Discussion: The information that was collected from the survey research correlates well with the secondary

research that was conducted. Killing the Economy With Good Health pointed out that reducing or eradicating the number of obese individuals would be disadvantageous to the economy (Lyon, 2008). Lyon (2008) explained that less obesity-related diseases results in less medical attention that will be required. He elaborated on this by saying that many people employed in the medical field will lose their jobs since there will be a decrease in demand for their service (Lyon, 2008). On a similar note, 100% of Nelson students categorized as obese and non-smoking said that a healthcare premium for obese individuals in the hopes that the epidemic might decrease in size, is disadvantageous to society (Paniccia, 2013). The students opinions are likely due to the fact that they themselves are obese and would not want to pay this premium when they get older. On the contrary 52% of the non-smoking and non-obese Nelson students and 100% of the smoking and non-obese Nelson students agreed that that a healthcare premium for obese individuals would be beneficial to society as it would improve the overall health of the Canadian population (Paniccia, 2013). Since the individuals in these two sub categories have healthy BMI values, the majority of them most likely chose to be in favour of this extra premium because it will not affect them in the future (as long as they maintain a healthy BMI). As result, it can be concluded that ones health status affects their opinion on whether or not a health care premium for obese individuals should be implemented. According to the graphs, 76% of students who agreed with the following statement: "Obese individuals should pay a health care premium", were non-obese and non-smoking individuals (Paniccia, Appendix 1.1). 24% of the students who agreed were smokers and not obese (Paniccia, Appendix 1.1). Lastly, 0% of the obese and non-smoking students agreed with the health care premium for obese individuals (Paniccia, Appendix 1.1). 87% of students who agreed with the following statement: "Smoking individuals should pay a health care premium", were non-obese and non-smoking individuals (Paniccia,

Appendix 1.2). 13% of the students who agreed were obese and non-smoking individuals (Paniccia, Appendix 1.2). Lastly, 0% of the non-obese and smoking students agreed with the health care premium for obese individuals (Paniccia, Appendix 1.2). These data results further support the claim that ones opinion on the implementation of a healthcare premium for obese and smoking individuals is based upon their current health status. Since students were responding to the statement (that was quoted above) based on their health, the information gathered is biased. There was no way to avoid this form of bias because the purpose of the survey was to gather the opinions of students. Whether or not ones opinion was based on their health was uncontrollable. In contrast to the Nelson students with a BMI between 18.0 and 29.9 (within a healthy and normal weight range), Dawson (2010) stated that there are no benefits to reducing or eradicating obesity and smoking. It is argued that a smaller population of obese and smoking individuals is detrimental to the economy since numerous medical jobs will be lost, resulting in the newly unemployed individuals to receive less income to spend on the provided goods and services within a society (Dawson, 2010). In the article titled, The Cost of Obesity, Man (2011) explained that due to increasing cases of obesity and therefore rising cases of diseases and conditions that must be treated with medical attention, the cost for health insurance and supplementary health care attention are skyrocketing. Man (2011) further explained that the more healthcare resources that are required by the obese population, the greater the increase in medical care costs for the entire population (obese and not obese) will be since the advanced technology and rising number of medical professionals depends upon the government to pay more money. To sum everything up, he concludes that it all comes down to increasing the medical costs for every citizen, which would be prevented if only the smoking and obese individuals paid a premium healthcare cost (Man, 2011). Thus, Man (2011) believes that the high prevalence of obesity must be decreased by the means of a healthcare premium for the individuals with a BMI of 30 or more (obese individuals). Similarly,

based on an obesity statistic from 2006 (the most current), which was stated in question number eight on the survey, 71.88% of Nelson students agreed that the percentage of obese individuals in Canada is too high (Paniccia, 2013). 71.88% of Nelson students also agreed that this percentage needs to decrease (Paniccia, 2013). In addition, based on a smoking statistic from 2005 (the most current), which was stated in question number ten on the survey, 68.75% of Nelson students agreed that the percentage of smoking individuals in Canada is too high (Paniccia, 2013). 71.88% of Nelson students also agreed that this percentage must decrease (Paniccia, 2013). These high percentages of students saying that the Canadian obese and smoking population is too large and must be lowered can be explained with the statistical data of the BMIs of the Nelson students. The mean BMI for the students is approximately 23.8kg/m2 (Paniccia, Appendix 1.3). The median BMI for the Nelson students is 23.5kg/m2 (Paniccia, Appendix 1.3). Lastly, the mode for the data set of BMI values of the Nelson students is 23.0 kg/m2 (Paniccia, Appendix 1.3). The fact that the mean, median and mode of the BMIs were approximately 23, indicates that the majority of the Nelson students are within a healthy and normal weight range (Paniccia, Appendix, 1.3). Since a potential healthcare tax would not affect the majority of the Nelson student population in the future, high percentages of students in favour of an extra premium for obese individuals was the result. Similar to the findings from Man (2011), within the article Obesity, cigarette smoking and the cost of physicians' services in Ontario, Murray (2001) who conducted survey research, came to a conclusion that overweight and smoking individuals are responsible for large costs to the health care system. Additionally, he further explained that an increase in the BMI of an obese individual or the act of smoking on a daily bases directly increases physician attention and therefore increases medical costs (Murray, 2001). Correspondingly, 68% of the non-smoking non-obese Nelson students agreed that obese individuals cause the health care costs and extra medical costs of the Canadian population to increase (Paniccia, 2013). 0% of the non-smoking and obese Nelson students and 100% of the smoking and non-

obese Nelson students agreed that these obese Canadians increase the healthcare costs for every citizen (Paniccia, 2013). Furthermore, 68% of the non-smoking non-obese Nelson students, 100% of the nonsmoking, obese Nelson students and 0% of the smoking and non-obese Nelson students agreed that that smoking individuals cause the health care costs and extra medical costs of the Canadian population to increase (Paniccia, 2013). The fact that zero obese students said that obese Canadians increase healthcare costs, but all of them said that smoking Canadians increase healthcare costs, further proves that the survey data is biased. The obese students most likely do not want to insult or go against the obese Canadian adults who could possible pay a premium because they could quite easily be in the same situation in their future. In addition, the smoking students did not agree that smokers increase healthcare costs, otherwise they would basically be insulting themselves and possibly contributing to the social change of a healthcare premium for individuals like them in the future. Through survey research of 10,000 obese individuals in Texas, United States of America, it was found that 66% of the participants admitted to their state of health being a result of a lifestyle choice and not a gene passed down through generations (Thalassinos, 2008). Thalassinos (2008) explained that smokers and obese individuals are not victims of their bodies because they have chosen to be the way they are. He continued by stating that obesity is a personal choice, since food does not hold people down & force its self on them (Thalassinos, 2008). Thalassinos (2008) claimed that the same is true for cigarettes; one must place it in their own mouth, keep it there and breath in its chemicals. Conversely, 100% of the obese and non-smoking Nelson students said that people are obese primarily because of their genetic makeup, not by choice (ie. eating fast food and not exercising) (Paniccia, 2013). These results make sense because it would not be logical for an obese individual to throw himself/herself under the bus by saying yes, I fail to make proper lifestyle choices, therefore I am obese. By saying that obesity is a result of ones genetic composition, is like saying that an obese individuals have no control over their size because it is

already predetermined as early as before birth. Differently, 100% of the Nelson smoking and non-obese students claimed that smoking is due to lifestyle choices and not genetics (Paniccia, 2013). Obesity and smoking are referred to as self-inflicted problems (Thalassinos, 2008). It is stated that obese and smoking individuals are not taking responsibility for their long-term health and consequently, society has come to a point where a figure of authority (not specified in article) is required to enforce rules or guidelines to force these types of people to change their unhealthy lifestyles (Thalassinos, 2008). According to Thalassinos research in well over 90% of cases of obesity, the root of the problem involves eating too much and moving too little (Thalassinos, 2008). On a similar note, a different article titled Determinants of Food Choice: Relationships with Obesity and Weight Control concludes that a smokers or obese persons lifestyle choices have led them to be in a condition where they are putting their own life at risk (Mela, 2008). Similare to the disagreement of the non-smoking and obese Nelson students, Mela (2008) argued that obesity is not linked to genetics and is just a ratio of weight and height. The primary limitation to this survey research involves the sample size. Data was collected from 32 surveys. 32 completed surveys does not provide enough data to form general statements for the entire school population. An improvement to this problem could involve increasing the sample size to at least 250 students. Furthermore, the location of the research was restricted to Nelson High School. Results from a variety of high schools would not only increase the sample size, but expand the location of the sample population as well. Schools within and outside of the Halton Region could be surveyed. Even better, high schools in different Canadian provinces could be surveyed. Nelson High School does not have many obese students. In fact, there were only three who completed the survey. Therefore, to state conclusions and interpret data results based on the opinions of these individuals is not only inaccurate, but also biased because the opinions of the entire obese population at Nelson are being based upon the responses of three students on a survey. Additionally, only four smoking individuals filled out a survey. For the same reasons

stated above, any conclusions that were interpreted from the surveys completed by students who smoke are inaccurate and biased. Furthermore, the survey is subjective, particularly because of some very personal questions that were asked. One very personal question was What is your weight?. Respondents could have easily lied about their weight because they were embarrassed, or they just simply did not feel encouraged to provide accurate, honest answers. There was no way of controlling this as the students BMIs needed to be calculated to analyze the data. However, many students were unsure of their height and weight, resulting in them placing down a random values, which could have skewed the results. To resolve this, a scale as well as a measuring tape to tape against a wall could be brought into every class to enable the students to measure or weigh themselves if they are unsure of their height and/or weight. As it was mentioned numerous time throughout the discussion, another form of bias resulted from students basing their opinions on their current health status. For example, the entire obese sample population were against a healthcare premium for obese individuals, however they were in favour of a healthcare premium for smoking individuals. Once again there was no way of avoiding this bias, as the survey sought for the opinions of students, and thats what it received. A survey distributer cannot make a student respondent change their answer or else that could be considered inaccurate and biased as well. Despite the forms of bias, it can be concluded that the data collected from the surveys was fairly relatable to the academic journals and experiments that were researched.