If the government's going to pay for people to pay me to use it, I'll sure come up with one!

And someone that has a thyroid problem, i guess its his or here fautl then if he or she got fat.

Or an hormone problem...... thats plain stupid, many people suffer from obesity and they didnt get that way by eating a lot, or pigging out.

And the saddest thing is that many of them arent able to lose weight either.

It's not fault. It's responsibility. They were dealt a difficult hand, but they are ultimately the only person who can be responsible for, and who can cure their condition. There is no debate on that point. The road is a lot harder for some than others, but we each have to walk it on our own.

Actually, many of us have a hormone problem. It's called hyperinsulinemia and it does directly lead to obesity. Fortunately, for those of us who have discovered it, low carbing goes a long way towards alleviating that problem.

Medicaid and medicare are for people without medical insurance, who qualify financially to receive aid. It is not for just anyone to get paid to go on a diet.

If I was sure the government would handle this situation in the best and fairest possible way, I would be for assistance to those with obesity who qualify. Unfortunately, I remain unconvinced because I do not have faith that the government would not muck up another well-intentioned program. Therefore, I remain on the fence until I see what exactly the plan entails.

Of course, losing weight requires one take responsibility for their own health and condition. That is what most of us are doing by following the LC WOE, but does that mean we should never help anyone besides ourselves to achieve that goal? Yes, those of us with a propensity to become obese have a tougher road than someone who can eat anything and everything and remain a stick for life, but does that mean we are supposed to do everything with no help from anyone? Or is it only okay to get help as long as your tax dollars don't have to pay for it? Tax dollars pay to keep AA groups going for alcoholics, and for drug and alcohol rehab..believe me, I knew someone who used the system OFTEN for these rehabs and still never quit drinking...because he never took personal responsibility. This is not limited only to the overweight. He was an alcoholic because he had a propensity to become addicted and yet he CHOSE to drink. But the means were still there to help him. Are we proposing we shut down all substance treatment programs, too? For everyone. For teens, for adults, they all have the same responsibility to their own health.

I understand the arguments against the government coming in and possibly wasting funds on ill-advised programs. But I don't understand why only obesity seems to be the one problem people have that is unworthy of public funds to try to correct it, when we use those same funds for other conditions that are the the result of the individuals own actions . There are surely more obese people in this country than alcoholics and drug addicts combined.

I believe in taking responsibility. I am tired of government programs that don't work, and people who get things they don't deserve. But it sure seems awfully cold to just turn away and tell those without the means to go to a doctor for blood tests or weigh ins, or to even afford a WOE like Atkins, that that's just too damn bad and no one cares.

I just wish there was an easy answer. But, boy, there sure isn't!

Well, it's all relative, and frankly, I never know what is covered by my BC/BS insurance anyhow. Supposedly they are pro preventive health measures. But they have never covered both a mammogram and an annual physical in the same fiscal year, claiming "you have exceeded your wellness benefits". God forbid I have any more blood work done in the same year.

I am lucky in that I CAN afford it. But what is all this garbage about how insurance is supposed to be for preventative medicine about?

Kay

Medicaid and medicare are for people without medical insurance, who qualify financially to receive aid. It is not for just anyone to get paid to go on a diet.

Actually, Medicare is only for the elderly and the disabled. For a while they were really loose about giving disability for drug and alcohol abuse, but they've tightened up and pretty much eliminated it. In order to be considered "disabled" and qualify for Medicare, you must be unable to work for 2 full years. That means you're not even able to work part-time!

For the elderly, they must meet age requirements. They get Part A for free....that pays for most of your hospitalizations (there's a co-pay) and they have to pay for PartB, which is what covers physicians and supplies, equipment, etc. I believe you have to have Part B to get the medication coverage, but I'm not sure. Part B, with few exceptions, pays at 80%.

For all, disabled or elderly, they must have worked under social security for a minimum of 40 quarters....a total of 10 yrs. (There are exceptions for children/minors who can sometimes qualify under their parent's work totals). For many years, federal employees were unable to contribute to social security, so there are elders who are not eligible.

Medicaid has a whole host of requirements. You have to be ineligible for any group insurance, most of the time (except elders) you have to have children. For the most part, if you qualify for AFDC you also qualify for medicaid. Young girls are often covered if they are pregnant, but usually only until the baby is born. The baby may then be covered, but it's not always. The main thing driving Medicaid, tho, is income. There are very strict income requirements. If you are elderly, and in rare circumstances if you have a catastrophic illness, there are "spend down" programs. Basically you have to spend the amount of $ to bring you down to "poverty levels".....and those levels are WAY too low! So if you family makes 20K a year and the poverty level is 10k, you have to have over 10k in medical expenses and then they will cover (?most, all?) the amount over 10k.

There are many people who don't qualify for either....and also do not have private insurance. They're the ones that are going to benefit only from sponsored programs....I doubt partial payments (likely for coverage to WW, etc) will help them, since they may not be able to pay their portion!

Unfortunately, there are a lot of overweight and obese people in our country and we're all going to have to pay for treatment....either for the obesity, or for diabetes, or heart disease, or whatever. The more that's covered the more that's going to be needed from taxes.....and the higher our private insurance is going to cost us.

I agree that treatment should be covered for obesity....just as it is for alcoholism, and drug abuse.....and heart disease and diabetes. BUT, I'd like to see more limits. An example is my private ins co will cover smoking sessation 1 course of treatment for the patch.....and one for Wellbutrin....and that's it. But if I don't stick with it I pay 100%. I think they should offer 2 courses each....but I also think they should limit treatment of drug and alcohol abuse to 1-2 courses of each available treatment.

As for the surgery, unfortunately I think there are going to be a lot of surgeries done. I think it should be the last resort....and I also think the requirements should be more selective. When I worked in MA, 7 yrs ago, the definition for being "morbidly obese" was twice your "normal" weight. Now it's 100 pounds overweight! For the average person, that means they can qualify sooner.

I'd like to see coverage of some kind for Gyms, but they won't be covered. I'd also agree with public weight-loss programs. I would say partial payment to WW, for the meetings.....nothing to Jenny Craig, or at least not for their food (that's the biggest part of th cost, isn't it?). The local Y's usually have weight loss programs...and they usually incorporate exercise....I'd like to see the gov't give THEM the money to expand and advertise their programs.

There are no LC groups that actually have meetings, are there? I've heard of gatherings, but not actual groups where dues or fees are collected. Bet if there is coverage for meeting programs there will be LC groups popping up all over the place! (including, I dare say LC WW! LOL)

Why WW but not JC? Why for the meetings but not the food? Regardless of the answer, the can of worms is open. Someone has to decide which programs qualify and which don't and why do we think the government bureaucracy that will arise (and absorb the bulk of the tax dollars before they benefit anyone, just as most of these government programs do) will make decent decisions? Is there much doubt right now that such decisions would likely exclude LC because it is soooooo bad for you?

About ten years ago (maybe a tad longer) I looked at the federal budget and just the programs I could identify that could be lumped under "welfare" from all the major agencies - and assuming that each person participating didn't participate in any other such program (which is certain far from the case) it worked out to slightly over $30,000 in federally appropriated funds (i.e., tax dollars) per person. Now, how many people receiving aid received anywhere close to this amount? Where did the rest go? The bureaucray! Paying the employees. Building the big office buildings. Sending the supervisors and administrators to conferences. Refurbishing the entire office building every few years. Coming up with all kinds of paperwork to justify an ever increasing staff to supervise.

It is just that - garbage. But, unfortunately, we have bought in to it because of the vicious cycle of increasing costs brought about by increasing insurance participation.

Health insurance is supposed to be for catastophic illnesses. You should take care of the routine stuff on your own. When that was the prevailing situation, the costs of those routine things remained within reach of most people due to market forces.

But not everyone, so we wanted the government to step in and implement programs for those that couldn't afford it. Fine - sounds like what a compassate people should do. But now demand goes up - so cost goes up.

Eventually you get to the point where the government is hesitent (for political reasons) to keep expanding the group of people it will pay for and now the people that can't afford it are the folks just beyond the cutoff. So they pressure government to require that the insurance companies cover such and such because, after all, why should a person that works and makes money not be able to afford care that someone making less can?

So now insurance covers it and demand skyrockets! Why? Because now people are getting something "for free". And the cost skyrockets even more! Why? Because the cost is dictated by what the customer is willing to pay. If I told you that you could go out and get any car you wanted for free, would you pick a Hundai or a Mercedes? If the insurance company is going to pay for it, do you even ask how much it is going to cost? No. You simply hand over your card.

So now a lot of excess money is flowing in to the doctors and the clinics and the hospitals and where there is a lot of excess money soon you have a lot of lawsuits to lay claim it. But those lawsuits are paid out of other insurance policies (which is why juries are so willing to award high judgements) so that now the actual costs of the services go up enormously - the malpractice insurance for a general practioner, I heard last week, is something over $40,000 a year and for a neurosurgeon it can easily top $350,000 per year.

The insurance companies really don't care - the amount of profit they can make without getting a critical eye cast on them is related to the amount of claims they pay out. Let's say that number is 10%. If you are an insurance company, would you rather pay out a hundred million dollars a year in claims and get to keep ten million, or would you rather pay out a billion a year and get to keep a hundred million? So you have no incentive to keep costs down as long as people can pay the higher premiums that result.

But eventually people recoil from the premiums, primarily through employers cutting back on the level of insurance they are willing to provide. So now people complain to government about the greedy employers that won't give them the necessary health benefits and then the government requires companies over a certain size to provide certain minimum levels of coverage no matter how much it costs and the cycle is allowed to continue.

But eventually the companies simply can't keep paying more for the same coverage, and so they start demanding reform to bring their costs down but everyone else, scared that any move that would do that would reduce their level of coverage - and for whom premiums have long since gone past what THEY could pay individually - push for alternatives where the government pays for some of it. So you pick up a few more entitlements based primarily on the argument that if they already cover x and y, then why shouldn't they cover z as well. It's only fair.

Now the race is really on because the government has really deep pockets and is already predisposed to solving problems by throwing tons of inefficiently used money at them.

Look at all the places where there is: (a) a heavy insurance, particularly mandatory insurance, presence; and/or (b) a heavy presence of government money. You will generally see two things: (1) skyrocketing costs well beyond inflation for sustained periods of time; and, more often than not, (2) a vigorous amount of lawsuits with high judgements. Case examples: Health costs, aviation costs (where a set of brakes for a light aircraft that are simpler and easier to make than the brakes for your car - and that don't have anywhere near the potential consequences should they fail - can cost over $2000), auto repair costs, worker's compensation, and college tuition.

Tuition is a particularly poignent example - the large state university north of me spends, on average, $60,000 per SECTION of every course they offer. That does not include plant facilities (another $6k per section), institutional support (another $4k per section), capital improvements, or research activities. On top of that, 60% of those sections are taught by graduate students or part time instructores making less than $3000 per section.

So where is the rest of that money going? No one ever asks. Why? Because if they raise tuition 10% and now students can't afford it what do they do? Government steps in and increases the amount of money available for Pell Grants and increases the cap on student loans. So, since mom, dad, or junior aren't paying for it out of savings they don't really care how much it costs. Even if it means taking out huge student loans - the car example still applies. If I told you that you had to pay for your car out of savings or that you can buy whatever car you want and take out a loan, most people are driven not by the amount of the loan but by the size of the payments. In the case of student loans there ARE no payments (not immediately, which is when they could influence the decision).

So people graduate saddled with huge debt loads (if they graduate at all) and we quickly get to the point where, just like the health care situation, people that could have afforded college ten or twenty years ago can't come close. So now, due to purely artificial inflationary pressures, a huge fraction of people have to rely on government where before few did.

The result of all of this vicious cycling is that we create a dependence on government for basic needs and, when that happens, we hand over control of our lives to government. If they decide that they want to require everyone to serve two years in the military or the Peace Corps or AmeriCorps and realize that they can't outright require it, then they just put it as a condition on qualifying for a federally subsidized student loan or financial aid. Now almost everyone that wants to go to college has to bow to their wishes because the costs have been driven up so far that it is their only option.

Don't think it will happen? Why do you think that registering with the Selective Service is a requirement for qualifying for a student loan or federal financial aid? It happens other places all the time as well. One of the most common is federal highway funds. That's money taken from the states and then returned, with strings, to the states. The latest one was lowering the blood alcohol limits from 0.10% to 0.08%. It is unconstitutional for the federal government to require states to impose such a limit. So what do they do? They threaten to withhold highway funds if the states don't impose the limits. Because the federal government siphons off so much of the money for transportation infrastructure the states, by and large, simply can't go without those funds, so they bow to Washington's demands. The same is true for public education. The federal gov't siphons off the money and then institutes all these wonderful programs - with strings.

So what's the solution? I can think of some things that might have kept these situations from arising while still addressing the goals of the issues that started the ball rolling. But once that ball has rolled I don't know that it can be stopped.

But then again, I've generally come to the conclusion that civilization is a self-defeating concept.

One thing is for sure, we have firmly ended the debate on whether LC causes a decrease in brain function because of lack of carbs for "brain food"! Agree or disagree or just agree to disagree, the answers and comments in this thread have been articulate and thought-provoking.

One debate ended definitively on the side of LC for sure!

On that, I think we can all agree!

There is another factor to consider regarding rising insurance and hospital fees. Around here, several hospitals are in trouble because they receive many patients who can't pay, but they are mandated to treat them anyway. This include folks like poor people and (here near Mexico, anyway) illegal immigrants, and the treatments are often emergency/catastrophic illness type stuff. Very expensive! So who pays in the end? The costs are passed on in large part to the people who don't have good health insurance policies to help them, who can least afford it. Some of these hospitals have been forced to shut down services and facilities due to the rising costs.

It is a viscious cycle in that the poor are more likely to develop catastrophic illnesses, but less able to pay, creating larger and larger burdens on those who do pay until some of those start dropping off too. With the incidence of degenerative diseases skyrocketing right now (as well as the pharmaceutical industry going out of control), I worry that this could lead to a total collapse of the healthcare system in the near future.

(and LOL at RainCM! Too true!)

Thanks, wbahn, you have said the things I didn't have the patience to say. Anyone who believes the government will make anything cheaper by broadening coverage should retake their high school economics class. This is a simple supply/demand issue.

Besides that, I cannot put my finger on the line of the United States Constitution that allows the federal government to become involved in such matters.

Can anyone else find it in there?

How about reading the Constitution that established this country.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Yes, the phrase "promote the general Welfare" has always been cited as the basis for saying that the federal government has absolutely no limits on anything it want's to do as long as someone claims it's for the general good. Never mind that, being in the preamble, it has no power at all because it is not one of the provisions of the document. It is merely an introductory declaration of the goals that the provisions are intended to achieve.

If it did have such power, then there would be no need for the feds to pull all kinds of games in order to force the states to bow to their wishes by threatening to withhold funds - they'd just say that reducing the blood alchohol limits is to promote the general welfare and be done with it.

But, while we have ignored the Bill of Rights in so many ways, it still exists and still has influence. This includes the most trampled on Amendment of all - the Tenth:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

Now, since the Bill of Rights was a set of amendments specifically crafted to place limits on the Federal Government, and since they took great pains to be all inclusive and say that, unless this document specifically gives you that power, we hereby declare that you do not have that power, is it conceivable that they would have left open such gaping holes as "promote the general welfare" or "to form a more perfect Union" or "insure domestic Tranquitity" if those phrases had any authority at all for being the basis of power for the Feds in the broad sweeps that people want to use?

The term "general Welfare", as used in the constitution (specifically in the sections that actually grant the U.S. powers) is and was never meant to let the government act in the intrusive way that we have come accustomed to. In fact, where the powers are delegates, it is specifically stated that it is the "the general Welfare of the United States" and the document is very careful to distinguish between the "United States", "the various States", and "the people". It was recognized that the federal government had to be maintained at a level as to keep it sufficiently healthy and organized to function if it was to carry out its assigned duties. So it was given the power to raise revenues and spend funds in order to provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the entity known as the United States.

You'll love this, there is (was? will be?) a bill where the federal government will reimburse hospitals for undocumented people. However, regular Americans who are uninsured won't be.... So, the hospitals when they're looking at a crowded waiting room of people to see are going to have an incentive to treat the folks here illegally as opposed to legal US citizen without health insurance.

Dontcha love it?