Do overweight people deserve healthcare from the province?

[Slavik44]

I agree however, that there is some potential in tax breaks to health related items and activities. However, that might not be a solution so much as a reward. Every January people shell out huge amounts of money to get in shape, and by febuary there are sitting on their ass eating potatoe chips and watching T.V, complaining that they couldn't loose weight.

I agree with all of your above statements, it's difficult, if not impossible, to find an appropriate standard. But we already see private companies doing this to a large extend, you pay more if your a smoker, you pay more if you have a history of high cholesterol, ect. ect..

Is TV a cause of obesity? Should it be taxed like cigarettes? Perhaps not. The problem with TV is that you can watch at much as you want without paying more. I'm not comfortable with the social engineering that would be behind a move to limit TV watching. On very inclement days I watch TV while riding on the indoor trainer. Just another case of trouble with specific solutions.

I think that not only should we provide tax breaks, but I think it is time we considered expanding Physical Education to include a nutrition component. We have a multi-billion dollar industry that stands as a testament to peoples nutritional ignorance. I think if we want to reform and improve healthcare pro-active preventative measures should be looked into and it should include not only providing people with a cheap answer but also the knowledge to make good decisions.

Or tax junk food like we tax tobacco and alcohol. I don't see why we haven't yet. A $10 bag of chips is going to stop people from eatting things that are unhealthy no matter how you spin it. Tobacco I think is killing far less people in Canada now than obesity through things like preventable heart disease and diabeties.

Unfortunately punishing people for being fat is not objectively feasible, it would be expensive, time consuming, create more government bueracracy (I think the government is in need of a healthy diet almost as much as Canadians), it is simply a can of worms...really big and fat worms.

Not punishing them is equally expensive in the long run in my opinion. Some stats show more than half of Canadian kids now have a weight problem of some type. I certainly don't want to pay that health care bill 50 years from now. If any of them live past 40. A heart attack takes someone out of the workforce for anywhere between 1 and 6 months generally... that's a huge cost to society... on top of the medicial costs.

I still have some problems with the idea of insurance premiums...we put in smokers, we put in fat people...although I think we have soem classification problems, you said people who have high cholesterol...okay...what about people with a family history of high cholesterol? A family history of heart disease? Should we include these genetic factors? People in wheel chairs? The Mentally handicapped? All of these are issues that need to be consider when we decide to start down a path of preiums.

On the otherhand I wouldn't have that many problems with taxing junk food, however I do not view this as punishment...so much as it is a form of prevention, and as I said we should look to preventative measures. This would have a double benifiet, it would discourage people from eating un-healthy food and it would provide important revenue for healthcare...if it was set up in such a way that it was a healthcare tax. Of course there may be some issues on defining "junk food"....

I know it is argued that junk food is cheap and therefore consumed by poor people, which may have some merrits to it. However, there are cheap healthy foods available, so there are healthy cost effective alternatives.

I think that may be another possible pillar for the obesity solution, but I don't see it as punishment so much as prevention...i simply am not sold on the idea of premiums...

[Rue]

Do people who are fat and overweight deserve universal healthcare coverage? I really think they shouldn't as they always get sick and have health problems.

The problem is not all weight induced problems are caused by lifestyle. You seem to have type cast all weight related illnesses as having been a result of people who decide to eat bad food and too much food.

Well I would like to see you enforce your exemption. Because not only would you need to tell fat people who eat too much junk food to go away and die without any medical care but you will have to add;

1-all humans who drink alcohol

2-all humans who smoke anything

3-all humans who drive cars

4-all humans who work in any job related to polluting the planet

5-all humans who buy products that pollute the environment.

In 1-5, all of these activities are man-made and result in medical problems.

The only thing I will say about fat people is I think they should pay more on an airplane and should not wear spandex. Other then that, I will say nothing else since I am holding in my stomach as I write this.

[cybercoma]

The point here is not BMI, but that unhealthy people should pay more for healthcare.

Well, what's the point in having healthcare then? All the years you spend not ill, you're paying into it, then when you're ill you're going to be charged more?

Might as well privatize healthcare and there's a reason we don't do that. This thread sucks.

[BC_chick]

First smokers, now the overweight huh?

Okay, if the "bottom-line" is all you see, let me break it down for you like this.....

A healthy person will still cost the system money at the end of their life when they need care, medicine, and perhaps disability. The smoker and the overweight don't have the same life-span.... so essentially, both the healthy and the unhealthy cost the system a fortune inevitably, except that the latter "saves" the taxpayer a fortune in old-age pensions.

Since you're so concerned about cost, you should maybe thank the next smoker or overweight person you see for saving your kids' college-fund.....

(yes, the entire post was tongue-in-cheeck, but I hope the message was understood)

[ScottSA]

I hesitate to start taxing people for things. In a sense, once we allowed the state to take over responsibility for our health, we also gave up the freedoms we once had. If the state is going to foot the bill, then the state can also set conditions on that largesse. But taxes just piss people off and they certainly don't stop the behaviour or no one would drink or smoke. Tax incentives, on the other hand, are a far more palatable way of producing the same result.

I do think user fees have a place in healthcare...I don't know what the stats are, but whenever I've gone to a clinic in Vernon, at least half the folks waiting there are low-lifes who live an intentionally unhealthy lifestyle. In Manitoba I remember before they had walkin clinics, the emergencies were almost always tied up with morbidly obese people. I also know my ex-wife had my kids in to see the doctor everytime they had a sniffle, and that I saw as not only an unhealthy choice for the kids, but a damned unfair action for everyone else. I suspect its the least productive folks in our society who use the health system the most. I don't see a problem requiring unproductive first gen family class immigrants to pay insurance premiums...nothing irks me more than to see some old turbanned fart get off the boat, produce squat for the country, but hobble down to the nearest clinic to deal with his ailments on my dime.

[BubberMiley]

A heart attack takes someone out of the workforce for anywhere between 1 and 6 months generally... that's a huge cost to society... on top of the medicial costs.

It often takes them out for good and then there are no healthcare costs. Those people eating oat bran and jogging every day will be clogging up the system with their irritable bowels and blown-out knees. I don't think there is a credible link between lifestyle and health care costs, though busybodies who despise minding their own business would love an excuse to cluck their tongues and persecute.

[geoffrey]

It often takes them out for good and then there are no healthcare costs. Those people eating oat bran and jogging every day will be clogging up the system with their irritable bowels and blown-out knees. I don't think there is a credible link between lifestyle and health care costs, though busybodies who despise minding their own business would love an excuse to cluck their tongues and persecute.

Persecute? No, just hold those to account that think the health system owes them something because they were negligent in taking care of themselves. A lower risk individual should pay a lower risk premium, which is essientially what our health care taxes (portion of income tax) are. If your negligent with your health, there should be some cost to that, as it costs the system.

[Adelle]

And just how to you define healthy?

Why don't you tell us about the diverse genetics that run in your family?

You know, healthy. Not subject to illness or disease due to lifestyle choices. Not subject to sudden death or incapacitation due to eating habits, toxicant use or inactivity (or activity for those with 'extreme' interests). BMI is only part of it. There are many professions that have some sort of fitness test. I am sure we could come up with a fitness test for the average citizen. Genetics is a different matter and is usually not subject to an individual’s control. It is one area in which you really can blame the parents. Anyone seen Gattaca?

[BubberMiley]

Genetics is a different matter and is usually not subject to an individual’s control. It is one area in which you really can blame the parents. Anyone seen Gattaca?

How is an individual's control any of your business? You're just trying to force your self-righteous sense of how people should live on other people's lives--a typical conservative in every way.

[Posit]

Of course that is what this entire thread is about - injustice and tyranny of the majority. They are not interested in fair and equal access to health care. They want money - their money in particular - to be a controlling factor.

Health care like government and education, is an institution. Institutions are not businesses nor should they ever be run like businesses. They are meant to cost us and in return they provide reasonable services. The fact that Bay Street has convinced government to tow the corporate line is a misdirection. We should be taking back these institutions of the people and demanding that government provide the services at any costs - even if it means that they have to rake in 50% capital gains on every business transaction made in this country.

[geoffrey]

How is an individual's control any of your business? You're just trying to force your self-righteous sense of how people should live on other people's lives--a typical conservative in every way.

It's my business because the unhealthy couch potato costs me money by being a bigger burden on the health care system. If it were private care, I'd have no problem with someone being morbidly obese, smoking and drinking everyday. Why? Because they'd sure as hell be paying their share through increased premiums.

Of course that is what this entire thread is about - injustice and tyranny of the majority. They are not interested in fair and equal access to health care. They want money - their money in particular - to be a controlling factor.

Oh boohoo. Fair and equal access to health care? What's fair about me subsidizing other people's laziness? I take steps to prevent myself from being a major burden on the system down the line. I should be compensated for these efforts, or at least those that choose to be a burden on the system should pay for their choices.

Health care like government and education, is an institution. Institutions are not businesses nor should they ever be run like businesses. They are meant to cost us and in return they provide reasonable services.

Sure if that's what you believe, but they should cost more for people who neglect to take approrpriate steps to reduce their cost to the system. There is no justification why I should pay as much as the 300 pound couch potato smoker.

[M.Dancer]

Do people who are fat and overweight deserve universal healthcare coverage? I really think they shouldn't as they always get sick and have health problems.

I agree, once you start giving people with health issues medical coverage, it sets a dangerous precedent

[BubberMiley]

It's my business because the unhealthy couch potato costs me money by being a bigger burden on the health care system. If it were private care, I'd have no problem with someone being morbidly obese, smoking and drinking everyday. Why? Because they'd sure as hell be paying their share through increased premiums.

Conservatives who are opposed to universal health care have used this approach for some time. If there's going to be taxpayer-funded health care, then your business is my business. If you don't like it, change the system.

I maintain that it's still none of your business. Your tax money pays for your health care. Fat people's tax money pays for their health care. You're not paying for them because you're only paying your fair share. Just because you pay taxes along with everyone else does not give you a privileged status where you can declare how people should live their lives.

[Wilber]

It's my business because the unhealthy couch potato costs me money by being a bigger burden on the health care system. If it were private care, I'd have no problem with someone being morbidly obese, smoking and drinking everyday. Why? Because they'd sure as hell be paying their share through increased premiums.

You say that you ski. Why should anyone else accept the risk that entails?

Oh boohoo. Fair and equal access to health care? What's fair about me subsidizing other people's laziness? I take steps to prevent myself from being a major burden on the system down the line. I should be compensated for these efforts, or at least those that choose to be a burden on the system should pay for their choices.

You are rewarded, with good health and all that it brings.

Sure if that's what you believe, but they should cost more for people who neglect to take approrpriate steps to reduce their cost to the system. There is no justification why I should pay as much as the 300 pound couch potato smoker.

For most people the bulk of their health care costs are incurred in the last two years of their lives. These people are just in a rush to collect. Healthy people who drag out the process over many years can incur more costs than those who kill themselves quickly with their life style. Not just medical care associated with aging but assisted living for the aged who can't afford to pay the big bucks for private care. The 300 lb couch potato smoker is more likely headed for a quick heart attack or a death from complications associated with diabetes before he nears old age. We all die of something eventually and our system will spend a bundle trying to treat whatever it is before we go, regardless of our lifestyle.

[BubberMiley]

For most people the bulk of their health care costs are incurred in the last two years of their lives. These people are just in a rush to collect. Healthy people who drag out the process over many years can incur more costs than those who kill themselves quickly with their life style. Not just medical care associated with aging but assisted living for the aged who can't afford to pay the big bucks for private care. The 300 lb couch potato smoker is more likely headed for a quick heart attack or a death from complications associated with diabetes before he nears old age. We all die of something eventually and our system will spend a bundle trying to treat whatever it is before we go, regardless of our lifestyle.

That is an argument that geoffrey will never acknowledge.

[blueblood]

For most people the bulk of their health care costs are incurred in the last two years of their lives. These people are just in a rush to collect. Healthy people who drag out the process over many years can incur more costs than those who kill themselves quickly with their life style. Not just medical care associated with aging but assisted living for the aged who can't afford to pay the big bucks for private care. The 300 lb couch potato smoker is more likely headed for a quick heart attack or a death from complications associated with diabetes before he nears old age. We all die of something eventually and our system will spend a bundle trying to treat whatever it is before we go, regardless of our lifestyle.

Good point, the 300 lb is contributing through taxes (even though being 300 lb is IMV the definition of laziness), an 80+ yr. old person isn't. It would be hypocricy to attack the 300 lb person and not the 80+ yr. old person for the sake of saving the health care system some money. This is where Gov't of Manitoba autopac style health insurance would come in handy. If you can afford to register a car, you can make payments on Gov't health insurance. Children should be granted universal care though.

I think we are on a collision course with a healthcare epidemic in the next few years considering the extreme elderly and the obese.

[Renegade]

You're not paying for them because you're only paying your fair share.

BM, can you please define how you determine what is "fair share" and how you know geoffery is only paying his "fair share"?

[Renegade]

You say that you ski. Why should anyone else accept the risk that entails?

They shouldn't. Skiers should have to pay for the risks they incur.

For most people the bulk of their health care costs are incurred in the last two years of their lives. These people are just in a rush to collect. Healthy people who drag out the process over many years can incur more costs than those who kill themselves quickly with their life style.

Do you have any substantiation for this claim? If you do, then I would suggest that smokers/the obese/ or whomever incurs less costs in the system, should also contribute less.

Not just medical care associated with aging but assisted living for the aged who can't afford to pay the big bucks for private care. The 300 lb couch potato smoker is more likely headed for a quick heart attack or a death from complications associated with diabetes before he nears old age. We all die of something eventually and our system will spend a bundle trying to treat whatever it is before we go, regardless of our lifestyle.

Is what your claiming that "in the end it all evens out", ie that both healthy and unhealthy incur similar costs in their use of the system? If so, I'd like to see some evidence of that claim.

[Wilber]

Good point, the 300 lb is contributing through taxes (even though being 300 lb is IMV the definition of laziness), an 80+ yr. old person isn't.

Pension income is taxed the same as earned income. Investment income outside a pension plan is subject to capital gains and the money that was originally invested outside a plan was after tax income. The 80+ year old probably does pay income taxes. He pays the same consumption taxes as anyone else. Where I live they get a bit of a break on property taxes (their residence only) but that is about it.

I think we are on a collision course with a healthcare epidemic in the next few years considering the extreme elderly and the obese.

How we pay for the system won't stop that epidemic from happening. If people live healthier lifestyles, they will also live longer. Catch 22. Either we believe in a society where everyone has access to medical care or we don't. I do because even though I have been a contributer to the system all my life and have rarely taken much of anything from it, one day I will need it.

[Wilber]

Do you have any substantiation for this claim? If you do, then I would suggest that smokers/the obese/ or whomever incurs less costs in the system, should also contribute less.

I read it somewhere in an article of how aging impacts the cost of care in BC. Can't remember where.

I don't say smokers/obese people cost the system less but unless we die suddenly for some reason, all of us will put a substantial burden on the system one day.

Is what your claiming that "in the end it all evens out", ie that both healthy and unhealthy incur similar costs in their use of the system? If so, I'd like to see some evidence of that claim.

I think in many ways it does. There are exceptions to everything of course. My parents are both hitting 90 are still living on their own but not for much longer I think. They have led healthy active lives but the last few years the system has been putting out increasingly more for age related ailments which are not life threatening if treated and so will continue to cost the system more and more for a few years to come.

[geoffrey]

They shouldn't. Skiers should have to pay for the risks they incur.

I've always supported this. My rescue if needed and medical treatments should be my responsbility if I take risks outside the norm. The flipside of that is the benefit of me skiing should be equally reflected in my lower risk for things like heart attacks, other forms of coronary disease, diabeties and some forms of cancer.

For most people the bulk of their health care costs are incurred in the last two years of their lives. These people are just in a rush to collect. Healthy people who drag out the process over many years can incur more costs than those who kill themselves quickly with their life style.

Do you have any substantiation for this claim? If you do, then I would suggest that smokers/the obese/ or whomever incurs less costs in the system, should also contribute less.

Don't worry, they don't have any support for this claim. It was one started by the tobacco industry decades go to prevent taxation of cigarettes. Our users may die faster, negating any need to tax them higher for smoking. It's an untruth.

Productivity losses aren't factored in here. People dying before retirement is a loss to the economy, especially when they are in demand skilled labour (who isn't these days). Even on medicial costs alone, society losses with people smoking and being obese.

[Wilber]

Here's one from Nova Scotia

Have a look at page 34.

[Renegade]

I read it somewhere in an article of how aging impacts the cost of care in BC. Can't remember where.

I don't say smokers/obese people cost the system less but unless we die suddenly for some reason, all of us will put a substantial burden on the system one day.

Unfortunately I can't accept a a "truth" evidience which cannot be challenged. I don't think it is a given that everyone at some point puts a substantial burden on the system. Many do, some don't.

I think in many ways it does. There are exceptions to everything of course. My parents are both hitting 90 are still living on their own but not for much longer I think. They have led healthy active lives but the last few years the system has been putting out increasingly more for age related ailments which are not life threatening if treated and so will continue to cost the system more and more for a few years to come.

I disagree. I think there will be a wide variation in cost incurred within the population. People with severe, chronic but not-life threatening aliments will impose a heavy cost on the system. Healthy individuals who die young from accidents will not. If people age and then impose heavy costs on the system, why should they too not be required to pay higher premiums than those who impose low costs on he system?

[Wilber]

I disagree. I think there will be a wide variation in cost incurred within the population. People with severe, chronic but not-life threatening aliments will impose a heavy cost on the system. Healthy individuals who die young from accidents will not. If people age and then impose heavy costs on the system, why should they too not be required to pay higher premiums than those who impose low costs on he system?

Because they paid premiums and taxes to support the system for 50 years when they didn't take anything out of it.

[Wilber]

Unfortunately I can't accept a a "truth" evidience which cannot be challenged. I don't think it is a given that everyone at some point puts a substantial burden on the system. Many do, some don't.

Check the link.