• 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
Ryan5 said:
Some of those aren't preventable.....

How can you even begin to compare those??? Tells us a lot about your intelligence..
Click to expand...

The question is about the cost of medical care not compassion. Who is the lesser intelligent?
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
They do carry additional policies to cover the risks of their profession.

Bunge Jumpers and Sky Divers sign a waver. Bad drivers typically pay a lot more for auto insurance.

These people all pay more for auto insurance.

Health insurance is the only form of insurance where your life choices and the risks associated with them are typically not accounted for with your premiums. For example, a guy that regularly exercises, eats a whole foods diet, and never smoked, will usually pay the same rate as a guy that is morbidly obese, never exercises, and eats nothing but fast food.

My profile picture is a picture of me when I finished a 9 mile run in below zero weather. I eat well, am dedicated to my personal fitness, and my physicals and blood work always reflects that, so why should some fat ass that sits around eating crap all day and never exercises pay the same health insurance rate that I do?
Click to expand...

Well, our new policy (Obamacare) is to only rate people by age and whether or not they smoke. Pre-existing conditions are accepted without rate change. Before Obamacare, people who had a myriad pre-existing conditions were either refused coverage, given coverage with exceptions, or their premiums reflected their increased risk. Severely obese people couldn't get individual health insurance at all. Same with high blood pressure, diabetes, etc.

I'm assuming you're a Republican since this is a Democratic program start to finish? Southern Democrat?

Or is this Bush's fault, too?
 
Last edited:
Maenad said:
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.
Click to expand...


Indeed, however an ounce of alcohol a day is not universally beneficial. For some it can be very damaging.
 
imagep said:
But why should someone who lives a healthy lifestyle have to pay for the "freedom" of someone who doesn't?
Click to expand...

Same reason folks without kids have to pay for the education along with those who have kids.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Type 2 diabetes CAN be caused by one's lifestyle, such as obesity or lack of exercise. Of course it is not as simple as slightly over eating or not being as active as one should; and both of which would need to occur over the long term. Also genetic predisposition plays into things.
Click to expand...

Perhaps we're arguing semantics, but I have to disagree.

If you do not have the genetic condition that underlies it, then you will never get type 2 diabetes, no matter how bad your diet or lifestyle. It is the genetic condition that causes it, and not anything to do with diet or lifestyle.

If you do have the genetic condition, then you will be affected by it in one way or another, regardless of whether or not it eventually manifests as type 2 diabetes, and your diet and lifestyle will have a lot to do with whether that happens or not.
 
imagep said:
Because universal education benefits everyone?
Click to expand...

Yes. In that same way the insurance pool is open for everyone, some that take up more resources than the average individually, some that take less than the average. It's a bell curve thing. When the curve becomes skewed because one or the other extreme becomes over-represented, we have what we identify as a social problem. In this case a greater incidence of obesity.

That's when the actuaries step in. AND the FLOTUS starts making noise about what school children eat. :mrgreen:
 
MaggieD said:
Well, our new policy (Obamacare) is to only rate people by age and whether or not they smoke. Pre-existing conditions are accepted without rate change. Before Obamacare, people who had a myriad pre-existing conditions were either refused coverage, given coverage with exceptions, or their premiums reflected their increased risk. Severely obese people couldn't get individual health insurance at all. Same with high blood pressure, diabetes, etc.

I'm assuming you're a Republican since this is a Democratic program start to finish? Southern Democrat?

Or is this Bush's fault, too?
Click to expand...

Actually, prior to the ACA, preexisting conditions like a cancer history, various genetic disorders, congenital heart defects and so on were practically uninsurable. However, most states did not allow insurance to use obesity as a factor for determining rates. So you could be born with a condition that was no fault at all of your own, and not be able to get insurance as a result of it. However, you could be clinically obese and would pay the same rate as a marathoner.

Personally, I think a moral system is one that does not deny coverage due to preexisting conditions that are beyond your control (genetic disorders, most cancers, and so on), but does accurately price in the costs of poor life choices like smoking, obesity, using tanning beds and so on. If that was how medical insurance worked, then it would work like every other form of insurance. People should be free to live their lives how they choose, but that freedom should not extend so much that others who make better personal health choices subsidize their poor choices.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
Perhaps we're arguing semantics, but I have to disagree.

If you do not have the genetic condition that underlies it, then you will never get type 2 diabetes, no matter how bad your diet or lifestyle. It is the genetic condition that causes it, and not anything to do with diet or lifestyle.

If you do have the genetic condition, then you will be affected by it in one way or another, regardless of whether or not it eventually manifests as type 2 diabetes, and your diet and lifestyle will have a lot to do with whether that happens or not.
Click to expand...

Yes, probably a matter of semantics. Lifestyle can cause type 2 diabetes only if you have the genetic predisposition. You may never show symptoms, but one the "switch" is turned "on", it's on. Very similar to how schizophrenia manifests.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
Perhaps we're arguing semantics, but I have to disagree.

If you do not have the genetic condition that underlies it, then you will never get type 2 diabetes, no matter how bad your diet or lifestyle. It is the genetic condition that causes it, and not anything to do with diet or lifestyle.

If you do have the genetic condition, then you will be affected by it in one way or another, regardless of whether or not it eventually manifests as type 2 diabetes, and your diet and lifestyle will have a lot to do with whether that happens or not.
Click to expand...

That argument is nothing more than a rationalization of poor health choices. For example, if you are lucky enough to have the genetics that give you a very high resistance to inflammation, you can smoke 2 packs a day your whole life and will never develop lung cancer. Moreover, in such a scenario you could eat poorly your whole life and never develop heart disease. So by your reasoning, people that eat poorly and develop heart disease have a genetic condition that causes it, as there are some people whose genes allow them to eat what they want without ever developing heart disease.

Similarly, there are those that due to their individual genetics can eat poorly and never exercise and never end up developing Type 2 Diabetes. However, that does not mean that someone that does develop Type 2 Diabetes can just blame it on their genetics because in the vast majority of cases had they watched their diet and exercised regularly, they would have never developed Type 2 Diabetes, would probably spend hundreds of thousands less of the course of their life in medical costs, and probably live years longer.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
That argument is nothing more than a rationalization of poor health choices. For example, if you are lucky enough to have the genetics that give you a very high resistance to inflammation, you can smoke 2 packs a day your whole life and will never develop lung cancer. Moreover, in such a scenario you could eat poorly your whole life and never develop heart disease. So by your reasoning, people that eat poorly and develop heart disease have a genetic condition that causes it, as there are some people whose genes allow them to eat what they want without ever developing heart disease.

Similarly, there are those that due to their individual genetics can eat poorly and never exercise and never end up developing Type 2 Diabetes. However, that does not mean that someone that does develop Type 2 Diabetes can just blame it on their genetics because in the vast majority of cases had they watched their diet and exercised regularly, they would have never developed Type 2 Diabetes, would probably spend hundreds of thousands less of the course of their life in medical costs, and probably live years longer.
Click to expand...

No, I am not rationalizing poor health choices.

With or without the underlying genetic condition that causes type 2 diabetes, we are all responsible for making choices that will affect our health for good or for ill. And in some cases, poor choices may indeed rightfully be cited as the cause of a particular ailment, rather than merely an aggravating condition.

Type 2 diabetes is not such a case. It is the underlying genetic condition which causes it. Poor diet and lifestyle choices will certainly aggravate this condition, but they are not the cause of it.

But really, it gets back to the argument that someone else was making, based on the assumption that everyone who is obese is so because of poor choices. This is false. The genetic condition that underlies type 2 diabetes can cause obesity, and it can be extremely difficult for someone with this condition to avoid this effect. To assume that every person who suffers from obesity is just a fat, lazy slob, who deserves the condition, is just plain ignorant.
 
Maenad said:
Obviously I can't post the entire article, but it is worth going to the link and reading it. The people who cost society the most are those who live the longest requiring expensive end of life care. Not smokers who die in early to mid 50s.
Click to expand...
If the concern is how much *I* have to pay, which I believe is the sole and true motivation of most who advocate tiered pricing, then it would seem their conclusions are incorrect and shortsighted.
 
ChrisL said:
grip said:
Mine is the same but in my defense I have a bad back, bad knees and arthritis. I have enough braces, heating pads, ice packs, comfort cushions, NSAIDS, meds, creams, roll on's and patches to start a pharmacy. I eat half the calories I used too in my 30's and still struggle with weight gain.
Click to expand...
Sorry to hear that, and that's another issue. Some people cannot help but be overweight because of their limited mobility.
Click to expand...
Yep. In today's world, with the knowledge we have available, to dismiss fat people as simply being undisciplined isn't just ignorance... it's willful ignorance. There are way too many potential variables for one to make such a simplistic conclusion.
 
CanadaJohn said:
I don't disagree with your comments because we don't yet know the extent to which genetics plays a role and we don't yet know the extent to which chemicals in foods - such as steroids in chicken - impact the amount of excess fat some people pack on without "bad behaviour".

As for the poor being fatter, I don't disagree about that as well. I would point out, however, that often the foods that are best for you are the ones that cost the most - fresh fruits and vegetables, as an example, cost more than canned that are often heavily salted.

But if you follow the logic of the OP, we should charge poor people more for healthcare because their poverty promotes their lifestyle related health issues. That sounds like a winner in the logical conclusions game.
Click to expand...
I've seen many people claim that eating healthier is cheaper. I'm sorry, but that's just not in my experience. Both in observations and personal attempts.

Now, I'm in a financial position where I can afford better quality food, but not everybody is, nor have I always been as fortunate as I am now.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
No, it cannot.

Type 1 diabetes is caused by an autoimmune disorder, which attacks and destroys the pancreas.

Type 2 diabetes is caused by a genetic disorder which interferes with the chemical action of insulin.

Neither of these conditions is ever caused by poor diet. Both of these conditions require a specialized diet, but if you do not have the underlying autoimmune or genetic disorders that cause them, then no amount of poor diet will will ever cause you to develop either condition.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Along with freedom comes responsibility. Want to surf the ten meter waves? Go for it. Want to sit on the couch eating potato chips every evening? Go for it. Do what you like. However, if what you like raises the cost of medical care, be prepared to pay more than people who don't engage in risky behavior.
Click to expand...
Sounds good. Be careful what you wish for. Ala carte pricing just might bite you in the butt over something you would never suspect, while collective pricing actually saves most people money in the long run.
 
imagep said:
Exactly. Two years ago I was diagnosed as being diabetic, and a bunch of other stuff. I started eating better and started exercising and lost weight, and I am now off of most of the medications that I was on. I guess that technically I am still diabetic, but I control it with diet, instead of pills.
Click to expand...
For now. What you describe is fairly common in newly diagnosed diabetics. Most diabetics eventually start regressing again. If you can come back in ten years and say the same thing, then you will have beaten the odds. Not impossible or unheard of, but not as simple as you're thinking right now.
 
Wow the fat influential posters weren't able to corrupt the poll! There's hope for the world!


 
Last edited:
radcen said:
Yep. In today's world, with the knowledge we have available, to dismiss fat people as simply being undisciplined isn't just ignorance... it's willful ignorance. There are way too many potential variables for one to make such a simplistic conclusion.
Click to expand...

Well, a lot of people think that fat people are just lazy and/or eat too much. I learned that just wasn't true with my job, and typing about people who have very limited mobility or they are confined to a wheelchair, and they can't exercise hardly at all.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
No, I am not rationalizing poor health choices.

With or without the underlying genetic condition that causes type 2 diabetes, we are all responsible for making choices that will affect our health for good or for ill. And in some cases, poor choices may indeed rightfully be cited as the cause of a particular ailment, rather than merely an aggravating condition.

Type 2 diabetes is not such a case. It is the underlying genetic condition which causes it. Poor diet and lifestyle choices will certainly aggravate this condition, but they are not the cause of it.

But really, it gets back to the argument that someone else was making, based on the assumption that everyone who is obese is so because of poor choices. This is false. The genetic condition that underlies type 2 diabetes can cause obesity, and it can be extremely difficult for someone with this condition to avoid this effect. To assume that every person who suffers from obesity is just a fat, lazy slob, who deserves the condition, is just plain ignorant.
Click to expand...

As any endurance athlete knows, everyone burns 5 calories per liter of oxygen. Genetics, race, sex, age, all have no effect on that. Ultimately your body must adhere to the laws of chemistry and physics. If you burn more calories than you take in, you lose weight. If you consume more calories than you burn, you gain weight.

For example, a 155 pound individual running on a 60 degree day at a pace of 7.5 minutes per mile without wind and on level terrain, will burn a net of 108 calories per mile regardless of their genetics because the physical laws of the universe requires that much energy to move their body at that pace over mile.

Some people rationalize a lot of excuses on why they cannot lose weight or why they are not in better shape, or why various entirely preventable diseases afflict them. I have have a daughter with Cerebral Palsy. She has no use at all of her right arm and little use of her right leg. Despite that she runs cross country and is on the local swim team. Just last weekend she got out and ran 6 miles with me. If she can be strong and fit, then just about anyone outside of a wheelchair can be. Its all a matter of choosing to make those life choices.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
As any endurance athlete knows, everyone burns 5 calories per liter of oxygen. Genetics, race, sex, age, all have no effect on that. Ultimately your body must adhere to the laws of chemistry and physics. If you burn more calories than you take in, you lose weight. If you consume more calories than you burn, you gain weight.

For example, a 155 pound individual running on a 60 degree day at a pace of 7.5 minutes per mile without wind and on level terrain, will burn a net of 108 calories per mile regardless of their genetics because the physical laws of the universe requires that much energy to move their body at that pace over mile.

Some people rationalize a lot of excuses on why they cannot lose weight or why they are not in better shape, or why various entirely preventable diseases afflict them. I have have a daughter with Cerebral Palsy. She has no use at all of her right arm and little use of her right leg. Despite that she runs cross country and is on the local swim team. Just last weekend she got out and ran 6 miles with me. If she can be strong and fit, then just about anyone outside of a wheelchair can be. Its all a matter of choosing to make those life choices.
Click to expand...

A lot of people (who have been in car accidents, etc.) cannot mobilize themselves enough to lose weight. Some people are on pain medications on a chronic basis and still have excruciating pain.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
As any endurance athlete knows, everyone burns 5 calories per liter of oxygen. Genetics, race, sex, age, all have no effect on that. Ultimately your body must adhere to the laws of chemistry and physics. If you burn more calories than you take in, you lose weight. If you consume more calories than you burn, you gain weight.

For example, a 155 pound individual running on a 60 degree day at a pace of 7.5 minutes per mile without wind and on level terrain, will burn a net of 108 calories per mile regardless of their genetics because the physical laws of the universe requires that much energy to move their body at that pace over mile.

Some people rationalize a lot of excuses on why they cannot lose weight or why they are not in better shape, or why various entirely preventable diseases afflict them. I have have a daughter with Cerebral Palsy. She has no use at all of her right arm and little use of her right leg. Despite that she runs cross country and is on the local swim team. Just last weekend she got out and ran 6 miles with me. If she can be strong and fit, then just about anyone outside of a wheelchair can be. Its all a matter of choosing to make those life choices.
Click to expand...

Choosing a high impact aerobic activity like running long distances may not be the best in the long run either. High impact activities take a toll on the knees and back in particular, and can lead to a situation in which the individual can no longer even walk comfortably. A low impact activity such as hiking, biking, the ellipticals at the gym, or swimming would be a better choice.

When you're 20, running may seem like a good idea. Fifty years down the road, it just might not.
 
ChrisL said:
Well, a lot of people think that fat people are just lazy and/or eat too much. I learned that just wasn't true with my job, and typing about people who have very limited mobility or they are confined to a wheelchair, and they can't exercise hardly at all.
Click to expand...

Victor_Konovalov_-_Bio_Main_1.jpg


bodybuilding-motivation.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom