CreateDebate


Debate Info

47
51
Yes, of course! No... silly....
Debate Score:98
Arguments:52
Total Votes:109
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes, of course! (28)
 
 No... silly.... (24)

Debate Creator

Pineapple(1448) pic



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?

Yes, of course!

Side Score: 47
VS.

No... silly....

Side Score: 51
2 points

If Obese people pay more for health care it will motivate them to loose weight so they wont have to pay more.

Side: Yes, of course!
2 points

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?

Side: Yes, of course!

Especially since it will reduce the amount I have to pay ;)

Side: Yes, of course!
1 point

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...

Side: Yes, of course!
3 points

So taxes on junk food and soda?

....................................

Side: Yes, of course!
1 point

Nah because then I'll have to pay more... and I'm extremely healthy, so I don't see why I have to pay more fatties...

Side: Yes, of course!
1 point

:D:D Have fun.

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.

How to lose weight.
Side: Yes, of course!
1 point

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....

Supporting Evidence: 350-030 exam (www.actual-exams.com)
Side: Yes, of course!
1 point

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?

Side: Yes, of course!

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.

Side: No... silly....
5 points

Why? Why does it seem wrong? If a zebra has a preexisting condition, does the lion say, "OK, I'll give you a 15 second head start. Go!" ;)

Side: Yes, of course!
4 points

So that person can use their health care to treat their condition and turn their life around!

I'm a bit of an idealist, but I have very strong ideas on right and wrong. Hrm.

Side: No... silly....
3 points

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.

Side: Yes, of course!
kamranw(232) Disputed
2 points

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?

Side: No... silly....
Kinda(1649) Disputed
2 points

I bet YOU'RE fat. (its a joke, and if you are fat then lol!)

Side: Yes, of course!

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.

Side: No... silly....
3 points

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

Side: No... silly....
Pineapple(1448) Disputed
2 points

So in favor or against. So auto insurance breaks for good students and good drivers is discrimination just as much as this would be?

Side: Yes, of course!
asdf789(349) Disputed
3 points

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?

Side: No... silly....
cmh0114(5) Disputed
2 points

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.

Side: Yes, of course!
kamranw(232) Disputed
2 points

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.

Side: No... silly....
Kinda(1649) Disputed
1 point

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.

Side: Yes, of course!
kamranw(232) Disputed
2 points

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.

Side: No... silly....
asdf789(349) Disputed
2 points

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.

Side: No... silly....

The way it's going maybe we should just have health care for well people!!!

Side: No... silly....
3 points

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.

Side: No... silly....
Kinda(1649) Disputed
2 points

So fat people should not be taxed 150/200% for the same reasons??

Side: Yes, of course!
2 points

Hell no! If that is the case where do we stop? Do smokers pay more as well?

Side: No... silly....
2 points

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

Side: No... silly....
1 point

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?

Side: No... silly....
Kinda(1649) Disputed
2 points

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.

Side: Yes, of course!
kamranw(232) Disputed
1 point

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?

Side: No... silly....
1 point

some fat people have conditions that arent there fault its not there fault

each case should be taken individualy

Side: No... silly....
1 point

Im awesome so my argument should count triple please vote up

Side: No... silly....