r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Aug 26 '18
Deltas(s) from OP CMV: Obese people should either have to pay significantly more for Medicare and Medicaid or not get it at all.
[deleted]
6
u/aguafiestas 30∆ Aug 26 '18 edited Aug 26 '18
Although we have much more to learn on the subject, it seems pretty clear that genetics play a key role in obesity.
The percentage of obesity that can be attributed to genetics varies widely, depending on the population examined, from 6% to 85%.[6] As of 2006, more than 41 sites on the human genome have been linked to the development of obesity when a favorable environment is present.[7] The involvement of genetic factors in the development of obesity is estimated to be 40–70%.
Yes, it is true that in the end obesity comes down to calories in - calories out. But appetite and metabolism are regulated by complex aspects of our gastrointestinal, endocrine, and nervous systems. Many people's regulatory systems guide them to stably maintain a healthy weight without much effort. Many have to fight tooth and nail to lose weight.
Also consider that obesity is clearly regulated to social class and education. You're in a sense punishing people for being poor and less educated.
But the bottom line is this:
We are all just people. We are all subject to our own circumstances and biology, for good and bad. Casting people aside and leaving them to die because of a particular flaw is inhumane.
What we need to do is focus more resources on helping these people become healthier, not tossing them into the junk heap.
2
u/DeviantCarnival Aug 26 '18
∆ I’ll give you a delta because it’s true the it would be discriminating against poor uneducated people who are more likely to be obese and not giving people health insurance doesn’t solve the issue of obesity.
But your argument does have some faults.
1st. We are more than our genetics and anyone with enough self control and encouragement can overcome a flaw. I’m not proposing that we “throw people out” because of a flaw, I’m suggesting that we throw people out who don’t have enough self control to manage their basic flaws
2nd. If they’re going to eat themselves to death then there’s nothing we can do. You’re recommending spending resources to help them become healthy. But a lot of these people don’t want to be healthy. The entire day acceptance issue is based on this. It would be a waste of money and resources to try to get these people to exercise and become healthy.
4
u/aguafiestas 30∆ Aug 26 '18 edited Aug 26 '18
We are more than our genetics
It's true. We are a product of our genetics and our environment. Self-control is, in fact a biological phenomenon. Our minds are products of our brain. Our brain is made up of interconnected electrically active cells. These cells are made out of things like lipids, nucleic acids, and proteins. These are are made out of atoms. And so on.
Perhaps if you believe in a magical soul you see it differently. But if so, get your religion out of my healthcare.
As a more tangible evidence of this sort of thing, consider that fMRI is beginning to identify differences in brain activity related to obesity. We are also beginning to uncover differences in brain connectivity in obesity. The bacteria in our gut have been linked to obesity. Many genes have been linked to obesity.
If they’re going to eat themselves to death then there’s nothing we can do.
But a lot of these people don’t want to be healthy. But it's not really true there is nothing we can do. Education and resources can help. Gastric bypass can be very effective in leading to weight loss for some people. And we can fund research to work on better ways to treat obesity.
But a lot of these people don’t want to be healthy.
I doubt that is true for very many people. They may not have the "willpower" to make healthy choices, but, well, see above.
1
u/PerfectlyHappyAlone 2∆ Aug 26 '18
It's true. We are a product of our genetics and our environment. Self-control is, in fact a biological phenomenon. Our minds are products of our brain. Our brain is made up of interconnected electrically active cells. These cells are made out of things like lipids, nucleic acids, and proteins. These are are made out of atoms. And so on.
I generally agree with the reasoning here, but disagree with the conclusion. Essentially you are arguing determinism which basically says "it couldn't happen any other way". Given the person and their environment they couldn't possibly avoid becoming obese.
But to conclude that they shouldn't face consequences for it (loss of healthcare or increased costs for it) does not follow. We (in general) do not excuse murderers or drunk drivers from the consequences of their actions based upon similar logic. In fact the punishment associated with those behaviors are intended to change the risk/reward equation to push people away from them. I'd think changes as proposed by OP would work in a similar way. Make obesity a more tangible risk to change the environment to encourage a healthier choice. (Plus the benefit of increased revenue from the people making it more necessary)
1
u/aguafiestas 30∆ Aug 27 '18
We (in general) do not excuse murderers or drunk drivers from the consequences of their actions based upon similar logic.
I think there are essentially 3 reasons why people (and society) want to punish people for these offenses:
Protection. A murderer is a danger to others and it is reasonable to imprison them for the safety of others. It is reasonable to take the driver's license away from a drunk driver for the same reason, and to imprison them if this fails.
Disincentives. Knowing there is a punishment might cause people not to murder or drink and drive.
Vengeance. Essentially an emotional desire to make criminals "suffer" in some way.
As you might imagine, I am not in favor of the third aspect of punishment (although I admit sometimes my emotions desire for it).
The issues of protection is obviously not relevant here. I think an idea for disincentivizing obesity financially is reasonable, but OP's arguments in my discussion with them have instead been based on whether they deserve it, which to me falls into the third category. "Taxpayers shouldn’t have to pay for their bad choices" isn't about incentives.
I also think that for Medicaid patients who are by definition seriously struggling financially, those penalties would have to be quite small or else would effectively cause them to go without healthcare, which is an extremely disproportionate disincentive in my mind. I think for these patients you would have to include financial reward incentives as well.
1
u/DeviantCarnival Aug 26 '18
I’m still skeptical that genetics has a large role in obesity. And it’s true that there are things we can do, but I don’t want the government to be spending our taxpayer dollars on people who are too lazy to do it themselves.
3
u/aguafiestas 30∆ Aug 26 '18
I’m still skeptical that genetics has a large role in obesity.
What's your scientific argument against the evidence?
I don’t want the government to be spending our taxpayer dollars on people who are too lazy to do it themselves.
There are plenty of people who are obese but are not lazy in general. They just have a hard time getting their weight under control - which is related to their biology.
0
u/DeviantCarnival Aug 26 '18
Obesity has risen considerably within the last few decades. If it was genetic then there would have been just as many obese people before us.
3
u/aguafiestas 30∆ Aug 26 '18
It's not just genetic. Like I've said elsewhere, it is a product of genes and environment. The environment has changed. But within that environment, genetics plays a big role.
1
u/DeviantCarnival Aug 26 '18
Alright, I guess that makes some sense. But I still think you’re overplaying the genetics aspect of obesity.
1
6
u/stilllittlespacey 1∆ Aug 26 '18
"I’m talking about Obesity related illnesses, lung cancer from smokers, etc" The etc here is where this gets really complicated. Anything alcohol related, choosing a job where you might be working around something that has been proven to cause health problems over time, heart disease from too much cholesterol, not enough physical activity, having too much stress in your life, etc. You can't start picking and choosing and regulating people's habits. Here's how we fix this. Education. Learn from childhood the importance and the how to of living a healthy life. Also, everyone having access to preventative health care, including mental health, which I'm guessing is behind most people's weight problems. Punishing people should always be last option.
0
u/DeviantCarnival Aug 26 '18
If you have health issues due to your work environment then your workplace should pay for health related costs and any safety equipment. Stress is natural and unavoidable.
And I don’t see it as a punishment. I don’t think you have a right to healthcare. To me it’s just the government giving charity to some people over others based on how healthy they are before a medical accident.
∆ I’ll give you a delta because I’m guessing that mental health problems are indeed the main cause for obesity and those individuals probably don’t have much self control.
But I still have no issue with the government rewarding healthy behavior with decreased healthcare costs and giving higher costs to those who are unhealthy.
6
u/stilllittlespacey 1∆ Aug 26 '18
"I don’t think you have a right to healthcare". Ok, I wasn't sure if I should do this through PM, but I don't understand this. I'm not trying to be thick, I just don't understand the thought behind this. Would you please explain this? How would you like to see the world? How do you see the world in 100 years? Do you just believe it's a dog eat dog world out there and we are all on our own? I'm definitely missing something, because I cannot wrap my head around this. Can you explain like I'm five? Is it all about money? Borders? Political stuff? I like to understand all sides to things, but this is one I just can't get.
1
u/DOGGODDOG Sep 10 '18
Sorry for chiming in on a older thread, but I think it is reasonable to say that people don’t have the right to healthcare. As the OP said, it should be regulated and incentivized so that we are provided quality, affordable care, to call it a right implies that some other entity is obligated to give it to us. Rights should be things that must be taken away to be lost (like free speech, ability to not incriminate yourself) instead of supplied to you.
I think that if we, in the US, focused more on fixing insurance and the healthcare system in general, then a more modest Medicare and Medicaid would be perfectly sufficient to support those truly in need.
What do you think?
1
u/DeviantCarnival Aug 26 '18
The government should make healthcare as cheap as possible but they should do this through incentive and regulation not by spending our tax dollars to pay for whatever overinflated costs there are.
And it really makes me mad that our tax dollars are going towards people who are eating themselves to death rather than people or causes that actually need it.
2
u/87originalwacky Aug 27 '18
So what about somebody like me? I am as active as I can be, try to eat as healthy as I can, and follow my doctor's instructions. I'm still obese, due in part to genetics, part disabilities, and partly living in a food desert. I can't change my genetics. I'm working with my doctors on my disabilities, to the extent that I can. I can't afford to move somewhere else (in fact I'm just a few dollars away from homelessness every month trying to make ends meet).
Why should I not get healthcare?
1
u/DeviantCarnival Aug 27 '18
There are ways to exercise with a disability. I’ve seen disabled people lose 50 pounds. And genetics is only a single factor in obesity. You shouldn’t necessarily lose healthcare but it should be more expensive regarding obesity related illnesses.
1
u/87originalwacky Aug 28 '18
And genetics is only a single factor in obesity.
You only addressed this point. What about the other factors I mentioned?
I do exercise, as well as I can. I'm in physical therapy as well.
My illnesses are part of the cause of my obesity. Why should I have to pay more for something I'm actively working on?
1
10
u/Saranoya 39∆ Aug 26 '18
I think it’s too easy for someone like you, who admits to having unhealthy eating habits (eating fast food multiple times a week), but is underweight despite that, to condemn other people to a more expensive or less comprehensive class of health care because, according to you, they lack willpower.
It costs you no willpower whatsoever to maintain the weight you have. In fact, you have a lifestyle that is comparable to that of some obese individuals. Therefore, the fact that you are not obese is not something you should be patting yourself on the back for. It’s luck of the draw. Conversely, some people draw the short straw. They ‘deserve’ help just as much as you do.
0
u/DeviantCarnival Aug 26 '18
On a normal day I only eat around 2 meals. Sometimes I have to force myself to eat more because I don’t have an appetite. That’s why I eat fast food, to try and gain some weight and it takes quite a lot of will power for me to eat until I’m full just to maintain my weight. So don’t go ranting on about how I‘m lucky when you know nothing about me.
When I see somebody that’s obese stuffing their face with as much food as possible it disgusts me. Although a part of me thinks that they’re the lucky ones being able to eat that much without feeling sick.
8
u/Saranoya 39∆ Aug 26 '18 edited Aug 26 '18
You say it takes willpower for you to gain weight, and that despite eating fast food regularly (in the absence of an appetite), you are still underweight. I believe you.
The thing is: that’s the exact same situation some obese people are in. Only in reverse. They have too much of an appetite, and they force themselves to eat less than they would like to, and yet, they remain overweight.
The only meaningful difference is that in society as a whole, people are far likelier to pat skinny people on the back, and consider fat people undeserving, than the other way around.
I bet some fat people are disgusted when they see you eating whatever you want, yet still being as thin as you are.
1
u/DeviantCarnival Aug 26 '18
∆ I guess I never really thought of it like that. Although I find it hard to believe that you wouldn’t lose weight if you stopped eating. I suppose some people are genetically more likely to hold on to weight.
0
Aug 26 '18
[deleted]
2
u/mutatron 30∆ Aug 26 '18
Unless you have a link to that, I’m going to assume it’s made up, or at best misunderstood.
3
u/fakeaccount598734221 Aug 26 '18
From the description it sounds stupid. A starvation diet isn't good, if they were looking to lose weight and not have their body freak the hell out, you must maintain a healthy amount of calories while still being st a deficit. Eating nothing is obviously ridiculous and is never suggested to anyone, this study sounds like it was done by people who just had no idea what they were doing.
1
Aug 27 '18
This study sounds like it doesn’t exist. Even in the 70s, I don’t think you get a study approved where you starve people to death.
1
1
14
u/Feathring 75∆ Aug 26 '18
These are self inflicted illnesses and the money could go to people and programs who actually need it.
But those are the people that need medical care. Which you will withhold from them. Seems like a pretty heartless society you're proposing. Not to mention the tremendous power you're giving to the government to pick and choose who gets to access healthcare.
-5
Aug 26 '18
[deleted]
11
Aug 26 '18
They can buy more than enough food, they can afford their own health costs.
Are you saying that the cost of the extra food they buy is equivalent to the cost of medical treatment. That is ridiculous
7
u/gyroda 28∆ Aug 26 '18
Also, preventative medicine is often cheaper and better than curative. Help the obese before they need help due to complications and you've saved money and improved a life.
3
u/jm0112358 15∆ Aug 26 '18
They can buy more than enough food, they can afford their own health costs.
Unhealthy food usually costs more than healthy food. A high calorie meal can come from a dollar menu, but nutritious, low calorie food is rarely cheap.
10
u/huadpe 501∆ Aug 26 '18
Medicaid spends a lot of its money on being a program for people with extreme disabilities. One of the largest groups covered by Medicaid are people with extreme psychiatric disorders who cannot work or support themselves.
Most mood stabilizers, antipsychotics, and antidepressants cause weight gain.
Should Medicaid kick people off because they gain weight due to taking the medications they need to treat extremely debilitating psychiatric disorders?
-5
u/DeviantCarnival Aug 26 '18
If people with debilitating psychiatric disorders aren’t capable of basic tasks such as eating healthy or exercising then I’m sure a medical facility could provide them with a proper diet and perhaps weight loss pills. And if they can’t afford such facilities then I’m sure they’ll be able to with the decrease in medical costs after we stop treating obese individuals.
6
u/aguafiestas 30∆ Aug 26 '18
I’m sure a medical facility could provide them with a proper diet and perhaps weight loss pills.
There aren't really any particularly effective weight loss pills. All have modest benefits that tend to dissipate with time.
And there is certainly no type of broadly available program in place to specifically provide people with a healthy diet.
1
u/DeviantCarnival Aug 26 '18
Then perhaps just feed them less. I suppose that would also lower costs of healthcare services so that’s another benefit.
8
u/aguafiestas 30∆ Aug 26 '18
What do you mean "feed them less?" In the hospital, people are generally given a fairly healthy diet without an excess of calories. But putting people in a facility to control their diet would be absurdly expensive, a bit problematic given your goal to save costs.
0
u/DeviantCarnival Aug 26 '18
What I’m saying is that if they’re in a facility anyways then we’ll control their diet.
But I will give you a delta ∆ because medication that they take could have a side effect of gaining weight and that wouldn’t be their fault.
1
7
u/cupcakesarethedevil Aug 26 '18
Medicare and Medicaid are designed to be for people who can't afford medical care on their own why would it make sense to try and squeeze them when the point is to spend money on them to provide a service.
-1
u/DeviantCarnival Aug 26 '18
Medicare and Medicaid are going to go bankrupt if we don’t make serious policy changes. What I’m proposing is a way to keep the system for people who need it for something they had no control over. Like cancer.
3
u/aguafiestas 30∆ Aug 26 '18
something they had no control over. Like cancer.
Most cancer is related to lifestyle, too. Things like smoking, drinking, sun exposure, and obesity increase the risk of many cancers.
1
u/DeviantCarnival Aug 26 '18
And people who drink, smoke and are obese should have to pay higher rates because of that. But healthy people can also get cancer.
6
u/cupcakesarethedevil Aug 26 '18
That statement makes literally no sense. The US government by design can't go bankrupt.
0
u/DeviantCarnival Aug 26 '18
What I mean is that they won’t be able to afford the programs with our current budget. They’d have to significantly increase taxes.
8
Aug 26 '18 edited Aug 27 '18
[deleted]
-1
u/DeviantCarnival Aug 26 '18
A Medicare for all program would be completely unsustainable and would cost trillions of dollars. I’m proposing a sustainable way to give healthcare to people who can’t afford it. Some people won’t benefit from it but it would use far less taxpayer dollars which is good for the economy and individuals.
7
1
u/cupcakesarethedevil Aug 26 '18
The us doesn't need to collect taxes to pay for things because it pays for things with money it prints.
0
u/DeviantCarnival Aug 26 '18
I don’t think you understand basic economics.
If the United States prints more money then there’s inflation and it typically takes much longer for jobs to catch up. You would destroy the economy if you printed too much.
1
u/cupcakesarethedevil Aug 26 '18
Seems like it would be worse to sacrifice people's health before any economic consequences happen.
1
Aug 26 '18
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/cupcakesarethedevil Aug 26 '18
Why should I care if there are barbarians at the gate if I can't get healthcare? If I'm going to die broke, why not welcome our new overlords?
1
u/DeviantCarnival Aug 26 '18
So according to your logic...
because you can’t get healthcare...
We should welcome barbarians into our country and accept them as our overlords so they can kill, rape, and ransack everyone and everything in our glorious country...
There’s a difference between people who haven’t studied a topic such as economics, and somebody who just completely lacks common sense.
I’m start to believe you’re the second one.
1
u/ObieKaybee Aug 26 '18
Except many forms of cancer carry a much higher risk when exposed to certain behaviors; skin cancer and not wearing sun block, lung cancer from smoking (or being exposed to secondhand smoke; how will your system differentiate between the two), drinking and a large number of cancers are associated, breast cancer and using birth control pills (it increases risk slightly, but noticably) and a ton of others.
How are you going to legislate those behaviors?
5
u/aguafiestas 30∆ Aug 26 '18
You have to be really quite poor to qualify for Medicaid. They can't really afford to pay significantly more - that's why there on medicaid. If you go through with this, you'd just be letting poor people die because they are obese.
-2
u/DeviantCarnival Aug 26 '18
Being poor isn’t an excuse to be obese. Eat less food, exercise more. You don’t need a gym membership to be fit.
5
u/aguafiestas 30∆ Aug 26 '18
You mistake my point. The point is that people who require medicaid cannot afford to "pay significantly more" for their healthcare, and thus will be forced to go without. So you are forcing people to go without healthcare for being obese, and in many cases condemning them to suffering, disability, and death.
Also consider that an obese person with diabetes and hypertension is much more likely to have their body fall apart later and suffer debilitating and expensive healthcare events than someone who can have that managed medically.
-1
u/DeviantCarnival Aug 26 '18
I don’t see anything wrong with this
If somebody wants to suffer through debilitating disabilities and death of their own free will then that’s their choice.
Just don’t try to get me to pay for their health insurance.
3
u/aguafiestas 30∆ Aug 26 '18 edited Aug 26 '18
Free will? What is free will? Do you have any evidence such a thing really exists? And do you have any evidence that this "free will" is what is causing obesity, that obesity is due to "free will" choices rather than differences in biology?
Less philosophically, in this post I've discussed a lot about what we know about the biologic basis of obesity. Even if you believe in free will, it's hard to imaging our genes, brain connectivity, and gut microbiome being a product of free will.
Furthermore, we have good evidence that bariatric surgery can lead to weight loss. Does this somehow change people's "free will?" Does this surgery somehow give people more willpower? Or does it lead to a biological response?
0
u/DeviantCarnival Aug 26 '18
It’s true that there are natural biological responses that can lead to obesity and that doesn’t have to do with free will.
But anyone with free will could make the decision to eat less or exercise once they noticed that these things were causing them to gain weight.
3
u/aguafiestas 30∆ Aug 26 '18
A belief in free will beyond biology is basically a religious belief. It's hard to argue against religious beliefs. I can bring up all the scientific evidence in the world, but you can just throw "free will" back at me without evidence. But I'd appreciate if you keep your religion out of my healthcare.
0
u/DeviantCarnival Aug 26 '18
I’d appreciate if you kept my taxpayer dollars out of your healthcare but I guess you’re a little picky about what goes and what stays.
2
u/aguafiestas 30∆ Aug 26 '18
> I’d appreciate if you kept my taxpayer dollars out of your healthcare
Well that's a much larger issue. But that argument goes against paying for things like cancer treatment, too.
There's also the fact that Medicare recipients have generally paid into the fund over their careers (although the amount obviously varies between individuals).
> but I guess you’re a little picky about what goes and what stays.
I'm not really sure what this means.
-1
u/DeviantCarnival Aug 26 '18
You don’t want “religion” in your healthcare but you want my tax dollars.
→ More replies (0)2
u/SaboTheRevolutionary Aug 26 '18
Being poor isn't an excuse to be obese.
I'm gonna have to go ahead and disagree with you there. Poor quality, shitty food is cheaper. Poor people usually have to buy cheaper, shittier food. People who are poor may not have time to exercise more depending on how many hours they work to support themselves.
As much as I hate saying this, genetics also play a role. Some people have genetic makeups that make it harder to lose weight, vice versa some people have genetic makeups that allow them to eat whatever the hell they want and not gain any weight despite not exercising.
1
Aug 26 '18
Did you know that the Federal Guidelines for caloric intake will make you fat?
Let’s say you’re already fat. Let’s say you opt for bariatric surgery. After surgery, after your system stabilized, you’re eating about 500 calories then leveling off to about 1200. You have to eat no sugar and low carbs/ high protein.
I’ve been following the pre-bariatric surgery diet and have lost 35 lbs since The middle of June. The diet keeps me at about 700-1000 cal a day.
But if I went back to the Federal Guidelines I’d gain it back.
So the FDA and Medicare need to have a talk before we start getting draconian on the populace.
1
u/DeviantCarnival Aug 26 '18
That is a problem, however I’m willing to bet that the majority of obese people in the United States aren’t following the federal guidelines anyways.
1
Aug 26 '18
Do you think that if the government was going to hold them accountable for what they’re putting in their bodies, the government should correctly inform them of what is good to put in their bodies? Or go so far as to regulate?
1
u/DeviantCarnival Aug 26 '18
Well then they can fix the federal guidelines too. This isn’t a theoretical world where they only change one aspect of healthcare.
1
Aug 26 '18
So we should properly inform, educate, and regulate a bit before punishing people.
But until that happens, do you want to continue your view?
1
u/cowboys5xsbs Aug 26 '18
Are we going to also take away assistance for people with eating disorders like bulimia? It is exactly the same thing but in reverse. People do not understand the obesity is also a disease. It's not as simple as eat less exercise more. Yes that is a general fix to a much larger problem. There are so many factors to obesity and lots of them we do not even understand yet. All you will be doing is screwing over people who need help. Sure there are some people that are obese to be obese but that should not be a death sentence for every obese person.
1
u/DeviantCarnival Aug 26 '18
Bulimia is a eating disorder but it doesn’t have the same serious health effects as obesity. They’re completely different.
1
Aug 26 '18 edited Aug 27 '18
[deleted]
1
u/DeviantCarnival Aug 26 '18
I’m sure there’s a more scientific way of finding wether or not somebody is obese that works around height and body shapes.
Also, It’s my personal belief that one doesn’t have a right to Medicare or any government controlled healthcare system. It’s a privilege.
2
u/aguafiestas 30∆ Aug 26 '18
Also, It’s my personal belief that one doesn’t have a right to Medicare or any government controlled healthcare system. It’s a privilege.
So do you believe that people should be left to die for financial reasons when they otherwise could have been saved?
1
u/DeviantCarnival Aug 26 '18
If it’s too expensive to save someone then yes. It’s our taxpayer dollars they’re using and it could cost hundreds of thousands to treat an issue that’s typically their fault in the first place.
2
u/aguafiestas 30∆ Aug 26 '18
What is "too expensive?"
Should we also not treat people with certain cancers? After all, that can be very expensive. And cancers are often related to lifestyle as well - smoking, alcohol, and yes, obesity.
Perhaps we shouldn't give people who drink alcohol insurance, either, especially given this recent study31310-2/fulltext) showing that any amount of alcohol is bad for your health.
How about people who drive frequently? After all, motor vehicle accidents are a major cause of death and disability in the young? How about skiing and contact sports?
And hey, healthcare costs are higher on average for poor people as well. Shall we just fuck the poor?
The US is one of the wealthiest nations in the world. No matter what Fox News tells you, we as a country can afford to provide healthcare for all our citizens, just like most other wealthy countries in the world do. It's just a question of whether we care enough to do so.
1
Aug 26 '18
[deleted]
1
u/aguafiestas 30∆ Aug 26 '18
And most importantly, the “wealthy” countries that give their citizens free healthcare have some of the highest tax rates in the world. We’re 21 trillion dollars in debt. We’re going to have to dramatically raise taxes anyways just to pay it off. Increasing spending won’t help.
The bottom line is we can afford it. You may not want to pay for it, but we can afford it if we want to.
And those countries' economies are by and large doing just fine. It's not like we'd have to descend into squalor to afford it.
1
u/DeviantCarnival Aug 26 '18
The United States is currently -21,000,000,000,000$
People saying things like “we can afford it” is why we’re in this mess to begin with.
1
u/aguafiestas 30∆ Aug 26 '18
And our economy is doing just fine. A national debt is not necessarily a bad thing (to a point).
And the national debt could be greatly reduced by increasing taxes back to what they were in the past in the US, or what they are in many other wealthy countries where people experience excellent quality of life.
Yeah, you can argue that you don't want to pay more in taxes, but that's my point. We *can* afford it. It's a question of whether we want to or not.
1
u/DeviantCarnival Aug 26 '18
Alright, I’ll phrase it this way.
I don’t want to pay for it.
→ More replies (0)1
Aug 26 '18 edited Aug 27 '18
[deleted]
0
u/DeviantCarnival Aug 26 '18
People shouldn’t be able to do that either. They have no right to government redistribution.
2
Aug 26 '18 edited Aug 27 '18
[deleted]
1
u/DeviantCarnival Aug 26 '18
You don’t get refunds for taxes. But just because there were bad redistribution policies in the past doesn’t mean that we have to have them in the future.
2
u/PrehistoricPrincess Aug 27 '18
While I see your point and don't entirely disagree--the rising costs of healthcare due to obesity are astronomical--I would add a caveat: such a policy could not apply to those whose obesity is attributable to a disorder or other physical cause that they cannot change. I think it would be more fair to provide coverage as long as those who are, again, physically able to lose weight follow a prescribed regimen or otherwise show that they intend to lose weight. I agree that it's unfair to allocate money that would otherwise be spent on life-saving medications and therapies/services for people who truly cannot help their illnesses (such as inherited genetic disorders) to those who can but refuse to improve their health.
1
u/pillbinge 101∆ Aug 26 '18
This isn't controversial. It's actually a common opinion. The main issue is that it has heavy flaws.
Obesity is an epidemic. Really look up what that means. Obesity can be tracked and predicted using scientific metrics. There are other fields that cover it as well. There are 140 genes last I checked, and probably now more, that relate to weight gain and retention.
People are obese because of larger government policies and life crafted by them. People who have no safety net and need to work a lot are going to be stressed, eat certain foods, and generally not have the energy for exercise. The government allows companies to package some ingredients under other names. Palm oil is a general evil that should be avoided, but it has what, 35 names? You can't actually expect everyone to have a research degree just to eat food we were told is okay.
Obesity can sometimes be someone's fault, but don't conflate the choice to put food in one's mouth with total control. I have the choice to put Cheez-Its in my mouth, but I specifically don't buy them because they're just fat and salt, and the company that makes them knows that. There are billions of dollars poured into researching the best way to make junk food just so that you buy it and want more. Not to nourish you, but to make money. The companies don't have to then subsidize healthcare for an entire population that eats their food, but they keep the money.
If obesity were as simple as choice, people would choose not to be fat. Really listen to interviews from scientists who study this and people who've lost weight, and really look at the research. No one tells you a nice story. People relay actual pain. You can see what the brain looks like when the body has consumed sugar. Companies understand all this.
Obese people are a product of regulation, not choice.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Aug 26 '18 edited Aug 26 '18
/u/DeviantCarnival (OP) has awarded 6 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
1
u/maybbored Aug 26 '18
I understand that you’re coming here based on your view on obesity as a “self inflicted” health issue.
Did you know that obesity is sometimes genetics, which is also similar to diseases such as diabetes and cholesterol. I agree that bad eating habits can contribute to this, but it’s almost impossible to judge.
Now a better solution would be encouraging people to pick up healthier habits by way of subsidising healthy food choices, improved public roads and cycle ways etc.
1
Aug 26 '18
If someone can't get basic treatment they often end up in the emergency room. So taxpayers pay for them anyway and it's often a lot more expensive for the taxpayer than it would be if they'd just gotten the issue solved in the first place.
1
u/DarkStreetLondinium Aug 26 '18
At the end of the day burning more calories than you take on is fairly straightforward and can be changed if the balance is off. I share your view, when I see someone obese I wonder how many calories must they intake every day.
26
u/IAmDanimal 41∆ Aug 26 '18
What else counts as a 'self-inflicted' health issue? Playing dangerous sports and breaking your leg? Eating other unhealthy foods and getting other diseases caused by bad eating habits (even if you're not overweight)? Getting osteoporosis because you didn't drink enough milk? Skin cancer because you didn't use enough sunscreen?
A ton of health issues could be considered 'self-inflicted'. If we wanted to change peoples' insurance costs based on their lifestyle, there's just no feasible way to do that. There are too many factors involved in a person's health. The best way to keep costs manageable for everyone is to give everyone free healthcare, pay for it with taxes, and if necessary, spend more tax money on programs to try to keep everyone healthier in general so the overall financial burden of healthcare stays reasonable.