Blackstone
Active member
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2011
- Messages
- 358
- Reaction score
- 168
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
Why I must I think those things?So then you must think that if you get speeding tickets you should not be charged more for auto insurance?
You must also think that if you have a wood shake roof on your home in an area prone to wildfires you should not be charged more for home owners insurance?
You must also think then that if you get a dui, you should not have to carry an SR-22 policy?
You seem to have a very flawed understanding of how insurance works.
Why I must I think those things?
Auto insurance isnt at all comparable to health insurance. Its apples and oranges the only thing tying them together is the name insurance. Other than that insuring a car is nothing like health insurance. Auto insurance laws have to do with damage or injury to other drivers; liabilities. Speeding, drunk driving are a liability because it endangers other people not just the driver to drive like a idiot. To further your analogy what about cell phone users? Should cell phone users be charged more for insurance?
What about women since they often use make up and some put it on on the way to work? Not all women and not all cell phone users pose a risk on our highways.
Not all fat people are going to cost more money in their life time of medical care. Blaming fat people is a witch hunt that ignores the inherent problem with insurance driven medical care.
Oh I left out home insurance. Which leads to the concept of building codes. Often in high risk areas there are building codes that address such things as fire risk, flood, land slides and what have you. Cars and houses/buildings are inanimate non thinking objects. It is our responsibility as thinking beings to take care of our possessions. It is also our personal responsibility to take care of ourselves. Charging more for a assumed risk to our personal body deserves actual evidence that the customer is actually unhealthy and will beyond all doubt cost more in the long run to take care of. Pointing fingers at fat people and screaming that they are costing you money on your own premium is a logical fallacy. Individual health is much more complex than lumping entire sections of society into a group that some people presume to be unhealthy based solely on their weight and appearance.
If the goal is risk assessment then why single out the overweight and smokers why not just give a damn physical and go from there?
In the vast majority of policies they are not taken into consideration. Few group plans take them into consideration, and Medicare doesn't either.
Actually many group plans are already doing just that. In order to get the preferred rate at my employer, you must get a yearly health assessment (physical).
When it comes to medicare/medicaid, they have to pretty much take care of anyone, no matter what and that's all tax supported.
While it may be forced, this isnt such a bad idea because it can be hell trying to get people in to get any preventative care. You cant get lots of people into the doc's unless they are dying or it's too late. Preventative care can save $ in the longer term.
Right, but in my opinion, instead of taxing the crap out of junk food and sugary soft drinks, it makes a lot more sense to give you a preferred rate on Medicare if you are a healthy weight and a non-smoker, and pay a higher rate if you are a smoker or clinically obese. It seems to me that would go a long way towards providing recipients with the incentives to make better personal health choices and thus get costs under control.
When it comes to medicare/medicaid, they have to pretty much take care of anyone, no matter what and that's all tax supported.
What do we do when the medicare reciepient can't afford to pay a higher rate? Do we then just let them die?
And the weight that they have gained is often accumulated over decades, it didn't just happen the day they turned old enough to qualify for medicare. If we more heavily taxed sugar and foods with excess fat in them we are killing two birds with one stone. the first is that we are disincentizing the types of products that heavily contribute to us becoming fat. the second is that we are raising revenue to pay for the results of their food (or smoking) sins.
We could charge everyone the same (low) rate for insurance, and then just subsidize the cost of insuring fatties and smokers out of the sin taxes that they paid in. Seems pretty straightforward to me, especially when we are talking about government paid for heathcare (Medicare/Medicade/etc).
My point is that it's mostly the poor who have these vices and who are overweight/obese. So, if we are going to charge them a surcharge, then we are actually charging ourselves a surcharge too, since we pay for their health insurance through taxes. Therefore, the proposal doesn't really make much sense and would only make health insurance more expensive for ALL of us in the long run.
No. Under Smeagolcare hospital or doctor group membership is standard. One flat rate for single memberships, another flat rate for family memberships. Preexisting conditions have no bearing. However the voluntary individual healthy lifestyle incentive rebate applies. Being outside of the rage of one's recommended body mass index, along with a list of other items, would reduce the amount of the annual rebate check issued every December 1.
I'm a fan of some aspects of Smeagolcare, but isn't that just like jacking up the price of a product so that you can offer "desirable" customers a discount?
And people like me, who exercise five or six days a week, live an active lifestyle even when I am not exercising, and eat a very healthy diet, have a low bodyfat percent, would still miss out on the discounts because I am above the BMI standards. I find that ironic because the only way that I could reduce my weight enough to meet the standard would be to have an amputation, or to stop exercising so that I loose muscle mass. Neither of those options are acceptible to me.
Yes but more. The voluntary healthy lifestyle incentives create a greater sense of there being and even playing field to some. Then anybody and everybody , or at least most people are eligible for a big fat Christmas bonus if they simply choose make healthy lifestyle choices like you:
- Recommended BMI range
- Low cholesterol
- Low triglycerides
- Verified regular work out regimen
- Pass random recreational drug tests
- Safe driver
- Request a special state issued no alcohol or tobacco divers license
Not all or nothing. Each item increases the rebate. There's also as group rebate so there's a peer pressure dynamic to making healthy choices. More importantly, it places carrots in the faces of Americans to want the REWARD of living healthily; money to spend at Christmas. Heck, all of the retail sector will be encouraging all of us to live healthily, our kids who want gifts, family who want the money to take that family vacation. The whole country would be incentivized. Meanwhile costs come down because health "insurance" is eliminated as an unneeded middleman on top of less expensive treatment since more of us will be living healthy.
I think thats a bad assumption.Yes, but Medicare is not free. There is a charge to be on Medicare. So, the question remains: Should obese people pay more for their Medicare than those of normal weight? Currently, they don't, but do use more health services.
Alternatively and more easily, we could Tax Wholesale Sugar and Corn/Corn-sweeteners.What do we do when the medicare reciepient can't afford to pay a higher rate? Do we then just let them die?
And the weight that they have gained is often accumulated over decades, it didn't just happen the day they turned old enough to qualify for medicare. If we more heavily taxed sugar and foods with excess fat in them we are killing two birds with one stone. the first is that we are disincentizing the types of products that heavily contribute to us becoming fat. the second is that we are raising revenue to pay for the results of their food (or smoking) sins.
We could charge everyone the same (low) rate for insurance, and then just subsidize the cost of insuring fatties and smokers out of the sin taxes that they paid in. Seems pretty straightforward to me, especially when we are talking about government paid for heathcare (Medicare/Medicade/etc).
Along that same line...I think thats a bad assumption.
Do Obese people use more health services? I'm not sure about that.
I see lots of emaciated people with pretty severe health problems. In fact, if you look at long term health figures, being overweight generally leads to greater health and less medical expenditure than being underweight. So do we charge the underweight too? Should models be surcharged for insurance?
The question is...how do you know someone is obese thru bad lifestyle or thru bad genes or thru disease? Some patients have thyroid issues that lead to obesity. Some people have need for medications that can cause obesity (antipsychotics, for example). Some patients probably have gut flora that is wrong and leads to obesity - this is a pretty promising angle in modern obesity science.
Obesity tends to skew toward the more healthy people, to be honest, except for T2 Diabetes - and frankly, most of the type 2 diabetes patients cannot reduce their weight - they would not be "medically judged" to be able to lose weight. Its really hard to do that when you have a massive amount of insulin in your system from diabetes, which is an anabolic hormone, and the treatment for it is.. give more of this hormone that makes you gain weight.
Heart failure paitents are often obese.. but I've diuresed 40 lbs of water off some of those.. so I'm not sure we can classify them as "medically judged" obese.
Along that same line...
Everyone dies of something.
Is it better, Strictly from a financial/mercenary point of view, to have then die at 55 or 95?
Who costs the system more?
A smoker who dies at 55 from Lung Cancer after having paid into the (Medcare/SS) system for 30 years and withdrawing nothing..
Or the 95 Year old whose been Nailing the system from Many chronic conditions of old age for 30 years.. and finally dies of.. Lung Cancer.. too.
Along that same line...
Everyone dies of something.
Is it better, Strictly from a financial/mercenary point of view, to have then die at 55 or 95?
Who costs the system more?
A smoker who dies at 55 from Lung Cancer after having paid into the (Medcare/SS) system for 30 years and withdrawing nothing..
Or the 95 Year old whose been Nailing the system from Many chronic conditions of old age for 30 years.. and finally dies of.. Lung Cancer.. too.
I think thats a bad assumption.
Do Obese people use more health services? I'm not sure about that.
I see lots of emaciated people with pretty severe health problems. In fact, if you look at long term health figures, being overweight generally leads to greater health and less medical expenditure than being underweight. So do we charge the underweight too? Should models be surcharged for insurance?
The question is...how do you know someone is obese thru bad lifestyle or thru bad genes or thru disease? Some patients have thyroid issues that lead to obesity. Some people have need for medications that can cause obesity (antipsychotics, for example). Some patients probably have gut flora that is wrong and leads to obesity - this is a pretty promising angle in modern obesity science.
Obesity tends to skew toward the more healthy people, to be honest, except for T2 Diabetes - and frankly, most of the type 2 diabetes patients cannot reduce their weight - they would not be "medically judged" to be able to lose weight. Its really hard to do that when you have a massive amount of insulin in your system from diabetes, which is an anabolic hormone, and the treatment for it is.. give more of this hormone that makes you gain weight.
Heart failure paitents are often obese.. but I've diuresed 40 lbs of water off some of those.. so I'm not sure we can classify them as "medically judged" obese.
Between 2001 and 2006, average health care expenditure for normal weight people increased from $2,607 to $3,315—a 27% gain.
For overweight people, the average cost rose from $2,792 to $3,636—an increase of 30%.
And for obese people, the average amount paid increased from $3,458 to $5,148—a gain of 49%.
You dont think that it would be considered invasive to have to take drug tests for your insurance company? And doesn't that add to the cost of healthcare? And how would someone who exercises in their home verify that they exercised?
It is intuitive that obese and overweight people will cost more for health care, but perhaps that isn't true at all, so I typed the question into my search engine and came up with this from Time Online:
I think thats a bad assumption.
Do Obese people use more health services? I'm not sure about that.
I see lots of emaciated people with pretty severe health problems. In fact, if you look at long term health figures, being overweight generally leads to greater health and less medical expenditure than being underweight. So do we charge the underweight too? Should models be surcharged for insurance?
The question is...how do you know someone is obese thru bad lifestyle or thru bad genes or thru disease? Some patients have thyroid issues that lead to obesity. Some people have need for medications that can cause obesity (antipsychotics, for example). Some patients probably have gut flora that is wrong and leads to obesity - this is a pretty promising angle in modern obesity science.
Obesity tends to skew toward the more healthy people, to be honest, except for T2 Diabetes - and frankly, most of the type 2 diabetes patients cannot reduce their weight - they would not be "medically judged" to be able to lose weight. Its really hard to do that when you have a massive amount of insulin in your system from diabetes, which is an anabolic hormone, and the treatment for it is.. give more of this hormone that makes you gain weight.
Heart failure paitents are often obese.. but I've diuresed 40 lbs of water off some of those.. so I'm not sure we can classify them as "medically judged" obese.
I started Lantus last month for my T2 diabetes. One of the side affects is that it brings on weight gain. In my case that isn't a big deal as my thyroid problems have kept me defined as "underweight" for almost my entire life, but most people aren't like me.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?