Find me a car insurance company that doesn't charge a higher premium to teenagers. You can't, even though most teenagers will never be in an accident, and many accidents don't involve teenagers. Insurance works that way because in the aggregate, teenagers are much more expensive to insure. Fat people are also more expensive to insure. Why wouldn't it make sense to give them a discount if they lower their cost of being insured? What's more, unlike teenagers and the myriad other people who are discriminated against in car insurance, fat people can actually control whether or not they're eligible for the discount -- teenagers can't make themselves older, men can't turn into women (well, I guess they sort of can, but it's probably not worth it), but fat people can lose weight.

If you want to argue that it would be more effective to measure weight in a different way than BMI or what have you, that's one thing. But unless you have a personal stake, I fail to see how you could object to the principle of the thing.

As he pointed out, about 1/3 of overweight people have no cardiovascular problems -- the should not be penalized simply because of their weight. Similarly, about 1/3 of people who ARE NOT overweight have cardiovascular problems, but they'd be rewarded for their size regardless of their health risk.

Bottom line -- I don't want the government telling me how fat I can be. Putting this amendment into a health care plan would do exactly that.

As the OP mentioned, all teenagers don't get into wrecks, and many non-teens get into accidents all the time. But teenagers cost more to insure because they have a higher likelihood of getting into an accident than non-teenagers, which means that they cost the system more. Either you charge teenagers more, because they cost more... or you charge EVERYONE more, because TEENAGERS cost more.

You're taking a very strange position here. You're saying that when an individual makes a personal choice (being fat, or smoking), he/she should not be asked to pay for that cost individually - but it should instead be socialized and distributed to those who did not make that same costly choice...

That is an EXTREMELY odd stance for you to take.

No-one is saying "you can't be fat". We are saying "Being fat carries a much higher cost, and if you make the decision to be fat we do not want to carry that cost for you, so we will ask you to pay in a little more to cover that extra cost."

There are only two other options:

One would be to say "Well you made a decision to be fat, now you cannot have any insurance."

The other would be to say "We're sorry that you made a choice to be fat, now we'll all have to increase ALL OF OUR costs to accomodate your higher health care costs."

I wouldn't have been surprised had you taken the "no insurance for fatty" option, but I'm SHOCKED that you just want to let fat people be fat and socialize all the additional costs that result from their choices.

Bottom line -- I don't want the government telling me how fat I can be. Putting this amendment into a health care plan would do exactly that.

No, it doesn't do that at all. It would simply say that if you're fat, you have to internalize the costs. There's a big difference between telling you how much you can weigh, and refusing to subsidize the costs of your excessive weight.

In other words, be as fat as you want. Just be ready to cover the bill.

"Being fat carries a much higher cost, and if you make the decision to be fat we do not want to carry that cost for you, so we will ask you to pay in a little more to cover that extra cost."

You have data showing that extra cost? Because unless and until you do you are penalizing the overweight person JUST for being overweight, and not because that person is providing additional risk. Further, under the system that exists today, if an insurance company jacks up my rates because of my weight, I can walk away. I can go to another insurance company, or even elected to do without insurance -- my body, my money, my choice.

Under the bill to which this amendment is being attached, that choice goes away -- I have a mandate, and I MUST have insurance, whether I think the amount charged for it is equitable or not, and whether the rates charged have any bearing on the the experience factors of people of my age/weight/economic status et cetera.

I want maximum freedom for the individual -- that doesn't come out of the legislation as it stands today.

In other words, be as fat as you want. Just be ready to cover the bill.

And I'm happy to do so, so long as I have freedom of choice and the government isn't involved.

Find me a car insurance company that doesn't charge a higher premium to teenagers. You can't, even though most teenagers will never be in an accident, and many accidents don't involve teenagers.

Actually MOST teenagers do get into accidents. Most of them are minor, involving fender benders or clipping a car, but MOST teenagers have accidents, which is why their rates are higher. Even a minor fender bender can cost a couple of thousand in repairs.

Insurance works that way because in the aggregate, teenagers are much more expensive to insure. Fat people are also more expensive to insure. Why wouldn't it make sense to give them a discount if they lower their cost of being insured?

SOME fate people are more expensive to insure. The people who are the most expensive to insure are the elderly, but since they are covered under Medicare and Medicaid, they are out of the battle, and thank goodness for that. I would love to see some skinny asshole explaining to mom and pop why it makes sense for their insurance to cost more just when they go to a fixed income. I would pay a high price for the video of THAT conversation.

What's more, unlike teenagers and the myriad other people who are discriminated against in car insurance, fat people can actually control whether or not they're eligible for the discount -- teenagers can't make themselves older, men can't turn into women (well, I guess they sort of can, but it's probably not worth it), but fat people can lose weight.

Now I know you're making s**t up, because teenagers do indeed get older. Teenagers actually age up faster than an obese person might be able lose enough weight to pay a normal premium. Insurance companies also have some ways to make insurance lower for teens. Both my kids got discounts for high grades and agreeing not to drive at night. It doesn't seem that any such discount will be offered to fat people with normal blood pressure and healthy hearts.

I brought this up on another post and nobody responded, but is the move to tax the fat really motivated by cost effectiveness or disgust? It seems that almost everyone on these posts are assuming that everyone who opposes this measure is fat (I'm not) or just keeps parroting the same tired crap that fat people cost more to insure, which is true if they are already showing symptoms of their weight, such as diabetes and high blood pressure. But penalizing people for what MIGHT happen to them, just because society has decided they are the new undesirables, is a slippery slope.

I would propose imposing the "tax" on fat people only if it seems that the person is doing nothing to change their circumstances. For example, a 21-year-old fat person has just shaken themselves loose, hopefully, of a home that might have taught very bad eating habits. Give them a year of normal premiums. If they actually gain more weight, consider charging more. If they lose weight, keep the premiums at regular rate to encourage more weight loss. This might be a way to encourage a healthy lifestyle if that is really the point, but I'm beginning to think it is not. I'm beginning to think the fat tax is just a punitive measure, born of contempt, not pragmatism.

Neither of the bills that have passed the house have a personal mandate. If you want to do without health insurance, good luck.

I personally am opposed to personal mandates, and always have been, so this is an issue I'm paying attention to. The mandate does seem to be popular in the senate, but we'll have to see what is in the final bill.

However, there is no doubt that being fat (not overweight according to some utterly worthless BMI scale, but FAT according to body fat percentage or waist-to-hips ratios) carries higher health risks and greater health care costs. That has been confirmed by every study that has been done.

Moreover, the fatter a person is, the greater the health care costs and higher the health care risks become.

It's currently estimated that America's expanding girth is responsible for an additional ~160 billion or so dollars in health care costs. While that's not much compared to what we spend, it's growing... As the fat people grow older, their dedicated share of health care issues will rise.

If, in 10 years, the 30% of America that are fat cost America an extra 500 billion dollars in health costs... we will have to decide whether we want to increase THEIR health care costs by 50% to pay for that increase or whether we want to increase our health costs (and theirs) by 18%... Since it's THEIR lifestyle choice that costs extra, I favor asking them to pay up.

*shrug*

Not disgust with fat people.

I'm fat, and have been most of my life (with a brief period of bodybuilding in between periods of being a fatass). My wife is fat. We both recognize where we are in life, and are working to fix it.

What disgusts me is not fat people. It's simpering PC excuse-making, enabling, assholes that are convinced that no one is responsible for their own choices... and no one should have to be held accountable for those choices.

I'm fat because I ate too much and didn't excercise enough. If you try to condescend towards me and tell me "it's not your FAWWT!!! YOU JUST A BIG BOOOOYYYY!! YESS YOU IIISSS..."

My instinct would honestly be to kill you. Fortunately for you, I'm an adult, NOT a baby (regardless of what you think), and I have the capacity of choosing not to follow my instincts. I also recognise that as an adult I SHOULD be held responsible for my choices... and I do not want the consequences of violence.

So instead of killing you, I merely say that you are a completely disgusting person, who I detest. I do not need your protection, your defense, and I certainly don't need you to absorb the consequences of my choices for me so I can continue to make bad choices.

It's not disgust with fat people, it's disgust with PC idiocy which results in the tone that you so disparage.

I don't hate fat people. I hate you for your view that fat people are too weak to be anything else and too immature to be held accountable. I hate you for belittling me.

There. Now you're answered.

quidfecisti:

Find me a car insurance company that doesn't charge a higher premium to teenagers. You can't, even though most teenagers will never be in an accident, and many accidents don't involve teenagers. Insurance works that way because in the aggregate, teenagers are much more expensive to insure. Fat people are also more expensive to insure. Why wouldn't it make sense to give them a discount if they lower their cost of being insured? What's more, unlike teenagers and the myriad other people who are discriminated against in car insurance, fat people can actually control whether or not they're eligible for the discount -- teenagers can't make themselves older, men can't turn into women (well, I guess they sort of can, but it's probably not worth it), but fat people can lose weight.

I think the difference is that for the vast majority of us, we buy auto insurance as an individual but buy health insurance as part of a group plan.

I have no moral objections to charging fat people more when they have their own policies but I am worried that if companies can start charging individuals in a group plan based on risk factors, it will just gradually erode the inherent individual protections that you get when you're part of a group.

Tundrayeti:

Neither of the bills that have passed the house have a personal mandate. If you want to do without health insurance, good luck.

I personally am opposed to personal mandates, and always have been, so this is an issue I'm paying attention to. The mandate does seem to be popular in the senate, but we'll have to see what is in the final bill.

In theory, I do oppose the idea of a personal mandate. However, it is really the only compromise possible if Congress mandates insurers to provide coverage to everyone at a price irregardless of pre-existing conditions. Otherwise, you could just go without insurance and wait until you are sick/injured and then get coverage.

As long as health care providers are required by federal law to provide stabilizing care to everyone, regardless of their ability to pay, I think it's reasonable to require a coverage mandate.

Tundrayeti, you might be fat because you did eat too much. It is commendable that you recognize the causes of your specific case. However, we are talking about appearance here. The key is the ratio of fat to muscle. Some people appear overweight but they are in better shape than some other people who are really skinny.

The key is lifestyle, not appearance. I hope you pick lifestyle (eating a healthy diet and exercising) over starvation regimes which have been proven to only make your body more efficient at storing calories, so that you can eat less and less and still gain or retain weight. And don't forget to work at improving your self image, which as we know has nothing to do with actual weight (just ask any anorexic --and we do know that anorexia has now also reached epidemic proportions and it now also affects males. Anorexia will kill you by destroying your organs --and that will be an expensive death)

But penalizing people for what MIGHT happen to them, just because society has decided they are the new undesirables, is a slippery slope.

"Penalizing" people (through higher premiums) for what might happen to them (based on their risk factors) is what actuarial science and insurance is all about. As long as these "penalties" are based on sound actuarial science, I see nothing unfair about it, and I fail to see the slippery slope.

Despite my spate of poor lifestyle choices over the last two years, I actually am very well informed concerning health topics.

When I finally decided I was tired of being fat (this was in 2005), I began a 4-hour/day workout regimen (1 hour in the morning, 30 minutes at lunch, 2 1/2 hours in the evening). The workout routines were divided roughly half cardio/half resistance training.

I combined that with a strict nutrition regimen that included 185 grams of protein/day, 2000 mg of omega 3s/day, a multivitamin, calcium suppliment, 2000 calories (6 meals), at least 5 servings of veggies, etc.

I lost 90 pounds in 7 months, then shifted my diet to 4500+ calories/day and changed my workout to ~80% resistance training, and gained 15 pounds over the next 4 months (while losing an additional 2 inches in my waistline).

(The most important thing is to keep yourself from over-dieting if you don't eat enough, your body shifts into starvation mode, and you will NOT be able to lose weight... I guarantee that a woman consuming 1500 calories/day or a man consuming 2000 calories/day through 6 small meals/day will absolutely lose weight more quickly than a person on a complete water fast - and the person on the water fast will break down muscle and hold onto fat reserves, making them less healthy overall).

I'm not a good candidate for anorexia. I am, however, vulnerable to food addiction. When I had reconstructive surgery on my knee (I had a trick knee since 2003 - when I was 270 pounds - which went out every couple of months... one day, while playing in a park my knee went out and shredded my miniscus... and I had to get the knee reconstructed), there were several complications with the surgery which left me bedridden for months, during which time I gained at least 35 pounds of fat (and lost at least 5 pounds of muscle). When I started walking again, I was working towards getting married, which kept my fiancé (now wife) and I from the gym (too busy)... then the entire bottome fell out of the economy, and our economic stress has been through the roof - as this all happened right after we maxed out the credit for our wedding/honeymoon...

So we've plumped out a bit... because we've made some stupid choices... and in part this was prolonged by the confidence that we both had we could lose all the weight again in a few months anyway... (we'd lost well over 200 pounds between us in 7 months). So we waited a while, and indulged in stupid choices. Now we have less stress, we know we won't be losing the house, and we can focus a little more energy on health again.

I should be ready to compete in regional bodybuilding next year... I've made some dumb choices over the last 2 years, I'm making smarter choices again now.

*shrug*

It's not rocket science, and not a question of esteem. I'm an adult, and made choices as an adult that rendered me fat... Now I'm making different choices which will make me healthy. The only thing that truly diminishes me is pandering and condescending attitudes of "you can't help it" or "you're still not unhealthy", or whatever other nonsense my family and some of my friends regrettably voice. That is not true, not helpful, and unlike an honest reference to my unhealthy obesity these attitudes are EXTREMELY insulting - insinuating that I'm some kind of pathetic weakling that can't handle reality.

:)

Thanks for your concern though.

You are assuming that all fat people are that way because of their lifestyle/habits. What about people with thyroid/hormonal issues who gain weight despite their best efforts? What about certain pacific islander who are genetically disposed to be rather heavyset?