Taxpayer to fund Obesity Surgery?

[Julia]

Here's an article in today's paper suggesting taxpayers should pay for lapbanding surgery on obese patients who are deemed unable to afford the procedure.

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/...953,00.html?referrer=email&source=CM_email_nl

What do you think about this?

Do we give up on people taking responsibility for their own healthy weight and classify obesity as a disease?

I suppose the argument for this is the longer term fewer costs to the health system over many years with obesity related diseases.

But, damn it, I really can't feel good about effectively saying to people 'hey, just eat what rubbish you like, get as fat as you like, we'll just take care of it for you".

There's enough education and information out there about how to eat properly: why are people just too lazy or lacking in a bit of self discipline to follow reasonable guidelines?

 

[Sean K]

The problem with this one is that for some people obesity is not a decision to make.

Some people just have the genes to be very over weight.

I think we should help them.

Might end up saving some money on heart surgey later perhaps.

Obviously though, for those dining at Maccas every day and sitting on their **** doing nada, they should pay.

So, maybe it needs to be means tested somehow....?

 

[Julia]

The problem with this one is that for some people obesity is not a decision to make.

Kennas, that would apply to very few people indeed. Can you expand on what sort of individuals can't lose weight by the simple equation 'energy in v energy out'?

I can think of people with an intellectual disability who couldn't manage calorie counting or discerning appropriate food groups.
Plus those who need to take medication which has a side effect of weight gain, e.g. steroids.
Who else?

 

[Prospector]

I am in 2 minds about this. Hell, I am a Gemini, after all! :

On one hand the health bill for weight related issues is huge. Almost every health disorder has its antecedents in obesity. So we have the potential for some significant savings in health care.

Lap Band surgery will only help those who dont seem to be able to help themselves. ie, they eat too much. It will not work for those whose obesity is genetically related, although even that cause of obesity I dont really agree with.

I heard one guy on the radio saying that while he was suitable for lap band surgery, he wouldnt do it because it would restrict his lifestyle too much. Kind of sums it up for me really.

 

[Sean K]

Kennas, that would apply to very few people indeed. Can you expand on what sort of individuals can't lose weight by the simple equation 'energy in v energy out'?

Maybe it does only apply to very few people.

There's a theory of 'set weight' predisposed by genetics which will make people go to a certain % body fat, no matter what you do. Hard to punish those people.

On a slightly related note, I'm trying to comprehend the airline industry about to charge tall people extra for needing the exit row.

Then, yes, there are others who just don't care and let themselves go a tad, and should be made to pay.

I go back to the means tested point. Perhaps people should be assessed on merits if the tax person should pay, or not.

 

[GumbyLearner]

And funding new cars for people to fit into as well.

 

[awg]

Maybe it does only apply to very few people.


On a slightly related note, I'm trying to comprehend the airline industry about to charge tall people extra for needing the exit row.

But they are not allowed to charge heavy people extra, even if they need special seats, due to discrimination laws

no fun being squashed between a couple of fat bastards on a flight.

I reckon they should weigh the person AND their luggage, so I can carry more luggage.

disclaimer, I am roughly average weight and height

 

[billhill]

I agree with kennas on this. Solving obesity is a very complex issue. Not only do genetics play a role but also lifestyle factors that are unfortunately a part of contemporary society. For example stress and sleep deprivation leads to increased apetite and these are commonplace today. The evolution of fast foods and costs of food also play a big role where people are trying to save money or time. Also people are probably not as well educated on the subject as the people on this forum. Being obese is probably down the list on alot of peoples concerns, especially if they are of a lower socio-ecconomic group. Then you also have to ask the question where do you draw the line. There are many people who are normal weight but because of diet have very high cholesterol and are a heart attack risks. Do we not treat these people as well. Its a very grey area.

 

[kincella]

have the genetics changed since WW2 ??? all those prisoners of war....not one fatty left amongst them....so explain that one...

 

[Calliope]

You'd need a big lap band for this guy

 

[billhill]

have the genetics changed since WW2 ??? all those prisoners of war....not one fatty left amongst them....so explain that one...

I really am not sure what you are trying to say. If you are implying that during ww2 there were no fat POW's then that is because they were malnourished. Any malnourished person is gonna be skinny, just like if you force feed any animal it will get fat. If you are saying that there are no fat POW's today first i would dispute that that is true and second there are other factors that could explain this such as the possibility of better survival characteristics of naturally skinny individuals in malnourished conditions.

On a side note the malnutrition caused by WW2 and other events in the past may be a contributing factor to the current obesity epidemic. Believe it or not the environment your parents or even grandparents were exposed to have a direct influence on genetic phenotype(expression) that can be passed to subsequent generations. ie because a large number of the population suffered severe malnutrition this can turn off and on certain genes that adapt the body to low calorie conditions. This phenotype is passed on to our generation and even in a calorie rich environment the body is trying to conserve and store energy. This field of research is called epigenetics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics

That said the most significant reason for obesity is most likely contemporary lifestyle.

 

[Prospector]

I think what many are saying is that excess calories in = excess fat on!

Control the calories, control the fat. It takes effort to control the calories and sometimes I think that overweight and obese people think that they are the only ones who like food and dont like exercise.

Hear ya awg on the squashed on plane problem. And thanks for that Calliope. Too much visual there.

 

[DB008]

I'm on 2 sides aswell, but leaning towards the, no side. Why should my taxes pay for someone to have lap band surgery. I have joined a gym and try to control my weight with proper exercise and what l eat. I limit my alcohol intake too.
Don't get me wrong, but so far l have seen that ATLEAST 80% of overweight people don't even bother to try to get fit or control what they eat. Go for a walk, play sport, do something.
Diet-smiet, get on a treadmill or do some cardio and get fit. SIMPLE.

 

[Sir Osisofliver]

Taxpayer to fund Obesity Surgery?
Here's an article in today's paper suggesting taxpayers should pay for lapbanding surgery on obese patients who are deemed unable to afford the procedure.

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/s...ce=CM_email_nl

What do you think about this?

Do we give up on people taking responsibility for their own healthy weight and classify obesity as a disease?

I suppose the argument for this is the longer term fewer costs to the health system over many years with obesity related diseases.

But, damn it, I really can't feel good about effectively saying to people 'hey, just eat what rubbish you like, get as fat as you like, we'll just take care of it for you".

There's enough education and information out there about how to eat properly: why are people just too lazy or lacking in a bit of self discipline to follow reasonable guidelines?

Julia I am utterly disgusted by this move and feel as if once again this nanny farking country we live in needs a good slap around the earhole and told to eat some bloody salad for a change.

Lets take this example a bit further.......

If I was a smoker, should the taxpayer pay for a lung transplant? If I am a smoker my insurance premiums would reflect the high risk nature of my addiction.

If I'm a morbidly obese however and the insurance company try that sh!ite on me, booyah discrimination case because I have "heavy genes". Yeah right no double standard there at all.

I'd really like my tax dollars spent elsewhere within the healthcare system and for morbidly obese people to pay for their own mistakes.

Cheers with a low carb beer

Sir O

 

[Trevor_S]

On one hand the health bill for weight related issues is huge. Almost every health disorder has its antecedents in obesity. So we have the potential for some significant savings in health care..

This seems to be some self propagating misnomer

Smokers and the obese cheaper to care for, study shows

a couple poignant extracts:

Preventing obesity and smoking can save lives, but it does not save money, according to a new report.

The results counter the common perception that preventing obesity will save health systems worldwide millions of dollars

"This throws a bucket of cold water onto the idea that obesity is going to cost trillions of dollars," said Patrick Basham, a professor of health politics at Johns Hopkins University who was unconnected to the study.

keeping all of that in mind, I am not advocating fattening people up and putting them on ciggies, though that WOULD keep heathcare costs down but don't trot out the health cost issue as a reason, as it's a misnomer. ie

"We are not recommending that governments stop trying to prevent obesity," van Baal said. "But they should do it for the right reasons."

 

[awg]

got a few people upset in the past by pointing out that from an actuarial point, it is much cheaper for smokers to die somewhat younger, because you are well ahead on pension costs alone, let alone age care.

( smoking is also taxed heavily )

I guess the same would also be true for obese, cost wise, although it may be different if they cant work as long and pay tax.

very tragic for family and all if one gets sick and dies though

one thing I have learned in life, its awfully hard to control what other people do

hard enough just to control oneself

 

[Happy]

...
I suppose the argument for this is the longer term fewer costs to the health system over many years with obesity related diseases.

But, damn it, I really can't feel good about effectively saying to people 'hey, just eat what rubbish you like, get as fat as you like, we'll just take care of it for you".
...

This makes me upset, but since Medicare picks up all the costs anyway, suppose long term diabetics + all the amputations and care for blind legles living corpse for few years will be more expensive than expensive operation.

Either way we pay !

 

[Prospector]

If I was a smoker, should the taxpayer pay for a lung transplant? If I am a smoker my insurance premiums would reflect the high risk nature of my addiction.

Sir O

You do pay for this though! It would be done in a Public Hospital. And while your life Insurance premiums are higher if you smoke, your health insurance premiums aren't!

This seems to be some self propagating misnomer

Smokers and the obese cheaper to care for, study shows

keeping all of that in mind, I am not advocating fattening people up and putting them on ciggies, though that WOULD keep heathcare costs down but don't trot out the health cost issue as a reason, as it's a misnomer.

Well in that case, the answer to this question is NO!
Cheers

 

[jono1887]

You'd need a big lap band for this guy

are those his testicles hanging out on the sides

 

[bluelabel]

What a crock of ****. I am lost for words, this makes me so angry, i really want to rant, but it escapes me, i am so angry about this.

:bier:

blue