 |
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
stui magpie 
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
Where is this "deserving" "undeserving" coming from, except from David? If someone said that over weight people don't deserve health care, I missed it.
David, you keep referring to discrimination. I suggest you go back and look at what are the currently legislated prohibeted grounds for discrimination in Australia and the states. Theres a few of them. Race, Sex and Sexual orientation are included in these (to you argumenht about Aboriginals, women and gays) but fat people aren't.
Physical features not within your control are in some. That covers red heads, big noses, monobrows, but doesn't cover obesity.
The other part of this argument falls back to part of what Tannin referred to before, the difference between the universal health care in Medicare and private health insurance offered by a private company.
If an obese person has an accident or a health issue, they can present to an emergency department and will get treated depending on the severity of their condition. Their weight has nothing to do with it. (unless they're really to obese to be treated)
This is all about the premium being charged by an insurance company, and basing it on things that mitigate their risk.
So two people want to get private health insurance. Same age, same income, both single, etc etc.
Person 1 exercises, eats well, has low cholesterol, normal blood pressure etc etc. basically picture of health.
Person 2 doesn't exercise, eats crap, has high cholesterol, high blood pressure, etc etc and is significantly overweight.
You think that they should be charged the same premium, even though person 2 is a much higher health risk?
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
 |
pietillidie
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
^In defense of David, as soon as someone mentions "personal choice" and "personal control", they by definition should not also be referring to private insurance in the same breath, because private insurance doesn't give a stuff what the cause of the risk is, just that there's an assessed risk.
So it cuts both ways.
_________________
In the end the rain comes down, washes clean the streets of a blue sky town.
Help Nick's: http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/fundraising.htm |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| pietillidie wrote: | ^In defense of David, as soon as someone mentions "personal choice" and "personal control", they by definition should not also be referring to private insurance in the same breath, because private insurance doesn't give a stuff what the cause of the risk is, just that there's an assessed risk.
So it cuts both ways. |
But you've just nailed the nib of the argument. Insurance companies just care if there's an assessed risk, so based on that they propose to charge obese people more for health insurance. End discussion.
David is the one who started the thread as he thinks it's discriminatory.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
think positive 
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Tannin wrote: | So you honestly think that an insurance company offering a discount to people who reduce its costs because they look after themselves is "disgustingly moralistic"? Really?
Explain to me, please, how that is different to an insurance company offering a discount to people who drive carefully and don't have so many accidents?
It seems to me that the two are exactly the same, and I challenge you to demonstrate otherwise. |
Yep, exactly
You could look at it another way David, and that's that those with unhealthy habits that's contribute to their health problems pay the normal rate, and those that look after themselves by excercising (moderate walking a few times a week I'm talking, not drilling yourself in to the ground, which I personally like to do!) and eat appropriately to keep their weight, blood pressure, cholesterol etc to good levels, meaning they will then be a lower risk for things like lifestyle related heart attacks, strokes, etc, get a discount. Like your no claim bonus the possession insurance people give you.
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
KenH
Joined: 24 Jan 2010
|
| Post subject: | |
|
What happens if you are overweight but don't have high cholesterol or high blood pressure? Do you go by the BMI or how healthy you are?
_________________
Cheers big ears |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| KenH wrote: | | What happens if you are overweight but don't have high cholesterol or high blood pressure? Do you go by the BMI or how healthy you are? |
Hopefully not the BMI or they'll be turning us all into anorexics.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
Morrigu 
Joined: 11 Aug 2001
|
| Post subject: | |
|
So what is to define whether a person is "overweight" " obese"?
I note that in the article Fitzgibbon states that " a discount could be offered to people with a body mass index below a certain level"
There is a significant body of evidence and opinion that the BMI is an inaccurate measure of body fat content as it does not take into account muscle mass, bone density, overall body composition and racial differences etc.
So if an arbitrary BMI is used as the defining criteria then we will have many athletes classed as " fat" as muscle weighs more than fat.
So what then - 2 people, one an athlete, one a couch spud same BMI - do we resort to visual confirmation as to whether a person is overweight or obese?
Or perhaps we should use waist measurement which seems to be a better predictor of risk for developing a chronic disease?
That might be better as long as it doesn't require any visual component - cause someone who has ummm let's say a large derričre or plentiful thighs who may look overweight may in fact be quite healthy as their waist measurement is just fine - and it is this that many believe is a better indicator of the likelihood of developing chronic/ongoing health issues as it indicates where the fat is placed around the body.
It is just not a simple one size fits all argument and that for me is where such a proposal falls down and is realistically open to corporate manipulation and yes discrimination.
Obviously I am not talking about the morbidly obese - they will undoubtedly have signs and symptoms related to their weight and will undoubtedly be at significant risk of chronic health problems and perhaps it is reasonable that private insurers can indeed charge higher premiums as the risk is substantial and verifiable. And at least for the moment we have Medicare and public health services available!
FWIW I have no vested interest my BMI says I am the ideal healthy weight - healthy healthy me 
_________________
“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.” |
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
I'd love to know where they get that BMI shit from, apparently I'm still 3kg to heavy!
It's doesn't take muscle into account, your right, the waist measurement thing is what they should judge by,
Unless your a giant or a dwarf
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
Skids 
Quitting drinking will be one of the best choices you make in your life.
Joined: 11 Sep 2007
Location: Joined 3/6/02 . Member #175
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| think positive wrote: | I'd love to know where they get that BMI shit from, apparently I'm still 3kg to heavy!
It's doesn't take muscle into account, your right, the waist measurement thing is what they should judge by,
Unless your a giant or a dwarf |
BMI is total crap and most people know it. There's another way to work out your correct weight range that the military use. It's all about; height, waist and neck circumference ... something like that.
We had some over educated health expert (sorry couldn't resist the dig with all that's been going on here lately  ) come to site. She weighed us and did all the other stuff, turned out almost everyone was overweight or obese  We did the one the military use and most of us were verging on Olympic athletes.
Thing is with this whole topic, it's all speculation anyway 
_________________
Don't count the days, make the days count. |
|
|
|
|
HAL
Please don't shout at me - I can't help it.
Joined: 17 Mar 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| What happened to some over educated health expert sorry couldn't resist the dig with all that's been going on here lately wink come to site ? |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| stui magpie wrote: | | Where is this "deserving" "undeserving" coming from, except from David? If someone said that over weight people don't deserve health care, I missed it. |
You may disagree, but I think it's a pretty clear subtext here (from the article):
| Quote: | | “Community rating is there to protect people who, through no fault of their own, through things they can’t control like their age, that they’re not penalised," he said. "But it shouldn’t protect people who deliberately engage in behaviours which add to their risk profile." |
| stui magpie wrote: | | David, you keep referring to discrimination. I suggest you go back and look at what are the currently legislated prohibeted grounds for discrimination in Australia and the states. Theres a few of them. Race, Sex and Sexual orientation are included in these (to you argumenht about Aboriginals, women and gays) but fat people aren't. |
That's (at least partially) wrong:
http://www.afr.com/p/national/work_space/fattism_new_legal_risk_at_work_11OKwV7Lm7IkRItrR63ckO
| Quote: | | In Victoria it is generally unlawful to discriminate against employees, and prospective employees, based on their weight. This is because “physical appearance” is an attribute protected by the Equal Opportunity Act. So, for example, if a manager believed overweight people were lazy, and consequently rejected any job applicants she deemed to be overweight, that may well be unlawful discrimination. Whilst employees and prospective employees must be able to perform the essential requirements of the job, employers must not jump to conclusions. |
Even if this were not the case, it's still acceptable to talk about a form of discrimination even if it's not yet legally recognised. Treating overweight people differently for any reason (at least, any reason that's not covered purely by health reasons, a test that I think this particular proposal would fail) is of course the dictionary definition of discrimination. The fact that overweight people are popularly seen to have caused their own condition doesn't stop it from being discrimination; it just leads some people to believe that it's an acceptable form of discrimination. That's all.
Furthermore, Ken raises a really great point about an overweight person who is otherwise healthy. There's reason to think that under this proposal they'd be slugged exactly the same as an overweight person with high cholesterol and other issues.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
HAL
Please don't shout at me - I can't help it.
Joined: 17 Mar 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Does anyone ever really said that over weight people don't deserve health care he or she missed it? |
|
|
|
|
1061
Joined: 06 Sep 2013
|
| Post subject: | |
|
I hope everyone who voted for the LNP are proud of themselves!
http://www.news.com.au/national/medibank-clerks-overrule-doctors-to-refuse-claims-from-burns-victims-skin-cancer-patients-and-breast-implant-victims/story-fncynjr2-1226999219758
| Quote: |
THE nation’s largest health fund is refusing to fund plastic surgery for burns and skin cancer victims under a new policy which doctors claim amounts to the introduction of US-style managed care.
The Government owned health fund Medibank has also refused to pay for women to have both breast implants removed after one of them burst under the controversial new policy.
The Australian Society of Plastic Surgeons said Medibank’s new policy meant a health fund clerk who may have no medical qualifications was overruling a doctor without ever seeing the patient.
Australian Medical Association president Professor Brian Owler yesterday warned the National Press Club “I fear a concerted effort on behalf of private health insurers to undermine and control the medical profession”.
“The stage is being set for a US-style managed care system in both the primary and hospital settings”.
“I am concerned that the Government is also looking towards such a system,” he said.
The peak doctors group is concerned about Medibank’s new process which requires a pre-approval of certain medical procedures.
Australia Society of Plastic Surgeons spokesman Mr David Nathan told News Corp that Medibank had knocked back rebates for a range of plastic surgery procedures in recent weeks.
These included burns victims and a person who needed reconstructive surgery after a skin cancer was removed.
When a woman needed to have a ruptured breast implant removed the fund was only prepared to pay for the removal of one implant even though the doctor believed there was a risk the intact one would rupture later.
The fund also refused cover for a woman who had extremely large breasts that were causing her back and neck pain, he said.
The society has taken up the funds’ controversial new policy with the fund and the federal health department.
“If Medicare refuses cover, the patient may opt to have the procedure in a less safe facility in Australia or overseas and if they are confronted with complications the public system will inevitably have to step in,” Mr Nathan said. |
|
|
|
|
|
Wokko 
Come and take it.
Joined: 04 Oct 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| It's a free market, leave Medibank, go elsewhere. Problem solved. |
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Wokko wrote: | | It's a free market, leave Medibank, go elsewhere. Problem solved. |
no.
what does their policy say? was there a change, were they made aware of it?
plastic surgery after skin cancer removal, and definitely after breast (cancer) removal, is a necessity for self esteem, helps to prevent depression. these people have been through enough. personally I think MEDICARE should do more, but that's another fight.
yes a lot of skin cancer is here because of those days when roasting in baby oil was cool, but most did it out of ignorance, they just didnt know. breast cancer however, strikes anyone, anytime. not because of lifestyle, all though it helps. just like prostrate cancer. its nobodies fault. and they deserve all the help they can get.
even that boob job, what health problems will they be paying for if they don't help out now? how about if she gets so desperate she tries to cut it out herself?
and the back pain? we are not talking about a porn queen with huge implants, just a woman suffering, through no fault of her own. medicare should apy for that one.
until we learn that prevention is better than a cure, it will be a roundabout. that's why the medicinal business will always be booming.
I did not vote for this government by the way!
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
