Chubby people will bankrupt American healthcare

[MillCreek]

http://www.medpagetoday.com/PracticeManagement/PracticeManagement/52986

Or so says this panel of experts.  Put down the Doritos and beer and go for a walk.

[SADShooter]

You can take my paycheck, but you'll never take...my DORITOS!!!

[TommyGunn]

B-b-b-but we have Obamacare to make everything perfect!!!

[T.O.M.]

Once at a party, heard someone say that what we need to do is have an ideal weight for everyone, then have people weigh in semi-annually, and tax people for how much overweight they are. Use the money to pay healthcare costs. Yeah.  Right.

[lupinus]

Once at a party, heard someone say that what we need to do is have an ideal weight for everyone, then have people weigh in semi-annually, and tax people for how much overweight they are. Use the money to pay healthcare costs. Yeah.  Right.

An idea fit for someone who never picks up anything heavier than their iphone.

[Monkeyleg]

Once at a party, heard someone say that what we need to do is have an ideal weight for everyone, then have people weigh in semi-annually, and tax people for how much overweight they are. Use the money to pay healthcare costs. Yeah.  Right.

Wasn't that sort of argument used successfully to raise cigarette taxes, and didn't a lot of people on APS agree with such taxes because of the additional medical costs incurred by smokers?

[Perd Hapley]

If only there were some way to keep ourselves from paying for other people's choices. If only...

[K Frame]

Once at a party, heard someone say that what we need to do is have an ideal weight for everyone, then have people weigh in semi-annually, and tax people for how much overweight they are. Use the money to pay healthcare costs. Yeah.  Right.

Need to do that with Alzheimer's patients, too.

[brimic]

Once at a party, heard someone say that what we need to do is have an ideal weight for everyone, then have people weigh in semi-annually, and tax people for how much overweight they are. Use the money to pay healthcare costs. Yeah.  Right.

The problem with the idea is that only the people who have the ability to pay those taxes will be taxed. As Lupinus alluded to, there are a lot of blue collar people out there who are more muscular and are in much better health than the skinny guy who sits at a desk all day.

[MechAg94]

One thing I would be interested in is airlines just charging people by the pound.  Set price of a seat at something like 200 or 300 lbs per person including luggage.  Price adder over that amount.  Could have some sort of automated scale to check in at the airport.

I guess I just don't like being accused of bankrupting healthcare.   

[Fly320s]

One thing I would be interested in is airlines just charging people by the pound.  Set price of a seat at something like 200 or 300 lbs per person including luggage.  Price adder over that amount.  Could have some sort of automated scale to check in at the airport.

I guess I just don't like being accused of bankrupting healthcare.   

Obligatory thread drift. (instead of my normal obligatory smart-assed remark)

I'm all for your proposal.  I bet the airlines would make more money and be more accurate on weight and balance issues.  FYI, we currently plan each passenger at 200 pounds which includes carry-on bags.

[KD5NRH]

I'm all for your proposal.  I bet the airlines would make more money and be more accurate on weight and balance issues.  FYI, we currently plan each passenger at 200 pounds which includes carry-on bags.

How much do you figure in for baggage handlers napping in the holds?

IMO, a simple total weight including all baggage, with dimensional weight adder for people who won't fit in one seat with the armrests down, would make the most sense all around.  Basically, mass to be lifted and accelerated, plus extra cabin space taken up.

[Fly320s]

How much do you figure in for baggage handlers napping in the holds?

IMO, a simple total weight including all baggage, with dimensional weight adder for people who won't fit in one seat with the armrests down, would make the most sense all around.  Basically, mass to be lifted and accelerated, plus extra cabin space taken up.

That works for weight purposes, but we still have to account for balance.  IOW, we need to know where the lard-asses fatties customers are sitting along the longitudinal axis.

[freakazoid]

Does passenger weight make a big difference like that?

[Scout26]

When we flew passengers as super cargo in one of the jump seats, we used 250 lbs per person in our W&B calcs.   But then again, we were trying to not only get it within flight requirements but also to optimize fuel usage.

[KD5NRH]

That works for weight purposes, but we still have to account for balance.  IOW, we need to know where the lard-asses fatties customers are sitting along the longitudinal axis.

I'm assuming you'd know the seat assignments.

For the fattest ones, how hard would it be to rig a net and entry door so they could be separately launched from a catapult or railgun and caught at 10,000 feet?  That should cut takeoff fuel consumption.

[Fly320s]

Does passenger weight make a big difference like that?

Yes.  150 people * 200 lbs/p = 30,000lbs.  A 10 pound difference per person is 1,500 pounds.  If we are more than 2,000 pounds over our planned weight, we have to get a recomputed flight release to account for the extra fuel burn, longer runway, etc.

[MechAg94]

Yes.  150 people * 200 lbs/p = 30,000lbs.  A 10 pound difference per person is 1,500 pounds.  If we are more than 2,000 pounds over our planned weight, we have to get a recomputed flight release to account for the extra fuel burn, longer runway, etc.

Some of us Healthcare Destroyers might be a little more than 10 lbs past 200.   

Also, some of those 105 pound people might have 200 lbs of luggage. 

[MechAg94]

Obligatory thread drift. (instead of my normal obligatory smart-assed remark)

I'm all for your proposal.  I bet the airlines would make more money and be more accurate on weight and balance issues.  FYI, we currently plan each passenger at 200 pounds which includes carry-on bags.

Yes, I am guilty.  My mind drifts after a few posts..................................So I shot a new single action army revovler yesterday, Cimaron Frontier model in 45LC and..........................Anyone seen that Jupiter Ascending movie?

[RevDisk]

Obligatory thread drift. (instead of my normal obligatory smart-assed remark)

I'm all for your proposal.  I bet the airlines would make more money and be more accurate on weight and balance issues.  FYI, we currently plan each passenger at 200 pounds which includes carry-on bags.

I've pondered slipping a couple (coughBUNCH) 65 lb kettle bells into my carry on, placed as far from CG as I could, to mess with your weight and balance calculations.

 

[Fly320s]

Some of us Healthcare Destroyers might be a little more than 10 lbs past 200.   

Also, some of those 105 pound people might have 200 lbs of luggage. 

We use average weights.  Every adult is 200 pounds, carry-ons included.  Kids are 80.  Infants are 0.  Checked bags are 35lbs, IIRC, heavy bags are 50, gate checked bags are 15.  My company has done two weight audits that I know of.  The first time, the weights were right on the money.  The second time, we had to increase the average passenger weight.

If we had to weigh everyone individually, we would never get off the gate.

[KD5NRH]

If we had to weigh everyone individually, we would never get off the gate.

Sounds like an opportunity to do something useful at the security checkpoint; can't take any longer if there's a scale at the bottom of the pornoscanner, and another in the conveyor to get the carryon items.  Just scan the boarding pass and attach the weights to a record in a shared DB that the airline can access.  As long as the computer can match a weight to a seat, it should be able to give pretty much realtime balance data.

(If the passenger is only ID'd in that system by either a boarding pass number, or just a simple flight/time/seat string, it shouldn't be a privacy issue, though at worst all you're giving is their weight and that of their carryons.  Checked baggage can be weighed at check in.)

[Ben]

We use average weights.  Every adult is 200 pounds, carry-ons included.  Kids are 80.  Infants are 0.  Checked bags are 35lbs, IIRC, heavy bags are 50, gate checked bags are 15.  My company has done two weight audits that I know of.  The first time, the weights were right on the money.  The second time, we had to increase the average passenger weight.

If we had to weigh everyone individually, we would never get off the gate.

So when they put that "heavy" label on a checked bag, does that info go to you guys, or is that strictly so baggage handlers don't throw their backs out? I used to get it put on my checked bags a lot, just because of stuff I was hauling around for work, or when I flew somewhere to dive and took all my gear with me. Though I'm pretty sure at least a few times, the bag was in the 40lb range.

[brimic]

I've pondered slipping a couple (coughBUNCH) 65 lb kettle bells into my carry on, placed as far from CG as I could, to mess with your weight and balance calculations.

 

Backpack filled with as much lead shot as you can carry, ftw. 

[Fly320s]

So when they put that "heavy" label on a checked bag, does that info go to you guys, or is that strictly so baggage handlers don't throw their backs out? I used to get it put on my checked bags a lot, just because of stuff I was hauling around for work, or when I flew somewhere to dive and took all my gear with me. Though I'm pretty sure at least a few times, the bag was in the 40lb range.

Yes, they tell us.