I just felt this policy would hit people where it really hurts: their wallets... and their self-images.

Well, your feelings are correct. The insurance company does want to hit your wallet. What's at stake here for Insurance companies is that they have to pay more money for procedures for fat people (bipass surgery, etc) than they do for thin people. In their minds, they are only trying to make a profit by charging people who would naturally have more procedures more money.

This is good business sense. Nothing more.

And how can discrimination against fat people be a crime, or be unfair? In certain states, smokers are not allowed to enter any buildings while smoking. This is just as "bad" in the sense that people are punished based on their life-habits.

To summarize:

If you eat a lot of food, are obese, and don't take care of the problem, insurance will compensate by taking care of your future health problems via your wallet. It's smart, legal business sense.

Next you'll see insurance companies treating obesity as a pre-existing condition, therefore any ailments said to be related to obesity are not covered... yet still chraging $60 more to 'cover' these people, when really all they are doing is denying coverage and taking their money.

I am 6 ft 2 inches tall and weigh 205 and according to the latest BMI. {body mass Index} I am overweight by 20 pounds, Will Smith the actor is labeled obese by the BMI for his weight to height ratio. bah!

Interesting, but that's not what I found on the Internet:



Big-Boned: * S: (adj) big-boned (having a bone structure that is massive in contrast with the surrounding flesh)

WordNet home page

If it's all muscle, are you still overweight?

Between the ears? Or all over the body?

My brain is 3.7 pounds.

I am 6 ft 2 inches tall and weigh 205 and according to the latest BMI. {body mass Index} I am overweight by 20 pounds, Will Smith the actor is labeled obese by the BMI for his weight to height ratio. bah!

Ugh. And I used to think that BMI was valid. I doubt that Will Smith is unhealthy.

I googled for an alternate to BMI and this sounds more plausible:

http://qjmed.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/93/9/589#top

Nothing is plausible. People are different. Indexing them does not make them any more or less healthy. Rough guidelines is all you have, but actuarial science is fine by that, because they can come up with statistics based on the BMI, because it's reproducable. 10% in this range have claims, 20% in this range, 50% in this range, etc. So you can come up with a rate difference, but whether it actually will work is another thing.

Reply By: CariElfPosted: Tuesday, July 31, 2007
I am 6 ft 2 inches tall and weigh 205 and according to the latest BMI. {body mass Index} I am overweight by 20 pounds, Will Smith the actor is labeled obese by the BMI for his weight to height ratio. bah!


Ugh. And I used to think that BMI was valid. I doubt that Will Smith is unhealthy.

I googled for an alternate to BMI and this sounds more plausible:

http://qjmed.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/93/9/589#top[/quote]

I will check this out, thank you

Ok carielf I checked it out and WTF? all that stuff is so far over my head I have a head ache now.

Interesting, but that's not what I found on the Internet: Big-Boned: * S: (adj) big-boned (having a bone structure that is massive in contrast with the surrounding flesh)

Just because the term is defined doesn't mean that it's a valid reason to be overweight.

From allexperts.com re: the 'big boned' myth...
Yes, there is such a thing as being “big boned.” If we took 100 girls your age and height and measured wrist circumference (mostly bone there, not fat), we would find some minor differences due to bone size. This used to be referred to as having a small, medium, or large frame. But bone size is not felt to have much influence on healthy weight ranges. More important would be the percent of body weight that is muscle versus fat. But unless you are an athlete in peak condition, your percentages probably fall within those already accounted for in tables of healthy weight ranges. (bold added for emphasis)

The same debate has started in UK. I dont have a huge problem with it, providing the principle is extended to all other forms of known health reducing issues such as drug abuse, alcohol abuse, extreme vegan diets, boxing (potential brain damage is now proven fact), blood transfusions against their religion, refusal to turn off life support for the brain dead, injury resulting from not wearing a seat belt, etc etc - the list could on for a long time.

Some would be contentious - a few deliberate ones thrown in earlier to illustrate the problem - some obvious, however as long as the "system" took all of them fairly, thats fine. Frankly I doubt the latter would ever happen, too many Votes at stake.

So called fatties on their own - nope, thats way off beam.

Jythier:

Next you'll see insurance companies treating obesity as a pre-existing condition, therefore any ailments said to be related to obesity are not covered... yet still chraging $60 more to 'cover' these people, when really all they are doing is denying coverage and taking their money.

Maybe the extra $60 per month in insurance costs will stop some fatties from visiting the Sizzler.

I never said it was a valid reason, I merely pointed that people don't have x-ray vision to see if you are fat due to muscle and bone or due to eating too much. The average person needs merely to look at someone fatter than a supermodel and quickly dismiss them as overweight. I'm sure from a medical point of view people who are overweight due to physical reasons not lifestyle choices will probably not got punished, but how would an employee who is large due to him just simply being large and not necessarily being fat (considering he eats normal or on a diet) get a lucrative incentive if the company sees him as overweight, not slim down as stated here in the article: