• 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
Then you are basically taxing people for their life choices which I look at as extremely controlling.. especially now that health insurance is required.

No control involved at all. Everyone gets to make their own life choices, but the rest of us don't have to pay for the results of those choices. Their freedom ends where my wallet begins.
 
That's old school thinking. Recent research is suggesting that Type 2 can be either genetic AND/OR diet/lifestyle. Personally, I believe that that will be eventually proven.

I was diagnosed with Type 2 not long ago. Here's my history:

1. My father was diagnosed with diabetes in 1969. Heavily insulin dependant.
2. I was diagnosed with Gestational Diabetes with all of my pregnancies, and was insulin dependent with all 3.
3. I was told by my OB that given my family history as well as the Gestational Diabetes, I had a 90% change of developing Type 2 by the time I was 50.
4. I have been underweight most of my life due to hyperthyroidism which I was diagnosed with in the early 1990s.

I am not heavy (just the opposite), I watch what I eat, I exercise religiously, and I still went full out diabtes which couldn't be controlled with diet & exercise (I am now on Lantus insulin).

You are 100% spot on that Type 2 can be genetic, and the realilty is, my diabetes during pregnancy all but assured the reality of me ending up as a diabetic.
 
The trainer at the gym.

The trainer at the gym is qualified to officially judge your lifestyle? More like its your opinion that the trainer at the gym would be qualified. But there are a **** load of bad trainers out there.

What is a healthy lifestyle is actually subjective. Peoples metabolisms are not all the same. What is a healthy lifestyle for one person may not be for another.

The ethical problem is that insurance is mandated by the government. Meaning that any medical care insurance organization (private or otherwise) that dictates health lifestyle choices through monetary penalties, is a proxy for the government. That alone is reason enough to discourage through law any mandates by anyone for penalizing what health choices citizens will make.

But then risk pools already exist in many states now. States That Have Risk Pools

What is a Risk Pool

But those are for the "medically uninsurable" population. Labeling fat people as needing to pay more would place them into a "medically uninsurable" category, and considering the amount of people that would affect, I suspect such legislation would be stopped or overturned in short order. We are a democracy after all.
 
No control involved at all. Everyone gets to make their own life choices, but the rest of us don't have to pay for the results of those choices. Their freedom ends where my wallet begins.

The whole concept of health insurance is that it's a shared risk program.. Thats how it works. If you don't like it you can always opt out and pay the fine.

So yeah, technically you do have to pay for the rest of us.. But the rest of us are paying for you too. You have to look at it that way.
 
The trainer at the gym.

what happens if you blow out your back at the gym. should the rest of us have to pay for your lifestyle choices?

absolutely, because thats what health insurance is...
 
It's funny that the poll is about 50/50 … considering most people think smokers should have to pay more, yet there is more death and disease related to obesity. Guess it kinda shows society prefers to go for the low hanging fruit rather than address big problems.
 
The trainer at the gym is qualified to officially judge your lifestyle? More like its your opinion that the trainer at the gym would be qualified. But there are a **** load of bad trainers out there.

What is a healthy lifestyle is actually subjective. Peoples metabolisms are not all the same. What is a healthy lifestyle for one person may not be for another.

The ethical problem is that insurance is mandated by the government. Meaning that any medical care insurance organization (private or otherwise) that dictates health lifestyle choices through monetary penalties, is a proxy for the government. That alone is reason enough to discourage through law any mandates by anyone for penalizing what health choices citizens will make.

But then risk pools already exist in many states now. States That Have Risk Pools

What is a Risk Pool

But those are for the "medically uninsurable" population. Labeling fat people as needing to pay more would place them into a "medically uninsurable" category, and considering the amount of people that would affect, I suspect such legislation would be stopped or overturned in short order. We are a democracy after all.

Oh, well, then, maybe the decision should be left to the doctor. He/she is better trained after all. And, instead of charging the overweight more for health insurance, let the doctor designate people of healthy weight and lifestyle for a discount on their insurance. That would have the effect of encouraging people to get physicals in order to qualify for the discount, and wouldn't put anyone into a "medically uninsurable" category unnecessarily.
 
The whole concept of health insurance is that it's a shared risk program.. Thats how it works. If you don't like it you can always opt out and pay the fine.

So yeah, technically you do have to pay for the rest of us.. But the rest of us are paying for you too. You have to look at it that way.

Auto insurance is also a shared risk, as is fire insurance.
but, if I have a clean driving record, then I can qualify for a discount. If I live near a fire house, and not in the middle of the dry brush, I can also qualify for a discount. I'm sharing risk with people of similar risk, in effect.
 
what happens if you blow out your back at the gym. should the rest of us have to pay for your lifestyle choices?

absolutely, because thats what health insurance is...

Yes, absolutely.
Particularly since the odds of me blowing out my back at the gym are far less than my odds of developing an ongoing medical condition as a result of inactivity.
 
Yes, absolutely.
Particularly since the odds of me blowing out my back at the gym are far less than my odds of developing an ongoing medical condition as a result of inactivity.

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.
 
Auto insurance is also a shared risk, as is fire insurance.
but, if I have a clean driving record, then I can qualify for a discount. If I live near a fire house, and not in the middle of the dry brush, I can also qualify for a discount. I'm sharing risk with people of similar risk, in effect.

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.
 
I know that a big corporation has there workers pay a lower medical ins payment if they walk to lunch instead of driving to get lunch...but after all it is a free country the med ins. co can charge you what ever they want lol
 
If you think about it what we have now (shared risk) in private insurance is actually quite socialistic.

It's not really shared risk unless everyone is paying the same.
 
It's not really shared risk unless everyone is paying the same.

Are you just adding your opinion or are you claiming that health insurance doesn't use a shared risk platform?
 
Are you just adding your opinion or are you claiming that health insurance doesn't use a shared risk platform?

You said we have a 'shared risk' system. I pointed out we do not, because not everyone pays the same. Not only are rates different, but some have mamma government covering their tab. If you don't have skin in the game, you are not sharing any risk.
 
Ummm having good or bad health is extremely easy to assess and body weight is an extremely accurate indicator of a persons health..

No it's not, to either of those assertions.
 
Yes, absolutely.
Particularly since the odds of me blowing out my back at the gym are far less than my odds of developing an ongoing medical condition as a result of inactivity.

You know, you're much more likely to have that back condition if you're tall. Should tall people pay more?
 
You said we have a 'shared risk' system. I pointed out we do not, because not everyone pays the same. Not only are rates different, but some have mamma government covering their tab. If you don't have skin in the game, you are not sharing any risk.

That would be true if you didn't take into account that what insurance companies do is they lump everyone into different categories. What you pay each check or month or whatever, is added to the overall pool and is used to pay out any insurance claims. Therefor -shared risk. perhaps I'm using the wrong term but it doesn't change the original point I was trying to make.
 
It's funny that the poll is about 50/50 … considering most people think smokers should have to pay more, yet there is more death and disease related to obesity. Guess it kinda shows society prefers to go for the low hanging fruit rather than address big problems.

Exactly.. It is rather amazing.


"Oh my god yes, look at all those health problems with smoking, tax it, regulate it into the ground!"

then by same people..

"Oh no we can't regulate and or tax obesity that's too difficult and unfair (even though it's far worse than smoking) but we can certainly do it to smokers! DAMN smokers! Now let's get some sugar donuts and a large diet coke."


The poll basically demonstrates that democracy is fallible on some issues when it comes to a populations health. Authoritarianism is not all bad it would seem.
 
In addition to Crue Cab's list of medical conditions, how about professional race car drivers? Professional wrestlers? Boxers? Olympic skiers? Bunge jumpers? Parachutists? Bad drivers? Alcoholics? People who drive motor cycles? People who get X-number of speeding tickets? Traffic accidents?

;)

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.
 
Exactly.. It is rather amazing.


"Oh my god yes, look at all those health problems with smoking, tax it, regulate it into the ground!"

then by same people..

"Oh no we can't regulate and or tax obesity that's too difficult and unfair (even though it's far worse than smoking) but we can certainly do it to smokers! DAMN smokers! Now let's get some sugar donuts and a large diet coke."


The poll basically demonstrates that democracy is fallible on some issues when it comes to a populations health. Authoritarianism is not all bad it would seem.

The problem is that most people do not smoke. However a far larger portion of the citizens are fat, don't eat healthy, etc. So they are not going to vote to 'ding' themselves with higher rates. Which of course does away with the BS that such things 'are for the good of all' …
 
Well that says it all about why you havent at all addressed the problems of liberty in this issue.


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.
 
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.

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.
 
Back
Top Bottom