Alabama slaps a tax on fat people

[Masquerouge]

http://pokedandprodded.health.com/2008/08/26/alabama-slaps-a-tax-on-fat-people/

Should you pay more if you weigh more? That’s what Alabama’s State Employees’ Insurance Board thinks. In 2011 the board will start charging overweight state workers—those with a body mass index greater than 35—$25 a month for health insurance, which is currently free for all state employees. (The state is giving workers a two-year head start; if they sign up for free health screenings and make progress, they won’t face the insurance fine.)
Being the second fattest state in the country—behind Mississippi—costs Alabamians lots of money—up to $1.32 billion a year in estimated medical charges, according to a 2004 study.

So, do you think it's fair? Should your health care premium be based on the healthiness of your lifestyle?

Would it be any different if it was a private health care company doing that?

I would tend to be ok with that: if you smoke or if you don't watch your weight, the consequence is that you will cost more money in the long run and as such you should be expected to pay more.
However, it will be impossible to draw a clear line between what is your fault and what is not. Will people who do not dress warmly enough during winter be targeted because they're more likely to catch a cold?
And furthermore, it would be a bit unfair for a government agency to put the financial onus solely on smokers and fat people, while at the same time enjoying the tobacco tax and letting food company subsidize schools in exchange for putting crap in the lunchboxes of students. If you really think that smoking and obesity are unhealthy, you should also go for the source of the problem, not the outcome. That is being done for tobacco, but not so much for bad food.

 

[Fifty]

If the fatty in question can produce proof (i.e. a doctor's diagnosis) of a serious glandular disorder which makes them have a far greater disposition towards fattiness, then they ought not pay extra for being a fatty.

If, however, they are fat through a sedentary lifestyle + poor diet, as the overwhelming majority of them surely are, then they ought to pay extra for being a fatty.

 

[Leonel]

What Fifty said. Those that are sedentary and just stuff their faces with Jack In The Box every other day can lose the weight. Believe me I know. I've done it.

 

[EweezE]

Fat people need to lose weight! I think fat people are charged for 2 tickets on airplanes if they're fat enough, or so I've heard. It's just disgusting to see, so I really don't care what happens to fat people's rights. Call it an incentive to lose weight.

 

[The Last Conformist]

I predict an increase in yoyo weight gain/loss in Alabama.

 

[ShannonCT]

This is not even a tax on fat people. It's simply charging them insurance premiums more in line with the expected cost of paying out their claims later. Standard insurance practice. It helps to reduce the moral hazard.

 

[JohnRM]

This is not even a tax on fat people. It's simply charging them insurance premiums more in line with the expected cost of paying out their claims later. Standard insurance practice. It helps to reduce the moral hazard.

pretty much where I stand

 

[Masquerouge]

This is not even a tax on fat people. It's simply charging them insurance premiums more in line with the expected cost of paying out their claims later. Standard insurance practice. It helps to reduce the moral hazard.

Just to answer on that, I used the article's title as the thread title. I agree with you, it's not a "tax on fat people", it's a higher premium.

 

[GinandTonic]

I would tend to be ok with that: if you smoke or if you don't watch your weight, the consequence is that you will cost more money in the long run and as such you should be expected to pay more.

Not true. Smokers cost health services less overall since the final years of life generally contain the vast majority of health costs. Since smokers also pay a hefty sin-tax the exchequer does very well out of them.

The problem with fatties is that it is unrealistic to sin-tax them at the point of consumption. Indeed since basic foodstufs are exempted from many taxes and often the product of agro-subs, in effect at the point of consumption the fatty is subsidised.

 

[Zelig]

Totally reasonable, particularly since a BMI of 35+ is huge.

 

[LucyDuke]

Are they using more resources?

If yes, they should pay higher prices.

 

[Quasar1011]

What Fifty said. Those that are sedentary and just stuff their faces with Jack In The Box every other day can lose the weight. Believe me I know. I've done it.

There aren't any Jack In The Boxes in Alabama. I know, 'cause when I moved from Alabama to California a few years ago, I had never seen one of those til I got to Cali.

But the thing that struck me moving from Alabama to California was, "Hey, people look healthier out here. You don't see nearly as many obese people here as back in Bama."

 

[Masquerouge]

Not true. Smokers cost health services less overall since the final years of life generally contain the vast majority of health costs. Since smokers also pay a hefty sin-tax the exchequer does very well out of them.

Ah, yes, you're correct. Forgot about that, smokers die before they get costly

The problem with fatties is that it is unrealistic to sin-tax them at the point of consumption. Indeed since basic foodstufs are exempted from many taxes and often the product of agro-subs, in effect at the point of consumption the fatty is subsidised.

Totally agree. A terrible example of that is that fast-food in France has a reduced VAT of 5.5% while a normal restaurant will have a VAT of 19.6% (or whatever the latest normal VAT tax rate has been changed too since I left). The reason is, as often, some piece of the legal code being turned on its head.

 

[Bugfatty300]

To be fair, underweight people should also be taxed more because of their higher rates of malnutrition related diseases and complications.

 

[skadistic]

Those with the greatest health costs should pay the highest rates.

 

[sonorakitch]

Fantastic idea.

I don't want to fund fat.

~Chris

 

[MobBoss]

Folks, there is much more to this than we realize.

For one, we dont know as much as we think we do about weight and how it affects people. I read a recent story on this (I will try to find it again) that actually stated that many 'fat' people are actually quite healthy at their weight and that is precisely what is 'normal' for them.

This isnt the exact story I read, but it is similar: http://www.webmd.com/diet/news/20080811/benign-obesity-malign-normal-weight

And if you google 'fat but healthy' you will get quite a few pages of similar stories.

Again, there is far more to determining someones health risk besides BMI.

As the BMI is a notoriously silly thing to base such a charge on, I would much rather see such a charge based upon something more reliable....like ones cholestrol level.

 

[GinandTonic]

As the BMI is a notoriously silly thing to base such a charge on, I would much rather see such a charge based upon something more reliable....like ones cholestrol level.

Indeed. Based on BMI this guy is obese, which is frankly abserd.

 

[sonorakitch]

I don't think there is a genetic condition in America of fat more than any European country. The reason people are fat, typically, is because they eat more and do less. Drive everywhere, chug high fructose corn syrup, eat Fritos, and sit on the couch.

Certainly there are overweight people who are stricken with genetic problems. But not the majority of our heavy duty citizens.

~Chris

 

[Bill3000]

As the BMI is a notoriously silly thing to base such a charge on, I would much rather see such a charge based upon something more reliable....like ones cholestrol level.

Cholesterol level can easily be genetic. Better to do it through fat percentage.

There's plenty of methods used in BME stuff to calculate obesity in ways better than the BMI - BMI was meant to be a mere rule of thumb to begin with, not an objective measurement.