Talk about a touchy subject. 

If this were to become commonplace, I would think the age to draw the line at is the age most people become more fully accountable for themselves, age 18 and no longer declared a dependent.  Should it be grounds for denial of coverage?  I don't agree with that. A surcharge added--only if there is evidence that the condition was caused by the obesity.

As for the, so-called fat tax.  A good portion of government employees insurance rates are paid for by tax payers indirectly because the employer (government) pays a portion of the rates.  In essence if the insurance company is going to charge more, the tax payers indirectly will pay more.  Why should the individual employee not help to defray this cost, when our individual health (in those areas of concern cholesterol, glucose, blood pressure) IS at times in part due to our own actions?

Sounds to me like only people who have no serious medical condition or medication causing their obesity and health condition, namely high glucose, high blood pressure, and/or high cholesterol, will pay the surcharge.  There are currently companies that give discounts to people who show evidence of practices to maintain health.  Some companies even pay a portion of gym memberships in a effort to keep health costs down, by giving people incentive to be healthy.  To me this is only the reverse of that. 

Problem is there are people who will fall into that category possibly just by genetic lottery.  In essence they will be punished for being born.  That scares me.  This would be a hard line to draw.  I honestly do not see a hard and fast answer to curb rising insurance costs and/or rising cases of obesity and it's related conditions.  If this gets passed, I can see it spreading like wild-fire across the country.  Is it a solution?  It's an attempt at best, but not all attempts to solve a problem result in a true and fair solution.  only time would tell and in the long run if they are wrong...who pays....the individual or the tax payers...or both.  ugggh.

Rachel

You bring up important points. 

That state does already have a surcharge for smokers.

One thing you mentioned were super thin (not full anorexics)...and fertility treatment...those stars are paying for the treatments themselves.  As for treatments for infertility on the whole there is a rather equal representation of thin and overweight women in that boat.  Did you know that obesity is also a cause for infertility?  I didn't..until just last week.  Apparently fat cells also give off estrogen in excess of what the body normally produces.  That estrogen then makes it hard or near impossible for some women to get pregnant.  It can also be a cause for seconday infertility for women who have become obese after having a child.  Regardless of cause though, many infertility options are out of pocket costs similar to elective surgery.

As for people being overweight/obese due to emotional eating, if anorexia (a so to speak emotional undereating (though it's more than that)) can be successfully treated so can this most likely.  Like anorexia there are treatment options and groups for those who have out of control eating behaviors who want to work on it.  There are a range of eating disorders out there and treatments.  Let's say that the average obese person is not someone who is eating to self-medicate for something that's bothering them though or eating to the point it's actually a disorder...  Can we really say that every person who is overweight is just some out of control person who can't control what they do?  I dont' think so. I am just unable to believe that all obese people cannot make a change in their life. I can believe that many or most will have trouble with it.  Eating and weight are a struggle in a society with ample food supply.

Personally, I've been overweight before, but never obese.  You honestly cannot believe how many times, since I've reigned myself back into an average healthy weight range, I've heard "Oh you can AFFORD to have a slice of cake" or "You might as well have another donut, not like it'll affect you".  I have always calorie counted more or less since I was 15 or 16.  When I don't...I GAIN and I can GAIN a lot VERY quickly and it takes twice as long or more time for me to lose than gain.  I'd like to think I'm like most people metabolism wise--but I work at it and I work very hard.  Some people out there are lucky, some work for it, and some work VERY hard at it.

I work with a guy who was obese and one of my former cross country coaches was obese.  They are a lot like me as well.  They are average looking weight wise and for many years have kept it that way.  Both told me, once they worked on their emotional ties to food and remained a vigilent calorie counters...no more weight flux.  So after having kids....I've done that more or less.  So I know it's possible.  And I've been a big time emotional eater too.

Most importantly related to the surcharge issue, not everyone who is obese HAS high blood sugar, high cholesterol, and/or high blood pressure. <---the way I read the statement, it is only those that have an obesity related medical disorder AND obesity (not caused by any other underlying serious medical condition or medication) will have a surcharge (and it's just state employess in one state...and it's not passed yet). Boy will it ever be an ugly day if that legislation passes in that state.