Eat too much, smoke: Who pays for your health?
After my story on health-care reform in the August 24 Bee, I received several comments from readers who felt that people who are obese should pay more for health care. Their argument: Obesity puts people more at risk for illnesses, and the public shouldn't have to pay for lifestyle excesses that increase health-care costs.
What do you think?
Should the obese pay more for health coverage than people of normal weight?
Would this put us on a slippery slope?
Who else gets charged more for health insurance?
Smokers? Should smokers pay a higher insurance premium since smoking is known to increase risks for several diseases? How about someone who drinks or smokes marijuana? Should a higher rate extend to people who aren't fat, but eat a lot of saturated fat that increases the risk for high cholesterol? How about a higher insurance premium for other risky behaviors - unprotected sex with multiple partners?
And who decides the risky behaviors that warrant higher insurance premiums -- insurance companies, the government, employers who provide health insurance to employees?
Does this create a two-tiered health-care system that makes insurance affordable only to those with no health vices?
Let me know your thoughts on this.
Comments:
I don't understand. People that are fat, smoke and have other risk factors, do pay more for health insurance already. These same at risk people also pay more to cover those that aren't insured, just like everyone one else that pays for health insurance does.
And all the people you name for who will decide, already decide.
What did I miss?
Posted by: Mikey at August 26, 2009 3:31 PM
Same price for ALL!
Posted by: Mary Ann at August 26, 2009 3:48 PM
Causative factors related to lifestyle choices that promote risk to negative health should be targeted. Just as cigarettes are taxed, so should these fast food restaurants, candy bars and soda pops...Bags of lard ridden snacks and chips. But the tax dollars collected go directly into a fund to offset medical costs for every American. higher tax rates, extraordinary fines and penalties levied against corporations that sell these notably unhealthy foods and "snacks" as well.
You dont cure a disease by penalizing the individual victim, you attack the source of the disease. In this case its by reducing and removing the production of notably unhealthy foods and products.
Asbestos was once reveled for its ability to thwart fires and its use was implemented in toys for children, clothing, home and building construction...etc. Then it was learned that its use was detrimental to the health of anyone in contact with it.... And its production & use was outlawed.
I see no difference in high risk, toxic unhealthy foods being produced and marketed....
All products that are known health maleficence of any kind, should be removed from production and accessibility. That includes such toxins as lead, petroleum products and food stuff that is known to be unhealthy. (As a smoker, I also include, hesitantly I might add, tobacco products.)
Or just tax the products that promote unhealthy lifestyles and use those tax dollars to offset the overall health costs of every American.
Attack the source of the diseases and perhaps that will cure unhealthy life style choices.
Posted by: Darrell at August 27, 2009 10:42 AM
I don't know If I said it already but ...Excellent site, keep up the good work. I read a lot of blogs on a daily basis and for the most part, people lack substance but, I just wanted to make a quick comment to say I'm glad I found your blog. Thanks, :)
A definite great read..Tony Brown
Posted by: Tony Brown at September 24, 2009 12:51 AM
Post a comment
(read the comment policy before posting)