Fat Tax? It doesn't sound like it.

tyr_13 · 28th October 2008, 08:28 AM

http://www.theroot.com/id/48533?GT1=38002

It seems that Alabama will start making state employees who don't take advantage of health screenings pay an extra $25. At first I thought this was about making big people pay more for health care, but that doesn't seem to be the case. It says nothing about making big people pay more, but people who don't go to the doctor. That makes more sense to me.

This article does however seem pretty angry with fat people.

cwalner · 28th October 2008, 08:56 AM

I for one would absolutely endorse a fat tax. I would love for the government to come and collect my excess fat and redistribute it to those who are suffering becuase they don't have enough fat.

Modified · 28th October 2008, 09:39 AM

Crap. I'm an Alabama state employee but I live in SW Florida. If I have to go all the way to Alabama for one of these free screenings, it won't be worth the $25.

Careyp74 · 28th October 2008, 11:57 AM

Originally Posted by Modified

Crap. I'm an Alabama state employee but I live in SW Florida. If I have to go all the way to Alabama for one of these free screenings, it won't be worth the $25.

Does that Alabama health plan you are on have doctors in Florida?

shadron · 28th October 2008, 12:21 PM

Originally Posted by Modified

Crap. I'm an Alabama state employee but I live in SW Florida. If I have to go all the way to Alabama for one of these free screenings, it won't be worth the $25.

Pardon the derailment, but where the hell is SW Florida? I'd think it would be somewhere in the Caribbean, not so? Or is that Tampa Bay, which is actually east of mid-state? Living in a square state jades one's sense of directions so.

ServiceSoon · 28th October 2008, 12:34 PM

Somebody is already blowing the horn calling this measure discriminatory. If you take the proper steps to reduce your weight it doesn't appear they will charge you this fee. The only thing that is discriminatory is over-weight peoples' ignorance.

Personally, I am tired of paying higher health insurance premimums for lazy fat people. I got the short stick with automobile insurance when I was younger. Higher risk they called it. The insurance industry should be uniform.

I think the same logic should apply with seat belt laws. Don't make it a law for people to wear seat belts, just raise their insurance.

Careyp74 · 28th October 2008, 12:57 PM

Originally Posted by ServiceSoon

Personally, I am tired of paying higher health insurance premimums for lazy fat people.
I got the short stick with automobile insurance when I was younger. Higher risk they called it. The insurance industry should be uniform.

Well, the first sentence is against uniform insurance, but the second sentence is for uniform insurance. Am I reading this correctly?

Originally Posted by ServiceSoon

I think the same logic should apply with seat belt laws. Don't make it a law for people to wear seat belts, just raise their insurance.

How would they enforce the extra insurance, put a question on the car insurance screener "Do you wear a seatbelt?"

tyr_13 · 28th October 2008, 01:08 PM

Most skinny people do exactly the same thing as most fat people. Both are lazy. Some get fat from it, others don't. I don't think it is a good idea to punish people for having bad luck.

On the other hand, it makes sense to give people bonuses for proven healthy activities, such as routine exercise and participating in optional health programs. That is a much better way to encourage health in my opinion.

Careyp74 · 28th October 2008, 01:24 PM

Originally Posted by tyr_13

Most skinny people do exactly the same thing as most fat people. Both are lazy. Some get fat from it, others don't. I don't think it is a good idea to punish people for having bad luck.

On the other hand, it makes sense to give people bonuses for proven healthy activities, such as routine exercise and participating in optional health programs. That is a much better way to encourage health in my opinion.

Easy. Let's raise everyone's health insurance by $25, then give $25 to those that go to the screening.

Modified · 29th October 2008, 07:55 AM

Originally Posted by Careyp74

Does that Alabama health plan you are on have doctors in Florida?

Yes, but I'm guessing these screenings will be a special case thing that is set up locally.

Modified · 29th October 2008, 08:03 AM

Originally Posted by shadron

Pardon the derailment, but where the hell is SW Florida? I'd think it would be somewhere in the Caribbean, not so? Or is that Tampa Bay, which is actually east of mid-state? Living in a square state jades one's sense of directions so.

Tampa is a bit too far north.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southwest_Florida
For location descriptions, the panhandle is considered separate, just like the UP is in Michigan.

ServiceSoon · 29th October 2008, 09:29 AM

Originally Posted by Careyp74

Well, the first sentence is against uniform insurance, but the second sentence is for uniform insurance. Am I reading this correctly?

The first sentence is an example of uniform insuracne that I am against. The second sentence is a personal example of non-uniform insurance. At the time I was against it. I was charged more for automobile insurance because I was young. If statistics show that younger drivers are a higher risk then it makes sense they should be charged more. What if the same report showed a correlation that dark haired people are more likely to be involved in an accident?

I am complaining because the health insurance industry is somewhat uniform while car insurance is non-uniform.

Why should it be different between the 2 insurance industries?

Originally Posted by Careyp74

How would they enforce the extra insurance, put a question on the car insurance screener "Do you wear a seatbelt?"

Yes. It could be treated the same way as wood-burning stoves. If you have a wood-burning stove then you are required to tell your insurance agent. Most likly your rates will increase by $120 per year. If a fire occurs due to your wood-burning and you aren't covered then, well, you aren't covered.

Modified · 29th October 2008, 03:47 PM

Originally Posted by ServiceSoon

I am complaining because the health insurance industry is somewhat uniform while car insurance is non-uniform.

If you buy temporary or other non-renewable health insurance then it is very non-uniform by age. When I was under 25 I paid less than the employee contribution under my employer's plan would have been for equivalent insurance (the average age of my employee group is quite high). From 25 to 30 it was close. After 30, no way. When my in-laws (mid-60s in age) came to visit for a couple of months, temporary insurance for them was extremely expensive.

luchog · 29th October 2008, 03:52 PM

Originally Posted by ServiceSoon

If statistics show that younger drivers are a higher risk then it makes sense they should be charged more. What if the same report showed a correlation that dark haired people are more likely to be involved in an accident?

It's absolutely astounding the sorts of details that insurance actuarial tables will go into when not prohibited by law.

The only reason that health insurance isn't subject to the same granularity is
that it's prohibited from doing so by the fact that 1) it's typically paid for by a third party through a group plan which renders such granularity impossible (a similar situation exists with regard to "fleet" type auto insurance); and 2) it's prohibited by law from taking certain factors into account.

In the case of auto insurance, your premiums are often based not only on age and sex, but also on ethnic group, residence, type of vehicle, average weekly driving distance, and so on and so on.

28th October 2008, 08:28 AM	#1
tyr_13 Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Falconer, NY Posts: 9,657	Fat Tax? It doesn't sound like it. http://www.theroot.com/id/48533?GT1=38002 It seems that Alabama will start making state employees who don't take advantage of health screenings pay an extra $25. At first I thought this was about making big people pay more for health care, but that doesn't seem to be the case. It says nothing about making big people pay more, but people who don't go to the doctor. That makes more sense to me. This article does however seem pretty angry with fat people.
	__________________ Circled nothing is still nothing. "Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong

28th October 2008, 08:56 AM	#2
cwalner Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Deepest Darkest Indiana Posts: 5,694	I for one would absolutely endorse a fat tax. I would love for the government to come and collect my excess fat and redistribute it to those who are suffering becuase they don't have enough fat.
	__________________ Vecini - Inconceivable! Inigo - You keep on using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

28th October 2008, 12:21 PM	#5
shadron Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Colorado Posts: 5,719	Originally Posted by Modified Crap. I'm an Alabama state employee but I live in SW Florida. If I have to go all the way to Alabama for one of these free screenings, it won't be worth the $25. Pardon the derailment, but where the hell is SW Florida? I'd think it would be somewhere in the Caribbean, not so? Or is that Tampa Bay, which is actually east of mid-state? Living in a square state jades one's sense of directions so.
	Last edited by shadron; 28th October 2008 at 12:23 PM.

28th October 2008, 12:34 PM	#6
ServiceSoon Muse Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 995	Somebody is already blowing the horn calling this measure discriminatory. If you take the proper steps to reduce your weight it doesn't appear they will charge you this fee. The only thing that is discriminatory is over-weight peoples' ignorance. Personally, I am tired of paying higher health insurance premimums for lazy fat people. I got the short stick with automobile insurance when I was younger. Higher risk they called it. The insurance industry should be uniform. I think the same logic should apply with seat belt laws. Don't make it a law for people to wear seat belts, just raise their insurance.
ServiceSoon Muse Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 995

28th October 2008, 01:08 PM	#8
tyr_13 Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Falconer, NY Posts: 9,657	Most skinny people do exactly the same thing as most fat people. Both are lazy. Some get fat from it, others don't. I don't think it is a good idea to punish people for having bad luck. On the other hand, it makes sense to give people bonuses for proven healthy activities, such as routine exercise and participating in optional health programs. That is a much better way to encourage health in my opinion.
	__________________ Circled nothing is still nothing. "Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong

28th October 2008, 09:39 AM	#3
Modified Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: SW Florida Posts: 4,062	Crap. I'm an Alabama state employee but I live in SW Florida. If I have to go all the way to Alabama for one of these free screenings, it won't be worth the $25.

28th October 2008, 11:57 AM	#4
Careyp74 Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Trevose, PA Posts: 3,407	Originally Posted by Modified Crap. I'm an Alabama state employee but I live in SW Florida. If I have to go all the way to Alabama for one of these free screenings, it won't be worth the $25. Does that Alabama health plan you are on have doctors in Florida?

28th October 2008, 12:57 PM	#7
Careyp74 Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Trevose, PA Posts: 3,407	Originally Posted by ServiceSoon Personally, I am tired of paying higher health insurance premimums for lazy fat people. I got the short stick with automobile insurance when I was younger. Higher risk they called it. The insurance industry should be uniform. Well, the first sentence is against uniform insurance, but the second sentence is for uniform insurance. Am I reading this correctly? Originally Posted by ServiceSoon I think the same logic should apply with seat belt laws. Don't make it a law for people to wear seat belts, just raise their insurance. How would they enforce the extra insurance, put a question on the car insurance screener "Do you wear a seatbelt?"

28th October 2008, 01:24 PM	#9
Careyp74 Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Trevose, PA Posts: 3,407	Originally Posted by tyr_13 Most skinny people do exactly the same thing as most fat people. Both are lazy. Some get fat from it, others don't. I don't think it is a good idea to punish people for having bad luck. On the other hand, it makes sense to give people bonuses for proven healthy activities, such as routine exercise and participating in optional health programs. That is a much better way to encourage health in my opinion. Easy. Let's raise everyone's health insurance by $25, then give $25 to those that go to the screening.

29th October 2008, 07:55 AM	#10
Modified Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: SW Florida Posts: 4,062	Originally Posted by Careyp74 Does that Alabama health plan you are on have doctors in Florida? Yes, but I'm guessing these screenings will be a special case thing that is set up locally.

29th October 2008, 08:03 AM	#11
Modified Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: SW Florida Posts: 4,062	Originally Posted by shadron Pardon the derailment, but where the hell is SW Florida? I'd think it would be somewhere in the Caribbean, not so? Or is that Tampa Bay, which is actually east of mid-state? Living in a square state jades one's sense of directions so. Tampa is a bit too far north. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southwest_Florida For location descriptions, the panhandle is considered separate, just like the UP is in Michigan.

29th October 2008, 09:29 AM	#12
ServiceSoon Muse Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 995	Originally Posted by Careyp74 Well, the first sentence is against uniform insurance, but the second sentence is for uniform insurance. Am I reading this correctly? The first sentence is an example of uniform insuracne that I am against. The second sentence is a personal example of non-uniform insurance. At the time I was against it. I was charged more for automobile insurance because I was young. If statistics show that younger drivers are a higher risk then it makes sense they should be charged more. What if the same report showed a correlation that dark haired people are more likely to be involved in an accident? I am complaining because the health insurance industry is somewhat uniform while car insurance is non-uniform. Why should it be different between the 2 insurance industries? Originally Posted by Careyp74 How would they enforce the extra insurance, put a question on the car insurance screener "Do you wear a seatbelt?" Yes. It could be treated the same way as wood-burning stoves. If you have a wood-burning stove then you are required to tell your insurance agent. Most likly your rates will increase by $120 per year. If a fire occurs due to your wood-burning and you aren't covered then, well, you aren't covered.
ServiceSoon Muse Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 995

29th October 2008, 03:47 PM	#13
Modified Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: SW Florida Posts: 4,062	Originally Posted by ServiceSoon I am complaining because the health insurance industry is somewhat uniform while car insurance is non-uniform. If you buy temporary or other non-renewable health insurance then it is very non-uniform by age. When I was under 25 I paid less than the employee contribution under my employer's plan would have been for equivalent insurance (the average age of my employee group is quite high). From 25 to 30 it was close. After 30, no way. When my in-laws (mid-60s in age) came to visit for a couple of months, temporary insurance for them was extremely expensive.

29th October 2008, 03:52 PM	#14
luchog Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: The Emerald City Posts: 7,957	Originally Posted by ServiceSoon If statistics show that younger drivers are a higher risk then it makes sense they should be charged more. What if the same report showed a correlation that dark haired people are more likely to be involved in an accident? It's absolutely astounding the sorts of details that insurance actuarial tables will go into when not prohibited by law. The only reason that health insurance isn't subject to the same granularity is that it's prohibited from doing so by the fact that 1) it's typically paid for by a third party through a group plan which renders such granularity impossible (a similar situation exists with regard to "fleet" type auto insurance); and 2) it's prohibited by law from taking certain factors into account. In the case of auto insurance, your premiums are often based not only on age and sex, but also on ethnic group, residence, type of vehicle, average weekly driving distance, and so on and so on.
	__________________ "All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others." -- Douglas Adams "The absence of evidence might indeed not be evidence of absence, but it's a pretty good start." -- PhantomWolf "Let's see the buggers figure that one out." - John Lennon