Poll: Smokers and obese should pay more health insurance

Many Americans are in favor of charging smokers and obese individuals more for their health insurance. Ok, the smoking thing is covered under some insurance plans - ie, some plans will pay for a person's medications and counseling sessions to stop smoking because it's better business sense in the long run. Some insurance plans also offer incentives to work out and will pay for your gym membership.

Of course, there's also the problem of millions of Americans NOT having health insurance. And where do you tend to see poor eating habits, mutliple health problems, AND obesity/overweight issues? There are a good number of un-insured who would fall under this category. So how the heck do you charge them more? It also borders on discrimination....which reminds me of an article recently that blamed obesity for increased gasoline consumption in the US.

Yes, personal responsibility is an important component. But in a society where you need money to look good and eat healthy, who the fuck is going to spend $10 on a frigging salad when you can get a filling meal for $0.99 at McD's and you're only making $6.75/hour. People in this income bracket can barely afford rent let alone the monthly price of a gym and good food. Shit, I'm embarassed when I tell people how much my gym membership is.

Poll smokers? How un-PC.

You'll all be sorry when the world ends and fire rains from the sky. Our carcinogen filled lungs will have no problems processing smoke-tainted air.

Gee, could that be because a hell of a lot of Americans are fat, and don't think that higher insurance premiums are such a great idea when it's their own pudgy fingers having to reach deeper into the wallet?

This is a bit of an oversimplification, no? Also, you don't need a gym membership to avoid obesity. That's a very upper middle class, institutionalized viewpoint.

It is a bit of an oversimplification but at the same time, it is geographically biased. I don't know about Chicago, but in NYC the average studio apartment that's 450-500 square feet can cost a person over $2000 a month alone....let's just say what people pay for their rent can have a serious and negative impact on their ability to pay bills down to what they can afford to eat. And in this city, most people walk and take the subway and public transportation. It's a pain in the ass to carry a day's worth of food on you especially if you're packed on the subway. So most people eat out or order out.

Add on top of that the fact that most people in this city are rarely home - who the fuck can take the time to cook? And no, it's not a class thing in this instance. I'd say it's even worse for people who make minimum wage and need to work 2 jobs.

I'm not saying that a gym membership is all you need to avoid obesity - which is an oversimplification of what I'm bringing up. Essentially people need to be less sedentary and walking is just as good a way to start. But another point is most people are severely lacking health, fitness, and nutrition education and this can totally include people who you would lump into middle-upper class. If people don't know how to figure out that the package of chips they're holding has 10 servings at 150 caloreis per serving, I think that's a problem. Why do you think so many people yo-yo back and forth on their weight? A lot of people thing...oh, if I starve myself but still keep my regular lifestyle, I'll lose weight but the instant they stop their program, they gain it back. I think that's a lack of knowledge about how their body works. And it crosses all boundaries because you see plenty of upper-middle class white women on Jenny Craig or Weight Watchers who consume less than 12000 calories a day but then gain their weight back. So.....go figure.

Well, this is certainly one way to play the insurance companies' game. What's next, bloodsport to see who gets insured?

I don't buy that people don't know how to eat healthy, and that they don't know that being realtively active is better than being sedentary. I just don't buy it. I think people are fucking lazy and they listen to what they want to listen to, and they believe what they want to believe.

And while Chicago is less expensive than NY from a rent perspective, and my friends tend to fall in the upper middle class bucket, nobody I know cooks. We all eat out. We all eat crap. And we all know better. We're just fucking lazy. And that crosses socio economic classes. I think people in highly developed countries, feel like it's their right to exist in supreme comfort at all times. The further a group of people moves up the Maslowe Heirarchy, the softer they get.

This is why we need national healthcare, with education and prevention as a major component.

If I have to buy insurance on the open market, I'll seek a carrier that does it's best to eliminate high-risk customers. Just like with auto insurance - I'd rather not be in an insurance pool with 18 year old drivers.

It is a statistical fact that obese and smokers, among others, have higher health care costs. Why should I pay more for other's poor choices or unfortunate genetic make-up.

Smoking I can kind of see. After all, it does have a very real likelihood of having a strong negative impact on one's health, and while it's addictive, starting is very much up to the individual. Also, it's expensive enough that you would *think* it would be strictly a habit for those in a part of the economic spectrum capable of handling it, but that somehow hasn't wound up being true.

Being fat...well, there are a lot of things that play into that, and while I'd say it's theoretically possible for every individual to eat right and exercise well...that may be subject to factors beyond an individual's control. Healthier food tends to be more expensive, fast food has few to no healthy options, and someone who's working two jobs just to pay the bills might be getting the requisite exercise as part of their job, but if they're not, who has the energy to go and exercise in that last sliver of free time remaining to them. On the other hand, in my case it's at least as much that I simply can't bring myself to exercise, so that's my fault.

freudian misinterpretation?

First, BMI is a horrible measure of obesity, it drops big strong people into the same class as big fat people. I'm not entirely sure what would be a good substitute--maybe cholesterol levels. At the same time, I don't really see why people who are likely to cost more money to insurance companies shouldn't have to pay more. I mean guess what, health insurance isn't cheap, and if raising rates on smokers and obese people makes it more affordable to the people at the bottom who can't manage it now--I say go for it. It seems perfectly fair to me. In a sense the healthy people are subsidizing their behavior already by paying higher rates than we need to.

I'd be interested to see the internal statistics from an insurance company, what they think of as "high cost" behavior. I'm guessing eating really badly and smoking are two bigguns.

Can someone please show me data that proves the eating a healthy diet costs more than eating one full of trans fat?

Please? Before we continue making ridiculous assertions?

I think that people could do better. I agree on the laziness aspect. And seriously, food that's bad for you tastes sooooo much better. I'd love to eat pizza all day but I'd rather not be chunky. Convenience is a big part of it - it's easier to grab a candy bar or a Mc'Ds or a slice when you're running around all day. But there are a surprising number of people - like the individuals who tried to sue McD's for making them fat - who don't think that eating a hamburger and pizza and fries and 64 oz of soda every day isn't a bad thing.
And yes, people are supremely comfortable with making everything comfie and cushy. Eh.....I'm for the bump in insurance personally - at least for the smoking.

I have seen studies where it didn't cost much more than a fast-food diet - again, I think it's a matter of convenience. If you want to eat out and pay for the convenience of eating greens and complex carbs, it will cost you more. If you prepare it yourself, the difference is negligible. And ok, a great meal at Per Se or Bouley or any other French restaurant is probably more heart clogging than McD's especially with the amount of butter etc. I just think of pate and feel like gagging, personally.

If you cook, healthy is probably not any more expensive, maybe even a little bit less. But in my experience those options, if they exist, are more expensive at fast-food places, and prepackaged food geared towards health instead of just filling your belly cheaply are quite expensive.

I'm not much of a cook at the best of times, and I don't have a proper refrigerator nor do I have several other staples of modern cooking, so I find it very hard to integrate healthy options into my diet without spending more than I can really afford on not very much food. The other thing is, again, while this is not a factor for me, many people work most of their day and have either no time or no energy to cook when they're home. Especially not for meals that take place during their work day.

I just want to know where I can get a 10$ salad on the go.

Also several points. The food content is negligible next to the amount of sugar that Americans injest through soda. On top of that, there is almost no real sugar to be had in the foodstuff in the US, all of it is corn syrup. As far as I am concerned, using corn syrup instead of sugar from sugar cane or even beets is the leading cause of obesity in the united states.
And not enough water consumption. Almost all sodas are diuretics, it makes you thirsty. Drink some fucking water instead, morons.

..they do that now. (charge more for the higher risk people)

oh but wait...i'm already funding the OC General Health fund (for the poor) with my smoking. (50 cents a pack, remember?)

You can't have it more than two ways people.

I'm pretty sure that's still just one way. Smokers paying more for health problems. If it helps I'm not above charging people with a history of speeding more for health insurance and car insurance. Also not really above motorcyclists paying more for health insurance. Let's see, I would also be fine with charging people who have gotten DUI's more for health insurance. Ok, maybe not motorcyclists, I'm in the air on that one. What do these people have in common? Why they put their health at risk by choice. I think it's their right to make that choice (DUI's aside) but I don't think it's their right to make that choice consequence free. Hell, they charge people younger than 25 more for car insurance and it's not even our choice to be that young, if smoking costs insurance companies more than non-smoking, I say raise the price.

Again, I'd be very interested to see what health insurance companies track as high risk behavior, I imagine they have a ton of data on the subject.

As is the notion that obesity may be avoided through force of will.

The cost of eating healthy vs not depends on what price you are looking at.

It usually costs less in money to buy and cook food, but it costs more in time.

Also, there are economies of scale when it comes to cooking: it takes just as long to cook healthy for four people as it does for one. So, if you are preparing for a family, it makes sense to cook. However, for just yourself, pop in a TV dinner.

Stop with the lifestyle pseudo science. Diuretics don't make you thirsty, caffeine is a very mild diuretic, as is sugar and...

wait for it...

water.

Diuretics that contain large volumes of water do not cause a net loss of bodily hydration. Water in, water out.

Drinking booze to quench your thirst, on the other hand, is pretty stupid.

I don't have insurance, but I thought smokers already paid higher premiums.