I think you’re gonna have to back up the claims that seat belts reduce the cost of medical treatment for accident victims, and that the motivation for enacting seat belt laws was to save money and not protect people.
The first point seems questionable, since the medical treatment costs of someone who dies are a lot less than the treatment costs for someone who lives through an accident.
The second point just seems silly.
Seriously?
I agree it’s hard to prove prime motivating intent as every law maker would rationally insist they are taking the moral high ground of saving lives. But let me ask you this; Do you think it’s more likely that the instructions on a shampoo bottle are to absolve the company of legal responsibility or to educate the masses on shampoo usage?
"Over all, 58 percent of the patients had been wearing seat belts. Their mean injury severity score was 1.8, as against 4.51 for people who were not wearing the belts. Only 6.8 percent of the subjects required admission to the hospital, far lower than the 19.2 percent of those who were not wearing seat belts. Hospital charges for the belt wearers averaged $534, as against $1,583. There were five deaths in the study; all involved people who were not wearing seat belts. Of the most severely injured patients, 81.8 percent were not wearing seat belts. "
Tell me your not going to argue that the deaths of those 5 people were a windfall for an insurance company that has to pay out if that person dies anyway.
If it does, then so does a nationally mandated seat belt law.
Now for yucks, go see how many health care resources are used up setting broken bones from skiing accidents, skateboarding, bicycling, and playing softball. Should we tax all those as well.
If find this whole discussion abhorrent. People sitting around talking about who’s head they should next put a gun to control their behaviour.
I’ve got a good idea - why don’t we all just learn to leave our neighbors the hell alone and stop obsessing about what they are or aren’t costing us all? If you don’t like paying for it their health care, maybe you shouldn’t advocate universal health coverage. If you want it, accept that some people’s choices are going to cause them to use more of those resources than you do. Unless of course you have your own bad behaviours. Wait until we find out about them.
And yes, this means I think all sin taxes should be abolished. The state has no right to tell me what I can or can’t put into my body. I never voted for universal health care. I don’t want universal health care. You want it so bad, you can suck it up if some people live lifestyles you don’t approve of.
The poor only eat junk food? That seems like a pretty big generalization to me. Also, why would it matter if they were included in the tax credit or not? I’m fairly sure the poor cannot afford hybrid cars, home improvements, or solar energy, but there were tax credits given for these things.
Not all of them, the poor that eat only junk food only.
But those tax credits are not aimed at reducing obesity. Those that can afford gym memberships can also afford vegetables and lean meat.
I guess I’m thinking more of people who are in the lower middle to middle of the spectrum, which is a signifficant chunk of people. However, I’ll concede that most would probably be too damn lazy to take advantage of a credit even if it were offered.
Oh well, let’s ban some trans fats and tax the rest of it.
Here is something else to consider:
So, do we use those standards and make a fat tax, even though more non-middle age males would pay it than non-middle age females, generally speaking?
Just brainstorming here, but how about deregulating insurance requirements so that they are allowed to add an additional premium for obesity (with some cap) even within group policies?
Pass it along to the individual instead of punishing the employer or provider for chronic health problems.
My first reponse to this would be that it violates the “group” concept of insurance, but on the flip side it acts as an incentive for obese people to get health care.
Or it causes them to lose their health care and then shifts the burden to public health services or emergency rooms.
I know I am all over the place on this one, but I am just typing out loud.
Well, there you go making sense again. You forgot fertility treatments, the cost of multiple births and its associated pricey neonatal intensive care for weeks or months, and overuse injuries of both amateur and professional athletes.
But these are indulgences of the middle class and the well-heeled so there will be no scrutiny in these matters.
It is one of the few negative consequences of living in a wealthy society and having lots of leisure time; we are almost obsessive about what other people do. Selectively so, for the reason mentioned above. It’s all about what’s fashionable and what offends our tender sensibilities at a given point in time.
It’s kind of funny, really. One of the (perhaps less immediate) arguments for UHC is that folks with pre-existing conditions have to overcome high premiums and/or lengthy waiting periods to be included in the present system. In other words, it’s discriminatory. But let’s make up our own group of people who need to be penalized or discriminated against so that we don’t have to pay more, whether they actually cost more or not.
Sounds like the very same tactic the evokes ire when private insurers do it. Oh, irony.
It does make one wonder how much of the push for UHC is truly humanitarian and how much is of it is an opportunistic club that will be used to make the undesirables either conform or be purged.
I’m not sure it’s practical. If one is in a large group and doesn’t make use of the insurance, then one has a degree of anonymity in that regard. Unless, of course, you want corporations to have health police who run around with portable scales and calipers and tape measures when someone merely signs up for a plan.
Why not DNA tests or, at least, family histories? Your father died of a stroke at age 47? Let’s raise your premiums 150%.
I look at it this way: one of my co-workers, at age 42, got breast cancer. She has been treated and, thankfully, has been cancer free for two years. But she has to get a number of expensive tests every year and visit an oncologist and a radiologist, in addition to her primary care physician. This is costly. Should we raise her rates? After all, is she at increased risk for a recurrence or, worse yet, having the cancer metastasize (some lymph nodes were involved). Btw, she’s a non-smoker and doesn’t have an ounce of excess fat on her body.
Regardless of her weight or personal habits, she is an expense. Additionally, she has two children who seem to have frequent visits to the pediatrician. One is on ritalin, but other than that all those trips to the doctor, with strep tests and mono tests and prescriptions, mostly for common childhood diseases, cost money. This family is a real drain on the health insurance ratings.
Exactly! Cancer patients are expensive. Right now. Childbearing patients are expensive. Right now. Obese patients might or might not be expensive in the now and in the future. An otherwise healthy person who is significantly overweight and gainfully employed is a net gain to the system.
But here we overlook the group insurance system, which estimates costs across the entire population of its users. That’s the basis for the premiums. In some years some people will use it more than others.
But using health care is expensive; not using it is not expensive. That applies whether one is obese (we could use a definition here) or not. 
After all, if you’re obese, if you drink to much, if you smoke (or chew) or even use illegal/unregulated drugs, you get to a point where you get tired of going to the doctor to be lectured. Unless one is a complete masochist, they avoid going to a physician as much as possible.
Well that’s a good possibility; the laws of unintended consequences. But at least you’re thinking ahead, instead of thinking reflexively.
By the same token, it does presume that obese folks require an inordinate amount of medical care all the time. I suspect that, like many other so-called vices, most health issues don’t present until later in life unless there are specific genetic predispositions to the contrary.
Hey, lots of us do that now and then. 
Actually the factiod that fatty food are bad for you is being disputed. And, no one sez that fatty foods are worse than smoking. Other than being a coal miner or playing russian roulette, smoking is about the worst amn thing you can do. Not to mention that SHS is dangerous to others.
But which definition of obesity would you go by? The incorrect, outdated version many mean when they say it, “someone who weighs more than their BMI says they should by a certain amount”? Or, the definition bolded in the quote in my post, which says it ought to be about where the fat is in the body rather than volume? If that standard is used, a lot of lean people will be in for a nasty suprise and will find themselves paying more, while some who are quite overweight won’t have to because of where their fat is. More males would pay in general then females too. Read the article in my previous post, then think about what you said. I think first, an education campaign is needful, and it needs to include medical professionals. Then we can think about whether we want to tax those who have too much of the unhealthy fat placement or not. (I tend to lean towards not, myself.)
Here’s a study:
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/486057
Main results
Twenty seven studies were included (40 intervention arms, 30,901 person – years). There was no significant effect on total mortality (rate ratio 0.98, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.12), a trend towards protection form cardiovascular mortality (rate ratio 0.91, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.07), and significant protection from cardiovascular events (rate ratio 0.84, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.99). The latter became non – significant on sensitivity analysis.
Trials where participants were involved for more than 2 years showed significant reductions in the rate of cardiovascular events and a suggestion of protection from total mortality. The degree of protection from cardiovascular events appeared similar in high and low risk groups, but was statistically significant only in the former.
Authors’ conclusions
The findings are suggestive of a small but potentially important reduction in cardiovascular risk in trials longer than two years. Lifestyle advice to all those at high risk of cardiovascular disease (especially where statins are unavailable or rationed), and to lower risk population groups, should continue to include permanent reduction of dietary saturated fat and partial replacement by unsaturates.
There’s an article in Men’s Health, November, too.
Not that the studies show that you can eat all the fatty foodyou want- there is some correlation, just not as much as was thought. It seems to be that how much you eat (including carbs!)and what kind of fat is more important that just the % of fat.