Watch Me on TVFriday, July 16th, 2004
I put out a Cato news release this morning on this whole obesity-Medicare scam.
That netted a couple of TV bookings where I’ll be debating the issue.
Catch me on CNN tomorrow night at 10:30pm. And on CNBC Monday afternoon at 1:30pm.
could the money spent on preventive measures save money down the line?
or will it lengthen the lives of enrolles and there by increase the cost also?
I am going for the last one.
Wow, made it big time … congratulations. I’m just glad you got on TV for a good issue rather than something about Bush. Still going to run this site after you make it big?
” Decisions about weight, diet, and exercise are ultimately private concerns, the consequences of which should be borne by the individual Americans who make them.”
What health care costs should not be borne by individuals?
How is the socialization of obesity less justified than any other public benefit?
An argument could be made, then, that because a person contracts HIV after having an anonymous sexual encounter, and because they knew the risks involved in their behavior, that health care shouldn’t cover them.
What about lung cancer? Should someone who smoked for X amount of years and contracts lung cancer not be allowed to be covered under insurance/Medicare/etc.
I agree with you, Radley, that obesity is not something that should have gotten on the Medicare block, but there is certainly a hazy gray area between what is individual responsibility and what is not.?
Tricky.
John
narphonax.com/blog
ADDENDUM:
That should have been:
“Should someone who smoked for X amount of years and contracts lung cancer not be allowed to be covered under insurance/Medicare/etc.[question mark]“
Will there be a penalty tax on twinkies?
Maybe they should add a nickel to every donut that Krispy and Dunkin sell and we could add it to the “Fat Fuck Fund”.
Perhaps they could erase the federal deficit be eliminating medicare and a prescription plan alltogether?
Maybe they’ll just suck more money from me on April 15th.
I vote for Choice three however we all know that four is the odds on favorite.
“I agree with you, Radley, that obesity is not something that should have gotten on the Medicare block, but there is certainly a hazy gray area between what is individual responsibility and what is not.”
There’s no grey area - it’s *all* the individual’s responsibility.
I think that the administration’s decision undercuts any political argument they make against John Edwards’ trial-lawyer history, because if nothing else, the anti-obesity lawyers will use the Medicare definition to advance their lawsuits against the fast food industry. The terrorist leader John Banzhaf has already said as much to the Washington Times.
More Special Pleading From Balko
Radley Balko once again invokes principles he won’t follow through on:”Yesterday, the federal Medicare program made the obesity problem a whole lot worse. By treating obesity as a ‘illness,’ the
Balko Addresses The Symptom But Not The Disease.
There’s no grey area - it’s *all* the individual’s responsibility.
Looking back, I actually found that I phrased that incorrectly. What I was meaning to say was what, precisely, should be covered and shouldn’t, regardless of individual responsibility. Or should nothing that is the result of individual responsibility be covered?
John
narphonax.com/blog
John H,
Well, NONE of the other illnesses you mentioned should be covered either…
Why should anything be covered by Medicare?
Balko On CNN - What I’d Have Asked
Graham:
Careful there, you accidentally classified obesity as an “illness.”
John
narphonax.com/blog
quite with the OCD kennedy?
You’re exactly right, John. In principle, nobody should be forced, at gunpoint (which is what “taxes” are), to bear the burden of someone else’s illness, unless they are found, by a court of law, to be responsible for said illness.
I don’t care if it’s lung cancer or a big fat ass, it’s none of my business, and not my responsibility. The bullshit argument that “you need food to live, but you don’t need cigarettes to live” is tired and useless. Yes, we need “food” to live, but in essence, if you get into this type of value-assessment tactic, then you can’t help but take it to its logical end. Yes, we need “food” to live, as I said. But you don’t necessarily need big macs to live. You don’t need cheese fries to live. You don’t need twinkie’s to live. You don’t need coca-cola to live. All you “need”, biologically, for your daily physical functions, is a tasteless soupy mixture of proteins, carbohydrates, fats, and micronutrients. So, then, anything beyond that, any big juicy steaks, any bloomin’ onions, any budweisers, they are all as “unnecessary”, in terms of biological functioning, as cigarettes are. In other words, most of the food that we eat every day is just as “necessary” as cigarettes. If we boiled it down to strict biological necessity, then all we need is that standard blend of macronutrients and micronutrients.
This is what happens when a centralized governing body gets into assessing the value of something based on its biological “necessity”. The argument falls apart rather quickly.
Thanks for the comments, Evan. More so, I was interested in hearing what Radley thinks should be exempted from Medicare and tax-funded programs. I, too, agree that both obesity-related and tobacco-related illnesses shouldn’t be covered…but, then again, I don’t think the “screw lung cancer patients” campaign will work. It’s a fond idea, but one that won’t ever be accepted.
John
narphonax.com/blog
viagra ViaT8898111-01-01-22