Fatties get special treatment?

[tvashtarkatena]

i mentioned that i hurt myself once when i got off my couch, didn't i??

 

You hurt yourself every time you post on this board.

 

Cycling and child rearing together account for HUGE healthcare costs:

 

BICYCLE-RELATED DEATHS AND INJURIES

• In 2002, nearly 288,900 children ages 14 and under were treated in hospital emergency rooms for bicycle-related injuries. Nearly half (47 percent) of children ages 14 and under hospitalized for bicycle-related injuries are diagnosed with a traumatic brain injury.

• In 2002, children ages 14 and under accounted for 36 percent of bicyclists injured in motor vehicle crashes. It is estimated that collisions with motor vehicles account for nearly 90 percent of all bicycle-related deaths and 10 percent of all nonfatal bicycle-related injuries.

• More than 40 percent of all bicycle-related deaths due to head injuries and approximately three-fourths of all bicycle-related head injuries occur among children ages 14 and under.

 

Bicycle accident for children under 14

 

It's pretty clear to me that parents who give bicycles to children under 14 should be charged heavily for the burden their precious little ones place on our health care system.

 

[rob]

What if you give a bicyle to an obese kid?

[chucK]

KkkKk,

The point is, that YOU are increasing the costs in my insurance pool by engaging in your dangerous activities. By your arguments you should be paying more for your hazardous activity.

 

You don't get something for nothing. If you want insurance, you have to assume everyone else's risk too.

 

 

[KaskadskyjKozak]

No, what I am saying is I want us to stop pussy-footing around about telling people what they need to hear, rather than want to hear. That's what the thread started out as. And it's hilarious (and case in point) to read all the defensive reaction to that suggestion.

 

As has been pointed out KK, telling people what they "need" to hear often isn't the most effective means of getting them to change their behavior. Which I believe is the subject of this right?

 

I'm not so sure. If the message was consistent and caught momentum things make change. But making endless excuses and rationalizations will lead nowhere.

 

And come on, if you can't convince people to lose weight because it is healthier how the fahk are you going to convince them to reduce their CO2 footprint to reduce the temperature change from 10 degrees to 5 over the next 50 years?

 

[JayB]

Bullshit. Give me numbers. How many cyclists die or are injured every year compared to drivers on our freeways? Normalize it based on participants in said activity if you'd like. And how much does that cost the system?

 

So really what you and JayB are saying is you want people to be charged by risk as long as your premiums aren't affected.

 

Typical

 

I have no issue whatsoever in paying more in those cases where I'm a higher risk on account of my actions or choices.

 

This is already the case when it comes to life and disability insurance, and I have yet to hear anyone wailing over the gross injustice of this situation.

 

 

 

 

[lizard_brain]

Obesity is often associated with depression. Depression can be addressed and mitigated in many cases and I am not talking about a pill.

 

I resent obese people who refuse treatment to cure the problem. They insist that it is their right to be fat and then demand special treatment.

They get handicapped parking while pregnant women are denied it.

Insurance covers transportation costs when their joints collapse.

Diabetes is statistically higher by a lot.

There is more.

I feel really bad for these people but at some point someone who cares, or all of us, need to stop facilitating this so-called disability.

 

 

I recently read an article on FARK about a handicapped guy that was PO'd about the fact that nearly every time he went to the grocery store, he couldn't get an electric cart because all the fatties were riding around the store on them. He was saying that they're supposed to be for disabled people, not FAT people! He was upset, to say the least.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

KkkKk,

The point is, that YOU are increasing the costs in my insurance pool by engaging in your dangerous activities. By your arguments you should be paying more for your hazardous activity.

 

 

I don't buy that. Prove statistically that it is more dangerous (and costly) to bike than to drive. Or that the way *I* bike or drive is as dangerous as others who do the same.

 

I've been in exactly one fender bender in (knock on wood) 22 years and over 200,000 miles of driving. ONE. I was rear-ended at a red light turned green in a backed-up intersection in 1991.

 

YOU don't know that *I* increase the cost at all, now do you?

 

 

[lizard_brain]

I'm gonna go eat.

[cj001f]

This is already the case when it comes to life and disability insurance, and I have yet to hear anyone wailing over the gross injustice of this situation.

 

The self employed who've had to purchase do moan. They also moan about health insurance costs.

 

The people who receive it through their corporation don't moan, because corporate health insurance has truly bizarre rate calculations in my experience(namely roughly similar rates despite ancedotally dramatic differences in longterm care requirements, age and health of employees).

[chucK]

Look man, if you don't realize that bike commuting is putting you at some serious risk of disability or death over the long term then you are just not being realistic. Ditto that with respect to frequent alcohol consumption.

 

Most everybody ('cept maybe that robot Builder206) has their poison. You input risk-years with your bike-commuting, your climbing, your drinking, other? Fatties do it by eating and sloth. Refusing to accept that you are contributing at all and everybody else is fucking you is unbelievably delusional and/or egotistic.

 

Lucky for you, no one is forcing medical insurance on you (until Hillary is elected ). You should just opt out since you're not at risk.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Look man, if you don't realize that bike commuting is putting you at some serious risk of disability or death over the long term then you are just not being realistic. Ditto that with respect to frequent alcohol consumption.

 

1) You're building an argument out of nothing and positing it as fact. As I said, nice try. Show me the numbers. You don't have them, so keep repeating your claims? Sorry, still not convinced.

 

2) You sound just like the global-warming deniers that you so readily criticize. Obesity is a huge problem in this country.

 

3) You don't know me, so fuck off with the personal stuff.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[KaskadskyjKozak]

 

for Chuckie

[JayB]

True - that argument that everyone in the country participating in regular exercise that carries some risk of injury would be far more costly than the the present and future prevalence of obesity had a lot going for it.

 

I thought we were charging every individual for the risk they incurred?

 

You can stay perfectly healthy with negligible injury risk riding the stationary bike and using the stairmaster

 

And...?

[Reid]

The article in the first post said that the wide availability of unhealthy foods is a contributing factor. And talks about the approaches taken to curb drug and tabacco use. To me it hints at taxing fast foods, candy, soda, etc to encourage people to make different choices. Might be effective, but for sure unpopular. I'm not sure how I'd feel about it... nothing better than candy bars while climbing and greasy food on the drive home

[KaskadskyjKozak]

True - that argument that everyone in the country participating in regular exercise that carries some risk of injury would be far more costly than the the present and future prevalence of obesity had a lot going for it.

 

I thought we were charging every individual for the risk they incurred?

 

You can stay perfectly healthy with negligible injury risk riding the stationary bike and using the stairmaster

 

And...?

 

"neglible injury risk"? Really?

 

1) either you have to buy a stairmaster or stationary bike and keep it in your home - higher carbon footprint to produce the exercise equipment, and heat/maintain the larger house you need to keep the equipment (or forgo a couch or kitchen table in your 600 sq. ft. apartment, ha ha)

 

2) incur risk driving to and from the gym where you use the exercise equipment, and also adding to you CO2 footprint (transport to/from the gym)

 

[JayB]

Look man, if you don't realize that bike commuting is putting you at some serious risk of disability or death over the long term then you are just not being realistic. Ditto that with respect to frequent alcohol consumption.

 

Most everybody ('cept maybe that robot Builder206) has their poison. You input risk-years with your bike-commuting, your climbing, your drinking, other? Fatties do it by eating and sloth. Refusing to accept that you are contributing at all and everybody else is fucking you is unbelievably delusional and/or egotistic.

 

Lucky for you, no one is forcing medical insurance on you (until Hillary is elected ). You should just opt out since you're not at risk.

 

If the costs associated with any given person's risk were all equal, and no individual had any control whatsoever over the said risks, this would make sense.

 

Kind of like if the transcript on an individual's driving record were determined by pulling citations out of a lotto machine and assigned to particular persons at random, then it would be both fair and rational to charge every driver the same rate irrespective of the documented evidence of their driving habits.

 

 

[rob]

err...OK, someone give me the abridged version. Is someone claiming that cyclists present the same burden on our health care system as obese people? Or that if all of the fat people started riding bikes things would be even worse?

 

I'm having trouble shutting off my brain long enough to read this thread.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

If the costs associated with any given person's risk were all equal, and no individual had any control whatsoever over the said risks, this would make sense.

 

some "risks" and lifestyle choices clearly have a higher cost than others. you look to address the ones with the highest impact first and then move down the list.

 

[KaskadskyjKozak]

err...OK, someone give me the abridged version. Is someone claiming that cyclists present the same burden on our health care system as obese people? Or that if all of the fat people started riding bikes things would be even worse?

 

I'm having trouble shutting off my brain long enough to read this thread.

 

best not to try, and move along. :-)

[cj001f]

And...?

 

Perhaps you should benefit society and remove yourself from this debate. Your continued presence merely showcases your multiple mental inadequacies and embarasses us all.

[JayB]

[quote=JayB

Who is talking about virtue here? What anyone chooses to do to their own body is their business, whether that's inhaling smoke or five helpings of curly fries and washing it down with 64-oz Slurpee.

 

Yeah, I agree it's thier business, but I don't want to pay for it. I want points or a price break on my health insurance for having a normal BMI and exercising and not smoking, etc., just like I get a discount on my car insurance for safe driving. I don't want to pay for someone else's adult onset diabetes and high blood pressure and quadruple bypass.

 

Ditto.

 

A matter of virtue? No. A matter of responsibility? Yes.

 

 

Many life threatening conditions have an overwhelmingly genetic component. It's not all "personal responsibility" (not even half or a quarter, an a lot of cases). Are you saying that you want a price break (or you want others to pay more, same thing) for your/their genetics?

 

If one accepts the proposition that one has as little control over or responsibility for their behavior as they do their genetic inheritance, then this line of argument might have some merit.

 

There are untold millions of people in this country who have probably inherited traits that make it more challenging for them to avoid harming others in some fashion, yet they enjoy no special exemptions from the expectation that they will do so, unless their impairment is so severe that they are deemed insane and granted a separate legal status whereby they are no longer held responsible for their actions. There may be a certain number of persons who have inherited traits such that society cannot reasonably expect to control the quantity of food that they consume, and they would be afforded exemptions from the expectation that they do so. For everyone else - the fatter they get, the more they should pay for their health insurance.

 

THis is a formula for an even more invasive society. Levy a health care tax on fatties and, faster than you can add curly fries to that shake, they'll class action sue or lobby for legislation and levy a tax on risky behavior that might result in traumatic injury. Remember, the fatties are in the majority.

 

You'll also have to somehow separate out and weigh (no pun intended) the genetic component of disease. That means genetic testing for everyone...and the rampant wholesale denial of insurance that would undoubtedly result. And privacy issues? Pshah!

 

Finally, you'll have to have a system for monitoring behavior (what did you eat today, Mr. JayB?) as part of enforcement.

 

This would undoubtedly result in a health care system many times more expensive due to the aforementioned overhead than the one we have now; hardly a change in the positive direction for anyone.

 

I don't know about you, but pay the same as the two tone tillies so as to enjoy the resultant benefits of a simpler, less expensive one size fits all health care system, and fight obesity through public education: the only method that really works to produce widespread, substantive change in personal behavior.

 

These are good points. As things stand now, the insurance companies can't price risk by simply looking at your age, sex, and driving record and as an effective proxy for your driving habits, and instead had to implement systems to continuously monitor every moment of everyone's driving. It's also true that there's no price competition in this market, so the costs associated with doing so have no bearing on the enthusiasm that any particular company might have on engaging in such monitoring, and if consumers had the option of submitting to continuously surveilance or basing their risk-pricing on their driving record, this would be a matter of indifference to them.

 

The notion that we can distinguish between behaviors that mentally competent adults are capable of regulating, and those that they cannot, and that we can make the distinction between those adults who are capable of performing the mental operations required to do so, and those who can't is the basis of quite a few of the principles that society is organized upon. It's rather odd to observe people arguing so passionately against the same principles that - outside of such a debate - govern their expectations concerning how other people conduct themselves and what they are responsible for.

 

If people can't be expected to govern what they eat, and in what quantities - then they can't be expected to control whether they smoke or not, and the list goes on. I don't think that anyone who argues that the vast majority of people have no control over their weight actually believe such an absurd proposition. So why defend such a specious argument? Why is the idea that there are elements of one's existence that one has substantial control over so threatening?

 

 

 

 

[JayB]

err...OK, someone give me the abridged version. Is someone claiming that cyclists present the same burden on our health care system as obese people? Or that if all of the fat people started riding bikes things would be even worse?

 

Yes - that about sums it up.

[JayB]

err...OK, someone give me the abridged version. Is someone claiming that cyclists present the same burden on our health care system as obese people? Or that if all of the fat people started riding bikes things would be even worse?

 

 

Any guesses as to which party they tend to vote for?

[cj001f]

Why is the idea that there are elements of one's existence that one has substantial control over so threatening?

 

Because there is plenty of evidence to show regulation of such procedures is not a simple matter? Merely saying it is simple does not change the substantial amount of data showing for the population as a whole it is not simple. Continue trying to change human nature to fit your system JayB, it worked so well for the Soviets

[archenemy]

I can't wait until the words "carbon footprint" are considered passe.