5 freedoms you'd lose in health care reform

[RandomGuy]

So, Americans are forced to pay for items they don't want in their coverage. How is that cost efficient? Americans don't like paying extra for things they don't use or need.

I may never use my fire insurance coverage on my house, but I will still pay for it.

You cannot know you will never need something ahead of time, because the future is unknowable. You can estimate probabilities, and that is about it.

That is what insurance does.

It is more cost efficient for us as a society to spread that risk very widely, than it is for no-one to have the coverage, and for us to bear the time and expense of dealing with bankrupcies, legal actions, and collections involved.

We all bear the costs of uninsured in one way or another, it is just out of sight, and buried in the cost of everything else.

For example, if I have no mental health coverage, become insane, do things like vote Republican, then start talking to Ronald Reagan as if he is in the room with me, and my delusions about socialists under every rock become so bad as to impair my ability to work and pay off my debts, then the people I have borrowed money from will pass the costs of that bad debt ont you anyways through higher borrowing costs.

The thing conservatives never fail to fail when it comes to understanding is that we all bear the costs of the uninsured right now.

Getting everybody onto insurance will simply shift costs into the open. Right now, you are paying higher prices in goods to cover the costs of debt defaults caused by medical bill bankruptcies.

Why are you not complaining about THAT inefficiency?

[DarrinS]

I may never use my fire insurance coverage on my house, but I will still pay for it.

You cannot know you will never need something ahead of time, because the future is unknowable. You can estimate probabilities, and that is about it.

That is what insurance does.

It is more cost efficient for us as a society to spread that risk very widely, than it is for no-one to have the coverage, and for us to bear the time and expense of dealing with bankrupcies, legal actions, and collections involved.

We all bear the costs of uninsured in one way or another, it is just out of sight, and buried in the cost of everything else.

For example, if I have no mental health coverage, become insane, do things like vote Republican, then start talking to Ronald Reagan as if he is in the room with me, and my delusions about socialists under every rock become so bad as to impair my ability to work and pay off my debts, then the people I have borrowed money from will pass the costs of that bad debt ont you anyways through higher borrowing costs.

The thing conservatives never fail to fail when it comes to understanding is that we all bear the costs of the uninsured right now.

Getting everybody onto insurance will simply shift costs into the open. Right now, you are paying higher prices in goods to cover the costs of debt defaults caused by medical bill bankruptcies.

Why are you not complaining about THAT inefficiency?

You bring up a very good point. NO ONE is being denied heath care -- even non-citizens.

I just don't want the govt to take over the system. There are too many ACTUAL EXAMPLES of how this reduces quality and creates rationing.

[RandomGuy]

You bring up a very good point. NO ONE is being denied heath care -- even non-citizens.

I just don't want the govt to take over the system. There are too many ACTUAL EXAMPLES of how this reduces quality and creates rationing.

People are being denied health care.

Please walk into a doctor's office, tell them you can't/won't pay them, and see if you get a physical, or a blood draw for testing.

[Wild Cobra]

I may never use my fire insurance coverage on my house, but I will still pay for it.

That's by choice. You don't have to carry it unless it's a condition for a loan. To require a person to buy coverage as a condition of freedom? Do you realize what you are saying?

You cannot know you will never need something ahead of time, because the future is unknowable. You can estimate probabilities, and that is about it.

This is true, but that's where taking responsibility for your own actions come in. I have never bough health insurance for the times I didn't have it employer subsidized. , I would prefer they gave me the money it costs, then I would buy only insurance for catastrophic incidents. I'll pay for regular care out of pocket. To deny me that right is un-American.

It is more cost efficient for us as a society to spread that risk very widely, than it is for no-one to have the coverage, and for us to bear the time and expense of dealing with bankrupcies, legal actions, and collections involved.

I disagree with doing that unless those who are paying the bulk can mandate the lifestyle of those who benefit from the fruits of our labor. To give something for free releases a person from responsibility for their actions. If they don't have a financial stake, they will abuse it.

We all bear the costs of uninsured in one way or another, it is just out of sight, and buried in the cost of everything else.

And you want to make it easier for abuse of the system. I have an explaination, but it's long. Just take the concept of my last answer. Without a financial stake, the system will get abused. I see it on The Oregon Health plan where the poor have a ZERO copay. They go in for any little reason, just to get out of something like a Work Program class required for them to stay on wealfare.

For example, if I have no mental health coverage, become insane, do things like vote Republican, then start talking to Ronald Reagan as if he is in the room with me, and my delusions about socialists under every rock become so bad as to impair my ability to work and pay off my debts, then the people I have borrowed money from will pass the costs of that bad debt ont you anyways through higher borrowing costs.

It's still less that the abuses of free care has.

The thing conservatives never fail to fail when it comes to understanding is that we all bear the costs of the uninsured right now.

No, we understand it. That's one reason we want the illegal aliens to go home.

Getting everybody onto insurance will simply shift costs into the open. Right now, you are paying higher prices in goods to cover the costs of debt defaults caused by medical bill bankruptcies.

I'll tell you want. Make a donation to hospitals that offer indigent care. Keep your filthy hands off my wallet. Have your socialist friends do the same. Donate your money, not mine. I already have payroll deductions to a hospital charity for $875 this year. If you aren't doing something similar, then STFU.

[RandomGuy]

Generally regulations raise the cost of insurance, but not the cost of healthcare.

Ultimately, our healthcare is expensive because people get very sick, and it costs a lot of money to try to save their lives. No matter how you choose to pay for it, that is a truism.

I don't understand why people ascribe rules for health care that are different than for everything else. If your house burns down, it costs the same to build it again, regardless of how much premium you paid to insure it, or even if it was not insured at all.

That's not to say that in individual cases, the cost of healthcare is different depending on who's paying; but it macro, on a nationwide level; there are going to be X number of claims, and those claims are going to cost Y number of dollars. The majority of those claims dollars are going to be spent on very sick people either dying, or coming damn close to it; cancer/heart disease/dialysis/premature births.

Anecdote: My company's health plan spends about $12,000 per month - coerage for 25 employees; several spouses, and some children. $144,000 per year, for ALL of their healthcare. An employee in 2004 got Pancreatic cancer; was sick for 6 weeks, and died. Cost for that single episode? $620,000. Nearly six years of coverage for 25 families spent in 6 weeks on a single individual. The case is not unique.

Now, unless we limit what doctors are paid, or hospitals can charge OR don't pay for some of those "heroic" treatments; the costs are there - they are going to be incurred. The question is: What is the most effective, efficient way to pay for it? Obviously, we can eliminate paper work and inefficiencies in the system; and save dollars. But, remember, paperwork and inefficincies = clerical jobs for many Americans. Reducing those $$$$ reduces jobs.

How about this; We put Uncle Sam in a position to do the most good; while not being able to do the most damage (day to day operation and control of people's healthcare). Make the fed the ultimate stop-loss; they pay claims on individuals over $100,000 - to $250,000 (and index it to healthcare inflation biannually); private en ies cover everything up to that point - with subsidies for people who cannot afford that lower coverage. The payor's file claims with the govt. for claims over the stop/loss - the govt. reimburses the claim; but doesn't have to get involved directly with the processing - although, obviously, they must have an ability to audit. Pass a regulation, not controlling prices; but making pricing by providers transparent (doctors/hospitals/labs); they must post their charges publicly; and must charge everyone the same price - whatever that might be (I cringe at this suggestion; but for reasons that are more complex than I want to explain - there are a lot of shenanigans that go on in contractual pricing that should be stopped).

That actually isn't a bad idea.

Most HMO's buy stop-loss reinsurance anyway.

[RandomGuy]

, I would prefer they gave me the money it costs, then I would buy only insurance for catastrophic incidents. I'll pay for regular care out of pocket.

I would posit this would be the best way to go for us as a society, as this would reduce the massive overhead involved in paying large numbers of small claims by HMO's.

That would bring down the overall costs for health insurance markedly.

[DarrinS]

People are being denied health care.

Please walk into a doctor's office, tell them you can't/won't pay them, and see if you get a physical, or a blood draw for testing.

This is what you want univeral health care for? Really? This is nickles and dimes compared to having a bad accident or disease.

[RandomGuy]

Keep your filthy hands off my wallet. Have your socialist friends do the same. Donate your money, not mine. I already have payroll deductions to a hospital charity for $875 this year. If you aren't doing something similar, then STFU.

Bla bla bla.

You want to borrow money, you WILL pay for it the capitalist way through higher borrowing costs.

You want to buy a washingmachine, or a new camera, you pay for it through higher costs for those items as well.

Do you not understand that you pay for the uninsured RIGHT NOW IN EVERYTHING YOU BUY, AND EVERY SERVICE YOU PURCHASE?

Was I not clear on this?

If it costs you an extra $5,000 per year on all the goods and services you buy, how is that any different economically, or even morally than paying a tax of $5,000?

You still are forced to pay for the price of the uninsured either way. You have no choice in the matter unless you literally live in a mud hut of your own making on public land.

[jack sommerset]

Write your representive. https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml

For those who don't know who you should write.

Lets hope they don't pass this before Friday.

[sabar]

Make a donation to hospitals that offer indigent care. Keep your filthy hands off my wallet. Have your socialist friends do the same. Donate your money, not mine. I already have payroll deductions to a hospital charity for $875 this year. If you aren't doing something similar, then STFU.

People won't be content until the government decides what is best for everyone. Of course nearly everyone that wants the general populace to feed/clothe/bath/educate/cure/asswipe the poor through taxation doesn't give them any of their own money through volunteer choice.

However, we are at a crossroads that people always mix up in their conversations and debates. People are denied health care. Which kind is society obligated to fix?

1. Cannot afford insurance
2. Cannot afford out-of-pocket costs
3. Denied insurance due to pre-existing condition

In my opinion, we are obligated to fixing none of these issues since they all stem from being poor. Unfortunately the greater part of society lives in la-la land where they think we can bring people out of poverty while retaining an affluent lifestyle.

The real issues that should be discussed are things like

1. Unnecessary treatments that drive up costs
2. Unnecessary tests that drive up costs
3. Malpractice scams killing off an already low doctor population
4. Legitimate malpractice issues earning the victim proportionate millions in compensation and loss of work for the doctor
5. Destroying the pharmaceutical oligopoly
6. Removing guaranteed monopolies/patent/copyright on all medical breakthroughs

But as usual, the solution to everything is to get the government that can't run a postal service monopoly that produces profit to take over everything.

Then when the whole thing fails the bureaucracy is in place and can never be removed, forever a part of our every growing government.

[RandomGuy]

This is what you want univeral health care for? Really? This is nickles and dimes compared to having a bad accident or disease.

Access to decent preventive health care can prevent diabetes and heart disease, two things that are VERY expensive to treat.

Should we not get people pointed towards losing weight and exercising?

I am all for incentives for healthy behavior becuase it costs me less money anyway.

[Holt's Cat]

The reason we pay for routine health care costs through 3rd party payers is the tax exclusion of employer provided health care benefits. People would have a much greater reason to economize on routine health care costs if they had to pay out of pocket, instead of paying a portion of the true cost of their care through insurance. They'd also have a reason to buy high deductible catastrophic insurance...and perhaps another reason to save instead of blowing their income on mass produced bull and expecting someone else to take care of them when they haven't been responsible financially.

Health care costs a lot because for the most part, there are much better treatments available today than in the past. A lot of that is the result of investment in R&D due to companies chasing returns made possible by increasing health care expenditures.

Anyways, the real reason for increasing health care costs is not fraud, lawsuit abuse, executive compensation, or whatever tripe which is spewed by various partisans.

[ChumpDumper]

People won't be content until the government decides what is best for everyone. Of course nearly everyone that wants the general populace to feed/clothe/bath/educate/cure/asswipe the poor through taxation doesn't give them any of their own money through volunteer choice.

However, we are at a crossroads that people always mix up in their conversations and debates. People are denied health care. Which kind is society obligated to fix?

1. Cannot afford insurance
2. Cannot afford out-of-pocket costs
3. Denied insurance due to pre-existing condition

In my opinion, we are obligated to fixing none of these issues since they all stem from being poor. Unfortunately the greater part of society lives in la-la land where they think we can bring people out of poverty while retaining an affluent lifestyle.

The real issues that should be discussed are things like

1. Unnecessary treatments that drive up costs
2. Unnecessary tests that drive up costs
3. Malpractice scams killing off an already low doctor population
4. Legitimate malpractice issues earning the victim proportionate millions in compensation and loss of work for the doctor
5. Destroying the pharmaceutical oligopoly
6. Removing guaranteed monopolies/patent/copyright on all medical breakthroughs

But as usual, the solution to everything is to get the government that can't run a postal service monopoly that produces profit to take over everything.

Then when the whole thing fails the bureaucracy is in place and can never be removed, forever a part of our every growing government.

Why are we under an obligation to fix your six issues and not the other three?

[RandomGuy]

People won't be content until the government decides what is best for everyone.

Ah an interesting point.

We have put in place a government that has decided that punishing murder is best for everyone.

Perhaps the big bad government should stop telling me not to murder people. I don't need a bureaucracy stopping me from doing what I want to... right?

Not raggin on ya, just playing with an idea.

[DarrinS]

Access to decent preventive health care can prevent diabetes and heart disease, two things that are VERY expensive to treat.

Should we not get people pointed towards losing weight and exercising?


I am all for incentives for healthy behavior becuase it costs me less money anyway.

Absolutely, and a civil servant should come to every American home to enforce this healthy lifestyle. The govt should tax the out of (or ban completely): alcohol, tobacco, red meat, soft drinks, sugar, and sexuality.

[RandomGuy]

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

For example, if I have no mental health coverage, become insane, do things like vote Republican, then start talking to Ronald Reagan as if he is in the room with me, and my delusions about socialists under every rock become so bad as to impair my ability to work and pay off my debts, then the people I have borrowed money from will pass the costs of that bad debt ont you anyways through higher borrowing costs.

It's still less that the abuses of free care has.

Source?
















Didn't think so. The way you consistantly pull things out of your ass, and then try to pretend they don't stink... jesus.

I call bull . Back this statement up or withdraw it.

[Holt's Cat]

Between the mass availability of credit and paying for routine health care costs through insurance, which has enabled many to pay a fraction of the true cost of their health care, the American consumer has lived well beyond their means. Naturally we then expect the government to bail us out. Which isn't an unreasonable expectation, given that the government has bailed out irresponsible business executives who lived well on easily available credit.

[Wild Cobra]

I would posit this would be the best way to go for us as a society, as this would reduce the massive overhead involved in paying large numbers of small claims by HMO's.

That would bring down the overall costs for health insurance markedly.

Agreed. Every time I payed cash for visits when I had no insurance, I was able to get a good price. They had no time involved dealing with redundant paperwork and insurance companies.

[Holt's Cat]

Nobody wants to be responsible financially. We look for the quick fix, be it through maxing out credit cards beyond our ability to pay, or from politicians who offer something for nothing. Everyone feels en led to consume more and more, to realize the fruits of the American Dream before actually earning it. It's no surprising that the federal government's fiscal house is in such disarray because the American people live that way too. We are not going to fix this. We need someone else to cut us off. But that probably won't be our creditors such as the Chinese because they need us to continue to spend ourselves into oblivion so they can continue to make $.

Of course, nobody wants to hear this. Deferred gratification, thrift, hard work, and responsibility goes directly against the American character circa 2009.

[Spursmania]

I may never use my fire insurance coverage on my house, but I will still pay for it.

Fire insurance is called catastrophic coverage and is required by your lender. This is completely different from health care insurance. In your example, only actual homeowners who are getting a loan need it, and it is based on the value of your home. Not everybody is required to purchase homeowner's insurance. Plus insurers base your coverage according to what part of the country you live in. For example, wind coverage is not required here in San Antonio,Texas whereas it is in Kansas. This is based on risk.

You cannot know you will never need something ahead of time, because the future is unknowable. You can estimate probabilities, and that is about it.

Bull . I can tell you for a fact, I would not need substance abuse coverage. I can tell you for a fact, I would not need mental disorder coverage. This is for mental disorders like bi-polar, schizophrenia, etc..

When one is not a drug addict or doesn't take drugs, why in the would they need it? If your argument about "you may never know" was worthy, then we should all get coverage for every possible disease known to mankind because "you may never now."
Forcing all of us to pay for this type of coverage and who knows what else is just part of the inefficiencies of a bureaucratic government.

It is more cost efficient for us as a society to spread that risk very widely, than it is for no-one to have the coverage, and for us to bear the time and expense of dealing with bankrupcies, legal actions, and collections involved.

The only coverage I believe we should all be required to pay for is catastrophic coverage. But everybody should have to pay their fair share for the coverage. Coverage should not be borne by a small percentage of the population. Unless you're volunteering to pay 5.4% of your AGI for heath care, then I could understand that you're just a true altruistic person, but I doubt it.

For example, if I have no mental health coverage, become insane, do things like vote Republican, then start talking to Ronald Reagan as if he is in the room with me, and my delusions about socialists under every rock become so bad as to impair my ability to work and pay off my debts, then the people I have borrowed money from will pass the costs of that bad debt ont you anyways through higher borrowing costs.

That's your problem not mine. And, I shouldn't have to pay for that coverage to cover your problems. Just like a business that opens, it hits a dry spell and has to close down. Well, someone is in the hole 50,000 dollars. We shouldn't have to bail them out. That's life.

The thing conservatives never fail to fail when it comes to understanding is that we all bear the costs of the uninsured right now.

Don't be such a dolt. I could give a less about idealogy. Waste of time. I decide things as they come unlike yourself. If health care is passed with a public option, it will be a nightmare. But I don't think there will be a public option, and by the time it passes the senate, the bill won't be as liberal as Pelosi's. All signs are indicating that is happening.

Getting everybody onto insurance will simply shift costs into the open. Right now, you are paying higher prices in goods to cover the costs of debt defaults caused by medical bill bankruptcies.

Like I said above, having everybody carry catastrophic insurance would be a good idea only if it is paid by each and every individual. The 5.4 health surtax is ludicrous and class warfare. People talk real big and happy about heath care for all, but if they were asked if they would be willing to pay 5.4% of their AGI before any deductions are allocated most people would say GTFO. So, don't pretend that you're all for healthcare just for the sake of healthcare. It's just that since you won't be sacrificing a dime out of your pocket, it's easy to cheerlead.

Why are you not complaining about THAT inefficiency?

Plain and simple. You want the government to take over your heath care and be your daddy. I am self sufficient and don't need a Daddy, thank you.
If you believe the government is efficient, you are insane and just a bleeding liberal who wants someone else to pay for your free ride. Medicare will be bankrupt in 10 years--Yeah, the government is so goddamn efficient. Please stfu.

Healthcare is a commodity with limited resources. Health care is not a right, in case you didn't know. Oh wait, you probably think it is.

[ChumpDumper]

Agreed. Every time I payed cash for visits when I had no insurance, I was able to get a good price. They had no time involved dealing with redundant paperwork and insurance companies.

Was it lower than the price they charge to insurance companies? If it was, then someone else's hard earned money went to subsidizing your care. If nothing else comes from health care reform, I would like to see the s game being played to pay for deadbeats like you apparently were to be a bit more normalized.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Fire insurance is called catastrophic coverage and is required by your lender. This is completely different from health care insurance. In your example, only actual homeowners who are getting a loan need it, and it is based on the value of your home. Not everybody is required to purchase homeowner's insurance. Plus insurers base your coverage according to what part of the country you live in. For example, wind coverage is not required here in San Antonio,Texas whereas it is in Kansas. This is based on risk.



Bull . I can tell you for a fact, I would not need substance abuse coverage. I can tell you for a fact, I would not need mental disorder coverage. This is for mental disorders like bi-polar, schizophrenia, etc..

When one is not a drug addict or doesn't take drugs, why in the would they need it? If your argument about "you may never know" was worthy, then we should all get coverage for every possible disease known to mankind because "you may never now."
Forcing all of us to pay for this type of coverage and who knows what else is just part of the inefficiencies of a bureaucratic government.




The only coverage I believe we should all be required to pay for is catastrophic coverage. But everybody should have to pay their fair share for the coverage. Coverage should not be borne by a small percentage of the population. Unless you're volunteering to pay 5.4% of your AGI for heath care, then I could understand that you're just a true altruistic person, but I doubt it.




That's your problem not mine. And, I shouldn't have to pay for that coverage to cover your problems. Just like a business that opens, it hits a dry spell and has to close down. Well, someone is in the hole 50,000 dollars. We shouldn't have to bail them out. That's life.



Don't be such a dolt. I could give a less about idealogy. Waste of time. I decide things as they come unlike yourself. If health care is passed with a public option, it will be a nightmare. But I don't think there will be a public option, and by the time it passes the senate, the bill won't be as liberal as Pelosi's. All signs are indicating that is happening.



Like I said above, having everybody carry catastrophic insurance would be a good idea only if it is paid by each and every individual. The 5.4 health surtax is ludicrous and class warfare. People talk real big and happy about heath care for all, but if they were asked if they would be willing to pay 5.4% of their AGI before any deductions are allocated most people would say GTFO. So, don't pretend that you're all for healthcare just for the sake of healthcare. It's just that since you won't be sacrificing a dime out of your pocket, it's easy to cheerlead.



Plain and simple. You want the government to take over your heath care and be your daddy. I am self sufficient and don't need a Daddy, thank you.
If you believe the government is efficient, you are insane and just a bleeding liberal who wants someone else to pay for your free ride. Medicare will be bankrupt in 10 years--Yeah, the government is so goddamn efficient. Please stfu.

Healthcare is a commodity with limited resources. Health care is not a right, in case you didn't know. Oh wait, you probably think it is.

So using your logic water is a commodity. Should we exlude water from those people who can't affrod it?

[Spursmania]

So using your logic water is a commodity. Should we exlude water from those people who can't affrod it?

Yes.

[Holt's Cat]

How many could afford it if they lived within their means? We don't seem to be asking that question. I guess it would be too much to expect individuals to be financially responsible. It's much easier to proclaim them victims of something else.

[Wild Cobra]

People won't be content until the government decides what is best for everyone. Of course nearly everyone that wants the general populace to feed/clothe/bath/educate/cure/asswipe the poor through taxation doesn't give them any of their own money through volunteer choice.

I think it's sad that so many people want a nanny. I think they should just move back in with their mommy.

However, we are at a crossroads that people always mix up in their conversations and debates. People are denied health care. Which kind is society obligated to fix?

1. Cannot afford insurance
2. Cannot afford out-of-pocket costs
3. Denied insurance due to pre-existing condition

I don't have the answers, but then I'm not foolish enough to think world peace will happen in my lifetime either. We simply cannot fix all problems. Life's a at times. Why doesn't government "Promote the General Welfare" by real leadership style messages. Tell people if you want something, you have to take the pride and effort and do it yourself. I've worked long and hard for what I have, and I thing the lazy people who complain are pathetic. I sympathize with those who try and have bad luck, and they are the ones that get a C note or more from me on occasion.

In my opinion, we are obligated to fixing none of these issues since they all stem from being poor. Unfortunately the greater part of society lives in la-la land where they think we can bring people out of poverty while retaining an affluent lifestyle.

I agree. Obligated, no. That's what charity is for. I am tired of those who have money and complain about this rarely actually give their own money to the cause.

The real issues that should be discussed are things like

1. Unnecessary treatments that drive up costs
2. Unnecessary tests that drive up costs
3. Malpractice scams killing off an already low doctor population
4. Legitimate malpractice issues earning the victim proportionate millions in compensation and loss of work for the doctor
5. Destroying the pharmaceutical oligopoly
6. Removing guaranteed monopolies/patent/copyright on all medical breakthroughs

I agree with the first 4. #5 maybe, but they still meed to profit from their works. I disagree with #6. Why should medical care be required to have the latest and greatest medicines at rock bottom pricing?

But as usual, the solution to everything is to get the government that can't run a postal service monopoly that produces profit to take over everything.

I have no complaints about my mail delivery. Seems to me they are one of the few government run things that actually work.

Then when the whole thing fails the bureaucracy is in place and can never be removed, forever a part of our every growing government.

That's my biggest fear. That it will be implemented, and then be permanent, no matter how bad it gets. I keep saying this. I insist on serious tort reform before talking about government run health care. Afterall, that is part of the savings that will occur. We will completely lose the right to sue if it's nationalized!

Access to decent preventive health care can prevent diabetes and heart disease, two things that are VERY expensive to treat.

Well, that's a new one. I guess that's something new I learned today.

I thought that proper diet and a healthy lifestyle prevented these. I though doctors could only tell you if you had it or not, or could get it.

My bad. Here I thought that the individual could keep themselves from getting these. I didn't know it required a doctor.

Should we not get people pointed towards losing weight and exercising?

If we get universal health care, I'm going to demand that those riding the system pass a military style physical fitness and demand they get in shape.

I am all for incentives for healthy behavior becuase it costs me less money anyway.

Incentive may ass. Require. If my hard earned money will be mandated to pay for others, I will do all I can to mandate they stay fit.