I always thought that insurance companies would be the ones to force change in the arenas of health issues. Being obese is extremely unhealthy, as is say smoking. I'm surprised that some company hasn't already said, you smoke? You're a big fat fatty? Your insurance going to go up exponentially, but if you weren't so fat, and you quit smoking it'll go down. Hell, we'll even help you out.

""I'm big and beautiful and doing my best to keep my stress levels down so I can stay healthy," Daufin said. "That's big, not lazy, not a glutton and certainly not deserving of the pompous, poisonous disrespect served up daily to those of us with more bounce to the ounce.""

She has a way with words, much like she has with food I imagine.

altxatu: I always thought that insurance companies would be the ones to force change in the arenas of health issues. Being obese is extremely unhealthy, as is say smoking. I'm surprised that some company hasn't already said, you smoke? You're a big fat fatty? Your insurance going to go up exponentially, but if you weren't so fat, and you quit smoking it'll go down. Hell, we'll even help you out.

oh yes, let's have corporations telling us all how to live, how to look and forcing us to be healthy...or else.

America, land of the free and home of the brave indeed.

Good.

You have every right to eat what you want and be as fat as you want, but it's idiotic to expect your health care costs to be the same as someone who eats healthy and exercises.

"I'm big and beautiful and doing my best to keep my stress levels down so I can stay healthy," Daufin said. "That's big, not lazy, not a glutton and certainly not deserving of the pompous, poisonous disrespect served up daily to those of us with more bounce to the ounce."

What a poetic spin to "I'm fat." It's disrespect because you're attempting to justify an obese lifestyle as OK. It's not.

Nobody is required to respect your body weight, be it skinny or fat. If you're unhappy with the way people are treating you, perhaps you should do something about it - not sit back and call yourself beautiful and demand people love an overweight lifestyle.

Fellows: Nobody is required to respect your body weight, be it skinny or fat. If you're unhappy with the way people are treating you, perhaps you should do something about it - not sit back and call yourself beautiful and demand people love an overweight lifestyle.

And if you don't look like everyone else or do what the company tells you do to, you get to pay a fine.

Weaver95: And if you don't look like everyone else or do what the company tells you do to, you get to pay a fine.

No, if you make decisions that are proven to be harmful and expect someone else to take care of you when those decisions take effect, you get to pay a fine.

platkat: Weaver95: And if you don't look like everyone else or do what the company tells you do to, you get to pay a fine.

No, if you make decisions that are proven to be harmful and expect someone else to take care of you when those decisions take effect, you get to pay a fine.

once we all look alike, think alike, sound alike, act alike - then we'll be free to explore our individuality.....

I get it. I really do. I'm sure lots of people will make up lots of arguments as to why it's a 'good idea' to crack down on those 'unhealthy lifestyles people', but deep down it's all about enforcing a draconian social order. The fact that they want to use corporate control rather than straight up government control is largely immaterial. If we aren't free to be stupid, we aren't really 'free'.

Weaver95: And if you don't look like everyone else or do what the company tells you do to, you get to pay a fine.

We're talking health care premiums here, not employment fines.

You're trying to play the slippery slope game but your points are way off base.

Weaver95: The fact that they want to use corporate control rather than straight up government control is largely immaterial. If we aren't free to be stupid, we aren't really 'free'.

You're free to be as stupid as you like, just don't expect other people to shoulder the cost of your stupidity.

Weaver95: platkat: Weaver95: And if you don't look like everyone else or do what the company tells you do to, you get to pay a fine.

No, if you make decisions that are proven to be harmful and expect someone else to take care of you when those decisions take effect, you get to pay a fine.

once we all look alike, think alike, sound alike, act alike - then we'll be free to explore our individuality.....

I get it. I really do. I'm sure lots of people will make up lots of arguments as to why it's a 'good idea' to crack down on those 'unhealthy lifestyles people', but deep down it's all about enforcing a draconian social order. The fact that they want to use corporate control rather than straight up government control is largely immaterial. If we aren't free to be stupid, we aren't really 'free'.

I think you have it in your head that the state wants everyone to be the same and follow what is ultimately some dictatorship. As long as you feel that way, I don't think you will "get it."

I don't think this rule was created with the malice you're suggesting. People need to take more responsibility for their health. As long as they get free healthcare, they're not going to be motivated to make a positive change. Also, the state never told anyone to stop eating the foods they like and living the lifestyle they want. They just don't want to be responsible for people who aren't responsible for themselves.

Fellows: Weaver95: The fact that they want to use corporate control rather than straight up government control is largely immaterial. If we aren't free to be stupid, we aren't really 'free'.

You're free to be as stupid as you like, just don't expect other people to shoulder the cost of your stupidity.

why not? A bunch of people made a bunch of bad housing loans and the government stepped in and bailed them out. So the argument about 'shouldering the cost of stupidity' is a wash. we did it before, we'll do it again.

Haven't they shown that healthy people put more financial strain on the health care system than the fatties? They live until they get them there cancers and maintenance illnesses and shiat while the fatties go out at younger ages, with heart attacks and the like.

platkat: Also, the state never told anyone to stop eating the foods they like and living the lifestyle they want. They just don't want to be responsible for people who aren't responsible for themselves.

we've spent YEARS telling people EXACTLY that very thing - don't be responsible for yourselves, the government will bail you out. Corporations will pick up the tab. spend more, max out the credit cards, eat like pigs, drive an H2 to soccer practice....live in the now, ignore the consequences. Our entire modern society (and government) *depends* on us not thinking ahead.

You can't spend decades telling people to ignore the consequences of their lifestyles and then yank the rug out from under 'em like that. we allowed this society to develop along these lines. This is a conseqences of our actions. Suck it up and just pay for the fatties.

So, will the state's motorcyclists, rock climbers, private pilots, hunters, and everyone else who doesn't hibernate in a bubble-wrap cocoon be subject to similar added premiums?

I mean, I don't ride a motorcycle, so I don't see why I should be expected to pick up the tab when some guy turns himself into sausage and expects doctors to put him back together again.

This sort of logic is and always has been bullshiat and will simply be leveraged for control over people's lives.

Fellows: Good.

You have every right to eat what you want and be as fat as you want, but it's idiotic to expect your health care costs to be the same as someone who eats healthy and exercises.

Whatever happened to universal health care where glorious government for make benefit of peoples lives?

Fat people die sooner, use less Social Security, and create more health care jobs. Seems like a wash to me.

Weaver95: why not? A bunch of people made a bunch of bad housing loans and the government stepped in and bailed them out. So the argument about 'shouldering the cost of stupidity' is a wash. we did it before, we'll do it again.

Come on, I know you're capable of better arguments than this.

Land of the free... but... but Capitalism! Your freedom to be fat is trumped by an organization which is free to charge for their services.

As for the smoking thing... do they have a blood test for it? Do they make you cough so they can test your phlegm for smoke?

I think it's somewhat closer to Weaver95's suggestion that America wants a healthier and prettier population to compete with the world, so this is an opportunity for insurance companies to make some extra money off this. There probably are some repercussions to obesity and morbid obesity that aren't reflected in the health care system (such as unemployment and other lifestyle choices) that are all correlated. It might not just be an image/lifestyle thing, but who knows.

All health care companies have to do is say that obesity is unhealthy and an increased risk for illness/cost to them. The main thing that's controversial is that no one wants their premiums to go up, but fat people don't even like other fat people enough to defend their fatness.

technicolor-misfit: So, will the state's motorcyclists, rock climbers, private pilots, hunters, and everyone else who doesn't hibernate in a bubble-wrap cocoon be subject to similar added premiums?

I mean, I don't ride a motorcycle, so I don't see why I should be expected to pick up the tab when some guy turns himself into sausage and expects doctors to put him back together again.

This sort of logic is and always has been bullshiat and will simply be leveraged for control over people's lives.

You do realize in some regards lifestyle risk is already a factor in determining certain health care and insurance costs, right?

You're arguing against something that's been in place for a long time already.

Will this be a fattie-bashing thread or government/insurance-bashing thread? Too early to tell, the flavor of the coming flamewar.

Oh, and hey... how about runners and joggers?

I don't see why I should be buying people new knees because they're too stupid to select low-impact fitness activities.

You can take this sort of bullshiat any direction you want, which is precisely what makes it appealing for authoritarians who seek control over other people's lives.

Tr0mBoNe: As for the smoking thing... do they have a blood test for it? Do they make you cough so they can test your phlegm for smoke?

Just whatever you do, never mention to your health care provider that you smoke...unless it is relevant to your medical care (in order for it not to be relevant you really need to quit or become stricly a social smoker). And you didn't hear that from me.

Fellows - You do realize in some regards lifestyle risk is already a factor in determining certain health care and insurance costs, right?

You're arguing against something that's been in place for a long time already.


Perhaps in some cases, but I've certainly never encountered it. Nobody has ever asked me any such questions about what vehicles I drive or what recreational activities I engage in.

And one of my main points here is that they're singling out one group for the added fees, in spite of the fact that plenty of other employees may engage in activities that drive up the likelihood of increased spending in their behalf.

Fellows: Weaver95: why not? A bunch of people made a bunch of bad housing loans and the government stepped in and bailed them out. So the argument about 'shouldering the cost of stupidity' is a wash. we did it before, we'll do it again.

Come on, I know you're capable of better arguments than this.

I have never been more serious in my life. We're building a xenophobic, authoritarian culture that is viciously resistant to anyone or anything that does not fit inside it's rigid and intolerant structure. This story is just one more brick in the walls we're building around ourselves.

technicolor-misfit: Oh, and hey... how about runners and joggers?

I don't see why I should be buying people new knees because they're too stupid to select low-impact fitness activities.

Oh, Jesus Christ on a pogo stick. So far this is the dumbest post in the thread, but I'm on the edge of my seat!

elysive - technicolor-misfit: Oh, and hey... how about runners and joggers?

I don't see why I should be buying people new knees because they're too stupid to select low-impact fitness activities.

Oh, Jesus Christ on a pogo stick. So far this is the dumbest post in the thread, but I'm on the edge of my seat!


Feel free to explain.

Just saying "that's so stupid" is pretty much the goddamn height of stupidity. What am I supposed to say, "Nuh-UHH!!!"

I made my point, feel free to make yours... Dazzle me with your critical analysis.

technicolor-misfit: Perhaps in some cases, but I've certainly never encountered it. Nobody has ever asked me any such questions about what vehicles I drive or what recreational activities I engage in.

And one of my main points here is that they're singling out one group for the added fees, in spite of the fact that plenty of other employees may engage in activities that drive up the likelihood of increased spending in their behalf.

Purchase life insurance sometime.

If there was a test for every single activity deemed detrimental to your health, health insurance companies would probably do it.

Overweight people just have the ill fortune of being ... er, hard to miss.

Don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of health insurance practices. But I also have little sympathy for overweight people claiming discrimination for being required to pay higher health insurance premiums.

So insurance pretty much went up $25 across the board?

technicolor-misfit: elysive - technicolor-misfit: Oh, and hey... how about runners and joggers?

I don't see why I should be buying people new knees because they're too stupid to select low-impact fitness activities.

Oh, Jesus Christ on a pogo stick. So far this is the dumbest post in the thread, but I'm on the edge of my seat!


Feel free to explain.

Just saying "that's so stupid" is pretty much the goddamn height of stupidity. What am I supposed to say, "Nuh-UHH!!!"

I made my point, feel free to make yours... Dazzle me with your critical analysis.

If you think that all runners and joggers and people who engage in high impact activities need knee replacements, then there's really nothing I can tell you. I'm not going to bother pulling up statistics. It's not like the human body was built to run or anything silly like that.

/most athletes incur some injuries and those athletes end up placing significant money into the medical system
//have known many marathoners and runners who have never had knee problems
///even when I was heavier and running for two hour stints I never had knee problems
//doctors actually prescribe running as an exercise
/many sedentary people need knee replacements
/the post was just DUMB, either avoid generalizations or pick a topic you know something about

Weaver95: I have never been more serious in my life. We're building a xenophobic, authoritarian culture that is viciously resistant to anyone or anything that does not fit inside it's rigid and intolerant structure. This story is just one more brick in the walls we're building around ourselves.

I have to admit, I'm not overweight so I can't and won't begin to speculate on how society treats someone who is - I've never seen it through those eyes.

All I can say is that I don't see it this way.

Weaver95: Suck it up and just pay for the fatties.

No.

I completely agree with Weaver95. What business is it of a company that pays for healthcare for an individual if the individual makes unhealthy choices that raise said individual's healthcare costs?

AND WHY THE HELL CAN THE INSURANCE COMPANIES RAISE MY PREMIUMS IF I
GET A SPEEDING TICKET, FOR THAT MATTER?!

We've turned into a farking despotism. I should be free to speed all I like and get insurance for the same amount of money everyone else pays.

Fellows: I have to admit, I'm not overweight so I can't and won't begin to speculate on how society treats someone who is - I've never seen it through those eyes.

All I can say is that I don't see it this way.

'zero tolerance' policies in schools, corporate HR departments moniotoring the personal blogs of their employees, the FBI wiretapping political dissidents under the aegis of 'national security', 'free speech zones', etc, etc. And now we're starting to see corporations using fiscal controls to force people to live a different lifestyle. A lifestyle that is directly beneficial to THE CORPORATION. sure, it could be seen as a benefit to the fatties as well, but that's only a happy side effect and certainly not the primary goal of the policy.

Bit by bit, brick by brick, we're building that authoritarian society we all say we despise. But already it's difficult to speak uncomfortable truths in public. How much longer 'till we start throwing dissidents into a jail cell?

Weaver95: 'zero tolerance' policies in schools, corporate HR departments moniotoring the personal blogs of their employees, the FBI wiretapping political dissidents under the aegis of 'national security', 'free speech zones', etc, etc. And now we're starting to see corporations using fiscal controls to force people to live a different lifestyle. A lifestyle that is directly beneficial to THE CORPORATION. sure, it could be seen as a benefit to the fatties as well, but that's only a happy side effect and certainly not the primary goal of the policy.

I agree with your first part, but I can't bring myself to jump into the threshold of the second like you have.

Fellows: s to be the same as someone who eats healthy and exercises

Not eveyrone who isn't overweight eats well and excercises. Indeed a great many don't. Also we don't know how any individual will be effected by being overweight. All we have is some general statistical conclusions. But you can not point to a specific individual and declare what problems they may or may not have in the future. It's like cholesterol, some people can be at 240 their whole lives wiht no ill effects. Alas so far we can't tell who those people are.

uatuba: AND WHY THE HELL CAN THE INSURANCE COMPANIES RAISE MY PREMIUMS IF I
GET A SPEEDING TICKET, FOR THAT MATTER?!

Apple, meet orange, orange, apple.

Weaver95: Bit by bit, brick by brick, we're building that authoritarian society we all say we despise. But already it's difficult to speak uncomfortable truths in public. How much longer 'till we start throwing dissidents into a jail cell?

No one is required to have health insurance. If you want to life any lifestyle you choose, pay for your medical expenses out of pocket. That option is still available.

I don't know what happened to you in the period between when I dropped TotalFark and renewed it, but you've clearly gone off the deep-end. Have you moved to Montana and started a survivalist commune, yet?

Weaver95: Suck it up and just pay for the fatties.

So, um, single payer insurance?

WhyteRaven74: Apple, meet orange, orange, apple.

I knew someone would say this. I also knew that very person wouldn't care to take on or explain the differences because, well, there aren't any.

Fat people who are fat because they stuff their pieholes with lard pudding and refuse to exercise are making the same choice as someone who speeds. They are endangering their own lives and they are raising the costs of health insurance for everyone because of the increased cost of healthcare.

If I take part in high risk activities, my life insurance is going to be more expensive.

WhyteRaven74: Fellows: s to be the same as someone who eats healthy and exercises

Not eveyrone who isn't overweight eats well and excercises. Indeed a great many don't. Also we don't know how any individual will be effected by being overweight. All we have is some general statistical conclusions. But you can not point to a specific individual and declare what problems they may or may not have in the future. It's like cholesterol, some people can be at 240 their whole lives wiht no ill effects. Alas so far we can't tell who those people are.

weight alone, independent of all other factors (diet, exercise, chol, etc.), has been shown to have a positive correlation with adverse health effects.

Weaver95: Fellows: I have to admit, I'm not overweight so I can't and won't begin to speculate on how society treats someone who is - I've never seen it through those eyes.

All I can say is that I don't see it this way.

'zero tolerance' policies in schools, corporate HR departments moniotoring the personal blogs of their employees, the FBI wiretapping political dissidents under the aegis of 'national security', 'free speech zones', etc, etc. And now we're starting to see corporations using fiscal controls to force people to live a different lifestyle. A lifestyle that is directly beneficial to THE CORPORATION. sure, it could be seen as a benefit to the fatties as well, but that's only a happy side effect and certainly not the primary goal of the policy.

Bit by bit, brick by brick, we're building that authoritarian society we all say we despise. But already it's difficult to speak uncomfortable truths in public. How much longer 'till we start throwing dissidents into a jail cell?

Do you know why I like you? Because we recognize and want to solve the same problems.

elysive - If you think that all runners and joggers and people who engage in high impact activities need knee replacements, then there's really nothing I can tell you. I'm not going to bother pulling up statistics. It's not like the human body was built to run or anything silly like that.

/most athletes incur some injuries and those athletes end up placing significant money into the medical system
//have known many marathoners and runners who have never had knee problems
///even when I was heavier and running for two hour stints I never had knee problems
//doctors actually prescribe running as an exercise
/many sedentary people need knee replacements
/the post was just DUMB, either avoid generalizations or pick a topic you know something about


While tempted to point out some of the problems with your post, I'll simply stick to the only one that really matters.

My point about running was facetious, or more correctly, was not about running... Running was simply another example. It was about the desire to use economics to dictate what others should and shouldn't do.

I have no desire to charge runners more for health insurance. I was using it to point out the stupidity of doing it to overweight people.

Perhaps you should refrain from shouting "dumb!!!" until you actually recognize the point being made.

technicolor-misfit:

A study by Stanford released a couple weeks ago states:
"And the dire injury predictions other scientists made for runners have fallen completely flat. Fries and his colleagues published a companion paper in the August issue of the American Journal of Preventive Medicine showing running was not associated with greater rates of osteoarthritis in their elderly runners. Runners also do not require more total knee replacements than nonrunners, Fries said."

Link (new window)

uatuba - No one is required to have health insurance. If you want to life any lifestyle you choose, pay for your medical expenses out of pocket. That option is still available.

That same argument can be pointed back at you. If you're so concerned about what other people are doing and how their activities may affect your contribution, then simply pay as you go or buy individual coverage rather than relying on a group plan.

And yes, it's a bullshiat point that ignores the reality of the situation, same as when you made it.

Employer paid group coverage has put the cost of healthcare and decent medical coverage out of the reach of all but the most well-paid.

Telling someone to "pay as you go" is about as realistic as telling them to just go to the moon and set up their own society.

Our choices should not be give up your freedom or give up health care.

technicolor-misfit: Our choices should not be give up your freedom or give up health care.

And that is exactly the choice we're being offered. I really do think that you can get away with almost any abuse in this country, so long as you wave the flag, say it's for the children and make noises about 'teh greater good'.

slackin_off - A study by Stanford released a couple weeks ago states:
"And the dire injury predictions other scientists made for runners have fallen completely flat. Fries and his colleagues published a companion paper in the August issue of the American Journal of Preventive Medicine showing running was not associated with greater rates of osteoarthritis in their elderly runners. Runners also do not require more total knee replacements than nonrunners, Fries said."

Link (new window)


Great. But again, my point was not about runners.

liberalish: weight alone, independent of all other factors (diet, exercise, chol, etc.), has been shown to have a positive correlation with adverse health effects.

if you take a large enough group of people as a whole, yes. Point to an individual? Even with family histories and such, it's at best an educated guess.

uatuba: I also knew that very person wouldn't care to take on or explain the differences because, well, there aren't any.

No, there are differences. For one the statistical data is based upon different stuff. It's very easy to figure out how many people with speeding tickets end up causing accidents or just being in them. There's no sampling size issues, no issues of doing meta-analysis on existing statistics and so on.

With overweight people, you have to deal with things like an unknown number having underlying medical conditions, how many are on medication that can contribute to weight gain etc etc. To say nothing of the time of being overweight, when the weight was gained and other factors. Much of which is dependent on sampling size, since they can't look at everyone, they have to pick what is felt, and hoped, to be proper statistical sample group.

WhyteRaven74: liberalish: weight alone, independent of all other factors (diet, exercise, chol, etc.), has been shown to have a positive correlation with adverse health effects.

if you take a large enough group of people as a whole, yes. Point to an individual? Even with family histories and such, it's at best an educated guess.


Yes, statistics don't apple to individuals, but this is state-employee group insurance, which will be more than adequate for it to apply.

/for the record I am against this policy, as I am for a single payer government plan. Make the group include everyone and you don't have to add fees for risk factors.

Weaver95 - technicolor-misfit: Our choices should not be give up your freedom or give up health care.

And that is exactly the choice we're being offered. I really do think that you can get away with almost any abuse in this country, so long as you wave the flag, say it's for the children and make noises about 'teh greater good'.


Seriously, what a great healthcare system we have, not only do we pretty much pay more than anybody else on the planet, now it appears we're moving towards an age of submitting our personal lives for approval for the privilege of doing so.