Should obesity, smoking, make you a 2nd class citizen?

[buckthesystem]

I came across this news article from the UK:

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article...bese/article.do

Government consider plans to deny NHS treatment to smokers and obese

26.12.06

Smoking-related diseases cost an estimated

[Leonard]

Thank YOU 'socialized medicine!' Folks, this is what "Hillary-care" was going to look like, and what the Demoncrats are scheming to foist off on the American people, RIGHT NOW!

Be vigilant and keep writing your Congressman.

[Marnie]

Here is why socialized anything can't work. Eventually citizens start thinking, of new ways to soak other taxpayers or the government sees the light, and realizes it can't keep paying out more than it confiscates from its citizens, and that brings an end to the government's sleight of hand economics. (in other words, socialized healthcare, retirement plans, cannot be sustained adnauseum)

[irishcowboy]

they should not be second class citizens, those that should be labeled as that are the ones that are committing fraud by claiming and accepting disability checks that have no disability.... those that just do not want to work.... those that you see doing all sorts of things, cutting wood, loading wood, cleaning churches, doing lawn maintenance, and some even receiving cash for doing these things, but as soon as an SRS vehicle pulls into town, they all of a sudden are putting on their back braces, grabbing their canes, and hobbeling around like Quasimoto....... as soon as the SRS vehicle departs the area, the back braces come off, the canes are hung back up by the door and they appear to be normal again....

as far as smoking? well, both my wife and me have quit, God had told her ten years ago, He could not use her any further as long as she continued to smoke..... so she quit, turned it over to the Lord.....

me? well, i have been over three years, with out an erge, desire, or having one lit up.... gave them to the Lord.... I came to a point where i did not seem to be gaining any ground with the Lord, i hated everything they stood for, the smell, the taste, the odor, the caugh, EVERYTHING.... realizing i could not do it.... i told the Lord, i could not do it, and He did it... no more have i needed one...

I praise God for the release from that bondage...

second class citizen? no, just a first class one in bondage....

the weight factor is a different story.... some is inherrant.... some is society....

all the buffetts, all you can eat, sonic size it, super size it.... two for one, 30% more.... man size it....

satan is eating away at us.... very slowly.....

the happy meal size is fine with me... and then i get a toy to play with, one i can play with my grandson with..... kids meals are about what an adult needs..... cut a kids meal in half for a kid....

we all need to take responsibility for our own actions, and inactions..... if we are over weight, then we need to be the ones to take responsibility..... if we smoke, we need to be the ones to pay the price, not the ones that dont.... if we drink, stand up and take responsibility for ones own actions and pay the price of the penalties from our actions..... the tax payer should not have to pay for the smokers oxygen when they get the dreaded emphazema.... or the special chairs for those that can not sit in a regular chair.....

oh yea,

Hillary, Thanks girl..... you have made it ok for some people not to have to take care of their medical bills.... why???? cause when a child is in school, and even if they are 18, unless the child gives permisison for the parent to have access to the records, the parent does not get to know even the amount of the bill..... so when the hospital/dr calls wanting their payment, and the child is not there, the parent can not even get the amount of the bill so that it can be paid..... cant open the kids mail, that is against the law too.... so the hospitals are having to raise their prices to cover this loss as well...

Thanks Hillary.....

mike

[irishcowboy]

oh yea,

there are already places in the USA, that it is illegal to smoke in public... even in your own front yard...

this is as far back as the mid 1980's ......

mike

[Akiko]

I'm not in favor of this at all. Smoking doesn't make you a second class citizen (even though it does to things like poison your body and shorten your life). Cutting treatment for smokers would be like refusing to give medical attention to people hooked on other drugs like cocaine or meth. It's not healthy, and you take the risks. Should a person have to pay some or all of their bill? Yes.

If curbing obesity and smoking is the goal here, how about fining someone when they get treatment for it for the X number of times? The more treatments, the heftier the price. The cash could go toward useful things (there's a ton out there) and if you don't wanna pay, quit Supersizing and/or smoking. Any thoughts on this?

[Bolts]

I think its as plain as the nose on our faces ...

Food is yummy .... mummies food, nana's food, takeaways, restaurants, snacks mmmmm

tasty delicious scrumtious, yummy for my tummy stuff - pass the lips and thru the gums, watch out tummy here it comes

The one tactic I don't like, is when politicians try the 'complex or guilt games'. Guilting people into giving up poor eating habits or smoking isn't going to work. They need to change their approach. Bring the price of healthy foods down for a start and up the price of junk food. We buy what we can afford and if we can't afford a $7.00 tub of margerine then obviously, we'll go for the cheaper more fattier one - that will last at least four or five days.

If a couple work long hours but can't afford a maid, obviously its going to be takeaways for dinner.

Alot can be said about smoking as well. It was only about 35 years ago when doctors prescribed smoking as a relaxant Now research has discovered the harmful substances in tobacco and is trying to put a stop to it - a bit back to front if you ask me. They should've done the research first. All these politicians have to do is lower the price of zyban and patches. I know lots of people who would love to stop smoking but can't afford the prescription stuff. I think it all boils down to money and what we can and cannot afford.

[salos]

There are two different points here. Financial decisions made by a government are not the same as social decisions made by individuals.

On the personal/societal level, to snub someone who is obese or a smoker is wrong.

On the government level, to spend a great deal of money trying to get people healthy who really don't care to be healthy might not be wise.

[buckthesystem]

There are two different points here. Financial decisions made by a government are not the same as social decisions made by individuals.

On the personal/societal level, to snub someone who is obese or a smoker is wrong.

On the government level, to spend a great deal of money trying to get people healthy who really don't care to be healthy might not be wise.

A lot of you seem to have missed the point of this article and my question, perhaps I didn't word the question all that well. By "2nd class citizen" I meant, not that smokers or obese people could be considered 2nd class citizens and snubbed, I meant that government would be treating them as 2nd class citizens if they introduced this policy. And I think we all know that when governments "float" an idea, they have already researched it for cost, intend to implement it anyway, and are just "testing the water" as far as public reaction goes.

Of course obese people and smokers should be entitled to health care on exactly the same basis as anyone else and be entitled to whatever they need to treat them for what ever illness or condition they have, absolutely regardless, no questions asked, and no discrimination whatsoever.

Why? Simple: Obese people and smokers are also TAXPAYERS like anyone else and have already paid for their healthcare through their taxes!

If (say) an obese person was to be denied any amount, form of, anything with regard to, healthcare, they should be refunded the portion of their taxes that goes to the NHS.

If you believe that any of this is "fair", why stop with smokers or the obese? There are "tons" of other examples: "People who have accidents - they could have taken more care", "people who dye their hair"- their choice of hair dye could have caused a skin infection (prove that it didn't), "people who have skin cancer" - maybe they spent too much time in the sun (now they KNOW there's a hole in the ozone layer),

"people who have genetic disabilities or diseases" - their mother wasn't very careful when she had children (now she MUST have known that heart disease ran in the family), "people who drink alcohol" - (now they KNOW that it kills off brain cells) and "people who eat food that is anything other than celery sticks, carrot sticks or tofu" - now maybe they KNOW that other food is put on the earth to tempt them and cost the taxpayer money, and it could go on and on.

Now here's a really good example: We had a sloping driveway and recently I parked my car at the top and walked behind it, the car ran backwards over me and the exhaust pipe caused a lot of burns - now maybe I should have been blamed and denied medical care because I was careless and didn't apply the handbrake properly. The possibilites are endless.

Also an important point is that I think it is grossly unfair blaming all obese people for the fact that are obese. People are what they are, and some people are just born that way. Size, tolerance to eating and metabolism runs in families. My younger sister's only daughter is an example of this. My sister's husband is from a very overweight family and one of his brothers is incredibly large. My sister has several boys and just one girl. However, unfortunately for the girl, all the boys turned out tall and thin like my sister, but the girl turned out with a tendancy toward obesity like her father's family. She certainly doesn't overeat, that is just the way she is.

So what I should have said was something like: "Should the UK government get away with treating smokers and obese people like second class citizens"?

And Salos, quote: "There are two different points here. Financial decisions made by a government are not the same as social decisions made by individuals." I just have to point out that this government is making "financial decisions" with other peoples' money, something it has no right to do. And we all make "social decisions" every day, but they have very little to do with how healthy we are going to turn out.

[Akiko]

There are two different points here. Financial decisions made by a government are not the same as social decisions made by individuals.

On the personal/societal level, to snub someone who is obese or a smoker is wrong.

On the government level, to spend a great deal of money trying to get people healthy who really don't care to be healthy might not be wise.

A lot of you seem to have missed the point of this article and my question, perhaps I didn't word the question all that well. By "2nd class citizen" I meant, not that smokers or obese people could be considered 2nd class citizens and snubbed, I meant that government would be treating them as 2nd class citizens if they introduced this policy. And I think we all know that when governments "float" an idea, they have already researched it for cost, intend to implement it anyway, and are just "testing the water" as far as public reaction goes.

Of course obese people and smokers should be entitled to health care on exactly the same basis as anyone else and be entitled to whatever they need to treat them for what ever illness or condition they have, absolutely regardless, no questions asked, and no discrimination whatsoever.

Why? Simple: Obese people and smokers are also TAXPAYERS like anyone else and have already paid for their healthcare through their taxes!

If (say) an obese person was to be denied any amount, form of, anything with regard to, healthcare, they should be refunded the portion of their taxes that goes to the NHS.

If you believe that any of this is "fair", why stop with smokers or the obese? There are "tons" of other examples: "People who have accidents - they could have taken more care", "people who dye their hair"- their choice of hair dye could have caused a skin infection (prove that it didn't), "people who have skin cancer" - maybe they spent too much time in the sun (now they KNOW there's a hole in the ozone layer),

"people who have genetic disabilities or diseases" - their mother wasn't very careful when she had children (now she MUST have known that heart disease ran in the family), "people who drink alcohol" - (now they KNOW that it kills off brain cells) and "people who eat food that is anything other than celery sticks, carrot sticks or tofu" - now maybe they KNOW that other food is put on the earth to tempt them and cost the taxpayer money, and it could go on and on.

Now here's a really good example: We had a sloping driveway and recently I parked my car at the top and walked behind it, the car ran backwards over me and the exhaust pipe caused a lot of burns - now maybe I should have been blamed and denied medical care because I was careless and didn't apply the handbrake properly. The possibilites are endless.

Also an important point is that I think it is grossly unfair blaming all obese people for the fact that are obese. People are what they are, and some people are just born that way. Size, tolerance to eating and metabolism runs in families. My younger sister's only daughter is an example of this. My sister's husband is from a very overweight family and one of his brothers is incredibly large. My sister has several boys and just one girl. However, unfortunately for the girl, all the boys turned out tall and thin like my sister, but the girl turned out with a tendancy toward obesity like her father's family. She certainly doesn't overeat, that is just the way she is.

So what I should have said was something like: "Should the UK government get away with treating smokers and obese people like second class citizens"?

And Salos, quote: "There are two different points here. Financial decisions made by a government are not the same as social decisions made by individuals." I just have to point out that this government is making "financial decisions" with other peoples' money, something it has no right to do. And we all make "social decisions" every day, but they have very little to do with how healthy we are going to turn out.

Wise words. It made me really stop and think, and the possibilites are endless.

I have a friend who is somewhat overweight, and it runs in her family. (She's big in general, wearning a men's shoe of 11 and about 5'9" in height) That kind of 'obese' does run in family. However, being morbidly obese (having a BMI of 40, twice the 'normal' weight) or obese (having a BMI of 30-39 or a waist circumference of 102+ cm in men and 88+ cm in women) crosses the line of hereditary body structure to overeating and unhealthy weight. Are they second class citizens? Nope. Do they run a higher risk of health complications due to excess fat compared to a 'normal weight' person? Yes.

An idea would be if you fall into the category of obese, you have to pay slightly more on taxes to go to funds to treat health complications due to obesity (from hip replacements to heart failures). Same with smokers, alchoholics, etc. If you plan to keep up that lifestyle, you're putting yourself at risk. If you were to insist on taking small doses of poison every day, you're eventually going to have health problems. Should your tax money have to pay for my decision to ingest poison? How much? Should I have to pay for some or all of it?

(Small amounts of poison...this seems parallel to smoking...)

In any case, paying a bit more on taxes would help some people to quit and would help those who don't get health care. *shrugs* Anyone got any feedback, ideas...?