Should we be paying for quandruple-bypass surgery for middle-aged fat people?

[Jacobtm]

I didn't see this clip during the Democratic Convention, but apparently this woman and a series of other random people spoke before Obama, giving their (troubled) stories and showing their support for Obama.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQVbOXvR_l0

I don't know how old this woman is, but she says she voted for Nixon, so let's say she's somewhere in her 50's. Now, this woman obviously doesn't eat too well, being quite over-weight and having needed a quadruple-bypass surgery. What she says essentially boils down to "I was a lifelong Republican who ate so unhealthily that I needed a quadruple bypass in middle age. I can't keep eating like this unless the government pays for my next surgery, which is why instead of leading a healthy lifestyle, I'm voting for Barack Obama."

So, should we be paying for this woman's next heart surgery so that she can keep eating however she wants? Would a national healthcare system that doesn't cover illnesses acquired by your own fault work and would it be just? Should this woman just be left to either change her lifestyle or suffer the consequences?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

No (R).  I shouldn't be paying for anybody's surgery, other than a veteran's.

[Ebowed]

Yes.

[Sbane]

Everyone should have access to health care but Jacob you are right that fat people need to take more responsibilty for themselves.

[Jacobtm]

Yes.

Why?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Everyone should have access to health care but Jacob you are right that fat people need to take more responsibilty for themselves.

She has access.  Stop buying Doritos and go get the surgery.

[dead0man]

Don't worry, when we get universal health care people like that will become illegal.  If we want universal health care to work, we've got to kill all the fat, old and sick first.  We can't afford it otherwise.

[Person Man]

Not doing so would be tantamount to manslaughter. This is why Republicans have no moral authority on issues such as abortion.

[??????????]

Don't worry, when we get universal health care people like that will become illegal.  If we want universal health care to work, we've got to kill all the fat, old and sick first.  We can't afford it otherwise.

We already have eugenics with abortion, so...

[Person Man]

Don't worry, when we get universal health care people like that will become illegal.  If we want universal health care to work, we've got to kill all the fat, old and sick first.  We can't afford it otherwise.

We already have eugenics with abortion, so...

I think you are stealing the cake on hackishness. Stop blaming progressives for reactionary policies... and aren't we wiping out the most valurable of our population with our neo-liberal health care practices? I mean, when does this Godless string of lies and spin end? Then again, who needs God when you think that you are God?

[Alcon]

There are other reasons someone could be obese than terrible eating habits.  Rare ones, but still.

[opebo]

Actually it is pretty easy to be obese nowadays just eating like the everone else eats.  This is for two reasons - Corporate food, and sedentary lifestyle. 

But regarding whether or not 'we' should 'pay for' this - keep in mind, we already pay for all the quadruple bypasses, face-lifts, and boob jobs of the rich (the politically dominant class for whom we all toil), as well as their Mercedes and mansions. 

So lets not get all huffy about the issue of 'paying' for 'someone elses' medical care.  We already do it, just for a small elite.

[Jacobtm]

Actually it is pretty easy to be obese nowadays just eating like the everone else eats.  This is for two reasons - Corporate food, and sedentary lifestyle. 

Is that an implication that food produced by Corporations in implicitly unhealthy, and that the only way to live healthily is without corporate food? If so, that's plain wrong. Corporations produce both unhealthy and healthy food. You can buy fruits, vegetables, whole grains, nuts, and all sorts of other healthy food from corporations, or you can buy steak and cookies. The way everyone else eats does not force any adult to consume unhealthy food, you can just as easily buy healthy food at any supermarket as you can junk.

Going to Wal-mart, you can buy fresh produce, whole-grain products, oils high un unsaturated fat, various nuts and legumes, endless soy-products, vitamin supplements, and many other types of healthy food.

Sedentary lifestyles are, of course, no good for your health.

But regarding whether or not 'we' should 'pay for' this - keep in mind, we already pay for all the quadruple bypasses, face-lifts, and boob jobs of the rich (the politically dominant class for whom we all toil), as well as their Mercedes and mansions. 

So lets not get all huffy about the issue of 'paying' for 'someone elses' medical care.  We already do it, just for a small elite.

The fact that political elites are corrupt/immoral and use tax-money to pay for their luxuries is true, and hardly a peculiarity of the U.S.A. But a justification for new policy it is not. That sort of justification doesn't address the merits and demerits of the policy itself, and as a result is completely inappropriate to evaluate policy.

[Sbane]

Everyone should have access to health care but Jacob you are right that fat people need to take more responsibilty for themselves.

She has access.  Stop buying Doritos and go get the surgery.

Maybe she can't afford it. Obama's plan wouldn't provide anyone with a surgery free of cost but it would be less expensive than with some greedy corporation that needs to make a profit. Government can just subsidise it without worrying about profits. And why is it so bad to provide every working person with the same healthcare as our congressmen? Maybe we shouldn't provide healthcare to them either considering our country needs to tighten its spending a bit and they are 100% responsible( well Bush is responsible for Iraq) for the current mess. Actually if you think about it that is probably the best way to get universal health care isn't it?

[Bono]

If this were in the UK, NICE would issue a policy recommendation to wait for half her heart muscle to die, and then do a double-bypass on the rest, making everyone happy.

[Jacobtm]

Maybe she can't afford it. Obama's plan wouldn't provide anyone with a surgery free of cost but it would be less expensive than with some greedy corporation that needs to make a profit. Government can just subsidise it without worrying about profits.

The idea that profits lead to evil that can be eliminated by nationalization is simply wrong. The majority of the costs related to surgery will still be there, you'll still need to pay specialists high salaries to do the work. There will still be money involved, and when there is, there will be a "boss" who writes the checks, whether the money comes form the public or private sector. And guess what, he's going to write himself an absurdly large check. And guess what else, he's going to write checks for things that aren't even justified and for people who don't even really work there. All that will change is that money that isn't spent on wages and equipments will go from being "profit" to "graft".

And why is it so bad to provide every working person with the same healthcare as our congressmen? Maybe we shouldn't provide healthcare to them either considering our country needs to tighten its spending a bit and they are 100% responsible( well Bush is responsible for Iraq) for the current mess. Actually if you think about it that is probably the best way to get universal health care isn't it?

Government officials shouldn't have the benefits they do, but guess what, they're the ones who write the laws and write the checks, and surprise surprise, they write themselves some very beneficial laws.

[Sbane]

Maybe she can't afford it. Obama's plan wouldn't provide anyone with a surgery free of cost but it would be less expensive than with some greedy corporation that needs to make a profit. Government can just subsidise it without worrying about profits.

The idea that profits lead to evil that can be eliminated by nationalization is simply wrong. The majority of the costs related to surgery will still be there, you'll still need to pay specialists high salaries to do the work. There will still be money involved, and when there is, there will be a "boss" who writes the checks, whether the money comes form the public or private sector. And guess what, he's going to write himself an absurdly large check. And guess what else, he's going to write checks for things that aren't even justified and for people who don't even really work there. All that will change is that money that isn't spent on wages and equipments will go from being "profit" to "graft".

I am not advocating nationalization and neither is Obama. Hospitals and doctors will still remain independent and will get the wages they deserve. Government would just be cutting the checks for the surgery depending on the needs of the patient. You are right that there is a chance that profit will be replaced by graft but that is why the bureaucracy needs to be kept in check and kept as small as possible. Not sure if that is possible. Still no reason why we shouldn't have healthcare for all. I really think providing a regular checkup and medicine is the best way to keep the nation healthy( other than exercise that is). For example if a 55 year old guy who has not paid for any insurance gets a heart attack and is brought to the hospital, he will get medical care. If he can't pay for the treatment or he dies and he doesn't have that many assets, the costs get passed on to us. I would rather he be forced to go to a doctor and get some goddamn lipitor so we can avoid this situation for longer. I think having an option of buying your insurance from the government will be great for people like me who don't want to be tied to a certain job because they provide insurance. This way employees as well as employers will have greater freedom. Don't worry single-payer is not coming to America.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Not doing so would be tantamount to manslaughter. This is why Republicans have no moral authority on issues such as abortion.

How much extra money do you have in your bank/credit union account right now?

[Nym90]

It depends on why they are overweight and/or unhealthy.

[War on Want]

It depends on why they are overweight and/or unhealthy.

[Jacobtm]

It depends on why they are overweight and/or unhealthy.

Where's your line drawn?

[opebo]

Is that an implication that food produced by Corporations in implicitly unhealthy, and that the only way to live healthily is without corporate food?

No, of course not.  It is an observation that the vast majority of food produced and sold by large corporations is much less healthy than that produced in a more localized and less industrialized manner in the past.  Obviously one cannot say that everything that corporations sell is unhealthy, just that their products are mostly less healthy.  The reason is, Jacob, that they have refined the marketing of their products, and conjointly their manufacture, to supply sugar and fat for appeal, while keeping the ingredient cost low by using unhealthy things like partially hydrogenated vegetable oils and high fructose corn syrup.  Such highly industrialized production strategies were simply not available to smaller producers of the past.

Regarding my point about 'how everyone else eats', it was simply that for the average worker who has extremely limited time and money to focus on the problem of diet, due to unremitting toils, he must eat the general diet.  He has no choice as he has not the time or money to do other wise.

Sedentary lifestyles are also forced upon the worker by his economic condition, and there is nothing he can do about it - he simply hasn't the time or money for exercise.  He must engage in highly stressful work at a desk and then drive home.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I was not stating that political elites were using 'tax-money' for anything, Jacob.  Please understand that I consider rich people - the owning class - to be our political elite.  Politicians are mere functionaries who serve this class (who have all the political power).  Thus I do not consider 'tax money' to have any bearing on the real exploitation taking place.  The real transfer payment, exacted by force, is the so-called 'private' income of the owners, drawn from the production (toil) of the working class.

Thus my critique of this policy was simply to make the point that we already have intensive and pervasive State control of transfer of wealth - in our case we do it from worker to owner.  Therefore I contend that it is silly to claim that having the State 'pay for' health care for workers is some sort of innovation compared to what we do now - transfer money from toilers to the wealthy to pay for their health care.  I only mentioned the Mercedes and mansions to point out that health care is far from the only government provided privilege that the wealthy enjoy.

[Ebowed]

Yes.

Why?

Because health care should be a right.

I don't particularly think the person's weight is relevant.

[Sensei]

It depends on why they are overweight and/or unhealthy.

Where's your line drawn?

my line would probably be at a thyroid problem or something like that.

[JSojourner]

There are other reasons someone could be obese than terrible eating habits.  Rare ones, but still.

Not as rare as one might think.  Now, this is not to say most fatties are "big boned" or have overactive thyroids.  But I suspect we haven't really plumbed the scientific depths of metabolism, food additives and so forth.

I could be way off -- but I think that 50 years from now, obesity may be manageable via brain surgery.  The deep brain implants used to control body movements in some Parkinsons' patients are just the beginning.  With continued brain mapping, it may be possible to implant a device that shocks the brain when the area controlling apetite kicks in.  Still a surgery -- but potentially more effective and permanent than lap banding, gastric bypass and so forth.