obamacare and obesity in southern states

[hokiefan]

I accuse you of agreeing with LJ just to spite Jamie. Or maybe you just agree with LJ. Or maybe he's just right. Or maybe...

yes

I think you're trying hard not to really agree with anybody...

[Paul Pless]

I think you're trying hard not to really agree with anybody...

not really, i'm generally not the disagreeable sort. . .

[TomF]

Personally, I am so conflicted over obesity issues.

Most folks who are obese got there under their own volition. But once there, particularly for very obese people, it's terribly hard even with the strictest acts of will, to make lasting substantive changes. To become and stay NOT obese. Things like bariatric surgery help, not unlike how the nicotine patch helps people to stop smoking.

It is, of course, in society's (and government's) best interest that people don't become obese in the first place, and drop to a healthier weight if they ever do get too big. Significant impacts not only on health and quality of life, but on economic productivity etc. etc.

In various other health sectors we do treat the effects of self-induced morbidity ... various cancers, liver disease, sexually transmitted diseases etc. It makes sense to be consistent and treat the medical fallouts of obesity too ... but the problems are so, uhm, widespread that health systems may crumple under the weight.

IMO if there's a role for the state at all, it should be front-loaded to provide incentives to remaining healthy.

[Hwyl]

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2013...iatric-surgery

Here's the link. The gist is that, instead of trying to apply a uniform standard all over the country, what's covered in each state is tied to what's currently covered by the most popular small group health plan offered there. It was a compromise intended to maintain current local standards of care, so that costs wouldn't go up astronomically in states whose population was accustomed to a lower standard of coverage. I don't think it was a good idea, but there you have it.

To be fair Jamie had most of the story correct. Thanks to Katey for the link.

A very good argument could be made for treating everyone equally, indeed it's one I and I suspect many others would make. The only thing holding me back is the "sausage maker" allusion, I'm prepared to rein in my principles to speed the desirable end result.

From the link which (apparently) Jamie was paraphrasing...



I think he did just fine.

So lets recap...

Jamie...



No ObamaCare obesity coverage in the States that need it.

Those State are in the south.

From the link...



Ding, ding, ding!! We have a match!

A classic Jamie pile on when he was right all along. This place is getting to have the "Yeah, what he said" mentality of SA.

[Paul Pless]

Personally, I am so conflicted over obesity issues.

me too

[TomF]

me too

As I've said before, I've got this great friend out west who's prolly 400 pounds. If she goes entirely with the program and with enormous will and perseverence takes off 35 pounds over a couple of months ... as she's done more than once ... there's no visible result. She's still years away from her goal, and will need body reconstructive surgery even then to look remotely like what she'd rather look like.

So there's virtually no real incentive, and certainly no incentive that can compete with the way food (used as a drug) makes her feel Ok now. And the damage to her joints,etc. has already occurred, and will continue to occur even while the weight incrementally comes off. It's a helluva situation for her, and there's not much obvious way for it, and the social isolation associated with it, to get better.

[ccmanuals]

I call bullsh!!t on that one.

The only posts that don't get piled on are Paul's boat pics. Everything else seems to be fair game.

[David G]

A classic Jamie pile on when he was right all along. This place is getting to have the "Yeah, what he said" mentality of SA.

Right all along? Have to disagree.

It's true that there was an underlying, apparently legitimate, story. Jamie heard it. He brought it here - vague, garbled, incomplete, mis-shapen, and without attribution. His comment, "...obesity in the southern states... not be covered by obamacare..." is NOT correct. Yes there are apparently some provisions that somewhat resemble that comment. But that comment is NOT on target.


Right that there was a story? Ayup!

Right in the particulars? Nope.


Soooo... then once asks - what was the point of Jamie's OP? Is he considering becoming obese and moving to a Suthrun state? Does he have obese, Suthrun loved ones he's worried about? Has he suddenly become interested in the minutiae of public policy pertaining to health care? Or is this just another example of a disingenuous, sideways, factually incorrect attempt to manufacture a complaint about Obama?

I'm betting on the latter. I see I'm not the only one who takes it that way. Hence the pushback that you characterize as a "classic Jamie pile-on". If Jamie wanted and was capable of simply raising the issue by providing a link, offering his thoughts, and soliciting input... he's get a lot less 'pile-on', eh? If he's intellectually capable of taking such an approach... he should. If he's not... then my earlier advice obtains.

[David G]

From your pattern of posting here, I can only conclude that you could use a bit of mental health care yourself. Your posts on this forum are consistently ugly, deeply personal in nature, deliberately hurtful...the sort of talk that would get you punched in the mouth in the real face to face world if you dared behave in such a manner. This is NOT a dig. I'm genuinely concerned about this. Have you sought care, or are you toughing this out entirely on your own?

Judge - I'm hoping I can find the wherewithal to understand the wisdom of your contribution here... and take it in the spirit with which it was offered. Toward that end, I'm wondering which comments or phrases you find to be "deeply personal" and/or "deliberately hurtful". Upon reviewing my submissions... I find none - though I have identified a few that MIGHT be regarded as candidates by some. It'll be interesting to see if those are the ones you object to. Clearly I need education and enlightenment. Of course, though I'm always open to improvement, I can't guarantee to change. I'm every bit as mouthy and blunt in person, and have a long history of both valuing accuracy and of not suffering fools gladly. And, yes, it has inspired a few to take a poke at my proboscis. The success of such efforts has varied.

[BrianW]

I know DavidG is a good man. I believe he's wrong this time (just once, probably never happened before, nor will it ever happen again.)

Want proof? Just note that Gareth and I agree on the point.

That rarely happens!

[David G]

Wrong??? But... isn't that simply, well, Unthinkable?

[katey]

A classic Jamie pile on when he was right all along. This place is getting to have the "Yeah, what he said" mentality of SA.

I object to the characterization of my post as "piling on." I posted a link and a summary that, in large part, agreed with Jamie, and certainly didn't attack him personally.

[BrianW]

Wrong??? But... isn't that simply, well, Unthinkable?

In all fairness, you may have been set up.

Jamie invoked the dreaded 'NPR Reference', which is the holy grail of references.

The mere mention of 'NPR' in any post immediately increases the observed 'intellectual liberal' quotient of anyone invoking it.

[Paul Pless]

Jamie invoked the dreaded 'NPR Reference', which is the holy grail of references.

The mere mention of 'NPR' in any post immediately increases the observed 'intellectual liberal' quotient of anyone invoking it.

lmao

I wonder what has had a greater influence on my personal liberalization? Listening to 12 hours of NPR per day for the last decade or my participation in the bilge?

[Hwyl]

I object to the characterization of my post as "piling on." I posted a link and a summary that, in large part, agreed with Jamie, and certainly didn't attack him personally.

Whoops Katey, I meant just the opposite, everyone (including me) was piling on. You saw through the BS and gave Jamie's original post a core of veracity. Actually I was admiring your independence.

[Hwyl]

Apparently we grade Jamie on a sliding scale.

No one else would be permitted to conflate bariatric surgery with obesity and its side effects and still be awared a gold star for truthiness.

About as relevant as your footer. No one is awarding him a gold star. His prejudices shine through, but that's true of most people.

[Paul Pless]

About as relevant as your footer.

"it is such an easy fix that it boggles the mind that it wasn't done."

Competence matters.

[katey]

Whoops Katey, I meant just the opposite, everyone (including me) was piling on. You saw through the BS and gave Jamie's original post a core of veracity. Actually I was admiring your independence.

OK, thanks for clarifying, and I apologize for jumping, grumpily!

[Michael D. Storey]

Hell, I never got two pages of responses for anything that I posted here.

That sed, I would suggest that 'Obamacare', a moniker coined as an insult, will indeed become a badge of honor in the legacy of his presidency.

[johnw]

Well, of course insurance companies don't want to cover obesity where it's the biggest problem -- that's where it's most expensive. And Obamacare is a kluge intended to reform our current system, not a single-payer system, so insurance companies have a lot to say about it.

Of course, if the state governments want to change their requirements for insurance companies, they are free to do so, as was the case before Obamacare.

[George Jung]

Nice troll, Jamie. Haven't heard from ya since the start, but this thread has a fine head of steam, and all arguing about your intent! Kudos!

AFA the OP - I didn't take the comments as alluding to bariatric surgery, but rather, the complications of medical care associated with obesity - accelerated heart disease; degenerative joint disease and replacement, among others. Not having a link at the start (and saying 'I tink I heard it on NPR' is of little use) ensured this one going off the rails. Apologists from either side not withstanding.

[Peter Malcolm Jardine]

A classic Jamie freak-out.

People who aren't covered for a certain condition will continue to not be covered for that condition.... and the guy who said he's against covering them is shocked to discover that they won't be covered.

Sorry Jamie, I can't figure out which side of this issue you're on. Can you?

I love this guy

[Peter Malcolm Jardine]

Rate Shock: In California, Obamacare To Increase Individual Health Insurance Premiums By 64-146%


http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapoth...ums-by-64-146/

Do you know anything about insurance plans and how they work?
That article is laughable.