Quote from llg
Why just pick on the people with a high BMI? Why not pick on people who have other risk factors, such as:
... people with a history of cancer in the families
... women within child-bearing age who might get pregnant
... people with a history of heart disease in their families
... people who engage in sports/leisure activities that are injury prone (such as skiing, basketball, etc.)
I understand the impetus to place more responsibility for healthcare costs on the recipient, and don't necessarily disagree with it. But this entire exercise seems like a short trip down a slippery slope. It's easy to hit the smokers, drinkers and over-weight with a surcharge. Their "sins" are relatively easy to identify, are relatively socially un-acceptable and are not protected in any way legally.
But start down the path of sports and leisure activities...when does skiing cease to be healthful and become dangerous? What about activities that are within one's ability to choose or prevent, such as childbearing? And how about those genetic tendencies like Huntington's Disease and breast cancer?
What a can of worms!
Jan 13 by JolieQuote from llgI understand the impetus to place more responsibility for healthcare costs on the recipient, and don't necessarily disagree with it. But this entire exercise seems like a short trip down a slippery slope. It's easy to hit the smokers, drinkers and over-weight with a surcharge. Their "sins" are relatively easy to identify, are relatively socially un-acceptable and are not protected in any way legally.Why just pick on the people with a high BMI? Why not pick on people who have other risk factors, such as: