Healthcare Reform is a win for SouthWalton

[Mango]

I know in Holland they charge based on weight, smoking and age. I wouldn't go as far as age here, but if they charged by kilo here, problem is healthcare would be completely unaffordable. The people who have gym memberships and home exercise equipment do so for themselves, and I do not see a rebate as being motivational for an obese population. I think the most we can hope for is the obese, or people who lacked insurance before, to go for regular check ups and hope that associated diseases are caught early in treatment stages.

 

[Geo]

Murray, I agree with much of the point you made about the bill lacking incentive for people to become more healthy. But i suspect that very few unhealthy folks would make lifestyle changes because of any incentives if they were in there. Case in point- a pack a day smoker would save about $2400 a year if they kicked their habit. If that isn't enough financial incentive then how would a reduction in the cost of their health care that is less than that convince them? There are many more compelling reasons than a few hundred or a few thousand dollars to make healthy choices. You either do it or you don't...

 

[Matt J]

This bill lacks any incentive to live a healthy lifestyle. For example, an extremely obese person with Diabetes, and other medical problems, will pay the same amount, maybe less if they cannot work due to their obesity, than a healthy person who chooses to eat right, not smoke, not drink, exercises, etc. Seems to me that as Americans get more and more overweight and we as a nation, exercise even less, costs of healthcare will increase accordingly. Obviously, many people choose their lifestyle, and they have no incentive to eat well and exercise regularly. I think if the gov't is going to shake things up with this Health Care law, they should give incentives ($$$) to people who don't have claims, as in the form of a rebate. If I knew that I could get paid to be more healthy, I would do so. Perhaps make it enough of a rebate to cover gym membership or fitness classes, or buy a nice bicycle. In this bill, I see no rewards for those who choose the healthy lifestyle. I was always taught that the best way to enforce a good habit is to reward it.

The libertarians should be thrilled. Otherwise the government would be legislating choice.

 

[Em]

Murray, I agree with much of the point you made about the bill lacking incentive for people to become more healthy. But i suspect that very few unhealthy folks would make lifestyle changes because of any incentives if they were in there. Case in point- a pack a day smoker would save about $2400 a year if they kicked their habit. If that isn't enough financial incentive then how would a reduction in the cost of their health care that is less than that convince them? There are many more compelling reasons than a few hundred or a few thousand dollars to make healthy choices. You either do it or you don't...

Really? Some people have been known to have babies, just to collect welfare checks, even though they cannot apparently do the math to know that they have to feed, cloth and house the children.

In the case you mention, you are talking about drug addiction (nicotine), so perhaps that was a bad example by me. However, if a non-smoker saves the gov't money by not having claims of lung cancer, why shouldn't that person be rewarded for not costing everyone extra money? I hear that part of this bill also includes a tanning tax. That's right, for people who go to tanning salons to tan. If they are willing to tax the people with bad habits, I guess fast food tax is coming next. My point is that all research shows that rewarding good behavior provides more good behavior than does penalizing bad behavior. If I can save everyone money by living a healthy lifestyle, why shouldn't I be somewhat rewarded? Instead, I would be penalized in a sense for other people's choices to live unhealthy lifestyles, as those choices are proven to cost more in health care.

SWGB, I'm not sure what your comment be. Are you saying we should legislate choice?

 

[Matt J]

Really? Some people have been known to have babies, just to collect welfare checks, even though they cannot apparently do the math to know that they have to feed, cloth and house the children.

In the case you mention, you are talking about drug addiction (nicotine), so perhaps that was a bad example by me. However, if a non-smoker saves the gov't money by not having claims of lung cancer, why shouldn't that person be rewarded for not costing everyone extra money? I hear that part of this bill also includes a tanning tax. That's right, for people who go to tanning salons to tan. If they are willing to tax the people with bad habits, I guess fast food tax is coming next. My point is that all research shows that rewarding good behavior provides more good behavior than does penalizing bad behavior. If I can save everyone money by living a healthy lifestyle, why shouldn't I be somewhat rewarded? Instead, I would be penalized in a sense for other people's choices to live unhealthy lifestyles, as those choices are proven to cost more in health care.

SWGB, I'm not sure what your comment be. Are you saying we should legislate choice?

Yes, 10% and I believe it kicks in around 2054.