Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Meh. That's all well and fine in theory.... but in the real world it's not the same.
I'm thin, exercise and eat very healthy.... I had 3 surgeries last year, take a medication that costs thousands a dose (health insurance pays it), have 3 chronic conditions, and am prone to having odd things wrong with me that require expensive medical care.
My sis is overweight, has never really had anything wrong with her, and hardly goes to the doc (she exercises and eats healthy).
I'm really not sure what you're trying to say, how does this refute anything I've said? Insurance rates are based on the aggregate risk of the entire population in some group. The group may be all the employees of some company or something else. People that are overweight have, on average, higher medical costs than people that are normal weight. That by no means that every overweight person is going to have higher medical costs than every normal weight person, just that on average its higher. So what happens when you pool both normal weight and overweight weight folks in the same insurance pool? The normal weight people end up paying higher premiums than they would otherwise and the overweight people pay premiums that are lower than what they'd pay otherwise since the two groups would be averaged.
In this country we allow those with healthy lifestyles to systematically subsidize the medical costs of those with unhealthy lifestyles.......so its a bit ironic when someone complains about "left wingers" when people talk about fixing what amounts to mass welfare....
So I guess you can throw out the "my healthy lifestyle shouldn't pay for that obese person's insurance" theory - because her healthy lifestyle is costing my obese self a fortune in -her- chemo treatments.
Only if you systematically ignore how insurance works.....
I think you are not understanding the point of health at every size (which is not the same as fat acceptance).
Health at every size means:
1. Don't let your size stop you from adopting healthy habits
2. Being healthy =/= to your size
3. You do not have to pursue exercise with the goal of losing weight. You should do it because you like it and you are improving your health
Fat Acceptance = stop discriminating against people because of their size. You don't know if it is genetic, caused by medication or caused by poor habits. None of this matters because just because you are fat, doesn't mean you should be treated poorly.
This is very logical.
Let's forget about the reasons that people are fat. If there is a point where the majority of the population is "fat" then the majority of things people use in daily life should adopt to their consumers. Instead of pretending these people do not exist.
I'd much rather see us spend our resources on getting people to adopt healthy habits (and not on losing weight). If everyone eats well and gets enough exercise, the so-called "obesity diseases" would drop significantly, since exercise reduces the risk for most of them. Food habits help reduce the risk for others. And many studies show that losing a small amount of weight reduces your risk significantly. Small meaning 5-10% of you weight. This is a far more attainable goal, than trying to make everyone hit a BMI of X. More people would succeed and be willing to continue their habits because the journey isn't so overwhelming.
I believe in fat acceptance because people should not be discriminated upon because of their size. I can't agree with fat pride because being obese is unhealthy period and nothing to be proud of.
Everyone is saying that fat people are discriminated against - please tell menhow fat people are discriminated against?
-people refusing to date fat people is not discrimination, people can't help not being attracted to fat people
- fat people being turned down for jobs because of OHS issues us nit discrimination, it their weight causes saftey issues or impacts on their performance then fair enougth
- airlines charging fat people for 2 seats is not discrimination, if te user uses 2 seats then the user pays for 2 seats , larger airline seats will also meen increased costs what will impact the pocket of everybody
What a great post. It was pretty predictable that some people would engage in vicious personal attacks on you rather than discussing the topic. Therefore, thank you for your courage in wading into this topic which is fraught with emotionality and overwrought, loaded language. What will be next? Smokers' cough acceptance? Drug addiction acceptance?
I think the reason for these attacks is the low-class and ignorant manner in which the OP approaches the topic. In case you are not familiar with this poster, he has an ax to grind against overweight people. His approach is simple, "You are overweight because you are stupid, lazy, and full of excuses." Research his post history if you do not believe me.
I think that even many overweight people can acknowledge that they have made mistakes. I personally know a few who have, and have asked my advice on how to get into better shape. My approach with them is that they cannot dwell on what got them to their current condition, (notwithstanding the need to avoid the same pitfalls in the future). Rather I advise that by accepting themselves and valuing themselves they develop a sense of self-worth. Many overweight people lack this, and thus believe themselves to be "not worth saving." This is not true. By developing their sense of self-worth, they realize that they are worth the effort to exercise, eat better, etc...
For many, weight loss is a complete lifestyle change. It usually involves a mental change first and foremost. The OP doesn't have to openly embrace overweight people. But if he were truly interested in helping solve the problem, he would keep his ignorant and judgmental opinions to himself.
I'm really not sure what you're trying to say, how does this refute anything I've said? Insurance rates are based on the aggregate risk of the entire population in some group. The group may be all the employees of some company or something else. People that are overweight have, on average, higher medical costs than people that are normal weight. That by no means that every overweight person is going to have higher medical costs than every normal weight person, just that on average its higher. So what happens when you pool both normal weight and overweight weight folks in the same insurance pool? The normal weight people end up paying higher premiums than they would otherwise and the overweight people pay premiums that are lower than what they'd pay otherwise since the two groups would be averaged.
In this country we allow those with healthy lifestyles to systematically subsidize the medical costs of those with unhealthy lifestyles.......so its a bit ironic when someone complains about "left wingers" when people talk about fixing what amounts to mass welfare....
While there is some truth to this, I still don't agree with you. On average cancer patients have higher medical costs than the over weight (pulling the statement out of thin air), and AIDS patients, etc. Why just go after the overweight. And before you start saying how it is in their control (some truth), so is safe sex, eating your veggies/fruit, etc.
While there is some truth to this, I still don't agree with you. On average cancer patients have higher medical costs than the over weight (pulling the statement out of thin air), and AIDS patients, etc. Why just go after the overweight. And before you start saying how it is in their control (some truth), so is safe sex, eating your veggies/fruit, etc.
You are attacking one group unfairly.
You're conflating outcomes of lifestyle choices with diseases that may or may not be related to lifestyle choices. Being overweight results, in almost all cases, from lifestyle choices. But I'd much ratter see a tax on unhealthy foods that is used to fund health care than I would a charge, by insurance companies, for being overweight. The food tax would deal with the issue directly....
I'm not "attacking" one group unfairly, the thread is about overweight people. There are a number of other lifestyle choices that should raise people's insurance rates, most obvious being smoking. But some lifestyle choices would be nearly impossible for insurance companies to determine so can't be used (i.e., those related to sex life).
Smoking is a good example. We allow insurance companies to charge higher rates for smokers and we have a tax on cigarettes. The same underlying reasoning can be used to justify higher rates for overweight folks and taxes on unhealthy foods.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
