Originally Posted By ecdc <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/16/magazine/16FOB-wwln-t.html" target="_blank">http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08...n-t.html</a> I say yes. I say that as an overweight man. Maybe if I had to pay more for health insurance it would get my fat butt to the gym where it belongs. Thoughts?
Originally Posted By queenbee Slippery slope, ecdc. What about smokers? What about people who never exercize, eat junk and are not an ounce overweight? People who drive fast, take big risks? I lost a little over 100lbs 5 or 6 years ago now. In order to keep the weight off I exercize 5 days a week for a couple of hours and always watch what I eat. Maintaining my weight is a part time job. It definately concerns me that I would be penalized for having the potential to be so overweight.
Originally Posted By HRM How about special groups that statistically have higher rates of expensive medical conditions; racial or ethnic groups that have higher rates of high blood pressure, communities that have higher rates of diseases and health concerns... I think if we charged all of these OTHER groups of people more, they would be motivate to improve their living condition, or move to an area that is 'healthier' for them. How about giving a discount to people who take public transportation, they aren't at increased risk for expensive accidents like car drivers.
Originally Posted By mele I can see what ecdc is getting at and part of me agrees with him. However, I don't think it's fair to base insurance rates on just that one thing. I have skinny friends who get sick a lot more than I do. It isn't fair for me to pay more for the same services when their immunity is worse than mine. I got very, very sick this year and have spent thousands of dollars at the hospital and seeing specialists. But my illness is in no way related to being overweight. (In other health news, I've also managed to lose a LOT of weight through healthy eating and exercise but I still have more to lose.) It seems unfair that I'd be penalized for my extra weight when it is unrelated to my disease AND I'm being so diligent about improving my health.
Originally Posted By mele I do like the idea of people getting some sort of bonus for taking better care of themselves. If we had a govt. run health plan, maybe things like consistent use of a gym membership could get you some sort of tax benefit. I don't know. Instead of penalizing people who choose to live in unhealthy ways, why not find more ways to reward those who do. Maybe they're the exact same idea but w/different lingo? LOL. I'd just prefer more rewarding of good health and equality for those who choose not to participate.
Originally Posted By queenbee <<But my illness is in no way related to being overweight.>> Insurance companies and some members of the medical establishment seem to list being overweight as a contributing factor to almost every medical issue. When I was 100lbs overweight everything from strep throat to a hang nail was related to my weight according to doctors. Now that I am not overweight, minor medical issues still happen but they are, by some miracle, not related to my weight.
Originally Posted By mele I hate it when my extra weight gives me a hangnail! LOL Yeah, I know how that goes. It seems every illness on webmd is related to diabetes. Or some deadly form of cancer. Or it could simply be treated at home with a heating pad and ibuprofen. Helpful. I was diagnosed with Crohn's Disease this summer. They don't really know a heck of a lot about it so who knows? Maybe it was my fault all along. But I'll pay either way, believe me, I'll pay. ;-)
Originally Posted By ecdc Here's the deal. I quite obviously get that it's a tough, complex issue. And obviously not everyone who is overweight is due to laziness, overeating, etc. And it is silly to blame every single medical ailment on obesity. All that said, I see this the same way I see other problems in the healthcare industry. People are using the exceptions, rather than the rules, as an excuse to not take action. They're throwing every single excuse they can at it. Frankly, I see this as no different. We can put rules and protections in place for those who truly are "big-boned" [insert double-entendre here]. But it's not a coincidence that American obesity has risen along with cancer, diabetes, etc. My work DOES charge more for smokers. Each open enrollment period you're required to declare whether you're a tobacco user or not. Other insurance companies do deny coverage depending on weight. It's not unreasonable for the government to do something similar. There will always be excuses. There will always be people who insist their problems aren't really because of them. Every diet fad insists that obesity isn't the problem of the person who's overweight. It's due to some sort of "build-up" of something. My wife's friend sells supplements to "cleanse" the body of built-up "sludge." It's all pseudo-scientific nonsense, but people would rather do that than own up and take responsibility for their own health.
Originally Posted By queenbee Why single out obesity? There is a poster on LP who regularly talks about how fast he drives from LA to SF. He trys to beat his time on every trip. Should the government deny him coverage?
Originally Posted By HRM But people ( in general ) already pay more in he/ she is obese. The person pays more in terms of increased medical bills over time, dealing with issues such as heart desease, diabeties, and related complications. Study after study has shown that a person saves money with a healthier lifestyle. I find it somewhat amusing in a country that places value on free will or individual responsibility and accountability, positive behavior sometimes needs to be enforced in terms of higher fees, regulations, and / or penalties to foster cultural and significant change.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer Maybe instead of charging them more, they get put in a special higher risk pool that is funded by things like tobacco taxes, taxes on HFCS and sugar sales, and fast food sales.
Originally Posted By ecdc ^^^^^Not a bad idea at all. Hey, I'm open to all sorts of possibilities. But we need to realize that one of the reasons European healthcare systems work so much better than the U.S.' isn't just because they're single-payer or socialized. They're healthier countries with much better preventative care. People like DAR have some points when it comes to this stuff. If we're truly interested in fixing healthcare, this is part of the discussion. It shouldn't just all be "Regulate, regulate, regulate, public option." Agra-business, corn subsidies, fast food, junk food, etc. - it all plays a role in the rising costs of healthcare. Over the long-term, our solutions have to address these things. If the government gets involved in the healthcare business, they have a vested interest in the health of those they insure, and they have a right to mandate certain things.
Originally Posted By ChurroMonster The government has been involved in the health care business for a long time. They primarily cover the riskiest and least healthy group of Americans: the elderly.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Hmmm... I have to think about this one. I am overweight, and it isn't due to anything except overeating. Should I pay more for health coverage than a thin person? The first thought is, yeah, probably I should.
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 How about stupid people having to pay more more insurance? Those that drive fast, sky dive, scuba dive, any risky behavior.... Or those that drink alcohol? I am a non drinker, why should I pay for drinkers ot get medical care? We start singling out the overweight, we need to break every single American into groups and charge more for everyone....
Originally Posted By TomSawyer So let's just set the premiums at a level that will cover healthcare costs. We can just assume that everyone is doing something dumb. And those that aren't are going to live to be old enough that they'll be seeing the doctor more than they'll be seeing their grandkids.
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 So let's just set the premiums at a level that will cover healthcare costs. We can just assume that everyone is doing something dumb. And those that aren't are going to live to be old enough that they'll be seeing the doctor more than they'll be seeing their grandkids. << I agree on this, let's say I am a smoker, and you are not, my life expentancy is 15 or so years less than you, so wouldn't the 15 extra years of care, cover the increased cost of medical care for the smoker? Wouldn't it more or less balance out in the end, whether you are fat, skinny, dumb, smart, smoker, non smoker etc....
Originally Posted By ecdc >>I agree on this, let's say I am a smoker, and you are not, my life expentancy is 15 or so years less than you, so wouldn't the 15 extra years of care, cover the increased cost of medical care for the smoker?<< Sounds reasonable. So if there is a public option, what role (if any) should government play in preventative care and wellness-based programs? Can't we agree that wellness and healthier people is a great way to reduce costs? Or is it just too thorny of an issue altogether and government just needs to stay out of it?
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 Can't we agree that wellness and healthier people is a great way to reduce costs?<< I agree if they make it voluntary, but the second the Government attempts to tell people what they need to do in regards to their health, I can see people having problems with it.... In the military, there is talk in some circles of banning smoking altogether for those serving, due to the fact that we are receiving Government funded medical care, it is already starting problems, and I doubt it will ever be implemented, but imagine the outrage if the Government banned smoking for those receiving Government insurance.... Cessation programs yes, forcing people to make certain lifestyle changes, probably not...
Originally Posted By HRM My understanding of the situation is that any money spent on preventative care is always less expensive than treating the resulting desease. So maybe the plan should be to tax the contributing factors: ie: Smoking cessation funding comes from taxing cigarettes. Healthier diets and eating awareness can be funded by taxing... what? I wonder what would happen if we placed an added tax (sin tax) on certain menu items available at Fast Food restaurants? Or items with a certain percentage of Saturated fat? Hmmm. Unfortunately this country has already stopped funding physical education programs in schools, where healthy lifestyles and physical activity should be the foundation for our children.
