obamacare and obesity in southern states

[Reynard38]

obesity in the south is rampant. not as much a a medical problem in ne and west or sw.i don't think it's bogus, i just don't think the current ad wants this in the news and limburger is probably on drugs again. and i suspect obesity is a disease both mentally and physically.

If you travel around the country as I do you'll see that obesity is everywhere. There does seem to be more of it in the black communities however. I would imagine genetics and a diet of fried foods is to blame. As we have a much larger black population here in the south there is a higher percentage of obesity.One interesting observation I've made is in the immigrant Mexican population. In Mexico it's unusual to see morbidly obese women. However here it's fairly common. Obviously our diet in this country is crap.

[David G]

Jamie,

I'll ask a serious question here. This is NOT a dig. Have you considered a conversation with your medico about possible cognitive issues... and what, if anything, can be done about them? Speaking as an outside observer - I'd recommend it.

[Paul Pless]

Jamie,

I'll ask a serious question here. This is NOT a dig. Have you considered a conversation with your medico about possible cognitive issues... and what, if anything, can be done about them? Speaking as an outside observer - I'd recommend it.

If you didn't intend it as a dig, you would have expressed your concern privately. . .

[David G]

If you didn't intend it as a dig, you would have expressed your concern privately. . .

You might have a point. But I don't really DO pm's I don't think I've ever initiated one. And when I get one - it's welcome, of course, but also a mild irritation - 'cause I have to manage them, decide which to keep, make sure there's space clear for the next, etc. Maybe I've just never bothered to learn the tool well <shru But - if I'd meant it as a dig, I'd have addressed him as Startled Varmint. And I'd have been a whole lot more cleverly snarky. It meant only what I said.

[hanleyclifford]

You might have a point. But I don't really DO pm's I don't think I've ever initiated one. And when I get one - it's welcome, of course, but also a mild irritation - 'cause I have to manage them, decide which to keep, make sure there's space clear for the next, etc. Maybe I've just never bothered to learn the tool well <shru But - if I'd meant it as a dig, I'd have addressed him as Startled Varmint. And I'd have been a whole lot more cleverly snarky. It meant only what I said.

Gotta agree with David on this one. The post was only mildly insulting and supercilious - not in any way rising to the acerbic and acrimonious levels of which David is demonstrably capable.

[ccmanuals]

Good news for California,

California health officials on Thursday unveiled the likely rates that insurers will charge under President Obama’s health-care law — and they are lower than expected, rebutting warnings by critics that many people will experience “rate shock” once the law is fully implemented.

On average, a person who chooses a mid-level plan can expect to pay around $321 a month, about $100 less than the amount projected by the Congressional Budget Office when the law was being debated in Washington. For low-income people, much of that cost will be offset by rebates from the federal government.

But some middle-income people who don’t get insurance from their employers will end up with hefty monthly bills, California officials acknowledged.

“There have been many predictions of sticker shock, and well, there may be some sticker shock,” Peter Lee, director of Covered California, the state agency implementing the law, said at a news conference — explaining that customers would be surprised at how low the rates are.

[David G]

Gotta agree with David on this one. The post was only mildly insulting and supercilious - not in any way rising to the acerbic and acrimonious levels of which David is demonstrably capable.

Thanks.



HEY!!! Wait a second.

[pcford]

I will correct you.
They made NEW Wheat.
It has a triple helix DNA.
It is not normal for us to digest
It makes diabetes, and they call it "Wheat Belly".
Then they have Monsanto GMO corn.
No nutrition, but it leaches all the nutrition from your bones and brain.
Look it up.
Poisoning the children first.
Why all the kids are on a scripts.

this place is ideal for you.

[BrianW]

Jamie,

I'll ask a serious question here. This is NOT a dig. Have you considered a conversation with your medico about possible cognitive issues...

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

Uninsured Americans who are hoping the new health insurance law will give them access to weight loss treatments are likely to be disappointed.
That's especially the case in the Deep South, where obesity rates are among the highest in the nation, and states will not require health plans sold on the new online insurance marketplaces to cover medical weight loss treatments like prescription drugs and bariatric surgery.

I think he did just fine.

[David G]

don't know if i got this entirely correct but obesity in the southern states may not be covered by obamacare esp. ala, louisiana, mississippi, georgia where obesity is a major problem as well as its side effects. any follow up on this?

1) what, exactly, do you mean by 'obesity is not covered'?

2) got a link? I"m relatively familiar with 'Obamacare', and am unaware of any such restrictions.

3) not sure where you found this - but I think it's another one of those 'made up' criticisms of Obama, because they don't have anything else to complain about. And.... it sounds like it could be true.... doesn't it?.... so it must be. (I don't think so)

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.

So, katey - if I'm reading you correctly, Obamacare will simply provide the same level of care in those regions that they've always had; there's not some dire plot to kill off the African Americans, or discriminate against obese southerners?

I didn't think so. Amazing spin, Jamie.

So... there were some underlying facts which sorta, kinda resembled - in a distant fashion - Jamie's conception of the situation. Of course... by the time it had gone thru the Jamie-mill it was unrecognizable and incoherent. Did fine, eh???
I used to think SV did this spit on purpose - in support of his insupportable partisan positions. I no longer believe that. Now I very much suspect he's doing the best he can. It's changed my attitude toward him. While I don't love him like a long-lost brother (except in a larger metaphysical sense)... I harbor no animus, and hope he does consult a medico in pursuit of possible cognitive improvement. I know such is possible. I just don't know about his case.

[BrianW]

So lets recap...

Jamie...

don't know if i got this entirely correct but obesity in the southern states may not be covered by obamacare esp. ala, louisiana, mississippi, georgia where obesity is a major problem as well as its side effects. any follow up on this?

No ObamaCare obesity coverage in the States that need it.

Those State are in the south.

From the link...

Uninsured Americans who are hoping the new health insurance law will give them access to weight loss treatments are likely to be disappointed.
That's especially the case in the Deep South, where obesity rates are among the highest in the nation, and states will not require health plans sold on the new online insurance marketplaces to cover medical weight loss treatments like prescription drugs and bariatric surgery.

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

[Paul Pless]

Moreover, Jamie is wrong to suggest that this is a policy of Obama or Obamacare. It's a state-level policy. The states have decided not to mandate this coverage and Obamacare allows the states to maintain their existing rules.

Don't be such an apologist. If Obamacare allows administrative decisions on quantity and quality of care to be left up to the states then its an 'Obamacare' sanctioned policy.

[hokiefan]

Don't be such an apologist. If Obamacare allows administrative decisions on quantity and quality of care to be left up to the states then its an 'Obamacare' sanctioned policy.

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...

[Paul Pless]

Or maybe...

yes

[Mrleft8]

Don't be such an apologist. If Obamacare allows administrative decisions on quantity and quality of care to be left up to the states then its an 'Obamacare' sanctioned policy.

And if it didn't?

[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.