

so you are saying that it's not most people's fault that they a fat? lol! sure, some is genetic, but americans are ****ing fat. we eat too much, we eat the wrong food, and we are lazy.
 
liblady said:
so you are saying that it's not most people's fault that they a fat? lol! sure, some is genetic, but americans are ****ing fat. we eat too much, we eat the wrong food, and we are lazy.
Click to expand...


No, I am saying that your ignorant generalizations are repugnant.

j-mac
 
StillBallin75 said:
This is essentially the primary problem with the insurance industry. It makes perfect economic sense to discriminate. Socially, that's another story.
Click to expand...

They do this already. In the past 5 years my 83 year old mothers private insurance has gone up almost 100%. Of course the insurance company won't say it's because of her age... But still, if someone engages in dangerous behavior or works in a job that's inherently dangerous, shouldn't the market charge them more than say someone who works in a cubicle? Or is it the other way around ... because someone works in an inherently dangerous job they have been trained and take more precautions... therefore accidents are minimized while the guy working in the cubicle has a higher chance of being injured or killed driving to work than the guy who's working on high voltage wires from a helicopter.... :think:
 
j-mac said:
No, I am saying that your ignorant generalizations are repugnant.

j-mac
Click to expand...

here's a nice little graphic for you........i'm sorry you find my statements repugnant, but the more convenience we foods we eat, the fatter we become. the further away we get form an agricultural society we get, the more obese we become. that's the truth, not a generalization. most people can achieve a healthy weight if they want.

Obesity and Overweight for Professionals: Data and Statistics: U.S. Obesity Trends | DNPAO | CDC
 
Ikari said:
No, they do not. First off, not the point of insurance. Second off, tobacco users already pay it in increased tax on tobacco products, third it is thought and behavioral control executed through aggregated "insurance". This is nothing more than trying to make the lot of us act the same within regulated "tolerances". **** it. It's supposed to be a free country. I'll take the additional expenditure to spread out risk (which is what insurance is SUPPOSED to do) rather than trying to force everyone into the same mold. Seriously f'd up **** here.
Click to expand...

Not if it is costing the EMPLOYERS more to provide health care for their employees. Taxes in this case don't go to the companies having to pay increased costs.
 
Thrilla said:
I suggest they charge more for stupid people as well.. and risk takers... and soda drinkers... and cake eaters... and pie eaters... and folks who have high stress jobs... and speeders.... and jaywalkers..... and drug abusers.... and ...and....and...and... and...
Click to expand...

You know, one can drink soda and cake and still be very healthy and have a normal weight. It isn't eating cake, it is being obese. Pretty simple actually.
 
EarlzP said:
Make it easier just add a tax to any product that is not a staple for healthy living, that way every body who indulges in less then healthy life style choices pays in advance for the health care they will need in the future
Click to expand...

But one can have a healthy lifestyle while indulging in the occasional Coke or ice cream or (horrors) a trip to BK or McDonald's...
 
liblady said:
here's a nice little graphic for you........i'm sorry you find my statements repugnant, but the more convenience we foods we eat, the fatter we become. the further away we get form an agricultural society we get, the more obese we become. that's the truth, not a generalization. most people can achieve a healthy weight if they want.

Obesity and Overweight for Professionals: Data and Statistics: U.S. Obesity Trends | DNPAO | CDC
Click to expand...

No one, and especially not myself is disputing that we eat way too much junk food today. That is NOT in dispute. Nor am I even disputing that those in our society that ignore warnings of what obesity, and smoking does shouldn't necessarily have to pony up more for the care they will eventually require (even though smokers in many cases already do in company insurance plans.) But rather, this is not what you were getting at when you made your flippant comment entering the thread this morning, mocking the overweight.

I have some ideas, but will discuss them with people that want discussion and not bigotry.


j-mac
 
Temporal said:
I have no problem with this, as long as it doesn't get out of hand and they start labeling other non-related things as "higher risk".

Insurance companies will do anything to leech that extra dollar right out of you.
Click to expand...

But they will, oh they will. I laugh at the concern the employer shows for its employees. Just another excuse to exploit them. Don't worry all you people that think this is a great idea something will be found to deny you healthcare too.

The funny thing about healthcare is that all of these things that they want you to do to live healthier and longer end up costing us just as much if not more in the long run. Keep someone alive 10 years longer could and often does mean a lot more healthcare dollars. The elderly cost way more for healthcare than any age group. I really don't think any of you realize what you are supporting. This is indeed a very slippery slope.

Just though of another. Everyone gets drug tested monthly and depending on the drug discovered gets fired or gets a surcharge added to their premium. Then we have to go to achohol too. And if you don't exercise a certain amount of minutes each week witnessed by a certified instructor you have to pay too. Sedentary lifestyles whether you are fat or skinny are unhealthy. What about the types of food you eat. Just because you are skinny doesn't mean you are healthy. If you have high colesterol, pay up or high blood pressure, pay up.
 
Last edited:
Thunder said:
Insight: Firms to charge smokers, obese more for healthcare - Yahoo! News


Like a lot of companies, Veridian Credit Union wants its employees to be healthier. In January, the Waterloo, Iowa-company rolled out a wellness program and voluntary screenings.

It also gave workers a mandate - quit smoking, curb obesity, or you'll be paying higher healthcare costs in 2013. It doesn't yet know by how much, but one thing's for certain - the unhealthy will pay more.

LOVE IT!!!

smokers, the obese, and folks who participate in other very unhealthy lifestypes should TOTALLY pay higher premiums and co-pays.

why? because their lifestyle costs the rest of us healthy people.
Click to expand...

If they can charge more for people with pre-existing conditions then I do not see why they can not charge more for people who regularly engage in activities or habits hazardous to their health.
 
Last edited:
StillBallin75 said:
I don't have a particular problem with this, but it should be noted that one's obesity is not necessarily their own fault.
Click to expand...

That is crap. Any endurance athlete knows that everyone regardless of their supposed metabolism, body type, or whatever, will burn 5 calories per every liter of oxygen consumed. A smaller body needs less oxygen to move it a given distance at a given speed, thus uses less calories. A larger body needs more oxygen to move it a given distance at a given speed, thus uses more calories. If you are obese, you are consuming more calories than your activity level needs. Simply put, obese people are obese because they don't burn off the calories they consume - and that is entirely their own fault.
 
jambalaya said:
But they will, oh they will. I laugh at the concern the employer shows for its employees. Just another excuse to exploit them. Don't worry all you people that think this is a great idea something will be found to deny you healthcare too.

The funny thing about healthcare is that all of these things that they want you to do to live healthier and longer end up costing us just as much if not more in the long run. Keep someone alive 10 years longer could and often does mean a lot more healthcare dollars. The elderly cost way more for healthcare than any age group. I really don't think any of you realize what you are supporting. This is indeed a very slippery slope.
Click to expand...

Not smoking and exercising regularly does not necessarily mean you will live longer than someone that is overweight and doesn't take care of themselves. However, statistically, you will have a far better quality of life your last 20 years of life than someone that does not take care of themselves will have. The life long runner will usually consume very little in terms of healthcare (other than preventative) until the last few months of their life. However, the life long obese will consume a huge amount in healthcare related to their obesity over the course of the last 20 years or so of their life (adult onset diabetes, joint issues, heart disease, higher cancer rates and so on).
 
j-mac said:
No one, and especially not myself is disputing that we eat way too much junk food today. That is NOT in dispute. Nor am I even disputing that those in our society that ignore warnings of what obesity, and smoking does shouldn't necessarily have to pony up more for the care they will eventually require (even though smokers in many cases already do in company insurance plans.) But rather, this is not what you were getting at when you made your flippant comment entering the thread this morning, mocking the overweight.

I have some ideas, but will discuss them with people that want discussion and not bigotry.


j-mac
Click to expand...

saying that fat americans can lose weight is hardly flippant. it IS mostly their own fault. btw, i could lose a few pounds myself, but i KNOW it's my own fault i haven't. whatever happened to the conservative idea that a person is repsonsible for themselves? are fat people VICTIMS?

my comment was exactly what it said. most fat people can lose what weight if they want.
 
liblady said:
saying that fat americans can lose weight is hardly flippant. it IS mostly their own fault. btw, i could lose a few pounds myself, but i KNOW it's my own fault i haven't. whatever happened to the conservative idea that a person is repsonsible for themselves? are fat people VICTIMS?

my comment was exactly what it said. most fat people can lose what weight if they want.
Click to expand...

Victims? certainly not. Personal responsibility should be the standard. But the entrance into the discussion today wasn't simply a statement from you about how the people suffering obesity can change their lives to healthier paths, it was a simple statement of how it is their own fault, that included a smiley for that added bit of mockery as insult...Now it is your ilk that runs around hollering PC, and we can't be going around mocking everyone, that we must be inclusive, and sympathetic of those that have problems....I guess that is subjective in the liberal mind.

j-mac
 
roguenuke said:
They actually cost a little less, overall. But only because non-smokers, on average, live about 10 years longer.

MMS: Error
Do smokers cost society money? - USATODAY.com

But, in that case, you would have to take into account that most of the medical costs for those non-smokers are going to be near the end of life, most likely after retirement age, or at least after reaching Medicare age. So, as far as insurances that are offered as worker plans, within that time frame, the smokers are more likely to cost insurance companies more in health care costs, especially older smokers.

Basically, those insurance companies that are providing health care for workers are not interested in the overall costs of a lifetime smoker compared to a lifetime non-smoker, since the increase in cost of a non-smoker is likely to come after the person no longer has that particular insurance.
Click to expand...

Which brings us back to the point that smokers already pay a lot more, through taxation, even though they don't cost society more.
Still really stupid, if you ask me.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Which brings us back to the point that smokers already pay a lot more, through taxation, even though they don't cost society more.
Still really stupid, if you ask me.
Click to expand...

Honestly, I just want a NHC system. I think insurance sucks, as it is now. It seems stupid to mandate a middle man or middle group.
 
roguenuke said:
They actually cost a little less, overall. But only because non-smokers, on average, live about 10 years longer.
Click to expand...

Yup, plus they subsidize pensions and such by dying early. Not saying that's particularly a good thing, but that's less money in general through companies, through Medicare, through Social Security, etc. that we're spending on smokers.
 
liblady said:
it is a free country, and insurance companies are free to charge what they want. precisely why we need universal healthcare. i thought you were a libertarian?
Click to expand...

Except that we're forced via government to have it, and when Obama care kicks in, we all have to have health "insurance". There's no public option, so you're stuck. My being libertarian has nothing to do with what I wrote. It's the reality of the system.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Which brings us back to the point that smokers already pay a lot more, through taxation, even though they don't cost society more.
Still really stupid, if you ask me.
Click to expand...

i think they do cost society more.......children of smokers are more likely to have asthma and other respiratory diesases.
 
roguenuke said:
Honestly, I just want a NHC system. I think insurance sucks, as it is now. It seems stupid to mandate a middle man or middle group.
Click to expand...

You're always going to have a middle group of middle man, for catastrophic care.
That's the intent of insurance, in any form (government of private).

If people stopped expecting insurance to pay for day to day stuff, the premiums for everyone would be a lot lower.
 
liblady said:
i think they do cost society more.......children of smokers are more likely to have asthma and other respiratory diesases.
Click to expand...

But someone listed research and study done which states they do not cost the healthcare system extra, and in fact may be slightly lower since they die earlier. It costs way more money to keep a very elderly person alive for 6 more months than it does to treat a smoker who dies. Additionally, there are other hidden cost reductions with smokers in the form of pensions, medicare, social security, etc.

You're "I think they do cost society more" is not sufficient reasoning to charge them more particularly when A) They already PAY MORE through taxes B) Studies have shown that they do not cost the healthcare system more.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom