 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsGeneral TopicsLow CarbWeightWatchers WeightAdviser.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Weight Loss Forum / General Topics / July 2004Obesity is an illness, says government
Medicare Scraps Old Policy on Obesity Thu Jul 15,11:15 PM ET Add White House - AP Cabinet & State to My Yahoo! By ELIZABETH WOLFE, Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON - Medicare is discarding its policy that obesity is not a disease, potentially throwing open the door for millions of overweight Americans to make medical claims for treatments such as stomach surgery and diet programs. "Obesity is a critical public health problem in our country that causes millions of Americans to suffer unnecessary health problems and to die prematurely," Health and Human Services (news - web sites) Secretary Tommy Thompson told a Senate panel Thursday. Treating obesity-related illnesses results in billions of dollars in health care costs, he said. "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 said. 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. Though Medicare and Medicaid programs cover sicknesses caused by obesity ? including type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, several types of cancer and gallbladder disease ? the previous policy meant that weight-loss therapies have often been denied coverage. "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. 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. 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. It's a mental illness.  SignatureMost people are dumb as bricks; some people are dumber than that. -- MFW > Medicare Scraps Old Policy on Obesity > [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > taxpayers. The Medicare agency said it may meet this fall to review > scientific evidence on various surgical procedures related to obesity. > It's a mental illness. You should recognize your mental illness, for being here! What a sad and lonely person you must be? What in god happened to you that gives you pleasure in being meanspirited behind your anonymous keyboard? Get up, take a walk, smell the air, and have a salad. Maybe you'll fall in love and come to your senses? SignatureJK Sinrod Sinrod Stained Glass Studios www.sinrodstudios.com Coney Island Memories www.sinrodstudios.com/coneymemories So everyone here is mentally ill? (what happened to your killfile again?) SignatureI wake up every morning and remember that I get to spend all day with me. It doesn't get any better than that. -- MFW > > It's a mental illness. > > You should recognize your mental illness, for being here! > So everyone here is mentally ill? You should recognize your mental illness, for being here JC! What a sad and lonely person you must be? What in god happened to you that gives you pleasure in being meanspirited behind your anonymous keyboard? Get up, take a walk, smell the air, and have a salad. Maybe you'll fall in love and come to your senses? SignatureJK Sinrod Sinrod Stained Glass Studios www.sinrodstudios.com Coney Island Memories www.sinrodstudios.com/coneymemories So everyone here is mentally ill? Is that what they call an "artist's perception"? SignatureI wake up every morning and remember that I get to spend all day with me. It doesn't get any better than that. -- MFW > > So everyone here is mentally ill? > > You should recognize your mental illness, for being here JC! Re: Obesity is an illness, says government No, surely what was said is..... "Obesity is a critical public health problem in our country that causes millions of Americans to suffer unnecessary health problems and to die prematurely," A health problem.... Because something poses a health risk that does NOT mean it's an illness! It may be a cause of illness..... BUT...... > Re: Obesity is an illness, says government > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > A health problem.... Because something poses a health risk that does NOT > mean it's an illness! It may be a cause of illness..... BUT...... Re-read the article again: `` Medicare is discarding its policy that obesity is not a disease'' So, it means that now medicare considers obesity to be a disease. i > Re-read the article again: > > `` Medicare is discarding its policy that obesity is not a disease'' > > So, it means that now medicare considers obesity to be a disease. This happend about two years ago at the IRS level: they decided last summer or the summer before (I forget) that the treatment of obesity as a PRIMARY disease was something you could deduct from your medical reimbursement plan (a Section 125 cafeteria plan) as long as you were diagnosed by a physician as being obese. You can also deduct treatment of obesity on Schedule A, not that that does much good for most people. Treatment is specified to EXCLUDE diet foods and exercise clubs. In other words, the IRS allows you to deduct any treatment for obesity EXCEPT eating less and exercising more. (Which effectively leaves out the most effective methods.) Seriously, I spoke with the IRS author of the statute. They are required by Congress NOT to include clubs that are organized as membership groups, which includes nearly every gym in America. The only time exercise is deductible is when it is part of a doctor-prescribed rehab type of situation AND is performed in a non-membership setting, i.e., a physical therapist's office. The reason for this is that they wanted to exclude the rich from being able to deduct their country club or yacht club memberships, and they're organized the same way as a Gold's Gym, etc. And of course food and food supplements are not deductible - never were. Everyone has to eat and the taxpaying public isn't going to give you a break if you decide you simply must have free-range salmon instead of cheaper hamburger. This reminds me of the way food stamps could be used to buy formula, so all the poor women decided to bottle feed because they'd get it paid for instead of breast-feeding (for which they were not paid.) It sounds like this is going to result in a ton of people (literally) asking for bariatric surgery (because that's what they can get covered) when a more sane solution is within their grasp but they don't get paid for it. Dally >> Re-read the article again: >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > diagnosed by a physician as being obese. You can also deduct treatment > of obesity on Schedule A, not that that does much good for most people. Excellent, thanks. > Treatment is specified to EXCLUDE diet foods and exercise clubs. In > other words, the IRS allows you to deduct any treatment for obesity > EXCEPT eating less and exercising more. (Which effectively leaves > out the most effective methods.) Well, how do you deduct "eating less food" from taxes Dally? > Seriously, I spoke with the IRS author of the statute. They are > required by Congress NOT to include clubs that are organized as [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > able to deduct their country club or yacht club memberships, and > they're organized the same way as a Gold's Gym, etc. I tend to agree with the IRS here. (gasp) > This reminds me of the way food stamps could be used to buy formula, so > all the poor women decided to bottle feed because they'd get it paid for > instead of breast-feeding (for which they were not paid.) Shows a lack of decision making skills on their part. Breast milk is free anyway, but their food stamps could be spent on something other than formula. > It sounds like this is going to result in a ton of people > (literally) asking for bariatric surgery (because that's what they > can get covered) when a more sane solution is within their grasp but > they don't get paid for it. Even with a tax deduction, diet and exercise is still cheaper than bariatric surgery. It is the same baby formula situation. i >This reminds me of the way food stamps could be used to buy formula, so >all the poor women decided to bottle feed because they'd get it paid for >instead of breast-feeding (for which they were not paid.) Food stamp allotments have nothing to do w/ formula feeding or breast feeding. This statement is 100% completely false. ~Kat "The early bird gets the worm, the second mouse gets the cheese." >>This reminds me of the way food stamps could be used to buy formula, so >>all the poor women decided to bottle feed because they'd get it paid for [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > This statement is 100% completely false. > ~Kat Is not. Not in Massachusetts, anyway. Possibly not current information, but this was true in the 80's and 90's when I both worked in a grocery store and was having my children. The WIC program offered vouchers specifically for formula for people who were bottle-feeding infants. (WIC stands for Women Infant Children). They offer food vouchers with specified lists of foods you can buy with them. I've heard they offered vouchers for an extra gallon of milk or something for women who were breast-feeding, but the $ amounts were nowhere near equivalent and it just showed up as, "If I bottle feed they'll pay for it but I get nothing otherwise." Same with the bariatric surgery: if you get surgery for free but won't get reimbursed for eating less then there's an incentive to go for the option where you get something [that you don't need] versus the option to get what you need but not be paid for it. Dally >Is not. Not in Massachusetts, anyway. Possibly not current >information, but this was true in the 80's and 90's when I both worked >in a grocery store and was having my children. > >The WIC program offered vouchers specifically for formula for people who >were bottle-feeding infants. WIC has nothing to do w/ food stamps. 2 completely different agencies. Funded in completely different ways. ~Kat "The early bird gets the worm, the second mouse gets the cheese." >>Is not. Not in Massachusetts, anyway. Possibly not current >>information, but this was true in the 80's and 90's when I both worked [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > WIC has nothing to do w/ food stamps. > 2 completely different agencies. Funded in completely different ways. Both funded by taxpayers, both given to people based on financial eligibility, both targeted for the purpose of buying food. You're really objecting to my calling the food vouchers issued to people on welfare "food stamps"? Is that really the basis for your argument? The point is, poor people received a financial benefit for doing an action that wasn't in their best interest and the financial payoff (in the form of food subisides whatever you want to call them) contributed to the decrease in poor people breastfeeding their children. Do you argue with any of those points, now that we've cleared up the terminology? Financial incentives are powerful. Given the choice of doing something low-cost that's good for you but for which you receive no money, OR getting something for nothing that you don't need that might be harmful to you, people tend to choose the one where they get something for nothing. Dally >Both funded by taxpayers, both given to people based on financial >eligibility, pretty much every gvt. program is funded by the taxpayers ... it doesn't make it the same thing. >both targeted for the purpose of buying food. You're >really objecting to my calling the food vouchers issued to people on >welfare "food stamps"? Is that really the basis for your argument? In part. >The point is, poor people received a financial benefit for doing an >action that wasn't in their best interest and the financial payoff (in >the form of food subisides whatever you want to call them) contributed >to the decrease in poor people breastfeeding their children. I would really like to see the stats on this. >Given the choice of doing something >low-cost that's good for you but for which you receive no money, Wic doesn't give out money. ~Kat "The early bird gets the worm, the second mouse gets the cheese." >>Both funded by taxpayers, both given to people based on financial >>eligibility, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > In part. What's going on with you? I'm hitting a sore spot and I don't know why. >>The point is, poor people received a financial benefit for doing an >>action that wasn't in their best interest and the financial payoff (in >>the form of food subisides whatever you want to call them) contributed >>to the decrease in poor people breastfeeding their children. > > I would really like to see the stats on this. I'd start with the La Leche League. You could also check the archives at Mothering Magazine. I think this is where I read an expose on this. I also have been reading Nutrition Action Newsletter for 15 years, so it might have come from there. I also recall having a conversation with a room-mate when I was in the hospital recovering from a c-section. She had absolutely no intentions of breast-feeding and I recall her saying that she didn't have to buy any of the formula and it was pretty clear she considered that a signficant issue in why she would bottle-feed. >>Given the choice of doing something >>low-cost that's good for you but for which you receive no money, > > Wic doesn't give out money. They give out vouchers good for $10 cannisters of formula. It's getting something for nothing. (Fact is, they *do* give an increased food allottment to women who breastfeed, so it isn't quite as cut and dried as "something" versus "nothing", but the value of the formula is greater than the value of the groceries.) (BTW, powdered formula is no longer kept on the grocery shelves, but is locked up in the pharmacy area. Apparently drug dealers use it in some way in the distribution of drugs and the cannisters were being stolen and put to diabolical purposes. It makes one wonder how many babies lose their formula to the drug trade.) I didn't really mean this to be a discussion of breastfeeding, but rather a discussion about how financial incentives work to make people make questionable choices about their lives. I guarantee you that poor fat people on medicaid will be lining up for bariatric surgery the second it becomes allowable - people who could be dieting and exercising at this very moment but are NOT because no one is handing that out for free. Dally >What's going on with you? I'm hitting a sore spot and I don't know why. It's the sweeping generalities that bothers me. > I guarantee you that poor >fat people on medicaid will be lining up for bariatric surgery the >second it becomes allowable - people who could be dieting and exercising >at this very moment but are NOT because no one is handing that out for free. > >Dally I don't know what the poor fat people will be doing ... I'm sure that some will make good choices and some will not. Pretty much like the rest of the human race. If they do decide to go another route than you or I have chosen and get to a healthy weight, feel better about themselves, become socially acceptable and employable ... seems like that would be a good thing and cheaper in the long run. ~Kat "The early bird gets the worm, the second mouse gets the cheese." >The WIC program offered vouchers specifically for formula for people who were >bottle-feeding infants. (WIC stands for Women Infant Children). They offer food >vouchers with specified lists of foods you can buy with them. I've heard they >offered vouchers for an extra gallon of milk or something for women who were >breast-feeding, but the $ amounts were nowhere near equivalent and it just >showed up as, "If I bottle feed they'll pay for it but I get nothing otherwise." It's the same in Europe, where there's normally a 'milk allowance'; though you can now apparently use it to buy milk for the family if you are breastfeeding. But it supported the rise of bottle-feeding, which is now an ineradicable tradition among poorer women, along with junk food and fast food. Come to think of it, formula IS fast food and is part of the fast food mentality. SignatureJane Lumley > > No, surely what was said is..... > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > A health problem.... Because something poses a health risk that does NOT > > mean it's an illness! It may be a cause of illness..... BUT...... > `` Medicare is discarding its policy that obesity is not a disease'' > > So, it means that now medicare considers obesity to be a disease. Well I did miss that part of the statement for which I1 apologise.... >> > No, surely what was said is..... >> > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Well I did miss that part of the statement for which I1 apologise.... I want to take a chance and apologize for all my past wrongdoings, as well. i Obesity is an illness? I thought "obesity" was defined by committee? Who gets to decide if someone is obese? Ig? The government? :: Medicare Scraps Old Policy on Obesity :: [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] :: scientific evidence on various surgical procedures related to :: obesity. I suggest directiong your question to the authorities, or, to the author of the article, for a definitive answer. You are asking good questions. i > Obesity is an illness? > [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] >:: scientific evidence on various surgical procedures related to >:: obesity. Crosspost alert alt.support.diet,alt.support.diet.low-carb Please don't crosspost. Crossposting always leads to cross cultural bickering and is damned rude. Lee Rodgers Lowcarb Retreat http://www.lowcarb.org CHAT http://www.lowcarb.org/parachat.html Low-Carb Connoisseur http://www.low-carb.com > Crosspost alert > > alt.support.diet,alt.support.diet.low-carb > > Please don't crosspost. Crossposting always leads to cross cultural > bickering and is damned rude. Well, it is relevant in both newsgroups and is not in any way opposing any dieting style to another. i > Lee Rodgers > Lowcarb Retreat http://www.lowcarb.org > CHAT http://www.lowcarb.org/parachat.html > Low-Carb Connoisseur http://www.low-carb.com >>Crosspost alert >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Well, it is relevant in both newsgroups and is not in any way opposing > any dieting style to another. The groups of people are different - on purpose. Get a clue. Dally > Crosspost alert > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > bickering and is damned rude. > Lee Rodgers Here! Here! Bravo! Yes, it is extremely rude. Martha Is this the same government that supports agricultural lobbies and the oh so healthy food pyramid that is blowing our kids up the size of floats in the Macy parade--the government that can't give Americans a decent health care plan? SignatureDiva ***** The Best Man For The Job Is A Woman > Is this the same government that supports agricultural lobbies and the > oh so healthy food pyramid that is blowing our kids up the size of > floats in the Macy parade--the government that can't give Americans a > decent health care plan? This so-called "epidemic" seems to be blown way out of proportion. Granted there are many overweight people in America, but I think there needs to be more personal responsibility involved in "getting better" and losing weight. Now, it seems the burden is on doctors and not the overwight patients. IS that right? >> Is this the same government that supports agricultural lobbies and the >> oh so healthy food pyramid that is blowing our kids up the size of [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > and losing weight. Now, it seems the burden is on doctors and not the > overwight patients. IS that right? The notion of obesity as a disease, as well as the fact that predisposition to obesity is genetic, does not negate the notion of personal responsibility. It simply casts it in a good light. We now see that some people need to work a lot harder at staying slim. i Crossposting removed: One dark day on Usenet, Ignoramus22273 <ignoramus22273@NOSPAM.22273.invalid> said: > Medicare Scraps Old Policy on Obesity > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Americans to make medical claims for treatments such as stomach > surgery and diet programs. Well, that's both bad and good. I'd love to see Medicare funding nutrition and exercise education... SignatureJ.J. in WA * 275/231/225 (mini) (COLD to HOT for e-mail) Ignoramus wrote: > WASHINGTON - Medicare is discarding its policy that obesity is not a > disease, potentially throwing open the door for millions of overweight > Americans to make medical claims for treatments such as stomach > surgery and diet programs. So it's a disease? and we've been curing ourselves right here. Must be voodoo. SignatureWalking on . . . Laurie in Maine 207/110 60 inches of attitude! Start: 2/02 Maintained since 2/03 > Ignoramus wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Must be voodoo. Hm, I think that many diseases are curable... I even heard that certain diets are helpful for epilepsy. I can look up references, but you can google for "specific carbohydrate diet" if you are interested. i |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.