Being overweight, judging overweight, judging others generally...

[Bill Mattocks]

Mixed greens, some chicken breast, a few tomatoes, unmolested walnuts and a little oil/vinegar and you've got a very healthy, filling lunch that cost probably less than $3.

Yeah, but with the exception of the walnuts, I dislike those things.

 

[Steve]

Yeah, but with the exception of the walnuts, I dislike those things.

You're hopeless!

 

[Kacey]

Excellent points and SOME people are in this situation, where pennies really do count.

My anecdotal experience has been that most people can afford to eat healthy foods. Few, however, can afford to eat healthy foods that are prepared by someone else. The problem, in my experience, is convenience. For the price of eating a value meal at McDonalds, you can eat a very healthy lunch that you've prepared yourself from fresh ingredients. Mixed greens, some chicken breast, a few tomatoes, unmolested walnuts and a little oil/vinegar and you've got a very healthy, filling lunch that cost probably less than $3.

Very good point... I have to ask, however, what is an "unmolested" walnut?

 

[Carol]

Very good point... I have to ask, however, what is an "unmolested" walnut?

Something that gets served with extra-virgin olive oil, natch. :lfao:

 

[Flea]

Yeah, but with the exception of the walnuts, I dislike those things.

Quite so. Everyone's body is different. I'm like you - I eat exactly what I like and don't what I don't. :drinkbeer Personally, my body is addicted to fresh produce and I get very logy and depressed when I go without for 3-4 days. If my body were perfectly happy on a steady diet of carbs I'd be fine.

We should get together some time for steak and potatoes ... you provide the steak, I'll bring the salad. :wink2:

 

[Archangel M]

To be Devil's advocate, Arch, would you support such an actuarial decision making regardless of whether you were or were not on the beneficial side of the decision?

For example, as a LEO, you are subject to a greater-than-average risk of injury (or worse) due to motor vehicle accidents and assaults from BGs. Should your health care costs be higher than (say) an accountant, who typically faces little-to-no risk of injury on the job?

What about pricing based on education levels? Discounts on auto insurance in Massachusetts are slim-to-none, due to the unique state regulations on the industry. Yet I was able to receive a discount on my auto insurance because I have a (verifiable) Bachelor's degree. Actuarially, folks with a four year degree take less risks with their lives and property than those that don't. A quick google on health care costs and college education indicates that people with a 4 year degree (or higher) tend to have lower costs than those without.

Thats a good question. Of course I would argue that LEO/Firemen/Soldiers etc. are performing a public service and are in dangerous situations due to occupation and not out of lifestyle decisions. The additional cost of their jobs are already paid out by society in many cases as municipalities have to pay various costs for their services.

I know this is a thorny issue. But diet and habits like smoking and alcohol do have a "group impact" on health care expense. Im just throwing out ideas.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I know this is a thorny issue. But diet and habits like smoking and alcohol do have a "group impact" on health care expense. Im just throwing out ideas.

So do engaging in homosexual acts between men. Not saying they can't be 'gay' but choosing to engage in gay sex is voluntary.

And I agree - thorny issue. Once you start down that road, you never know where to stop.

Consider things like organ transplants - for people who 'did it to themselves'. Like new livers for heavy drinkers, etc. As I understand it, there have already been horror stories in countries with socialized medicine where people have been turned down for life-saving surgery because of issues surrounding how they treat their own bodies. The idea being that people who take care of their bodies 'deserve it more' when it comes to organ replacement, etc.

I'm not saying there isn't some sense in the argument, but it does get tangled quickly.

 

[Steve]

So do engaging in homosexual acts between men. Not saying they can't be 'gay' but choosing to engage in gay sex is voluntary.

And I agree - thorny issue. Once you start down that road, you never know where to stop.

Consider things like organ transplants - for people who 'did it to themselves'. Like new livers for heavy drinkers, etc. As I understand it, there have already been horror stories in countries with socialized medicine where people have been turned down for life-saving surgery because of issues surrounding how they treat their own bodies. The idea being that people who take care of their bodies 'deserve it more' when it comes to organ replacement, etc.

I'm not saying there isn't some sense in the argument, but it does get tangled quickly.

Okay... I really, really don't want to go here... but you've brought the homosexual thing up a couple of times. Homosexuality, including the act, has very little impact upon our health costs. PROMISCUITY and unsafe lifestyles, gay or straight, can lead to real problems including rampant STDs, some curable and some not.

 

[Flea]

Okay... I really, really don't want to go here... but you've brought the homosexual thing up a couple of times. Homosexuality, including the act, has very little impact upon our health costs. PROMISCUITY and unsafe lifestyles, gay or straight, can lead to real problems including rampant STDs, some curable and some not.

Time for a new thread!! lol

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Okay... I really, really don't want to go here... but you've brought the homosexual thing up a couple of times. Homosexuality, including the act, has very little impact upon our health costs. PROMISCUITY and unsafe lifestyles, gay or straight, can lead to real problems including rampant STDs, some curable and some not.

Not anti-gay - I have no problem with it. I was referring strictly to risk factors. I think you can place being overweight in the same category - people who are generally at higher risk within that group for health problems. Not all overweight people are actually going to have heart problems. Not all gay men are going to contract diseases such as HIV. But the risk factors are higher.

If that is too squicky to discuss, no problem. My apologies.

 

[Steve]

Not anti-gay - I have no problem with it. I was referring strictly to risk factors. I think you can place being overweight in the same category - people who are generally at higher risk within that group for health problems. Not all overweight people are actually going to have heart problems. Not all gay men are going to contract diseases such as HIV. But the risk factors are higher.

If that is too squicky to discuss, no problem. My apologies.

Very different things. Promiscuous gay men who engage in high risk behaviors are at higher risk for diseases such as HIV. Monogamous gay men have no higher risk than anyone else. Just as promiscuous straight men have a much higher risk of disease than a monogamous straight man.

And it's not the squicky factor. It's the potential baggage... like drugs, politics and religion.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Very different things. Promiscuous gay men who engage in high risk behaviors are at higher risk for diseases such as HIV. Monogamous gay men have no higher risk than anyone else. Just as promiscuous straight men have a much higher risk of disease than a monogamous straight man.

And it's not the squicky factor. It's the potential baggage... like drugs, politics and religion.

There is always potential baggage, but that's part of the problem - we can talk about people being overweight as their group risk factor, but we cannot lump gay men in together based on the same considerations. Insurance actuarial tables don't take into account what individuals do - a monogamous gay man versus a non-monogamous one, for example. Risk is assigned based on membership in the group one is calculating risk for.

That's what they do for overweight people - they do not say well, this one has a family history or that one has a genetic predisposition. Being fat is enough to be considered in the group for risk factors.

If it helps, let's try old people. As a risk factor, being old increases the risk that you'll get sick. Should the old pay more for health insurance? Surely there are old people who take good care of themselves, have good genes, have a family history of longevity - but based strictly on age-related tables of risk, they are 'higher risk'.

Keep in mind, I'm not advocating these things - I do not want health insurance rates determined by a person's sexual orientation or behavior, or by their age or race, etc. My point is merely that if we open the door to increased costs based on membership in a higher-risk group, that door can swing wider than we intended it to. It's not such a far trip from making fatties pay more to making wrinklies pay more or making gays pay more, etc.

 

[BrandonLucas]

My gripe is still with insurance itself. I don't think it's something that everyone should have to have. If the cost of medical care wasn't so outrageously expensive, there wouldn't be a need for insurance at all.

But, since there is a need for medical insurance, I don't think the price of insurance should be related to health factors. Anything can be a health factor: if you drive for a living, then you are at a greater risk of having a wreck and dying...if you have a job that requires you to stay on your feet, that puts you in greater risk having leg and back issues....etc, etc, etc.

Where would the line be drawn?

If your health is going to be determined to be a factor in your insurance coverage and price, then insurance companies should provide a free checkup 4 times a year to determine if the client is still in good enough health to keep the same premiums. And even then, just because someone isn't deemed to be "healthy" by a doctor doesn't mean that they should pay any more than anyone else for insurance coverage.

The fact that someone is less healthy is enough of a cost in and of itself...frequent trips to the doctor/hospital is going to cost them money, and the insurance companies aren't going to be put out from the cost any more than anyone else would be. But then, that all goes back to medical costs being so friggin' expensive.

 

[Steve]

BrandonLucas, you're such a socialist!

Bill, are you mixing together life insurance rates and health insurance rates?

In the former, rates are based upon a lot of risk categories. In the latter (and I may be mistaken on this) aren't anti-discrimination policies a part of the picture? Gender is a protected category, as is age and in many places sexual orientation. But being fat is fair game in most areas of the country.

 

[BrandonLucas]

BrandonLucas, you're such a socialist!

Bill, are you mixing together life insurance rates and health insurance rates?

In the former, rates are based upon a lot of risk categories. In the latter (and I may be mistaken on this) aren't anti-discrimination policies a part of the picture? Gender is a protected category, as is age and in many places sexual orientation. But being fat is fair game in most areas of the country.

Why, thank you sir!!

Seriously, though, how is being fat measured by an insurance company? Do they go by BMI? Do they require a doctor's description?

I'm not sure just being fat should have anything to do with it...it should be overall health that is the factor.

 

[Steve]

Very good point... I have to ask, however, what is an "unmolested" walnut?

I meant raw walnuts. Very good for you. When I make salads for lunch, I try to put some kind of nut on there. My favorites are raw walnuts, pine nuts, and pecans. If you buy them in the bulk food section, they're not very expensive.

I also get dried cranberries quite a bit, as well, also available in bulk.

I pay more for the "ready to eat" greens, because at lunch I don't want to fart around with washing and chopping lettuce and such, but even that's like $2 for a big container that lasts 2 or 3 days.

The chicken I tend to get for lunch is from Costco. For ~$9 they have a container of grilled chicken breast that's fully cook and ready to eat that lasts almost 2 weeks.

 

[Steve]

Why, thank you sir!!

Seriously, though, how is being fat measured by an insurance company? Do they go by BMI? Do they require a doctor's description?

I'm not sure just being fat should have anything to do with it...it should be overall health that is the factor.

For life insurance policies, particularly whole life policies that will accrue value over time, it's not uncommon to be required to take a physical.

Health insurance is a different animal.

 

[Kacey]

I meant raw walnuts. Very good for you. When I make salads for lunch, I try to put some kind of nut on there. My favorites are raw walnuts, pine nuts, and pecans. If you buy them in the bulk food section, they're not very expensive.

I also get dried cranberries quite a bit, as well, also available in bulk.

I pay more for the "ready to eat" greens, because at lunch I don't want to fart around with washing and chopping lettuce and such, but even that's like $2 for a big container that lasts 2 or 3 days.

The chicken I tend to get for lunch is from Costco. For ~$9 they have a container of grilled chicken breast that's fully cook and ready to eat that lasts almost 2 weeks.

Thanks... "raw" makes much more sense to me than "unmolested" - I was starting to think perhaps you ate them with the shells intact.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

BrandonLucas, you're such a socialist!

Bill, are you mixing together life insurance rates and health insurance rates?

In the former, rates are based upon a lot of risk categories. In the latter (and I may be mistaken on this) aren't anti-discrimination policies a part of the picture? Gender is a protected category, as is age and in many places sexual orientation. But being fat is fair game in most areas of the country.

I am mixing them together for comparison purposes, yes. I was attempting to point out that health insurance is a big fat pool of insured risk - life insurance does use actuarial tables to assign people to risk groups (fat, cancer in family, etc, etc).

Point was that if we're going to ask fatties to pay more for health insurance (or alternatively, to require them to become healthier in order to have health insurance), then we place obesity into a special risk group for health insurance - just as is now done with life insurance. And if you're going to do THAT, then you have to be fair and consider all the risk groups. Like old people. etc.

I do realize that currently, life insurance and health insurance are not run the same ways.

 

[Sukerkin]

I'm not sure that stating that Health Care costs are inflated means someone is a Socialist? Nor is there anything wrong with that in the first place.

One noted reason why Health Care costs so much is purely economic and centred in the States with it's Insurance-lead pricing (sorry, chaps, this is your fault (again )).

In any market, prices rise when the effective demand for something ('wants' backed by cash) excedes the available supply. The insurance companies, by dint of absorbing premiums from many, represent an inflationary pressure in a specific niche and drive up prices as suppliers perceive that pretty much any level of renumeration they demand will get paid.

It is actually in those suppliers interests to keep supply at a level below that demanded so that they can continue to reap the financial rewards (being blind to the death and suffering that results from this decision).

As much medical research is carried out in the USA, that inflationary pressure on the goods and services of health care is exported around the globe to those nations that make use of the fruits of such research. Nothing wrong with that in principle except that the price of these goods and services is artificially high thanks to the insurance companies.

Unrelated EDIT: I thought the turn of phrase "unmolested walnut" was an excellent one .