[zod]

Just got done reading this article......
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A46123-2004Oct19.html

My question is, do you think that obese people should have to pay a higher premium on their insurance than people who are not obese? Of course this would NEVER fly b/c it's not P.C. However just as smokers pay a higher rate why should over-eaters/coach-potatos not have to do the same as they are directly responsible for the rise in health care? ink:

 

[fluff]

Well, I can't read the article without reistering and I've not got time/inclination to do that, so shoooting from the hip...

Being obese is a choice IMO and also a health hazard (in any sane person's opinion) so as far as I am concerned they should pay for it. How is another question. In the UK cigarettes are taxed incredibly heavily so I would then say that smokers have alerady paid for their habit/risks. Fatty food is not taxed so I'd be happy to see a fat tax/higher health premiums.

Another question is whether people who partake in sports that cause injuries, be it mountain biking, soccer or javelin catching, should pay more? (In fact I'm sure for high risk sports this may already be the case, I know I have for travel insurance for snowboarding.)

 

[zod]

Hmm, I read it and I'm not registered........here's essentially the same article fluff, maybe you can see it from this location

http://tinyurl.com/453jj

 

[fluff]

Ok, having read that I feel the same as I did before. Unless you have a genuine medical condition that truly makes you fat, you cost more to care for, you should pay more. It's a choice to over-eat and under-exercise.

 

[MTB_Rob_NC]

Another question is whether people who partake in sports that cause injuries, be it mountain biking, soccer or javelin catching, should pay more? (In fact I'm sure for high risk sports this may already be the case, I know I have for travel insurance for snowboarding.)

This is just total conjecture on my part since I have no facts to back it up but... I would tend to believe that people that participate in "high risk" sports are less expensive to insure (in the long run and as a group) then say couch potatoes.

For example compare medical costs for say
a broken (ankle, leg, whatever) vs Type 2 Diabetes or something?

What do you think?

 

[fluff]

This is just total conjecture on my part since I have no facts to back it up but... I would tend to believe that people that participate in "high risk" sports are less expensive to insure (in the long run and as a group) then say couch potatoes.

For example compare medical costs for say
a broken (ankle, leg, whatever) vs Type 2 Diabetes or something?

What do you think?

You are probably right but someone who is fit but pursues non-risky sports is even cheaper to insure. So it's still a potentially higher cost due to self-inflicted health problems.

 

[N8 v2.0]

Smokers should pay even more than fatties...!

 

[fluff]

Fat smokers?

Actually that reminds me of something. Smoking has been linked to many health problems, some of which have been statistically linked. Given that smokers generally have a sedentary lifestyle so the statistical link may well be skewed and should there be such a thing as an active smoker they probably have better health than smokers statistically would.

Not that I think smoking is healthy in any way whatsoever, just pointing a flaw in guaging health by statistics.

 

[golgiaparatus]

Before I read the article... Hell yes they should. (1) People like myself shouldnt be penalized for the average American's lack of attention to their health. (2) Maybe it would motivate some people to take care of themselves.

Why the hell does that newspaper want all my personal info? Phuck that, cut and paste the article.

 

[biggins]

i am very active and a smoker (until november 19) most instances i can outride and outclimb my non smoking friends. Zod i love the title of this thread. and yes fatty should pay more.

 

[zod]

What I catch a hint of in this article that I completely detest is that they are trying to remove personaly accountability. They want to put a 1 cent tax on soda so they can use that money to help educate people to not get fat. Why should I pay a 1 cent tax (as minimal as it is) becuase some people eat like pigs and don't exercise? As a matter of principle things that like really grate on my nerves. They blame food additives, a sedentary lifestyle, etc. but don't really blame the person for letting themselves go.

 

[golgiaparatus]

i am very active and a smoker (until november 19) most instances i can outride and outclimb my non smoking friends. Zod i love the title of this thread. and yes fatty should pay more.

Still you have a much higher risk of lung cancer.

As for the quitting... dont be one of those asswads that say, yeah I quit smoking. Unless I'm drinking, then I smoke... Thats a massive load of crap and anyone who says this ends up smoking again like a weak pvssy. If your going to quit just quit dont fuhk around with it.

End rant.

 

[zod]

Ben, I quit smoking cold turkey back around '97. I smoked for about 8 years, about a pack to a pack.5 a day since I was 15 years old. Quitting sucked but now I can't imagine smoking.......waste of money, waste of health, etc. Looking back on it smoking was/is so f&cking retarded. Just make sure you set in stone that you are going to quit, do not "try to quit" or you will fail miserably. Get ready to breath easier, smell better, taste better, have extra spending money, live an extra 20+ years, etc.

 

[biggins]

Ben, I quit smoking cold turkey back around '97. I smoked for about 8 years, about a pack to a pack.5 a day since I was 15 years old. Quitting sucked but now I can't imagine smoking.......waste of money, waste of health, etc. Looking back on it smoking was/is so f&cking retarded. Just make sure you set in stone that you are going to quit, do not "try to quit" or you will fail miserably. Get ready to breath easier, smell better, taste better, have extra spending money, live an extra 20+ years, etc.

but hitting drops with a cigarette and no back brake in the mud and rain is sooooooo much fun

 

[zod]

Now that definitly did kicked ass!

 

[Toshi]

health does not correlate directly with weight. i'm overweight, for instance, but still rack up normal blood pressure (110/80 on last visit), heart rate (60 by the nurse's count). i think exercise is the best predictor of health. unfortunately i don't think charging people by the amount of self-reported exercise is a feasible payment plan.

 

[zod]

health does not correlate directly with weight.

It does indeed correlate. You might be healthier than someone who is overweight and doesn't exercise but you are still not as healthy as you would be if you were not carrying however much extra weight you are carrying.

 

[quadricolour]

It does indeed correlate. You might be healthier than someone who is overweight and doesn't exercise but you are still not as healthy as you would be if you were not carrying however much extra weight you are carrying.

Is that your professional opinion?

 

[s1ngletrack]

I heard a report on NPR the other day that claimed that recent studies have shown that obesity poses as much, if not more, risk to one's health than smoking. I don't think it's unreasonable to charge more to insure someone who is overweight.

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

health does not correlate directly with weight. i'm overweight, for instance, but still rack up normal blood pressure (110/80 on last visit), heart rate (60 by the nurse's count). i think exercise is the best predictor of health. unfortunately i don't think charging people by the amount of self-reported exercise is a feasible payment plan.

i read somewhere that waist-to-hip ratio is a better indicator of fat.
or say if you have over 30 of body mass index. doesnt that means a hihger risk???

i thought this thread was going to be about fatties paying more in aìrplanes. am all for that!!!!!!!

 

[Velocity Girl]

I agree that people who don't take care of themselves should have to foot a bigger bill, the problem I see is the testing/documentation, etc. that would be required to make such a system work. It's easy to check a box that says "smoker" or "non-smoker" but the BMI calculators are not always an idiciator of someone carrying to much fat. Think of a body builder, they don't carry excess fat but weigh a lot more than someone of the same height because they have so much more muscle. Then, you'll have to go thru the battery of tests to see if it's genetics or not that are causing someone to gain weight or not lose weight....I just think the insurance/health industry will see it as too much of a bother. (And although I agree that the "genetics" can be fallen back on too easily, but I know from personal experience that it does happen to some....I'm of a resonable weight but went thru the battery of tests and realized that reason it's such a b**ch to shed those few extra unwanted pounds is because I have a slow metabolism and don't respond to weight training as most people :mumble: ) Just sucks that people won't take responsibility for themselves and at least try to better themselves.

 

[s1ngletrack]

I can't believe that there are people in the medical field who actually look at BMI charts for anything other than litterbox liners. What about those of us who have alot of muscle naturally - the last one I looked at said I was overweight - while I had 7 percent body fat.

 

[syadasti]

Is that your professional opinion?

It does correlate for white european males - thats how the tables were originally derived for insurance tables. They don't apply to women and probably are off as it relates to other ethnic groups too.

Women can be more overweight than men can be while still being healthy according to most nutritional scientist studies.

 

[syadasti]

I can't believe that there are people in the medical field who actually look at BMI charts for anything other than litterbox liners. What about those of us who have alot of muscle naturally - the last one I looked at said I was overweight - while I had 7 percent body fat.

They are all about averages and the typical person, outliers in the distribution do suffer, but it works for most people.

 

[Jr_Bullit]

Maybe it should be a graduated scale. An overweight person does not equal an obese person. Once you reach the obese stage (which in my very unprofessional opinion = grotesque sloth), however, you should definitely be charged more.

Overweight doesn't = grotesque sloth, it equals someone who may or may not get plenty of exercise, they simply have a few extra pounds as a result of that nasty nacho cheese dip they were very attracted to over the past month .

 

[zod]

Is that your professional opinion?

it's called common sense......

I agree with others who are saying BMI is a load of crap though...... Body fat% is what should be looked at.

 

[Snacks]

Sure, they should pay more. It's an unhealthy life style choice like smoking, but how do you monitor it? 90% of the people I know are over there BMI, they workout regularly, ride often, but like their beer after a good long ride or that cheesecake after dinner.