• 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
That is besides the point. The African American obesity rates are the highest. That's the point.

So what is wrong with pricing the risk of being obese into health insurance premiums and offering programs and incentives for those that are obese to eat better and be more active? Obesity is bad for your health and costs this country hundreds of billions a year. Why not provide financial incentives to improve your health?
 
He looks healthy to me - plus anybody that likes ice cream cones is okay by me, too, since he is enjoying life! :mrgreen:

Greetings, ChrisL. :2wave:

Greetings polgara! :2wave:
 
So what is wrong with pricing the risk of being obese into health insurance premiums and offering programs and incentives for those that are obese to eat better and be more active? Obesity is bad for your health and costs this country hundreds of billions a year. Why not provide financial incentives to improve your health?

Your view on this is MUCH too narrow. I don't think you know much about the medical field and the causes and effects of diseases and that even females and males have different risk factors for different diseases just because of gender ALONE.

A person is more likely to develop type 2 diabetes if they:
o have a family history of diabetes
o are a member of an ethnic group like African Americans
o are overweight or obese
o are 45 year old or older
o had diabetes while pregnant (gestational diabetes)
o have pre-diabetes (glucose levels are elevated but not high enough to be
diagnosed as diabetes)
o have high blood pressure
o have abnormal cholesterol (lipid) levels
o are not getting enough physical activity
o have polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS)
o have blood vessel problems affecting the heart, brain or legs
o have dark, thick and velvety patches of skin around the neck and armpits (This is
called acanthosis nigricans.)
 Gestational diabetes develops during pregnancy. Women who have had gestational diabetes
have a 35 to 60 percent chance of developing diabetes, mostly type 2, in the next 10 to 20 years.
 
He looks healthy to me - plus anybody that likes ice cream cones is okay by me, too, since he is enjoying life! :mrgreen:

Greetings, ChrisL. :2wave:
He may be cuddly and warm, I don't know. I usually don't think of men as "cuddly", but that's just me. He could be a really nice guy, too, one you'd like to share a beer with and shoot the breeze. He is, however, more at risk for certain diseases than he would be if he were to lose a bit of weight. He shouldn't pay more for health insurance because he likes ice cream or because someone thinks he doesn't look good. He should pay more because the choices he makes are likely to cost more, pure and simple.

Were he a physically fit and athletic motorcycle racer, he should pay more also, and for the same reason.
 
He may be cuddly and warm, I don't know. I usually don't think of men as "cuddly", but that's just me. He could be a really nice guy, too, one you'd like to share a beer with and shoot the breeze. He is, however, more at risk for certain diseases than he would be if he were to lose a bit of weight. He shouldn't pay more for health insurance because he likes ice cream or because someone thinks he doesn't look good. He should pay more because the choices he makes are likely to cost more, pure and simple.

Were he a physically fit and athletic motorcycle racer, he should pay more also, and for the same reason.

:agree: Do you think the man pictured could be considered obese? I tend to think of obese as rolls of fat, huge thighs, skin hanging from upper arms, etc - like some of the photos of WalMart shoppers that regularly get posted here! :eek: Maybe I've got the wrong mental picture of what could be considered obese. He doesn't look warm and cuddly to me either - more like a policeman or someone who works in construction, who doesn't want any :bs:

Greetings, Dittohead not. :2wave:
 
:agree: Do you think the man pictured could be considered obese? I tend to think of obese as rolls of fat, huge thighs, skin hanging from upper arms, etc - like some of the photos of WalMart shoppers that regularly get posted here! :eek: Maybe I've got the wrong mental picture of what could be considered obese. He doesn't look warm and cuddly to me either - more like a policeman or someone who works in construction, who doesn't want any :bs:

Greetings, Dittohead not. :2wave:

Greetings back.
I'm not sure just where the division between "overweight" and "obese" should be drawn. I do know someone who was judged "obese" by the Wii fit game, and he looks a lot like the guy in the picture. He was quite upset by that designation, even if it did come from what is basically just a video game.

I think we could all agree that he is overweight, and most of us (the ones who acknowledge that water is wet anyway) would agree that being overweight is a health hazard and that "obese", if that term means "grossly overweight, is an even greater health hazard. Maybe it's just a continuum from skinny to healthy to overweight, to obese to fatter than the people of WalMart, to so fat they beep when they back up.
 
Greetings back.
I'm not sure just where the division between "overweight" and "obese" should be drawn. I do know someone who was judged "obese" by the Wii fit game, and he looks a lot like the guy in the picture. He was quite upset by that designation, even if it did come from what is basically just a video game.

I think we could all agree that he is overweight, and most of us (the ones who acknowledge that water is wet anyway) would agree that being overweight is a health hazard and that "obese", if that term means "grossly overweight, is an even greater health hazard. Maybe it's just a continuum from skinny to healthy to overweight, to obese to fatter than the people of WalMart, to so fat they beep when they back up.

Very well put - and funny, too! :lol: :thumbs:
 
Standards could be set just as they are with life insurance.

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

How is this any different than someone choosing to smoke excessively or drink excessively? These people seem to have chosen to eat excessively. I don't see a difference here.

As long as it's consistent between all these groups, fine, just that right now, it's not.
 
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?

;)

A lot of those have to get special insurance, the pros at least.
 
Yes. Fat people should, as should smokers and others that engage in unhealthy activities. We should monitor those that eat MacDonald's too much, that buy too much Pepsi and eat large tubs of popcorn at the movies too.
 
That would tend to support my argument for sin taxes on bad food then. If a McFatties hamburger cost $2 more than a broiled chicken sandwich on whole wheat bread, many people, over the course of their lives, would be more likely to chose the healthier option, and thus less likely to pack on a few pounds a year.

Again, it's just a matter of taxing food that has added sugar and lots of fat, while not taxing "better" foods, as to economically incentivize our population to make better choices, even if they are unaware that those cheaper choices are also healthier choices.

While I have no problem with sin taxes on fattening food, my point was that much of food is not fattening if eaten in reasonable portions at reasonable times. A burger is not fattening if you take into account the calories & fat grams and such. It's only when you combine a burger with other foods that it becomes fattening. See my point? Baked chicken is not fattening, per se. But it would be if you eat it with other foods that day that push your calories over your limit.

A few peeps a year, or even a quantity of them only at Easter, doesn't make a person fat.

We don't want to make food too expensive for people. It's not like cigarettes. People need food to stay alive and operate at a healthy level. It's really not up to me to say what a person should or should not to be normal weight. If someone wants to eat one large, fattening meal a day instead of six small meals, none of my business. Charging higher ins. premiums for the RESULT (obesity) makes more sense to me. Because it's the obesity, not the Peeps at Easter, that cause health issues and ins. claims.

If someone is obese, there is no doubt that it will cause medical problems. It's only a question of when. The metabolic syndrome will kick in (that is the trifecta of high blood pressure, high cholesterol, and diabetes...I think those are the 3 - all caused by morbid obesity).

But none of this matters. Under Obamacare, only people over the age of 50 are allowed to be charged higher premiums, so they are taking the hit for all this.
 
I was an athlete and did a lot of physical training most my life, which I thought was helping me. But it's the very, over exertion of my muscles and the corresponding joints that caused the wear, tear and eventual damage. Much of my arthritis is do to my strenuous exercising, according to my doctors. I asked them, what should I have done, and they said, less impact and more moderation. We thought "no pain, no gain" back then, but now they know better.

If you look at the statistics, professional athletes in general have more physical problems from overuse, less quality and shorter life spans. Even with arthritis, you need to do some movement but it varies, day to day and is extremely limited.

Of course much of this is situational and genetics, but I can't stress enough low impact, like swimming, yoga, Thai Chi, cycling and walking. Running, stepping, climbing, skiing, and any sports with contact are all very rough on you in old age. Even golfing can be hazardous, if you're an intense player.

Swimming is a fantastic low impact exercise.
 
While I have no problem with sin taxes on fattening food, my point was that much of food is not fattening if eaten in reasonable portions at reasonable times. A burger is not fattening if you take into account the calories & fat grams and such. It's only when you combine a burger with other foods that it becomes fattening. See my point? Baked chicken is not fattening, per se. But it would be if you eat it with other foods that day that push your calories over your limit.

A few peeps a year, or even a quantity of them only at Easter, doesn't make a person fat.

We don't want to make food too expensive for people. It's not like cigarettes. People need food to stay alive and operate at a healthy level. It's really not up to me to say what a person should or should not to be normal weight. If someone wants to eat one large, fattening meal a day instead of six small meals, none of my business. Charging higher ins. premiums for the RESULT (obesity) makes more sense to me. Because it's the obesity, not the Peeps at Easter, that cause health issues and ins. claims.

If someone is obese, there is no doubt that it will cause medical problems. It's only a question of when. The metabolic syndrome will kick in (that is the trifecta of high blood pressure, high cholesterol, and diabetes...I think those are the 3 - all caused by morbid obesity).

But none of this matters. Under Obamacare, only people over the age of 50 are allowed to be charged higher premiums, so they are taking the hit for all this.

Do you know the reason why age 50 was chosen? Wouldn't an earlier age have more impact going forward, as far as future obesity is concerned?

Greetings, JumpinJack. :2wave:
 
Wrong.

What I and most rational, normal weight Americans want is simply for medically judged (by a doctor) obese Americans to be told:

"Hi, Sir or M'am, your medical file says medically obese so the charge will be $300.00 today. Thank you."

and then

"Hi Sir or Ma'm, your medical file says normal medical weight for age, so the charge will be $150.00 today. Thank you."


THAT is what we want.
I dont care what you want.

We do not want to keep being charged to pay for your daily box of sugar donuts and Twinkies via increased medical bills for all.


I dont really like sweets buddy, never really have. But, your ignorant judgement of who is a medical burden is another of your opinions that I dont care about.

Many visually fit people are not always fit medically. If the goal is to lower medical insurance premiums, rather than singling out fat people who you judged to be a burden. Why not just state that the burdens should be billed more for their burden to the collective group that they are burdening?


Did you know that if you pay in advance for a medical procedure that you can pay less then what insurance companies normally pay? You can also negotiate with your doctor on what you will pay. Since you like big font: The main problem is the insurance companies not fat people. Charging the obese more, will not lower your insurance bill. The problem is because people think that paying a insurance company will save them money. But the reality is that Insurance companies are not losing money, they are not folding and going under. Medical Insurance is big business and have their own lawyers and financial advisers, they dont need people like you on their side or to make decisions for them.
 
Yes. Fat people should, as should smokers and others that engage in unhealthy activities. We should monitor those that eat MacDonald's too much, that buy too much Pepsi and eat large tubs of popcorn at the movies too.

And how much, exactly, should we allow the government, who runs the healthcare system now, crawl up our butts monitor and dictate our lives?

Not at all, would be my response, but what about yours? How much of the entire electorate's freedom of choice are you willing give up?
 
And how much, exactly, should we allow the government, who runs the healthcare system now, crawl up our butts monitor and dictate our lives?

Not at all, would be my response, but what about yours? How much of the entire electorate's freedom of choice are you willing give up?

I am not sure... some if we are forced to get a health care system. The people that cost the most should pay the most. I am a very healthy and athletic 30 something year-old man and am never sick to boot. Why should I pay as much as others that are not as healthy?
 
Swimming is a fantastic low impact exercise.

And it's fun, too! :thumbs: Beats jogging and the wear and tear on your joints!

Greetings, Fenton. :2wave:
 
I am not sure... some if we are forced to get a health care system. The people that cost the most should pay the most. I am a very healthy and athletic 30 something year-old man and am never sick to boot. Why should I pay as much as others that are not as healthy?

A fundamental of insurance is the spreading of cost and risk across larger populations.

If you go down the route that you are talking about, aren't we going to end up at fee for service? Isn't that one of the reasons that heath care costs have gotten / are out of control?
 
Yes. Fat people should, as should smokers and others that engage in unhealthy activities. We should monitor those that eat MacDonald's too much, that buy too much Pepsi and eat large tubs of popcorn at the movies too.

:mrgreen:
 
People who drink alcohol should pay higher fees too then. You must drink UNDER a certain amount of alcohol or abstain from it completely. :lol: Let's see how people like THAT one.
 
A fundamental of insurance is the spreading of cost and risk across larger populations.

If you go down the route that you are talking about, aren't we going to end up at fee for service? Isn't that one of the reasons that heath care costs have gotten / are out of control?

I don't even live in the USA anymore... the health care system was a joke before now and now, I have very little idea of what is going on over there.
 
People who drink alcohol should pay higher fees too then. You must drink UNDER a certain amount of alcohol or abstain from it completely. :lol: Let's see how people like THAT one.

I drink because of my ex-wife... she will have to pay my increase because I am unemployed and not looking for work... on the other hand, I am single. What are you doing this weekend?
 
Back
Top Bottom