Samoa Air to start charging passengers according to their weight

[neo45]

Originally Posted by stormchaser

People that smoke cigarettes and are obese should pay a higher rate because they are the ones who will need more care in the future or are at the highest risk of needing care. There are so many more unhealthy habits that we could add to the list as well......drugs, excessive drinking.......

I'm sure there is a huge grey area in that last statement but it is frustrating to see people being a drain on our healthcare when they could proactively do something to better themselves and live a healthier life.

I'd also be in favor of lowering someones rate if they went to the gym or led a physically active life. Overall I think it would be fair to impose higher health care rates on those people who don't take care of their health.

People who smoke do pay more towards healthcare, due to the ridiculous tax added on to their tobbacco

[GP_Matt]

What about old people. They use up far more health care dollars than the young. Perhaps there should be a progressive tax system that looks at age instead of income.

(I hope green text isn't needed)

[GGG]

I lover user fee based systems. Although I think that the marginal cost for high weight people would make relatively little difference in terms of the cost of a flight.

A 747-8I has a maximum takeoff weight of roughly 1 million lbs. The maximum payload is 170,000. It has about 500 seats *200lbs/person - 100,000 lbs.

Essentially passengers and fuel for passengers can account for at the most 50% of the fuel cost for the flight. Now fuel costs are somewhere around 30-35% of an airlines costs. So if 50% of the fuel is attributed to passenger and baggage weight and 35% of costs is fuel then only 17% of the ticket cost is actually fuel cost.

So take a $500 tickt cost with an average passenger weight of 170lbs. $85 of fuel cost per person or 50 cents a lb. A 120lb person would pay $60 for fuel and a 250lb person would pay $125 for fuel. So the 120lb person would pay $480 for their ticket and the 250lb person would pay $540. Is it worth it for the airline to do this as now you have to weigh everyone before your flight and deal with refunds for people?

I dont see the value in it. And are you going to attract new customers or for most people traveling with a spouse it will balance off and people traveling business won't care because the company is paying for it.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

What about old people. They use up far more health care dollars than the young. Perhaps there should be a progressive tax system that looks at age instead of income.

(I hope green text isn't needed)

"Old people don't need (healthcare). They need to be isolated and studied so that it can be determined what nutrients they have that might be extracted for our personal use.”

[GP_Matt]

Originally Posted by GGG

I lover user fee based systems. Although I think that the marginal cost for high weight people would make relatively little difference in terms of the cost of a flight.

A 747-8I has a maximum takeoff weight of roughly 1 million lbs. The maximum payload is 170,000. It has about 500 seats *200lbs/person - 100,000 lbs.

Essentially passengers and fuel for passengers can account for at the most 50% of the fuel cost for the flight. Now fuel costs are somewhere around 30-35% of an airlines costs. So if 50% of the fuel is attributed to passenger and baggage weight and 35% of costs is fuel then only 17% of the ticket cost is actually fuel cost.

So take a $500 tickt cost with an average passenger weight of 170lbs. $85 of fuel cost per person or 50 cents a lb. A 120lb person would pay $60 for fuel and a 250lb person would pay $125 for fuel. So the 120lb person would pay $480 for their ticket and the 250lb person would pay $540. Is it worth it for the airline to do this as now you have to weigh everyone before your flight and deal with refunds for people?

I dont see the value in it. And are you going to attract new customers or for most people traveling with a spouse it will balance off and people traveling business won't care because the company is paying for it.

As well, it would cause grief for people who show up at the airport already checked in with no bags. Instead of walking through security and on to the plane there will be an additional step and it would likely be before security so that they can weigh anyone with their bags which means waiting in line at the check-in counter.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

That's now how things work man.
If we start doing that then we have to start charging active people for a larger share of bike/running paths.

People who drive more have to pay more for roads.
People on welfare, have to pay more UI.....wait how does that one work
People who have a house fire have to pay to have the FD come put it out

We decide as a society what services we want to have/offer, and we all pay what we pay for taxes, and we use the services as we want/need them. That's how it works, and that's how it should work.

People who drive more do pay for more roads, the most direct way being through toll roads.

I recall a house fire somewhere in the rural south to which the local fire department would not attend due to that particular area being beyond the county/municipal line and the neighboring area refusing to pay into a regional tax pool (or something like that). Not completely relevant but kind of interesting.

I don't have a problem with user fees in general, particularly for luxuries.

[Devils'Advocate]

Well, I was about to go off half-cocked, but Thor wrote just about everything I was going to...

I just watched "Hungry for Change" on the weekend (available on Netflix) and it repeated much of what I have been hearing from one of my doctors. As most of you know, I lost 170 pounds in a year and while I'm much fitter and much happier, keeping off the weight has been absolute hell, so I am working with an eating disorder clinic doctor. These are the things he has been presenting to me:
1) Weight is a bad measure for determining health. Fitness is a much better indicator, but far more difficult thing to measure. There are fit people that are overweight. There are thin people that are horribly unhealthy.
2) In terms of nutrition, it is better to eat a lot of good, natural, healthy foods (3000 calories) than a moderate diet (2000 calories) of crap (chemicals, preservatives, artificial sweeteners, processed anything).

So he is working with me to put weight back on, but still remain as fit as I am today. I do plan on running my first marathon next month. And I'll be doing it by eating much better than I have in the past.

So where was I going with this? Oh yeah... weight should not come into play for such things as health care. It is one of a myriad of factors that play into how healthy one is. Someone that eats 3000 calories of good nutritious food and exercises every day is not likely to be a drain on the health system as someone that eats poorly and is sedentary.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by valo403

People who drive more do pay for more roads, the most direct way being through toll roads.

I recall a house fire somewhere in the rural south to which the local fire department would not attend due to that particular area being beyond the county/municipal line and the neighboring area refusing to pay into a regional tax pool (or something like that). Not completely relevant but kind of interesting.

I don't have a problem with user fees in general, particularly for luxuries.

Not sure roads/fire departments/hospitals are luxuries.

I seem to racall there being some talk about charging for CFD, but I might have that wrong. Appears to be for false alarms:

http://www.calgary.ca/CSPS/Fire/Page...larm-fees.aspx

False alarm fees

Page Content
The Calgary Fire Department (CFD) can assess fees for select, non-emergency services such as response to repeated, preventable false fire alarms.
Through the City of Calgary Fire Fees Bylaw, the ultimate goal of the Calgary Fire Department is to reduce the number of false incidents to which fire crews respond each year.
Fees apply for false alarms within a calendar year:
First false alarm: No charge
Second false alarm: $250
Third false alarm: $250
Four or more false alarms: $500/alarm
The routing of security alarms to the CFD is prohibited and will be subject to a fee of $500 upon a first offence and for every additional alarm.
If a false alarm signal received by the CFD is followed by a secondary call from the building confirming there is no fire and that a fire alarm has been reset, the fee may be reduced by 50 per cent.

I do know that Alberta Transport attempts to recover their costs for clean up/ fire trucks that happen on highways/roads.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

Well, I was about to go off half-cocked, but Thor wrote just about everything I was going to...

I just watched "Hungry for Change" on the weekend (available on Netflix) and it repeated much of what I have been hearing from one of my doctors. As most of you know, I lost 170 pounds in a year and while I'm much fitter and much happier, keeping off the weight has been absolute hell, so I am working with an eating disorder clinic doctor. These are the things he has been presenting to me:
1) Weight is a bad measure for determining health. Fitness is a much better indicator, but far more difficult thing to measure. There are fit people that are overweight. There are thin people that are horribly unhealthy.
2) In terms of nutrition, it is better to eat a lot of good, natural, healthy foods (3000 calories) than a moderate diet (2000 calories) of crap (chemicals, preservatives, artificial sweeteners, processed anything).

So he is working with me to put weight back on, but still remain as fit as I am today. I do plan on running my first marathon next month. And I'll be doing it by eating much better than I have in the past.

So where was I going with this? Oh yeah... weight should not come into play for such things as health care. It is one of a myriad of factors that play into how healthy one is. Someone that eats 3000 calories of good nutritious food and exercises every day is not likely to be a drain on the health system as someone that eats poorly and is sedentary.

One thing I though with the 3000 calories of healthy food is better than 2000 calories of unhealthy food is that it is difficult to eat 3000 clean calories a day. Rather than taxing outcomes for additional health care we need to tax the consumption end of it so you target bad behaviours rather than genetics.

[3 Justin 3]

Buy ticket when you're on a cut, then bulk back up for the flight.

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by GGG

One thing I though with the 3000 calories of healthy food is better than 2000 calories of unhealthy food is that it is difficult to eat 3000 clean calories a day. Rather than taxing outcomes for additional health care we need to tax the consumption end of it so you target bad behaviours rather than genetics.

If we're talking taxing chocolate bars to the hilt while reducing the costs of vegetables, I'm with you 100%.

As for "difficult to eat 3000 clean calories a day", if you mean that you would feel full well before eating that much, I can easily have that much if not more.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

That's now how things work man.
If we start doing that then we have to start charging active people for a larger share of bike/running paths.

People who drive more have to pay more for roads.
People on welfare, have to pay more UI.....wait how does that one work
People who have a house fire have to pay to have the FD come put it out

We decide as a society what services we want to have/offer, and we all pay what we pay for taxes, and we use the services as we want/need them. That's how it works, and that's how it should work.

Says the guy with the "No Fat Chicks" avatar in the thread about charging arline passengers by weight.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

What about old people. They use up far more health care dollars than the young. Perhaps there should be a progressive tax system that looks at age instead of income.

(I hope green text isn't needed)

Green text isn't needed because you're not far off the mark. We spend a ton of money extending people's lives by six months. We should be focusing on letting them die with dignity instead, and put the money we'd save into a better quality of life.

[Rifleman]

Yet another reason (as if you needed any) to smoke a lot of crystal meth from now till your vacation.

[Dion]

It should be based on body mass as opposed to someones weight.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Dion

It should be based on body mass as opposed to someones weight.

That would certainly foil my helium balloon plan.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

If we're talking taxing chocolate bars to the hilt while reducing the costs of vegetables, I'm with you 100%.

As for "difficult to eat 3000 clean calories a day", if you mean that you would feel full well before eating that much, I can easily have that much if not more.

I would tax any refined food to fund health care costs while reducing other taxes as I dont like subsidies choosing for people. The tax should cover the additional health care costs of unhealthy diets and not try to change behaviors.

[gargamel]

Originally Posted by GGG

I would tax any refined food to fund health care costs while reducing other taxes as I dont like subsidies choosing for people. The tax should cover the additional health care costs of unhealthy diets and not try to change behaviors.

Better yet, end corn subsidies and create spinach, broccoli and carrot subsidies.

Of course, Kraft would probably find a way to make high fructose spinach syrup if they did that.

[GP_Matt]

Originally Posted by SebC

Green text isn't needed because you're not far off the mark. We spend a ton of money extending people's lives by six months. We should be focusing on letting them die with dignity instead, and put the money we'd save into a better quality of life.

That is a great discussion to be had about how much money to spend extending life vs. improving quality of life. However, in the thread debating whether or not people should pay their fair share for the service they receive I don't think you will ever see a movement to make seniors pay more for health care in Canada. Not until I can pay more to get a family doctor that I like. In the same vein, I can't ever see a situation where people are charged more taxes for being overweight, smoking, sedentary, substance abuser, risk taker, high stress, chronic complainer, etc. There are simply too many things that could cause a spike in costs.
As long as we have a public system this will be the trade off.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

That is a great discussion to be had about how much money to spend extending life vs. improving quality of life. However, in the thread debating whether or not people should pay their fair share for the service they receive I don't think you will ever see a movement to make seniors pay more for health care in Canada.

If we, as a society, were to prioritize quality of life over extending life, it would then make sense that people who want that extended life should be allowed to have it with the caveat that they must bear the costs for it. That would still be different than a blanket surcharge for seniors though.