• 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
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...

I think what he is arguing is that people who don't destroy their bodies are caught in the same net as those who are. They are caught in the same net because the medical establishment no longer cares about patients, they care about profit margins. I don't necessarily agree with everything he said but he does have a point. For profit medical treatment has proven too expensive even for someone who becomes ill after a relatively healthy life.
 
that depends-if they incur more medical expenses as a result of being fat-perhaps

some heavy people don't have many medical issues. you seem to want to impose costs merely for being overweight as opposed to racking up more bills.
 
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...

I think you are misreading my post. It wouldn't cost a cent of taxpayer money to do this simply put the federal government would regulate and MANDATE the health care industry (Manufacturers, hospitals, and doctors) to set their prices at a Reasonable profit margin ie. 2-1 or 1.5-1 or w/e. I am not sure what the profit margin on procedures are compared to the cost to make and upkeep them, but I am sure that the industry is lucritavely over profitable and that regulating the prices based on maximum allowable margin of profit would be more sensible than trying to regulate the insurance industry.

Leave insurance out and go for the healthcare professionals and manufacturers.
 
clownboy said:
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.
Click to expand...

Whether something is medically damaging can often be a matter of degree. An ounce of alcohol a day is beneficial. Also, diabetes is not always lifestyle related.
 
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...


I'm sorry but that's just not an answer. I'm by no means a political conservative or progressive, but to have a position of, as you do, "Well poor people all eat fattening food so we have to base everything our society does off that reality" is deeply flawed any way you cut it.

Poor people are always going to eat fattening food, no matter what. They're uneducated and that's why. They smoke. They don't exercise. They don't use birth control. They have children at 17. It isn't a matter of wealth. Eating healthy can be extremely cheap too. Eating fattening foods is actually rather expensive. It isn't cheap as you claim it is. MacDonald's takes money. The grocery store is cheaper by far.


Either way, as a liberal poster posted previously, fat people actually do end up over long periods of time paying more for health care, obviously, but not near enough compared to what they end up costing non fat people in the short and medium term.


If a fat person has to make 15 doctor trips from age 50-60 and a non fat person has to make 5 doctor trips from 50-60, how is that fair that the non fat persons bills are heavily influenced by the fat persons as obviously the industry does? It is basically indirect theft of people who stay healthy.
 
MasterLiberty said:
I think you are misreading my post. It wouldn't cost a cent of taxpayer money to do this simply put the federal government would regulate and MANDATE the health care industry (Manufacturers, hospitals, and doctors) to set their prices at a Reasonable profit margin ie. 2-1 or 1.5-1 or w/e. I am not sure what the profit margin on procedures are compared to the cost to make and upkeep them, but I am sure that the industry is lucritavely over profitable and that regulating the prices based on maximum allowable margin of profit would be more sensible than trying to regulate the insurance industry.

Leave insurance out and go for the healthcare professionals and manufacturers.
Click to expand...

Well, I worked in healthcare for years. And I hate to tell you but doctors are the greediest people in the world. Not only that, the AMA is the largest and most powerful PAC in the US. No one in government is going to 'go for' them. They carry too much political clout. And then when you factor in the people who have fallen for the 'oh I can't afford my malpractice insurance' BS, you have it piled hip deep. I am a mid level provider. If doctors don't want to get sued they should stop malpracticing. No one forces them to overbook and run people through like cattle. They do that all by their lonesome.
 
Last edited:
Ryan5 said:
I'm sorry but that's just not an answer. I'm by no means a political conservative or progressive, but to have a position of, as you do, "Well poor people all eat fattening food so we have to base everything our society does off that reality" is deeply flawed any way you cut it.

Poor people are always going to eat fattening food, no matter what. They're uneducated and that's why. They smoke. They don't exercise. They don't use birth control. They have children at 17. It isn't a matter of wealth. Eating healthy can be extremely cheap too. Eating fattening foods is actually rather expensive. It isn't cheap as you claim it is. MacDonald's takes money. The grocery store is cheaper by far.


Either way, as a liberal poster posted previously, fat people actually do end up over long periods of time paying more for health care, obviously, but not near enough compared to what they end up costing non fat people in the short and medium term.


If a fat person has to make 15 doctor trips from age 50-60 and a non fat person has to make 5 doctor trips from 50-60, how is that fair that the non fat persons bills are heavily influenced by the fat persons as obviously the industry does? It is basically indirect theft of people who stay healthy.
Click to expand...

OK, well, that was a little convoluted, but I think I get what you are saying. But bear in mind that obesity is not always caused by over eating. There are medications and metabolic illnesses that cause people who eat reasonably to be obese.
 
Last edited:
How about older people? Oh right, Obamacare took care of that one. The older you get the higher your rates go.
 
Maenad said:
OK, well, that was a little convoluted, but I think I get what you are saying. But bear in mind that obesity is not always caused by over eating. There are medications and metabolic illnesses that cause people who eat reasonable to be obese.
Click to expand...

Yeah but those aren't the norms.

I mean really, why should I, as a 174 pound 6ft tall guy pay medical costs in my twenties that are ballooned by virtual hippo creatures in their 40's and 50's who sit around all day screaming at IQ 57's running around on fields full of illegal cattle growth hormones?


I think that's unfair.
 
Dittohead not! said:
People who are overweight, people who do drugs, people who smoke, people who engage in hazardous activities (motorcycle racing, base jumping), people who refuse to exercise, all should pay more for health care.

People who have medical conditions that they can't change through a change of lifestyle should not.

The rationale is to provide an incentive to change unhealthy lifestyle choices.
Click to expand...

Like guys that cut trees down, or go down into ditches to dig, or welders, or boilermakers, or roofers, or chemists, or textile workers, or farmers, or steel workers on bridges, or deep sea fishermen, or doctors and nurses that deal with infectious diseases, or firefighters, or paramedics, or cops? Can't they change their hazardous lifestyle choices by changing jobs?
 
So who exactly is going to decide who is fat? Will there be a compulsory national weight limit?

You know when you make it harder for so called fat people to get medical care you are basically punishing them for being what you visually consider unhealthy. You might as well gather all the fat people up and put them in camps.

All hail the insurance Nazi's!

I hope that when you young skinny ****s get older some kid calls you fat.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
So who exactly is going to decide who is fat? Will there be a compulsory national weight limit?

You know when you make it harder for so called fat people to get medical care you are basically punishing them for being what you visually consider unhealthy. You might as well gather all the fat people up and put them in camps.

All hail the insurance Nazi's!

I hope that when you young skinny ****s get older some kid calls you fat.
Click to expand...


Ummm......

.......A Doctor who went to medical school and graduated and is sitting there pointing at a screen telling you "Mr So and So, you are medically fat."


That's who. Exactly.


Here's an example of doctors telling people they are fat. Doctors aren't Nazis and they aren't evil, they're just.. doctors..!!:roll:

 
Ryan5 said:
Yeah but those aren't the norms.

I mean really, why should I, as a 174 pound 6ft tall guy pay medical costs in my twenties that are ballooned by virtual hippo creatures in their 40's and 50's who sit around all day screaming at IQ 57's running around on fields full of illegal cattle growth hormones?


I think that's unfair.
Click to expand...

You are preaching to the choir here. I agree 100%. My point is that there are exceptions. I have a serious, very rare, and very expensive illness. I don't have any bad habits, I'm not fat, and I don't do stupid careless things. I so wanted to find the illness was due to medical negligence as it certainly had the opportunity to be, but having repeatedly reviewed my own records, I realize it is not. I also have no risk factors for it. My mother had a baby brother who died with the same symptoms I have. They never knew what was really wrong with him. Many babies are born with it. A certain percentage of occurrences of this illness, are familial and caused by genetics. I have been in all the genetic studies and they have isolated a gene mutation for it. Nothing I did caused it. Medicine has no cure for it. Medicine can ward off the inevitable for a short time. But, fortunately, I worked long enough that I have really good insurance along with my Medicare, and I pay for it all, but at least I can pay. The healthy people in my group share the risk to pay for my illness, and I am sorry about that, but we all signed on the dotted line to do so. Sometimes fate just deals you a blow. I can attest to that. Don't be so smug. It could come around and bite you in the ass.
 
Last edited:
Beaudreaux said:
Like guys that cut trees down, or go down into ditches to dig, or welders, or boilermakers, or roofers, or chemists, or textile workers, or farmers, or steel workers on bridges, or deep sea fishermen, or doctors and nurses that deal with infectious diseases, or firefighters, or paramedics, or cops? Can't they change their hazardous lifestyle choices by changing jobs?
Click to expand...

Their lifestyle can be LESS hazardous and OSHA has set out a number of regulations to make their jobs less hazardous. The real jerk is the one who goes out on the weekend on a 4 wheeler drunk, flips it over, and spends the next 40 years in a nursing home at taxpayer expense. Big difference. (Yes, I've taken care of those dumbasses.)
 
I think it's disgraceful that people continue to make such suggestions to penalize people who suffer from genetic imperfections and being fat has as much to do with genetics as anything else and medical science is becoming more aware of the connections every day.
 
Maenad said:
Their lifestyle can be LESS hazardous and OSHA has set out a number of regulations to make their jobs less hazardous.
Click to expand...

My point is that what is being discussed in this thread is a dangerous precedent to set. Where does it end? It should never start. The insurance industry includes all these factors in their actuarial formulas. There's no reason to change that.
 
tres borrachos said:
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.
Click to expand...

yep, used to make me really irate back in the day. if i posted all my online smoking rants from 2000 - 2008, it would crash the server.

the thing is, we all have vices. smoking is a bad one, admittedly, but it's not impossible to stop. that's why i push the Carr book like a spambot every time smoking comes up. of course, most of us who quit that way do exactly the same thing.

the bottom line is that we're all paying FAR too much for something that is not bankrupting people in other first world countries. given this, i can't get behind charging anyone a penny more regardless of their habits or state of fitness.
 
Ryan5 said:
Yeah but those aren't the norms.

I mean really, why should I, as a 174 pound 6ft tall guy pay medical costs in my twenties that are ballooned by virtual hippo creatures in their 40's and 50's who sit around all day screaming at IQ 57's running around on fields full of illegal cattle growth hormones?


I think that's unfair.
Click to expand...

Do you also think it's unfair that people who don't have children or who's children are fully grown and living on their own should pay taxes to fund your education - deficient as that education seems to have been?
 
Beaudreaux said:
My point is that what is being discussed in this thread is a dangerous precedent to set. Where does it end? It should never start. The insurance industry includes all these factors in their actuarial formulas. There's no reason to change that.
Click to expand...

It should start and in earnest. It will be good for society.
 
Beaudreaux said:
My point is that what is being discussed in this thread is a dangerous precedent to set. Where does it end? It should never start. The insurance industry includes all these factors in their actuarial formulas. There's no reason to change that.
Click to expand...

If you get insurance through your work, that is not the case. If you are employable and your coverage takes care of preexisting conditions, then you are good to go. Most workplaces have taken on the promotion of health as a cost control measure because many large companies underwrite their own policies. That means they pay the COST OF CARE, not premiums, and pay companies like Blue Cross to administer the program. Wellness is a big deal in a lot of employment settings. But, bear in mind that there are certain protected disabilities that the employer has no choice but to ensure, regardless.

CIAO. I'm tired. Going to get a bath and rest a bit! Catch you later.
 
Ryan5 said:
It should start and in earnest. It will be good for society.
Click to expand...

How will it be good for society, when personal habits cannot be legislated or taxed or charged to a point that they no longer exist, and for drug addicts, many fat people and others that have risky habits or adverse lifestyle habits are on public assistance to begin with, so it will be the tax payer that pays the bill (Medicaid), and that will absolutely have no effect on the habits of these people because they will NOT pay anything, much less a higher rate? Which, will be BAD for society, or at least those of us that actually pay taxes. You can't pay more of nothing. Nothing is what it is, so most of these people will not be effected by an increase in costs for them.

We already pay for them, as I said, by the insurance companies including them in the actuarial calculations for the minority of them that are not on Medicaid. So this proposal just doesn't make any sense, other than to have the tax payer have to carry more of the burden, which those of us that do pay taxes (and I pay a hell of a lot of tax) we would prefer to not increase our already high tax bill to cover what is already covered and paid for.
 
Maenad said:
If you get insurance through your work, that is not the case. If you are employable and your coverage takes care of preexisting conditions, then you are good to go. Most workplaces have taken on the promotion of health as a cost control measure because many large companies underwrite their own policies. That means they pay the COST OF CARE, not premiums, and pay companies like Blue Cross to administer the program. Wellness is a big deal in a lot of employment settings. But, bear in mind that there are certain protected disabilities that the employer has no choice but to ensure, regardless.

CIAO. I'm tired. Going to get a bath and rest a bit! Catch you later.
Click to expand...

Rest up dear. Talk to you later.
 
Ryan5 said:
Ummm......

.......A Doctor who went to medical school and graduated and is sitting there pointing at a screen telling you "Mr So and So, you are medically fat."
Click to expand...
yea because doctors are never wrong.


That's who. Exactly.


Here's an example of doctors telling people they are fat. Doctors aren't Nazis and they aren't evil, they're just.. doctors..!!:roll:

[video=youtube;ZNySc_BIl5k][/video]
Click to expand...
Thats great but not at all the same.

What part of insurance Nazi's was hard for you to understand? See this is the problem why medical care is so ****ing high: INSURANCE COMPANIES. But par for course for a private collective system. The only difference between universal healthcare and our current insurance based medical system is how it is paid for. Your whining about fat people ****ing it all up for everyone else is the result of people not just paying for their own healthcare. If you dont want to pay for someone elses eating habits stop buying health insurance. Come on step up to the plate and stop riding on someone elses buck.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom