Will Universal Health Care Be Bad For The Obese?

9 Responses to “Will Universal Health Care Be Bad For The Obese?”

1. Mike Samoose writes
   July 20th, 2009 9:02 pm

   …or who smokes 2 packs a day, drinks like a fish and stays drunk all the time or engages in illicit behavior, yeah this universal health care is a great idea…i need a cigarette

2. Brawndo the Thirst Mutilator writes
   July 21st, 2009 10:02 am

   Katherine, give your fellow Americans a little credit for having more compassion and decency than the average tea partier. Most people have a great deal of compassion for those battling obesity, behavior-related or not.

   What I don’t see is why you think that obese fare so well in the current health insurance system. Outside of a employer-based group plan, the obese have very few insurance options, especially if they’re battling hypertension, heart disease, or diabetes at the time they are applying for coverage. If they can get a private “personalized” plan, they’re most likely getting a limited-benefit, high-premium, high-deductible plan with pre-existing condition riders that render the policy practically useless.

   At least with group coverage, an obese person cannot be denied coverage and cannot have it rescinded. And if you’re worried that healthy people will somehow resent that they’re paying for an obese person’s diabetes meds … a larger risk pool means lower insurance rates for them too. My family and I are in a group plan, are pretty healthy, and we’re getting lower rates than what we could with a private “personalized” plan too. We’re effectively paying for plenty of people’s meds through our group plan and are happy to do so. We might need the favor returned to us later in life.

   This group plan idea is the best model for a universal health insurance system, IMO. I think it’s what the White House is trying to achieve ina way, although I disagree with how they’re doing it. I’m personally a fan of the Swiss plan that keeps all elements of health care private and puts sensible regulations on consumers and insurance companies. bit.ly/yhfDq Think of it as a large geography-based group plan, only with competition among insurers.

   One thing is for sure. The current system where insurance bureaucrats control health care, deny benefit, and rescind at will is not working.

3. Mack writes
   July 21st, 2009 10:27 am

   We’re effectively paying for plenty of people’s meds through our group plan and are happy to do so. We might need the favor returned to us later in life.

   There it is. The trick, i think, is to battle resentment if you don’t ever need the favor returned. Not just with group health, but in all aspects of civilization. The Ayn Rand disciples will scream about ANY contribution they are expected to make toward the collective. Thankfully, most of them outgrow this by their senior year…

   And, yes, the obese, the smokers, those that live a completely sedentary life will tax the system more. I cannot think of a single solution to this short of continuing education about diet and exercise, among other things. So, there will be victimized sub-groups. Always.

4. Brawndo the Thirst Mutilator writes
   July 21st, 2009 10:47 am

   “I cannot think of a single solution to this short of continuing education about diet and exercise, among other things.”

   I often wonder how many of the health issues facing Americans today could have been headed off early by regular checkups. Preventative care is almost always cheaper than treating an ailment later on down the road.

   As a side note, there is an aspect where the current health insurance system discourages regular checkups and early diagnosis. If a person worries about losing his job (and by extension, his health insurance), he might forgo a test or checkup for fear being diagnosed with something like diabetes. If the person loses his job and his insurance, he may be forced into the individual “personalized” policy market, where he’d either be wholly uninsurable or socked with one of those practically useless policies I mentioned above.

   This may come as a surprise to the Randians, but not every health issue is a matter of personal responsibility, either.

5. Brawndo the Thirst Mutilator writes
   July 21st, 2009 10:54 am

   Slight correction to the above post:

   If the person gets diagnosed with diabetes, for instance, and loses his job and his insurance, he may be forced into the individual “personalized” policy market with a pre-existing condition, where he’d either be wholly uninsurable or socked with one of those practically useless policies I mentioned above.

6. Mack writes
   July 21st, 2009 11:11 am

   Brawndo, agreed. The continuing education shouldn’t be limited to the general public. Absolutely, early care is well worth the investment.

   I’m just floored that employers are expected to bear the brunt of their employee’s health care costs. This might be an area that gets me in hot water with my fellow Libs, but it seems unfair for small business owners to have to provide for, and administer the labyrinth that is today’s health care system to attract and retain good employees.

7. Brawndo the Thirst Mutilator writes
   July 21st, 2009 1:28 pm

   I tend to agree, Mack. The employer mandates that are being proposed are downright destructive. Businesses need to be able to concentrate on their core business instead of managing health care bennies for their employees. Think about the overhead expenses that can be reduced if companies in the US can eliminate health insurance expenses and get rid of an entire department of health care administrators in their company. Eliminating this overhead would also go a long way toward making out products competitive in the global marketplace, since health care costs would no longer be factored into prices.

   You hit on the other aspect of what health care does to the economy. Mature, increasingly inefficient firms maintain the edge in attracting and retaining talent, while smaller, more productive firms have a tough time getting the talent they need to grow and take on larger competitors. It’s a very inefficient distribution of labor that inhibits competition and ultimately the economy’s ability to withstand recession.

8. TNVolunteer73 writes
   July 22nd, 2009 11:25 am

   Maybe this is they the FAT CATs in Congress, do not want to be covered by this plan.

   They get to keep their Healthcare plan that unlike their Congressional plan would force Ted Kennedy to die, and just receive “end of life counseling”

9. JudyK writes
   July 27th, 2009 4:19 pm

   Under Obama care there won’t be nursing homes anymore. There will be hemlock houses. Under Obama care, the very old, the very fat and the very sick will be considered “extraneous eaters” and will be euthanized.