5 ms·
IMO this is attacking it from the wrong angle. What I want is a change to insurance industry regulations to make it so fat people and sedentary people can star
by sjwalter 5y ago
IMO this is attacking it from the wrong angle.
What I want is a change to insurance industry regulations to make it so fat people and sedentary people can start paying their fair way and not be subsidized by those of us who maintain their health.
Could be done a number of ways. Life insurance already sometimes requires a physical at signup. Why not for health insurance too? Could also just be a discount. Could even, e.g., partner with Peloton--you work out 5 days a week? Actuarial table shows you're XX% cheaper to insure.
If it's opt-in like that, all the healthy people will opt-in, and all the unhealthy people (NOT pre-existing conditions, just things within people's own power to control that some do well and others ignore--exercise and diet, primarily) will pay more.
No need to tax the sugar, tax the actual impact, healthcare.
- lkuty 5y ago"to make it so fat people and sedentary people can start paying their fair way" You can make people pay for added sugar in the food but not for them being fat. That is discriminating. BTW you don't know if a fat person is in bad or good health based on her/his overall shape.
- fortran77 5y ago> BTW you don't know if a fat person is in bad or good health based on her/his overall shape If you are obese or overweight you are, by definition, not healthy.
- chithanh 5y agoNo, only "morbid obesity" includes a morbidity in the definition. Other than that, body fat is an indicator not of personal health, but of personal risk.
- Smaug123 5y agoYou're pulling a sleight of hand here with your definitions. To rephrase the sibling: if you are obese or overweight, you have, by definition, a certain BMI. (According to the WHO and many national entities, anyway.) The intended common-sense definition of obesity is "accumulation of fat to an unhealthy level", but the diagnosis of obesity is usually based on a statistic which merely correlates with that. Similarly, to declare that someone is in bad or good health based on their overall shape is to do the same thing: to diagnose someone as having medical problems by observing that they demonstrate a property which often correlates with medical problems. The sleight of hand is that you're defending a position based on a "diagnosis by correlating statistic" definition of obesity, but you're using the intended definition of obesity ("enough fat that you're unhealthy") to do the actual argument, and relying on the fact that both are referred to by the same name ("obesity") to hide the gap.
- fortran77 5y agoHarvard Medical School: https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/can-you-be-overweight-and-still-be-fit https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/can-you-be-ov... UCSF: https://generalsurgery.ucsf.edu/conditions--procedures/health-risks-of-being-overweight.aspx https://generalsurgery.ucsf.edu/conditions--procedures/healt...
- Smaug123 5y agoNaturally, this is all phrased in general terms, and all hedged with e.g. the direct quote "While there is no one-size-fits-all number when it comes to a person's ideal weight, men should not ignore significant weight gain and the implications it has for their future health." Again, of course, you're pulling exactly the same sleight of hand: confusing a risk factor with an actual health problem. It's certainly not "true by definition" that being overweight means you are unhealthy, as you claimed.
- imtringued 5y agoWhy would you tax the symptoms? It's like taxing oil companies for melting glaciers.