CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Should obese people pay more into a national health care system?
I found that there is already and old debate about this, but I want to know what you think:
If and *when* there is a public option, should obese people pay more into the system than thinner people. Is obesity a "pre-existing" condition, or a choice of lifestyle?
Why not? Bad drivers have to pay more for car insurance because they are higher risk for accidents and hence claims, and smokers have to pay increasingly hefty taxes for their unhealthy habit. Similarly, fat folk are at higher risk for disease and hence more likely to make claims. Therefore it’s only right they bear a larger share of the burden. That’s not unthinking bias; it’s common sense. After all, why should everyone’s premiums be higher when not everyone shoves down donuts and fried chicken? Unlike some other health problems (such as types of cancer, rheumatoid arthritis, mental disorders, etc) we all have the ability to let ourselves go and get fat. Yet, some of us don't. Why should they have to pay extra for other people's recklessness?
Well if they did then so would smokers, drinkers, f*ckers etc. - anybody who causes damage to their body, should have to pay more. I don't mind tbh because none of them include me except for drinking and I'm not paying any extra than I already am. On smoking and drinking there's taxes to subsidise the NHS anyways so.... i guess fatties COULD be taxed...
Lol I KNOW I'm healthy. I had a check up done on me just when I joined the gym and the guy told me I was one of the fittest people to join, with things like visceral fat, body fat, blood pressure etc. better than his (this is a qualified gym teacher)..
The minimum length for an argument is 50 characters. The purpose of this restriction is to cut down on the amount of dumb jokes, so we can keep the quality of debate and discourse as high as possible.
I don't mind tbh because none of them include me except for drinking and I'm not paying any extra than I already am. On smoking and drinking there's taxes to subsidise the NHS anyways so....
Being fat is rarely a genetic disorder, wlthough many people seem to blame it on their genes because they are simply to lazy to get off their arses.
If someone's BMI was severely over the national average then hell yes they should pay for their own healthcare. Us taxpayers are forced to handout our wages to such people. Being fat is a lifestyle choice, we chose to be fat. We choose to shove ten chocolate bars in our mouths and sit playing pc games all day. Will that help one to lose weight? No.
People know what causes obesity. We live in a society where we know that that if we go to macdonalds too often or buy the wrong food then we will gain a lot of weight. Most of us know the risks. So blaming obesity on a lack or proper food education is just another pathetic excuse. We learn about food alternatitives in schools, there are adverts on the TV etc.
The problem is that too many fat people assume that being their size is okay. Some have no discipline at all and will not even try to lose weight.
And losing weight is not rocket science, you just have to eat less and move out more. Less energy input and more energy output equals weight loss -_-.
The same goes for smokers and heavy drinkers. Why should I have to pay for your lung operation huh? And why should I have to pay for your gastric band?
Several conditions can exist as a result of lifestyle, but to screen/punish people for preexisting conditions seems wrong. Maybe they need the health care to correct their condition and can't afford paying in more.
I don't think it's wrong for a lion to eat a zebra with a condition. I don't think the lion should wait until the zebra gets better before trying to eat him.
Besides, we would be doing the obese person a favor. I mean, think about it. If a person is obese then he over ate. If he has to pay more into a national health care system, then he'll have less money for food. Is he has less money for food, he'll eat less. If he eats less he'll lose weight. If he loses weight, then we would have turned his life around. Think of it as a forced diet ;)
So would support a program where obese people are given a year to show progress, and if after that probationary period they have proven they are overweight by choice and must now pay more?
Honestly I don't dislike obese people, but you have to pay for your choices that effect others. You don't chose cancer or even AIDS, but you chose being obese three or more times a day.
By your logic, if you CHOOSE to engage in unprotected sex, and end up with an STD or become HIV positive, should you then be charged more? After all, it was their choice right?
The question is... how fat would you have to be to qualify to be taxed? In my opinion, I think that the standard would steadily be set lower and lower over time ( like the age in which you are considered to be an adult at theme parks, kind of similiar) At Universal Studios, an 8 year old is considered to be an adult! It would just be another way for gov. to take more of our money.
I mean... being fat leads to all sort of problems... diabetes, joint problems, heart and cardio vascular problems to name off just a FEW. Fat people ( as a group ) are probably going to the hospital a lot more than healthy people are, so they are probably paying more anyway. No reason to put an extra tax on them if they are paying more money towards health care than others in the long run.
discrimination (dis-crim-i-na-tion) (noun) -treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit
I posted in the "No...silly..." side for a reason. What are you talking about? You are comparing apples with oranges. I'll ask you this: should fat people pay more for auto insurance because of the sole purpose of them being fat? Should asian people pay more for auto insurance because they are asian? How about short people?
Obesity is a direct cause of many health problems. It also inhibits easy detection and treatment of illnesses not directly caused by the obesity. So obesity directly effects the cost of keeping the person healthy.
Studies have shown that a person who is a good driver or a good student costs the insurance company less in damages. Therefore the company pays less to insure them.
In both cases, the person being insured makes choices that directly effect the bottom line of the insurer.
So does being obese effect ones ability to drive? Does being Asian? Et cetera.
Using your logic, I'm going to go out and drink at a bar, buy some cigarettes, and have sex with a hooker tonight. I'm 16, but that stuff shouldn't be illegal for me. If it is, it's discrimination. Just because I'm of a different age group doesn't mean I should be treated differently. I want some cigarettes!
Discrimination is not a catch-all. Legally, it is applicable to gender and race, nothing more. Otherwise, I could take a case to the Supreme Court that I am being discriminated against based on my age, because a store clerk would not allow me to buy cigarettes or beer.
If obesity is from a pre-existing condition, they shouldn't have to pay more. However, if they cannot prove that their weight (obesity is 30+% over the ideal BMI) is caused by a health condition, it can be assumed that it is caused by too much eating and too little exercise. People like that are much more apt to end up in the hospital. If it's a national health care system, that means that we, the people, pay for each time they go into the hospital, with nothing out of their pocket. There are a lot of obese people in the U.S. If they suddenly get free health care, watch out! There will be a lot of money coming out of your pocket. They're taking more out, so of course they should put more in. It's simple equity. If you take out a lot of money, you should put back just as much.
Are you saying a person with lung cancer due to smoking should have to pay more? How about an alcoholic with a liver problem? Or a repeat poor driver who just broke his neck in a car accident again!???
The idea of national health care is that it is a pot of money. Everyone puts in some and takes some out. It is not about who takes out more or less.
So we're discriminating against smokers? Drinkers? and anybody who pays on taxed items and goods due to health issues?
This isn't discrimination because in the end it works in favour of fat people as the theory is that the more you pay for a good, the less you consume it. If they have to pay to be fat, which not only subsidises their health, I think they'd prefer to save money than to be fat.
Smoking and drinking are proof that over taxing something does not discourage people from consuming it. It is through education and the proper channels that people change.
You also make being fat sound like a simple choice. While I am not overweight, I can tell you through family and friends that eating to them is an addiction. In many cases it has been shown that overweight people do not know what it feels like to be truly full. This can be something they are born with.
I simply stated that's the theory.. not whether it works or not. It is not something they're born with (maybe with a very minor numberof people) it's the way they were raised and how they continued with their lives. It's partly to do with upbringin aswell as their personal choices...
I don't see the correlation between what you said about drinking and smoking, and being fat. You can drink and smoke and not have a health issue. Where does the theory fit in if a person becomes obese through a certain medical condition? Why should he or she have to pay more? By saying that it is not discrimination, you are treating some types of pre-existing conditions over others, which isn't fair to the people that have them.
Bloody hell you can eat and not have a health issue... it's when you have an an excess that it is a health issue, just as eating too much is a health issue. Ok so we'll exclude those who cannot help being fat, which i really doubt there is, but there can be a category for those who are fat through a certain medical condition.
The same as you can drink and smoke without having a health issue, so you can be obese without a health issue.
Eh, dead wrong. Obesity is a health issue (no matter whether pre-existing or not), and smoking/drinking causes health issues. Just because they aren't immediately apparent doesn't mean they aren't there. I won't look at my credit card bill this month, therefore I don't have a credit bill. Smoking has been proven to cause all sorts of cancer, as well as yellowed teeth and asthma. Drinking alcohol has been proven to cause cirrhosis of the liver, and it messes up your body even when you aren't drunk. It slows your heart rate and releases chemicals into the brain that shouldn't be found in those concentrations, to name a few.
And, obviously, if you smoke, you're a bigger risk to the health care system, so you should pay more! The higher your risk is for a hospital visit, the more you take out of the collective budget for health care. Therefore, you should pay more for it. It's only logical.
Am I missing something here? By the way, show me an obese person that does not have any health issue whatsoever as you have stated.
---
If I drink one beer and one beer only, do I have a health issue? If I smoke for three seconds and three seconds only, do I have a health issue?
---
Again, what do you say to the person who became obese solely because of a medical condition? Why should they have to pay more for healthcare? Its unfair that someone should have to pay more because of a pre-existing condition. You are treating a particular group of people differently than the rest, which by definition is discrimination.
LOOL did you actually read what he said?? Jesus christ he said it is NOT true that you can be obese without a health issue... duhhhh... (read the start of the second paragraph, okay little buddy?)
If I drink one beer and one beer only, do I have a health issue? If I smoke for three seconds and three seconds only, do I have a health issue?
No. Just the same as if I have 1 burger.
Dude that means EVERYBODY is discriminated against. If I'm sitting down on the bus and an old person come on, I shouldn't get up because it's discrimination. Same for a pregnant woman. You have a warped understanding of discrimination.
Discrimination is when you treat a group UNFAIRLY due to their differences, not just differently.
Just because a person weighs more than an average person, doesn't mean that they should be penalized. Smokers and drinkers should not be penalized on health care, but they should have a 150% to 250% tax put on them. It would both stimulate the economy, and get people to kick the habit. I'm all for a $4.00 pack of smokes becoming an $8.00 pack.
Well, let's see.... I think you may be right, as long as all fags and lesbians pay extra because they are at greater risk of the HIV virus, and then skinny people(you know too skinny) EXTRA!!! Black people have that blood cell thing, plus higher drive by wounds( if they die that would SAVE money, higher percentage of cancer HIV, Hispanics also higher cancer mortality KA CHING
If you were to charge obese people more, you open the door to charge more or less for so many others such as smokers, alcoholics poor drivers, the list goes on. People are not perfect. That should not change their basic human right to health care.
Secondly, how do you decide what is considered obese? A certain weight compared to height? So if I lose 5 pounds I should pay less in health care? Doesn't make sense.
Finally, what about those that eat unhealthy and are just as likely to get heart disease etc. but have a good metabolism. Why should they pay less?
Secondly, how do you decide what is considered obese? A certain weight compared to height? So if I lose 5 pounds I should pay less in health care? Doesn't make sense.
OMG!... are you being serious here? Please tell me you're not. Please tell me you know what obesity is. For humanities sake.
Finally, what about those that eat unhealthy and are just as likely to get heart disease etc. but have a good metabolism. Why should they pay less?
Aslong as they're not causing themselves harm. If they are healthy, then obviously they should not be taxed as they are not taking up the national health care's services. If it is unhealthy, then they should be taxed. It's that simple.
Obesity is a relative term. What one person may consider obese may not be what another does. Also, based on your statement, you are suggesting anyone who leads an unhealthy lifestyle should pay more? If only healthy people had cheap healthcare, national healthcare would just be another cashcow for the government rather than a resource for the people.
So, what about people who lead high risk lifestyles? Skydivers, rockclimbers etc.? Are they not running a risk of using more resources if/when they get hurt?
Obesity is a MEDICAL term, by SCIENTIFIC EXPERTS. I don't have to explain it to you, it's readily available on the internet. Find out yourself and tell me whether or not it's accurate. I would love to hear how your amazing experience and intelligence in people's health is more accurate than many many fully qualified, experienced and intelligent doctors, scientists and researchers.
Thing about sky divers, rockclimbers is that they are NOT UNHEALTHY. Sure they MAY get hurt, but most of the time they don't. It's an ACTIVITY and for those who have accepted it as a lifechoice, they probably have increased insurance, but they also take practical steps to ensure they are safe. Being obese is a problem. It is unhealthy. FACT.
There are plenty of things that are unhealthy. Smoking, drinking, not sleeping the list goes on for days. Should all these people pay more to the system?
I am not arguing obesity is a health issue. I person should be treated differently due to their health condition. A person who gets AIDS due to unprotected sex, should they now have to pay more into the system? After all, it was a lifestyle choice.
Yeah, you're right, people who had unprotected sex should be penalised. Not sleeping however isn't a choice for many people. It's a difficulty for most of them. For those who choose not to however, should learn to suffer. Smokers and drinkers already to pay more to the system..
So basically, any decision that you make that is hurting your health should mean you pay more to the system? So everyone basically. Health care is a pooled risk. Everyone pays in. Everyone takes out. It should not matter who pays more or takes more. Remember, the goal is not profit. Its not like auto insurance companies which still need to make money after payouts.
You're right... it's a pooled risk. But when smokers and drinkers both have to pay and fat people don't... it doesn't make sense. It's not just financially.. it's resources that are affected too.
First tell me this - Is it unhealthy to be fat? Yes or no?
If yes, shouldn't we do what's been done to others in the similar circumstances and tax them?
If no, we shouldn't tax smokers and drinkers.
Personally I think those who've been warned something is bad for them and continue with their activities should either be denied help or should be taxed... unless ofcourse they're trying to improve themselves and are quitting, eating less, drinking less...
So tax the products higher. Not the healthcare. Besides, smoking and drinking are proof that taxing something higher, does not discourage people from buying these products.
