Health Thin shaming

[Damon_3388]

Being 10kg probably not 30kg plus definitely does diabetes, heart problems, joint problems etc I could go on. An individual 30kg over may have no issues but as a group vs 10kg overweight and under they would cost the public health system more

Yes, it puts you at risk of these problems. It doesn't mean you actually have them and you're any more "a burden" than anyone else.

Non-overweight people can have diabetes, heart problems, joint problems too. Are they "a burden" too? Or is "no, because their cause was something different because they're not overweight" a "pass" for them in your eyes?

 

[Qsaint]

Yes, it puts you at risk of these problems. It doesn't mean you actually have them and you're any more "a burden" than anyone else.

Non-overweight people can have diabetes, heart problems, joint problems too. Are they "a burden" too? Or is "no, because their cause was something different because they're not overweight" a "pass" for them in your eyes?

If you stay reasonably fit and healthly dont smoke, do drugs, drink excessively etc on average you will cost the system less on average than those whose lifestyle choices dictate on average they will cost the system more.

Is it right to charge them more is another argument

 

[ShanDog]

Yep, women are attracted to looks too. I'm talking in a relative sense of course. Of course they appreciate and enjoy them. But for men it's on a whole different level. Looks are simply a deal breaker for men.

For which men? The one's you stereotype in your head?

Last time I checked, the majority of women are in relationships and they aren't all 10/10s. Your generalisations are bullshit.

 

[Damon_3388]

If you stay reasonably fit and healthly dont smoke, do drugs, drink excessively etc on average you will cost the system less on average than those whose lifestyle choices dictate on average they will cost the system more.

Is it right to charge them more is another argument

Either way, the way that some people carry on like they're personally forking out hundreds of dollars a year to "support" these people medically is ridiculous. I'd say Joe Bloggs and his friends who have heart conditions due to being overweight are personally costing you a few cents a year at the absolute most. It's costing them a hell of a lot more if they're sick, financially and health-wise, but you can't pretend you genuinely give a shit about that. The real issue you and others have is that they're not conforming to your ideal.

 

[ShanDog]

Either way, the way that some people carry on like they're personally forking out hundreds of dollars a year to "support" these people medically is ridiculous. I'd say Joe Bloggs and his friends who have heart conditions due to being overweight are personally costing you a few cents a year at the absolute most. It's costing them a hell of a lot more if they're sick, financially and health-wise, but you can't pretend you genuinely give a shit about that. The real issue you and others have is that they're not conforming to your ideal.

A third of the yearly budget is spent on health. It's an issue worth discussing.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

For which men? The one's you stereotype in your head?

Last time I checked, the majority of women are in relationships and they aren't all 10/10s. Your generalisations are bullshit.

Of course they are. Not all men have the same standards or tastes.

But given a choice, men will more likely go for looks than women will. Men are far more shallow.

 

[ShanDog]

You must hang around with some really shit blokes.

 

[Damon_3388]

A third of the yearly budget is spent on health. It's an issue worth discussing.

Yes, but how much of taxpayer-funded health assistance is directly relating to health issues caused by people being overweight? Nobody is going to have a figure, but I wouldn't think it'd be that much, per taxpayer.

Again, there seems to be this misconception that because someone is overweight, they must therefore be riddled with ongoing health issues, all of which require taxpayer-assisted healthcare to keep under control or cure. I don't think the average fat person is any more "costly" to the average taxpayer than anyone else is.

 

[ShanDog]

Yes, but how much of taxpayer-funded health assistance is directly relating to health issues caused by people being overweight? Nobody is going to have a figure, but I wouldn't think it'd be that much, per taxpayer.

Again, there seems to be this misconception that because someone is overweight, they must therefore be riddled with ongoing health issues, all of which require taxpayer-assisted healthcare to keep under control or cure. I don't think the average fat person is any more "costly" to the average taxpayer than anyone else is.

You might be right, but let's go back to the context in which I brought up cost - someone saying that if a person is obese but happy, we should see them as a role model for accepting themselves.

I said, "Sure. So long as they aren't claiming medicare." It's the principle I am talking about, and when it comes to principles it doesn't matter how big or small the issue is. That's why it's a principle.

 

[MrsEddieBetts]

Yeah, and that's what happens when we have universal health care. We have to support the fatties, the smokers, the drinkers, the junkies...that's life.

 

[Damon_3388]

You might be right, but let's go back to the context in which I brought up cost - someone saying that if a person is obese but happy, we should see them as a role model for accepting themselves.

I said, "Sure. So long as they aren't claiming medicare." It's the principle I am talking about, and when it comes to principles it doesn't matter how big or small the issue is. That's why it's a principle.

Just seems a bit weird and extreme to think it's justified to deny someone healthcare just because they are overweight. Not all health issues that an overweight person may have are a result of them being overweight.

If you're going to base access to health care on conditions or potential health risks that you have control over, you're probably limiting yourself to very few people who would be eligible for it according to your "principles".

In terms of things that other people may do (because we're all perfect on the Internet, right?), other people's weight is pretty low down on the things worth worrying about IMO.

 

[ShanDog]

Just seems a bit weird and extreme to think it's justified to deny someone healthcare just because they are overweight. Not all health issues that an overweight person may have are a result of them being overweight.

In terms of things that other people may do (because we're all perfect on the Internet, right?), other people's weight is pretty low down on the things worth worrying about IMO.

Didn't say anything about denying them healthcare.

Just because this is being discussed, doesn't mean it #1 on everyone's hit list of critical issues in modern society mate.

 

[Damon_3388]

Didn't say anything about denying them healthcare.

Read your own post again:

You might be right, but let's go back to the context in which I brought up cost - someone saying that if a person is obese but happy, we should see them as a role model for accepting themselves.

I said, "Sure. So long as they aren't claiming medicare." It's the principle I am talking about, and when it comes to principles it doesn't matter how big or small the issue is. That's why it's a principle.

I would equate not wanting overweight people to claim Medicare to denying them their health care rights in Australia.

Just because this is being discussed, doesn't mean it #1 on everyone's hit list of critical issues in modern society mate.

I never said it was number one, but it's a big whinge topic for a lot of people.

In general, I think people worry and complain too much about what other people do, especially stuff that doesn't greatly personally affect them.

 

[ShanDog]

I would equate not wanting overweight people to claim Medicare to denying them their health care rights in Australia.

What? This argument makes no sense.

We are talking hypothetically here. If we had it 'my way' (which it really isn't) and Medicare wasn't available to those who contribute to their own poor health, it wouldn't be 'denying them their health care rights' would it? It would just be the policy.

 

[dales.girl38]

it wouldn't be 'denying them their health care rights' would it?

Umm..yes, yes it would.

 

[ShanDog]

Umm..yes, yes it would.

You can't be denied a right that doesn't exist. Remember - hypothetical world where you don't get Medicare if you contributed to your poor health.

 

[Andre]

Yeah, and that's what happens when we have universal health care. We have to support the fatties, the smokers, the drinkers, the junkies...that's life.

No one would advocate denial of health care, but if you smoke, drink or are overweight and get an illness / condition where those are a risk factor it's not unfair to ask to contribute. Either that or change the Medicare rate from being flat to being 1% then add on additions for smoking / drinking / obesity.

At the very least given the scarcity of organs for donations if there is a replacement heart, the overweight potential recipient should be lower on the list then someone whose just had a shit 'roll of the dice'.

I don't think we have any right to deny anyone wanting to partake in smoking, drinking or being overweight - it's their choice. It's just also their responsibility.

 

[edgie]

Watching some Lethal Weapon on the TV... Remember the time when Mel Gibson was an action star? They were the days. These days he would be told to hit the gym. Hard.

 

[ShanDog]

No one would advocate denial of health care, but if you smoke, drink or are overweight and get an illness / condition where those are a risk factor it's not unfair to ask to contribute. Either that or change the Medicare rate from being flat to being 1% then add on additions for smoking / drinking / obesity.

At the very least given the scarcity of organs for donations if there is a replacement heart, the overweight potential recipient should be lower on the list then someone whose just had a shit 'roll of the dice'.

I don't think we have any right to deny anyone wanting to partake in smoking, drinking or being overweight - it's their choice. It's just also their responsibility.

Agree and if there were a way that the medicare levy system could be somehow tailored to how well you actually look after yourself and work, it would be brilliant. But there are so many issues there, that no doubt people would crack the sads and not support it.

Even just one example off the top of my head - if you added a 1% surcharge for people who were in the obese BMI category, people would say that lower socio-economic demographics would probably be the majority affected and they can't afford to eat healthy and exercise. In some cases, they would be right. In others, the obese BMI is through personal choice in reaction to whatever their life or personality issues they have. There would be no way to separate the two cases effectively for taxation purposes.

 

[MrsEddieBetts]

You can't be denied a right that doesn't exist. Remember - hypothetical world where you don't get Medicare if you contributed to your poor health.

By you creating this hypothetical policy you are denying them the right to health care.

 

[Damon_3388]

You can't be denied a right that doesn't exist. Remember - hypothetical world where you don't get Medicare if you contributed to your poor health.

To implement it now, you would be denying them or taking away a right that currently exists.

What? This argument makes no sense.

We are talking hypothetically here. If we had it 'my way' (which it really isn't) and Medicare wasn't available to those who contribute to their own poor health, it wouldn't be 'denying them their health care rights' would it? It would just be the policy.

Agree and if there were a way that the medicare levy system could be somehow tailored to how well you actually look after yourself and work, it would be brilliant. But there are so many issues there, that no doubt people would crack the sads and not support it.

Even just one example off the top of my head - if you added a 1% surcharge for people who were in the obese BMI category, people would say that lower socio-economic demographics would probably be the majority affected and they can't afford to eat healthy and exercise. In some cases, they would be right. In others, the obese BMI is through personal choice in reaction to whatever their life or personality issues they have. There would be no way to separate the two cases effectively for taxation purposes.

And hypothetically, how much extra taxpayer dollars would means testing and officially implementing this "policy" cost?

Also, if you've got a genuine illness requires treatment beyond a simple GP's visit, and have to visit a specialist or be hospitalised, Medicare doesn't cover that anyway, does it?

 

[ShanDog]

To implement it now, you would be denying them or taking away a right that currently exists.

The moment the act was changed, there would be no right to deny. This is a Schroedinger's cat situation and has no bearing on the issue of the policy to be discussed. Could you imagine if every time a law change was discussed, the argument 'You are taking/changing a right' was used against it? You argue the merit of the change.

And hypothetically, how much extra taxpayer dollars would means testing and officially implementing this "policy" cost?

Too much to justify, which is unfortunate.

Also, if you've got a genuine illness requires treatment beyond a simple GP's visit, and have to visit a specialist or be hospitalised, Medicare doesn't cover that anyway, does it?

Sure it does, but it never covers all costs. Even a 15 minute appointment with the GP can have a gap that you need to cover yourself - doctors can charge whatever the hell they like as far as I am aware. Once you reach certain amounts of expenditure, the rebates you get are much higher too.

I don't know the ins and outs of the system, but I don't see how it's relevant to what I've been talking about anyway.

 

[ShanDog]

Quick and dirty summary of what Medicare and Private Health covers right now Damon_3388:
National health policy

Health care in Australia is universal. The federal government pays a large percentage of the cost of services in public hospitals. This percentage is calculated on:

1. Whether the government subsidises this service (based on the Medicare Benefits Schedule). Typically, 100% of in-hospital costs, 75% of General Practitioner and 85% of specialist services are covered.
2. Whether the patient is entitled to a concession or receives other benefits
3. Whether the patient has crossed the threshold for further subsidised service (based on total health expenditure for the year)[14]

Where the government pays the large subsidy, the patient pays the remainder out of pocket (in some countries called a copayment), unless the provider of the service chooses to use bulk billing, charging only the scheduled fee, leaving the patient with no extra costs. Where a particular service is not covered, such as dentistry, optometry, and ambulance transport, patients must pay the full amount, unless they hold a Low Income Earner card, which may entitle them to subsidised access.

Individuals can take out private health insurance to cover out-of-pocket costs, with either a plan that covers just selected services, to a full coverage plan. In practice, a person with private insurance may still be left with out-of-pocket payments, as services in private hospitals often cost more than the insurance payment.

The government encourages individuals with income above a set level to privately insure. This is done by charging these (higher income) individuals a surcharge of 1% to 1.5% of income if they do not take out private health insurance, and a means-tested rebate. This is to encourage individuals who are perceived as able to afford private insurance not to resort to the public health system.

 

[MrsEddieBetts]

Cool thread El Dubya

 

[Damon_3388]

The moment the act was changed, there would be no right to deny. This is a Schroedinger's cat situation and has no bearing on the issue of the policy to be discussed. Could you imagine if every time a law change was discussed, the argument 'You are taking/changing a right' was used against it? You argue the merit of the change.

Yes, and the merit and need for this change, when properly analysed, is minimal.

Opens up a Pandora's box of trying to determine on a case-by-case basis of what illnesses people (overweight or not) have been self-caused and what haven't, which is a whole lot of costly and time-consuming wank around, when we could just treat the sick and move on.

Too much to justify, which is unfortunate.

So if "cost" is the issue, how is a solution that requires greater costs and greater administration to implement then a good and worthwhile solution?

As I implied earlier, I think the cost argument is just a smokescreen for people's aesthetic dislike of overweight people.

Sure it does, but it never covers all costs. Even a 15 minute appointment with the GP can have a gap that you need to cover yourself - doctors can charge whatever the hell they like as far as I am aware. Once you reach certain amounts of expenditure, the rebates you get are much higher too.

I don't know the ins and outs of the system, but I don't see how it's relevant to what I've been talking about anyway.

It's totally relevant, because the proposed reason to take away/deny Medicare to overweight people is because their health care is costing the taxpayer money. If Medicare didn't cover anything more than a GP's visit at a bulk billing surgury, then health care for serious medical issues caused by being overweight (which would require more than a simple doctor's visit to treat) wouldn't be costing the taxpayer hardly anything, would it?

Quick and dirty summary of what Medicare and Private Health covers right now Damon_3388:
National health policy

Health care in Australia is universal. The federal government pays a large percentage of the cost of services in public hospitals. This percentage is calculated on:

1. Whether the government subsidises this service (based on the Medicare Benefits Schedule). Typically, 100% of in-hospital costs, 75% of General Practitioner and 85% of specialist services are covered.
2. Whether the patient is entitled to a concession or receives other benefits
3. Whether the patient has crossed the threshold for further subsidised service (based on total health expenditure for the year)[14]

Ok, genuinely wasn't aware of the bolded.

If that is genuinely the case, what exactly are people (including myself) paying for private health cover (and hospital cover) for then?