The War on Fat
It cannot be argued that excessive weight in adults increases the cost of health care. Medications, heart attack, stroke, type II diabetes with all the health risks and problems (and their costs) it causes.
Get in shape or pay a price.
That’s a message more Americans could hear if health-care reform provisions passed by the Senate finance and health committees become law. By more than doubling the maximum penalties that companies can apply to employees who flunk medical evaluations, the legislation could put workers under intense financial pressure to lose weight, stop smoking or even lower their cholesterol.
The bipartisan initiative, largely eclipsed in the health-care debate, builds on a trend that is in play among some corporations and that more workers will see in the benefits packages they bring home during this fall’s open enrollment. Some employers offer lower premiums to workers who complete personal health assessments; others limit coverage for smokers.
The current legislative effort would take the trend a step further. It is backed by major employer groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers. It is opposed by labor unions and organizations devoted to combating serious illnesses, such as the American Heart Association, the American Cancer Society and the American Diabetes Association.
Critics say employers could use the rewards and penalties to drive some workers out of their health plans.
Continues at link
Is this what the US has in its immediate future:
UK Fat Patients Claim Discrimination
[Excerpts]
AP November 16, 2007
For two years, Frances Kinley-Manton says she lived with arthritis pain in her hips, a condition that kept her in a wheelchair.
She wanted hip replacement surgery. But doctors at Britain’s National Health Service said she was too fat for the operation.
“They wouldn’t even put me on a waiting list,” Kinley-Manton recalled.
Her doctor told the 210-pound woman to lose about 30 pounds before he would consider her for surgery.
Unable to drop the weight through dieting, the 68-year-old Scotland resident took out a mortgage on her house to pay for a private operation on the Mediterranean island of Malta. She had her first hip operation in July. Now she’s awaiting surgery on the other hip.
[snip] Patient advocates say that Kinley-Manton is one of a small but possibly growing number of patients being denied nonessential surgeries by British health authorities because of their weight. No statistics exist on how many people are in a similar position, but patients’ groups say they are getting a steady stream of complaints.
Doctors say obese people are at higher risk for surgical complications like infections and pneumonia, and that asking patients to lose weight is a fair request.
In Britain, some doctors appear to be setting a body mass index of 30 _ considered obese in Britain and the United States _ as an informal cutoff point for elective surgery. In the U.S. there are no absolute limits, but American doctors seem to be more lenient. One U.S. orthopedic surgeon suggested that not until a patient has a body mass index of 40 _ a category considered “morbidly obese” _ would surgeons have serious problems.
Kinley-Manton’s BMI was 35 _ about 30 pounds over the obese level _ when she sought her first hip replacement.
This from the UK’s Telegraph January 27, 2008
Don’t treat the old and unhealthy, say doctors
Doctors are calling for NHS treatment to be withheld from patients who are too old or who lead unhealthy lives.
Smokers, heavy drinkers, the obese and the elderly should be barred from receiving some operations, according to doctors, with most saying the health service cannot afford to provide free care to everyone.
[snip] The findings of a survey conducted by Doctor magazine sparked a fierce row last night, with the British Medical Association and campaign groups describing the recommendations from family and hospital doctors as “outrageous” and “disgraceful”.
About one in 10 hospitals already deny some surgery to obese patients and smokers, with restrictions most common in hospitals battling debt.
Managers defend the policies because of the higher risk of complications on the operating table for unfit patients. But critics believe that patients are being denied care simply to save money.
[snip] Obesity costs the British taxpayer £7 billion a year. Overweight people are more likely to contract diabetes, cancer and heart disease, and to require replacement joints or stomach-stapling operations.
Meanwhile, £1.7 billion is spent treating diseases caused by smoking, such as lung cancer, bronchitis and emphysema, with a similar sum spent by the NHS on alcohol problems. Cases of cirrhosis have tripled over the past decade.
If you think it can’t happen here just look around at what is already happening in the opening salvos of the War on Fat.
We, as a society, have already given our stamp of approval for this marginalizing and “punishment” of smokers in the interest of “their own good” and “they deserve it… they smoke and that costs us money”.
I find this mindset – and new “War on ___” not only conceptually flawed but sad on a very human level. I’ve never met a single person with even a slight bit of excess weight who hasn’t tried to lose weight.
We are genetically “wired” to store fat since our ancestors had major “food insecurity” threats [food was not always readily at hand and often very hard to come by]. It’s not our fault that we now live in a modern world where the hardest thing we have to do is drive our cars through a fast food drive-through window to obtain our super-sized 1,000 calorie meal.
Sure, we do not have to eat that 1,000 calories, it’s a personal choice, but the other factors in our lives do not do much to support smart choices.
No support for “smart choices” until we start “punishing” the “bad choices” that is.
But I ask: Do we have the right to “punish” people for “bad” personal choices? We thought so for smokers….
Posted via web from SophiaZoe
