'Bama proposing obese state emps. pay more for insurance - Page 3

scaeagles · 09-02-2008, 08:43 PM

If it is a right, then it should be constitutionally guaranteed as one. If the rights we have can be determined by what society considers to be one, then rights we have can be removed by the same whims. The general welfare clause, as noted in the federalist papers (which one escapes me at present, and while I realize they are not a binding document, they certainly note the intentions of the writers) was never intended as a blank check for the federal government.

Morrigoon · 09-02-2008, 10:25 PM

I believe, then, it falls under the right to LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

That being said, I share the same reservations about our government, the government of Katrina, Fema, Waco, etc., being in charge of my health care. However, if I had some assurance that our gov't would behave better than the current HMOs in terms of speed, approval, and flexibility of care, then I admit it does appeal. I think I'd want to see a government INSURANCE program, rather than handing the whole system over to them lock, stock and barrel. Sort of like providing the required minimum (like they do for Medicare), only they're simply going to HAVE to cut back on the paperwork, because it's driving doctors out of business.

As far as the obesity thing goes, I'm torn on that. On one hand I'm outraged, but then I acknowledge that they do charge smokers more. But like LSPE points out, it's not entirely behavioral, and the ability to control the behavior is also affected by genetics, so it's sort of like charging the cancer-prone more. Also, smokers do have a choice of whether to smoke or not. Alcoholics have a choice of whether to drink or not. But say you told an alcoholic that they had to drink exactly half a shot every single day of their life in order to live - would you REALLY be surprised if they couldn't stick to that?

I'm frankly sick of the "moral outrage" that people not afflicted with obesity-relate problems feel they have a right to.

Alex · 09-02-2008, 10:35 PM

As I've said, socialized healthcare doesn't make money a non-issue, it just changes who gets to make the decision as to when money becomes an issue.

I personally don't think healthcare is a fundamental human right (but then, I don't think there is any such thing) but it is certainly something we as a society can decide to do.

Ghoulish Delight · 09-03-2008, 07:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex

As I've said, socialized healthcare doesn't make money a non-issue, it just changes who gets to make the decision as to when money becomes an issue.

This is true, but at least that monetary decision is made and enforced equally for all citizens.

Morrigoon · 09-02-2008, 10:44 PM

Therein lies the problem. One of my biggest fears of nationalized healthcare is allowing the government to decide for me.

On the other hand, if the government also insured the doctors, they could probably lower costs of providing the care! (Liability insurance, I mean).

How about a "voucher" system? You can take the basic (free) gov't plan, OR the gov't can pledge a certain amount to private carriers that insure you, and let the carriers compete for who gets the business. Which is basically what I said relating it to medicare (medicare supplemental insurance being a model)

Tenigma · 09-03-2008, 12:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scaeagles

This seems to make sense....as much as paying more for insurance if you are a smoker, but I find myself on the fence about it. Obese people typically have higher helath care costs.

I hope the state has a lot of money to pay out lawsuits.

Obesity, as others have mentioned, is very strongly linked to genetics. In addition, there are some scientists who believe obesity is NOT as unhealthy as we are all led to believe... it is LACK OF EXERCISE that's bad, not necessarily obesity.

What they could do is require X amount of exercise every week, X number of check-ups per year. Those are quantifiable. I don't think they could mandate people be skinny. What about thin people who are unhealthy, to start?

Moonliner · 09-03-2008, 04:14 AM

Why stop at weight?

As Alex pointed out certain diseases can be hereditary, tall people don't live as long,overly fit people actually have a higher mortality rate as do lefties and anyone that does not drink moderate amounts of alcohol.

Now with the advent of genetic testing there are all sorts of new windows opening for determining who is higher risk for the insurance industry.

Betty · 09-03-2008, 08:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Moonliner

Why stop at weight?

As Alex pointed out certain diseases can be hereditary, tall people don't live as long,overly fit people actually have a higher mortality rate as do lefties and anyone that does not drink moderate amounts of alcohol.

Now with the advent of genetic testing there are all sorts of new windows opening for determining who is higher risk for the insurance industry.

And then they could just start monitoring you right? Who says if you had one drink today you wouldn't have one tomorrow, or that you would have 10 tomorrow.

It works now because we all pay into it. Yeah - I may be fat... but you've got a family history of breast cancer and that guy over there is going to get lung cancer. We've ALL got something wrong with us now or will have something wrong someday. They would have to either exclude everyone or charge everyone more... hmmm...

Should I pay more my whole life because I'm overweight? If so, then you should go bankrupt when you (not YOU but - you in a general sense) get cancer and have to have surgery and chemo and all that. Right? It's only fair that if I have to pay more all along that when something really bad happens to you that you have to pay a hefty price then.

But that's the whole point of having health coverage isn't it? To avoid having to pay an enormous fee sometime in the future.

And what about the person who develops a disease after paying decades into it, and then gets told that they are no longer covered. Oh wait - that happens now already doesn't it.

scaeagles · 09-03-2008, 08:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Betty

And then they could just start monitoring you right? Who says if you had one drink today you wouldn't have one tomorrow, or that you would have 10 tomorrow.

And to reiterate what I just posted, it is a state agency proposing additional costs for the obese.

Moonliner · 09-03-2008, 08:11 AM

And I wonder if obese people really do have higher heath care rates overall. If on average they die younger they have less years to need health care. Over the long run they are less likely to need the cost of long term health care for issues like cancer or alzheimers because they would already be dead.

09-02-2008, 08:43 PM	#1
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	If it is a right, then it should be constitutionally guaranteed as one. If the rights we have can be determined by what society considers to be one, then rights we have can be removed by the same whims. The general welfare clause, as noted in the federalist papers (which one escapes me at present, and while I realize they are not a binding document, they certainly note the intentions of the writers) was never intended as a blank check for the federal government.
	Submit to Quotes

09-02-2008, 10:25 PM	#2
Morrigoon I throw stones at houses Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Location: Location Posts: 9,534	I believe, then, it falls under the right to LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That being said, I share the same reservations about our government, the government of Katrina, Fema, Waco, etc., being in charge of my health care. However, if I had some assurance that our gov't would behave better than the current HMOs in terms of speed, approval, and flexibility of care, then I admit it does appeal. I think I'd want to see a government INSURANCE program, rather than handing the whole system over to them lock, stock and barrel. Sort of like providing the required minimum (like they do for Medicare), only they're simply going to HAVE to cut back on the paperwork, because it's driving doctors out of business. As far as the obesity thing goes, I'm torn on that. On one hand I'm outraged, but then I acknowledge that they do charge smokers more. But like LSPE points out, it's not entirely behavioral, and the ability to control the behavior is also affected by genetics, so it's sort of like charging the cancer-prone more. Also, smokers do have a choice of whether to smoke or not. Alcoholics have a choice of whether to drink or not. But say you told an alcoholic that they had to drink exactly half a shot every single day of their life in order to live - would you REALLY be surprised if they couldn't stick to that? I'm frankly sick of the "moral outrage" that people not afflicted with obesity-relate problems feel they have a right to. __________________ http://bash.org/?top "It is useless for sheep to pass a resolution in favor of vegetarianism while wolves remain of a different opinion." -- William Randolph Inge Last edited by Morrigoon : 09-02-2008 at 10:34 PM.
	Submit to Quotes

09-02-2008, 10:35 PM	#3
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	As I've said, socialized healthcare doesn't make money a non-issue, it just changes who gets to make the decision as to when money becomes an issue. I personally don't think healthcare is a fundamental human right (but then, I don't think there is any such thing) but it is certainly something we as a society can decide to do.
	Submit to Quotes

09-02-2008, 10:44 PM	#5
Morrigoon I throw stones at houses Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Location: Location Posts: 9,534	Therein lies the problem. One of my biggest fears of nationalized healthcare is allowing the government to decide for me. On the other hand, if the government also insured the doctors, they could probably lower costs of providing the care! (Liability insurance, I mean). How about a "voucher" system? You can take the basic (free) gov't plan, OR the gov't can pledge a certain amount to private carriers that insure you, and let the carriers compete for who gets the business. Which is basically what I said relating it to medicare (medicare supplemental insurance being a model) __________________ http://bash.org/?top "It is useless for sheep to pass a resolution in favor of vegetarianism while wolves remain of a different opinion." -- William Randolph Inge
	Submit to Quotes

09-03-2008, 04:14 AM	#7
Moonliner 8/30/14 - Disneyland -10k or Bust. Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 9,022	Why stop at weight? As Alex pointed out certain diseases can be hereditary, tall people don't live as long,overly fit people actually have a higher mortality rate as do lefties and anyone that does not drink moderate amounts of alcohol. Now with the advent of genetic testing there are all sorts of new windows opening for determining who is higher risk for the insurance industry. __________________ - Taking it one step at a time.
	Submit to Quotes

09-03-2008, 08:11 AM	#10
Moonliner 8/30/14 - Disneyland -10k or Bust. Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 9,022	And I wonder if obese people really do have higher heath care rates overall. If on average they die younger they have less years to need health care. Over the long run they are less likely to need the cost of long term health care for issues like cancer or alzheimers because they would already be dead. __________________ - Taking it one step at a time.
	Submit to Quotes