Lounge of Tomorrow - View Single Post - 'Bama proposing obese state emps. pay more for insurance

LSPoorEeyorick · 09-02-2008, 03:36 PM

And what of, say, state employees' spouses, possibly also covered by this plan, who might, for instance, have some sort of degenerative disease with medicine that causes weight gain and side effects that prevent motion?

I'm all for encouraging good choices. But I'm NOT for governmental regulation of what is and is not "healthy" in terms of weight. I know some fat triathalon runners... that 300-pound Olympic weight lifter... some pretty fit chubby people. I know some lazy-ass, junk-food-eating, heart-attack-in-the-making thin people. And vice versa. If they're going to charge more for health risks, then they should be basing that on people's cholesterol numbers, their blood pressure, their general health. Because not being within the average BMI is not a guarantee that you're dying young. And being inside it is not a guarantee that you won't die young.

And what if they're losing weight at a slow, healthy, behavioral-changing and eating-disorder-free rate, but it's too slow for Alabama? Do we then encourage band-aid solutions like medical liquid diets (for which dieters have a large chance of rubber-banding back to their old weight as soon as they stop?) Or gastric surgery, for which mortality rates are high and chance of re-gain after stomachs re-stretch are even higher?

And what is the right rate for the right body, to stop losing weight? If, say, I got to 180 pounds and say "hey, I feel as great as I've ever felt, I am happy with the way I look, I am active and eating healthy and don't wish to lose any more." If I can run faster than the 120-pound anorexic, do I need to pay more for my health insurance?

And obesity - though, indeed, a problem more common today than before, and often the result of behavioral training as much as genes - is only one of a zillion genetically-imposed health problems. What about the children of breast cancer who become breast cancer patients? Do we charge them more up front, knowing that their boob may cost more in the long run?

Then what defines my insurance carrier as an insurance carrier, and not a savings plan for the human body's guaranteed eventual decline?

09-02-2008, 03:36 PM	#7
LSPoorEeyorick scribblin' Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: in the moment Posts: 3,872	And what of, say, state employees' spouses, possibly also covered by this plan, who might, for instance, have some sort of degenerative disease with medicine that causes weight gain and side effects that prevent motion? I'm all for encouraging good choices. But I'm NOT for governmental regulation of what is and is not "healthy" in terms of weight. I know some fat triathalon runners... that 300-pound Olympic weight lifter... some pretty fit chubby people. I know some lazy-ass, junk-food-eating, heart-attack-in-the-making thin people. And vice versa. If they're going to charge more for health risks, then they should be basing that on people's cholesterol numbers, their blood pressure, their general health. Because not being within the average BMI is not a guarantee that you're dying young. And being inside it is not a guarantee that you won't die young. And what if they're losing weight at a slow, healthy, behavioral-changing and eating-disorder-free rate, but it's too slow for Alabama? Do we then encourage band-aid solutions like medical liquid diets (for which dieters have a large chance of rubber-banding back to their old weight as soon as they stop?) Or gastric surgery, for which mortality rates are high and chance of re-gain after stomachs re-stretch are even higher? And what is the right rate for the right body, to stop losing weight? If, say, I got to 180 pounds and say "hey, I feel as great as I've ever felt, I am happy with the way I look, I am active and eating healthy and don't wish to lose any more." If I can run faster than the 120-pound anorexic, do I need to pay more for my health insurance? And obesity - though, indeed, a problem more common today than before, and often the result of behavioral training as much as genes - is only one of a zillion genetically-imposed health problems. What about the children of breast cancer who become breast cancer patients? Do we charge them more up front, knowing that their boob may cost more in the long run? Then what defines my insurance carrier as an insurance carrier, and not a savings plan for the human body's guaranteed eventual decline?
	Submit to Quotes