BTW, I wonder if any of you have heard about that ultra-fat guy Canzano is seeking (public) help for?
There isn't a food on this planet that causes obesity. It has to do with portion control. Oh, and government shouldn't have a damn thing to do with this problem. If someone chooses to be fat, then they should pay higher premiums.
Why is it the Insurance industry's job to make sure people take care of themselves? Why doesnt anyone take personal responsibility for the fact that they smoke and are fat!?! I just dont understand this mindset that it is someone else's responsibility to make decisions for me.
The problem is people are growing up without knowing the actual dangers of eating fast food every day and drinking soda like it's water. I know it seems that people have to "choose" to be fat, but with many people, it comes down to ignorance. They weren't raised to know the difference between real food and processed food, they just know one is cheaper and tastes better. Of course it's not the government's job or the insurance industry's job to make sure we eat right, but I think something needs to be done for less privileged and less informed who don't know any better.
There is also the issue of a lot of restaurants serving 2-3 times the normal portion size of foods in their meal. As you said ignorance and not being educated is an issue, and I would call it an avalanche effect. If you're raising a kid and you yourself were uneducated growing up about food, portion sizes, calories, carbs, and the different kind of fats you're probably going to pass that on your kids unless someone (an educated friend or a doctor) points it out and educates you. So maybe you feed your kids some fast food meals, or restaurant meals, that come in bigger sizes. So as the kid grows up on these things, even if for just a short period, then their stomach is expanding and needs more to fill it up. A kid is going to want food if they're is still hungry, and it's going to be extremely hard to get them to change their diet especially with how food is marketed in the world today. It'll take a concentrated effort to slowly change their diet and shrink their portion sizes without having them freak out. Then you have to also consider that you cannot watch your kid all the time, you don't know what or how much they're eating at school, or even at a friend's house.
Right, this was a better way of saying what I was trying to say. Another thought on the personal freedom, it's your choice, thing: Even when people know what's good and bad for them, they still choose the bad choice. This is in part because of what you touched on-- how food is marketed. If the average person watches 8 hours of TV a day how many commercials do they see? Advertisers use very effective psychological techniques to get you to crave whatever it is they're selling. When an already uninformed person sees nothing but bright and flashy commercials for fast food or microwave meals, it just seems unfair.
But isn't it their right as an American to make poor choices? The important part of making bad choices is that they pay the price for doing so in higher health insurance premiums.
Well of course it's their right. All I'm doing is pointing out that the degree in which people do not know how to be healthy is staggering. When one generation doesn't know how to be healthy, they raise the next generation who doesn't know how to be healthy. Then they are bombarded with ads that encourage them not to be healthy, reinforcing what they were raised with. Doesn't that seem unfair? Why does this issue boil down to health insurance premiums? And what about people who don't have health insurance? What do they pay?
No they don't. Premiums aren't assigned on an individual basis, at least not in a typical employer-based plan. More accurately, their coworkers pay the cost of their bad choices. So I say, fie on your "freedom to make bad choices" (in this case). barfo
Ok. So do you agree that until that happens, they shouldn't have the freedom to make those bad choices and cost other people money? barfo
Well, either way is freedom. In the one case, you are free to be unhealthy. In the other case, you are free to spend your money on what you want. Can't have both. barfo
ABM, if you're going to intentionally 'stir the pot', then get you tired *** back here are participate. Nothing worse than a cowardly poster. This is your thread, man.
I partially agree with Maxiep. But what about who suffer from other maladies not related to eating too much, drinking booze, doing drugs... should we punish them? What about offices with a lot of your women who will be having babies?... There's a lot of controversy aver that class as well. To me, insurance is one big melting pot- or should be.
Why should I have to pay the same car insurance premiums that other people do? I have never had so much as a fender bender or any type of claim. If I get in a collision with someone else I can repair their car to professional standards. Unfortunately that is the way insurance works. If you have a claim the insurance will pay more than you will through your premiums. Fast food and junk is bad for you. However, where there used to be butter or some other grease there is now partially hydrogenated soybean oil. Where there was sugar there some new chemical that is cheaper and probably causes butt cancer. Junkfood was always bad for you, the big companies have made it worse so they can profit. If you buy frozen dinner with a picture of a piece of chicken and cheese on the box, what you are really getting is a chemical compound that a scientist can barely understand.
The reason is that health insurance companies offer a policy to an entire company. Auto insuance is individual. If health insurance was purchased strictly by individuals, things would be different.
My car insurance company doesn't charge me differently except that they base it on easily found driving records. They charge me more based on the city I live in as the risk is higher in Vegas. My employer buys insurance for 1-150 people. That seems like a small enough sample that the rest of them can pay for the few fatties and smokers. We could do genetic tests to see who is more likely to have breast cancer.
But that only gives a propensity for potential health problems. How far do we extend that? Do we raise rates for people with cancer in their family? Or heart diseases in their parents? Once you start down that road, it's hard to stop.
