Fat Tax?

[Brian A.]

http://articles.moneycentral.m sn.com/Ins....ersWithFee.aspx

Just wanted to see what others thought of this proposal. I personally agree with the idea of insurance companies to increase premiums for people who refuse to do anything about their obesity. It's a fact that these people cost insurance companies significantly more than people who take better care of themselves, so why shouldn't they pay more just like a person who smokes pays a higher premium than someone who doesn't. This isn't so radical of an idea. Canada and many other countries already have additional sales tax for junk foods and things that they deem unhealthy. Since their health care is socialized it makes sense that the govt would want to steer people away from foods that will increase obesity.

I understand the "big brother" agrument, and I also feel that people should be taking personal responsibility for being healthy. However, when it gets to the point where it begins to impact others, like healthcare costs going through the roof, then I think it may be time to force people to take responsiblity. Perhaps instead of having a tax or penalty for those who don't make changes, there could be some type of discout or credit for those who chose to live a healthier lifestyle.

This may also be a step in the right direction for insurance companies to start covering health club memberships and personal training appointments. Once the whole "no smoking" thing gained attention some insurance companies started covering or partially covering some of the quit smoking products and services. Therefore it's a logical step to do the same with personal training and weightless.
Thoughts?

[realcdn]

As a Canadian I suppose it doesn't specifically affect me. However, I'd like to point out that you're generalizing about health care costs based on weight. I've been classed as morbidly obese for probably at least 20 years (not sure what the cut-off point is) and the only time I ended up draining the health care system was when I tried to lose the weight (last time). I ate too little, worked too hard, and ignored warning signs. I can't help it but it really bugs the crap out of me everytime I read an article here (in Canada) about how the obese drain the health care system. Personally the people I know who seem to be constantly running to the doctor are not even in the overweight category. Canada especially, where there are no incentives to lose weight (ie. doctor visits are free, you pay for nutritionists).

Of course, maybe I'm the only morbidly obese person who isn't diabetic, doesn't have high blood pressure, and whose cholesterol is acceptable.

(and yes, I'm working on the weight, in a better way this time)

[PerfectMartini]

I think it is fine. Most individual health insurance and life insurance (excluding low coverages) are individually medically underwritten anyway. Group insurance isn't, and never will be because the whole point is for the entire group to be underwritten.

There are problems with assuming obese people will cost more medically. Consider smokers, who were long assumed to be a drain on public health care spending. Turns out, they actually cost less because they die younger. The same may be true for obesity.

I have absolutely no problem with any employer determining eligibility for or cost to employer of health insurance based on lifestyle factors. I would prefer that the employer offer to pay for smoking cessation or gym memberships and other weight loss support in conjunction with penalties, but at the end of the day I simply don't care to have a say about how employers handle these issues.

[Brian A.]

There are acceptions to every rule. I'm not saying that all people who a catagoricly obese have high bp or high chol, just like there are some people who smoke their whole lives and never get lung cancer while another person who never smoked gets it. But it does increase the risks. If I'm a sky diver and I apply for life insurance they're going to price me higher than someone who doesn't regularly jump out of planes.

[LisaS]

If I'm a sky diver and I apply for life insurance they're going to price me higher than someone who doesn't regularly jump out of planes.

but that's life insurance. Should your recreational sky diver be required to disclose that to his employer for his health insurance and pay more there as well?

[realcdn]

The problem is that once you allow the employer to penalize people you pretty much take away any incentive for them to encourage the employee to change. My own opinion is that improving your health is a personal issue, however, tax breaks for gym memberships and/or personal training sessions would be a great way for governments to truly step up, wouldn't it? Having said that, the actual Alabama changes is being mis-represented by the media (big shock). It's actually a wellness premium discount for those keeping well, and improving their health. Of course that doesn't make for good headlines.

http://www.alseib.org/HealthInsuranc...counts2008.pdf

(that's a link to the actual document that the news report has actually turned around for better headlines)