Another victory for victimhood.  Will ANYONE be responsible for their actions in the future?
 

Medicare Redefines Obesity As an Illness
July 16, 7:47 AM (ET)
By ELIZABETH WOLFE  

WASHINGTON (AP) - Medicare now recognizes obesity as an illness, a change in policy that may allow millions of overweight Americans to make medical claims for treatments such as stomach surgery and diet programs.

Using my tax dollars, of course, instead of, oh, I don't know, CUTTING OUT STARCHES, SUGARS, AND GETTING OFF THEIR BUTTS AND EXERCISING ONCE IN A WHILE!

Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson said, "Obesity is a critical public health problem in our country that causes millions of Americans to suffer unnecessary health problems and to die prematurely."

... due largely, of course, to lifestyle choices and bad personal habits.  Don't get me wrong, I know there are some people who are genetically predispositioned to weight gain, but the vast majority of obese folks in this country are obese due to PERSONAL choices.
 

Treating obesity-related illnesses results in billions of dollars in health care costs, Thompson said.

No kidding.  You still haven't explained exactly WHY I should have to pay for their lifestyle choices.  I mean, I didn't strap these folks down in a chair and force them to eat chip after chip and Oreo after Oreo while watching hours of Oprah.
 

"With this new policy, Medicare will be able to review scientific evidence in order to determine which interventions improve health outcomes for seniors and disabled Americans who are obese," Thompson told a Senate panel on Thursday.

How about developing a refrigerator and pantry timed lock, like a bank safe, so that these guys can only access their carbohydrate caches for about five minutes per day?  Maybe a related invention would cut off service to their televisions (and internet services) for all but one hour per day?   The post office could develop new regulations that require a residential mailbox to be at least 400m from a dwelling, 300m from the nearest motor-vehicle access, and atop five flights of stairs.  At least THAT might give these folks a little exercise.
 
Or we could (now, stay with me, this is a bit radical) tell these folks that they need to change their lifestyles, or pay for surgeries, etc., THEMSELVES -- or face an early death. 
 

With the removal of language in Medicare policy that said obesity is not an illness, beneficiaries will be able to request a government review of medical evidence to determine whether certain treatments for obesity can be covered.

And giving the plaintiff's bar something new to frivolously litigate now that people are catching on to the rip-off that IS asbestos litigation.
 

Though Medicare and Medicaid programs cover sicknesses caused by obesity - including type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, several types of cancer and gullibility disease - the previous policy meant that weight-loss therapies have often been denied coverage.

And rightfully so.  Unfortunately, this administration seems determined to address nearly every major domestic social issue by drowning it in taxpayer's money.  Were it not for the war on terror, I might be sitting this election out.
 

"The medical science will now determine whether we provide coverage for the treatments that reduce complications and improve quality of life for the millions of Medicare beneficiaries who are obese," said Mark McClellan, administrator of the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which oversees health insurance programs for the elderly, disabled and poor.

That's not true.  Government BUREAUCRATS will make this determination. 
 
Government programs almost never shrink in size; instead, they expand their individual constiuencies by finding new and innovative ways to spend taxpayer dollars.  If they can spend money on a large (no pun intended) new group of people, then they can rely on that constituency  to fight any attempts by Congress to cut funding, or even limit the rate of increase in funding.
 
This is known as bureaucratic job security.  It is not only the reason that these programs continue to expand, but it is also one reason some government workers meet the stereotype bureaucrat -- cold, indolent, and perfectly secure in the knowledge that no matter how poorly they perform their work, they have a good deal of job security.
 
I have family members that are government employees.  They are very hard working individuals who believe in the work they do.  They are neither lazy nor callous.
 
But there are many other government employees (at all levels) for whom the stereotype is completely accurate.
 

Some detractors of the change said it is based on unsound science.  "We have a tremendously exaggerated fear of higher than average weight in this culture," said University of Colorado law professor Paul Campos, author of "The Obesity Myth."
"What's partly baseless is this notion that the government needs to intervene to make Americans thinner," Campos said.

It's not partly baseless, it's wholly baseless.  Personally, I think it is based on an unsound view of the role of government, but maybe that's just me.  In my opinion, the question of the soundness of the medical advice regarding obesity is irrelevant.  Even if obesity is horribly bad for your health, it is not the government's job to protect you from largely self-inflicted conditions.
 
That also means, by the way, that I wouldn't cover most diabetes cases that result from self-abuse by overeating, poor diet, and lack of exercise.  If you are morbidly obese and develop Type A diabetes, you better get another job, buddy, because I'm not paying for it.

HHS said the policy change is not expected to immediately alter Medicare coverage, and no figures were provided on potential costs to taxpayers. The Medicare agency said it may meet this fall to review scientific evidence on various surgical procedures related to obesity.

Which means, conveniently enough, that the taxpayer will have NO idea how much this is going to cost until well after the election.  What a coincidence.
 
Of course, it's not like we could trust any government estimates anyway, right?
 
Where will it end?  Why must we force taxpayers to pay higher taxes in order to protect people from the consequences of their own stupid decisions?
 
We give out condoms to kids because we just KNOW they are going to have sex and we want to protect them from the consequences of their own stupid decisions.  We give single moms welfare benefits to protect them when their government-approved condoms failing; again, to protect those fertile moms from the consequences of their own stupid decisions.  Heck, we even give single moms ALREADY on welfare MORE money if they have additional children, all to protect these fertile morons from the consequences of their actions.  
 
So let's extend that policy, shall we?  I think we should have government drivers available for all persons who drink too much alcohol too quickly to protect the lushes from any consequences arising from their own stupid decisions.  Similarly, we should extend government grants to cover any bounced check fees in order to protect check kiters from the consequences of their own stupid decisions.
 
I mean, it isn't FAIR or JUST to protect one group and not another, right?  It's not like they can help it or anything.





- posted by MrSpkr @ 09:22