Is it fair to fine fat people for not dieting?

Caiman

Caiman

New member
What's your take on this?

BBC News - Is it fair to fine fat people for not dieting?

Overweight welfare claimants in the US state of Arizona face paying $50 (£31) fines if they don't follow a dietary regime laid down by their doctor. Is that fair?

Just as American waistlines - like many in the western world - continue to expand, so does the budget to meet the associated costs.

Medicaid, the programme which provides healthcare for the poor, costs the US federal and state governments $339bn (£209bn) a year, a figure climbing 8% annually.

The federal government matches state spending on the program, providing as much as $3 for every $1 spent in poorer areas.

Given the size of the budget, it's no surprise that Medicaid has become one of the fiscal battlegrounds in Congress.

Obama's healthcare reforms would extend cover further, increasing costs to states by tens of billions of dollars. But the Republican budget proposal put forward by Congressman Paul Ryan caps the government contribution, saving an estimated $750bn (£463bn) over 10 years, but forcing states to make cuts.

Now the state of Arizona is proposing a radical idea. It wants to impose a $50 annual fine for overweight Medicaid recipients who don't follow a strict health regime developed with their doctor.

Smokers and diabetics who ignore their medical advice would also have to pay.

Monica Coury, assistant director at Arizona's Medicaid programme, says the aim is to change behaviour using a carrot and stick approach, in the same way that increasing cigarette taxes reduced smoking.

"It's undeniable that there is a link between obesity and the rising cost of healthcare in America, so we can't be afraid to discuss this issue.

"It's reaching a crisis level in the US and we continue to complain about the rising uncontrolled costs of care - and yet we don't drill down and test some of these concepts."

Read More: BBC News - Is it fair to fine fat people for not dieting?
Click to expand...
 
It's not like they ask for thousands. 50 quid a year is not really that much.

So.....if the people in question get proper support and advice from the doctor and other healthcare specialists, are being made aware of the consequences and still choose to ignore it, yes, I think it's fair.

ONLY if the same measure is used for smokers and alcoholics as well though. It's not just obesity that drives up healthcare costs.
 
In short, No.

There are so many vices that lead to "poor health" that it would be nearly impossible to objectively enforce such a rule. Smoking, drinking, Extreme sports, ad infinitum. I believe something much more realistic is to give a dividend to healthy people. But again, you are setting a subjective goal of being "healthy".

How would a doctor prove the patient didn't eat EXACTLY as they stated? Follow them around? Take tests? The enforcement alone would be much more expensive than $50, so a losing proposition for the government. It would probably cost the taxpayers $1000 per $50 re-couped. What a stupid idea haha (the more I thought it out, the dumber it got!)
 
a dividend to healthy people
Click to expand...

A dividend to healthy people is not going to reduce the healthcare bill.

The article says the that this will also apply to smokers and diabetics.

I doubt there are many people on medicaid doing extreme sports. Did you read the article melancholy.

Also of course its not going to be hard to monitor diabetics and overweight people. Their weight should be going down and if they are having to weigh in at their doctors periodically, this will be proof enough that they are trying to follow the diet.

Whether or not i think its a good idea that will work, i am not sure. But i do think its a good idea to target people on medicaid with extra assistance and incentives to address these problems that are usually particularly prevalent amongst the poorer sectors of society.

About alcoholics. I think the govt probably realises they wouldn't care enough about $50 to give up their addiction. I also think that for an alcoholic to give up drinking is much much more difficult than for smokers, diabetics and overweight people to change their ways.
 
fortyfour said:
Did you read the article melancholy.
Click to expand...

Yes, did you read my post?

My point was that weight is subjective. I can pull up plenty of articles on PubMed describing how weight is poorly correlated to overall heath. If the intention is to promote health, just having someone step on a scale is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. Given the myriad of health problems that accompanies diabetes, it's even dumber. I have lost another inch in my waist in the last month, but have gained 5 pounds. I have been walking/ jogging/ running. Should I be fined 50 dollars? Stupid idea.
 
Your point about diabetes is not clear. Why is it even dumber because there is a myriad of health problems associated with it.

Should i know what pubmed is?

Yes why don't you call up some of those articles about how health and weight are supposedly not related.

It seems to me the weight of current medical science says otherwise, ie that it is not at all poorly correlated. In fact it suggests that there is indeed a strong correlation between poor health and obesity.
 
Until we get socialized medicine, YES, it is completely unfair. In the meantime, the people who will get hit for this are those that are already needy.
If you don't do what your doctor says, and society is paying the bill for your healthcare in general, then sure, I think it's reasonable. (if handled intelligently, Melancholy)
 
fortyfour, you said:

" correlation between poor health and obesity."

Right, I didn't say that at all. I said weight & health... not obesity and health. MUCH different. I never said obesity and poor health don't correlate.
 
Well to satisfy you i will say that the medical consensus is that there is a strong correlation between weight and health. ok? I think you will find if you look into that there is a correlation between health and weight.

People of healthy weight have few health problems of the kind that obese and overweight people suffer from. Obese people suffer from a lot of health issues simply because they are obese. Does this not mean that there is a strong correlation between health and weight?
 
You are still arguing about being obese, I never said Obesity and health problems do not correlate.

We are talking about charging someone $50 for not seeing a reduction in weight on a scale.

MOST IMPORTANTY, this $50 will not be a strong deterrent, NOR can it be enforced without costing the tax-payers MORE than $50 a la it's a STUPID system.
 
Is it fair to fine fat people for not dieting? No.
Is it fair to fine fat people who are on welfare for not following their doctor's orders? Yes, absolutely.

Welfare is paid for by taxes; taxes which are paid by the people. Why should 'my' money go towards someone's welfare if they're not going to try and take care of themselves? Welfare is abused by millions upon millions of people. The point of welfare is to help people get on their feet; it is not intended to be used as a means of income. It isn't technically a loan, but welfare is most certainly not a gift either.

If you are on welfare, you live by the government's rules; not your own. Technically, the welfare money you receive each month is not YOUR money; it's the people's. And, the people's money is governed by the government. So, if the government lays down a set of rules that you must follow in order to keep on receiving welfare, then you'd better be satisfying those guidelines. And, if you don't, you deserve to be punished.

So, yes...it's completely fair to fine overweight people on welfare for not following their doctor's orders. Welfare is intended to be used by people as a stepping stone to help improve their quality of life. So, if people receiving welfare aren't putting in effort to improve their life (health included), then why allow them to keep receiving welfare assistance without making them suffer consequences of not doing what they are supposed to be doing?
 
I agree entirely Chef, but $50 is not going to make any of that happen. Revocation of privaliges, etc. is the only thing, but what does that mean? Not provided healthcare to poor diabetics? I doubt that would happen.

accountability for welfare items has been a hot ticket for a long time. I think that people recieving unemployement should have to be drug tested. That's taxpayer money paying for people to "get back on their feet" as you suggested. accountability.

$50 is not the solution to people not eating. That's a meal for 2 with 2 drinks at Chilis, etc. so what is the penalty for people failing to adhere to the government policy, loss of a dinner? It's not an effective deterrent. Maybe we should threaten they have to talk to fortyfour for an hour straight, and try to have a discussion with him/her. THAT would deter me.
 
Hmmm...how about taking the money out of their welfare money? For every doctor's appointment that they have to make because of their refusal to follow doctor's orders, 20 quid are taken out of their welfare money. Straight away.

That is provided that the person a) had clear orders on what to do and how to do it, b) was fully aware of what would happen if they didn't, and c) have to go to the doctor because of something that is clearly related to their weight (or poor management of diabetes, or smoking).

And as Melancholy said, revocation of privileges might help. I don't know about the US, but over here, obesity is treated like a long term illness. You can claim disability living allowance if you're too fat to work. You can get a free car, stuff like that.

If it was up to me, obesity would not be treated as such. It's not a disability. If a person can't walk well because they are too heavy, they would receive a diet plan and nutritionist advice and support, not a £ 1000 motorised scooter. If they can't go to work, they should receive the same (advice and support), not nearly £ 1000 in welfare and a free car. From what I see here, it's too easy for people to eat themselves into oblivion, then blame everybody else, and not even try to do anything about it.
 
A free car!!!! My God! That's going way too far. But there wouldn't be too many people receiving all those benefits anyway would there. YOu'd have to be seriously obese to get qualify. Maybe they are given the car so they can be taken to the doctors for appts. Would make more sense if they got taxi vouchers perhaps.
 
It's kind of crazy... The whole system is really. On the one hand, do you want to let someone literally die because they didn't follow doctor's orders on nutrition (not even getting into the vastly different opinions on what healthy eating is, even between doctors)? On the other hand, how much do you expect society to pay to save someone's life? I tend to be of the opinion that if you're depending on someone to support you, you give up some say over your activities. As an example, if I were to move in with my parents I'd expect they'd have more say over my activities than they do when I'm living in my own house. (And if I didn't like it, I could move out!) Likewise if you're getting public benefits then it seems like the public has more of an interest and involvement in what you're doing.

On the other hand, I do wonder if this will actually influence anyone to eat healthier. Especially since most people aren't obese because they enjoy it. If someone offered me $50 a year extra to never eat brownies... or even to maintain a healthy weight... or... I don't even know, whether or not it's 'fair' it doesn't seem very practical.
 
fortyfour said:
A free car!!!! My God! That's going way too far. But there wouldn't be too many people receiving all those benefits anyway would there. YOu'd have to be seriously obese to get qualify. Maybe they are given the car so they can be taken to the doctors for appts. Would make more sense if they got taxi vouchers perhaps.
Click to expand...

Sadly, there's quite a lot of that. A pretty high percentage of people claim disability because of being obese.

The free car comes with having the 'mobility' part of your claim, meaning that if your movement is seriously impaired, and you need help to get around, you get a higher rate of disability living allowance. You can use part of that to get a car - insurance, maintenance and tax included.

We do have one of those 'mobility' cars because my stepson is autistic, and he refuses to walk on a regular basis - when he was smaller, I could just pick him up and carry him, but at nearly 12, that's impossible now. Plus, he kicks out when I try to move him, and has seriously injured me before. To get him from point a to point b, we need a car, and this way was the only way we could afford it. It's a great thing for people who really need it, and who are genuinly disabled - but as said, obesity should not qualify for that.
 
San said:
Hmmm...how about taking the money out of their welfare money? For every doctor's appointment that they have to make because of their refusal to follow doctor's orders, 20 quid are taken out of their welfare money. Straight away.

That is provided that the person a) had clear orders on what to do and how to do it, b) was fully aware of what would happen if they didn't, and c) have to go to the doctor because of something that is clearly related to their weight (or poor management of diabetes, or smoking).

And as Melancholy said, revocation of privileges might help. I don't know about the US, but over here, obesity is treated like a long term illness. You can claim disability living allowance if you're too fat to work. You can get a free car, stuff like that.

If it was up to me, obesity would not be treated as such. It's not a disability. If a person can't walk well because they are too heavy, they would receive a diet plan and nutritionist advice and support, not a £ 1000 motorised scooter. If they can't go to work, they should receive the same (advice and support), not nearly £ 1000 in welfare and a free car. From what I see here, it's too easy for people to eat themselves into oblivion, then blame everybody else, and not even try to do anything about it.
Click to expand...

Taking it out of their welfare money doesn't take anything from them though - it simply lessens the monetary amount of the handout they are receiving. So, I don't think that would really be a punishment, because they aren't losing anything - they're simply not gaining as much.

Personally, I think that each and every person on welfare should be monitored in regards to how they spend their welfare money. Every single cent - every single cent - should have to be accounted for; receipts should be shown for everyhing. And, if the money isn't being spent how it is supposed to be spent, then I think that person should lose all welfare privileges.

But, that would cost the government way too much money to do so. So, ironically, it's almost cheaper for the government to allow people on welfare to abuse the system.
 
Wow. I find this topic absolutely fascinating. I think ChefChiTown makes a good point:
Is it fair to fine fat people for not dieting? No.
Is it fair to fine fat people who are on welfare for not following their doctor's orders? Yes, absolutely.
Click to expand...
If you are specifically ignoring doctors orders and continuing to lead a harmful, neglectful, unhealthy lifestyle and you are dependent on the government for assistance with your health, there should be some consequences. However, is the government finally admitting that obesity is a disease? Not really, and the media certainly still has not caught up with that concept. And this is a huge problem that I discuss on my blog [link removed]. I would love to hear your comments/opinions on this topic there too!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
HangryHippo said:
However, is the government finally admitting that obesity is a disease? Not really, and the media certainly still has not caught up with that concept.
Click to expand...

Obesity is not a disease. It is a self-inflicted condition and should not, under any circumstances, be ever treated as a disease.

There are very rare, medical conditions which cause people to put on weight, but in those cases, the obesity is merely a symptom, and treating the underlying cause will help treating the obesity.

By classing obesity as a disease or illness you give every seriously ill person a slap in the face.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top