John
narphonax.com/blog

You’re exactly right, John. In principle, nobody should be forced, at gunpoint (which is what “taxes” are), to bear the burden of someone else’s illness, unless they are found, by a court of law, to be responsible for said illness.

I don’t care if it’s lung cancer or a big fat ass, it’s none of my business, and not my responsibility. The bullshit argument that “you need food to live, but you don’t need cigarettes to live” is tired and useless. Yes, we need “food” to live, but in essence, if you get into this type of value-assessment tactic, then you can’t help but take it to its logical end. Yes, we need “food” to live, as I said. But you don’t necessarily need big macs to live. You don’t need cheese fries to live. You don’t need twinkie’s to live. You don’t need coca-cola to live. All you “need”, biologically, for your daily physical functions, is a tasteless soupy mixture of proteins, carbohydrates, fats, and micronutrients. So, then, anything beyond that, any big juicy steaks, any bloomin’ onions, any budweisers, they are all as “unnecessary”, in terms of biological functioning, as cigarettes are. In other words, most of the food that we eat every day is just as “necessary” as cigarettes. If we boiled it down to strict biological necessity, then all we need is that standard blend of macronutrients and micronutrients.

This is what happens when a centralized governing body gets into assessing the value of something based on its biological “necessity”. The argument falls apart rather quickly.

Careful there, you accidentally classified obesity as an “illness.”

John
narphonax.com/blog

Well, NONE of the other illnesses you mentioned should be covered either…

Looking back, I actually found that I phrased that incorrectly. What I was meaning to say was what, precisely, should be covered and shouldn’t, regardless of individual responsibility. Or should nothing that is the result of individual responsibility be covered?

John
narphonax.com/blog

Radley Balko once again invokes principles he won’t follow through on:”Yesterday, the federal Medicare program made the obesity problem a whole lot worse. By treating obesity as a ‘illness,’ the

There’s no grey area - it’s *all* the individual’s responsibility.

Maybe they should add a nickel to every donut that Krispy and Dunkin sell and we could add it to the “Fat Fuck Fund”.

Perhaps they could erase the federal deficit be eliminating medicare and a prescription plan alltogether?

Maybe they’ll just suck more money from me on April 15th.

I vote for Choice three however we all know that four is the odds on favorite.

That should have been:

“Should someone who smoked for X amount of years and contracts lung cancer not be allowed to be covered under insurance/Medicare/etc.[question mark]“

What about lung cancer? Should someone who smoked for X amount of years and contracts lung cancer not be allowed to be covered under insurance/Medicare/etc.

I agree with you, Radley, that obesity is not something that should have gotten on the Medicare block, but there is certainly a hazy gray area between what is individual responsibility and what is not.

One would think that the test be that cigarettes are not required for living (while food is), and thus should be exempted, but that’s the reverse of what you’re saying. Certainly obesity is something that individuals should handle without burdening the rest of the tax-paying public, but then shouldn’t tobacco-related cancers not be allowed to burden them either?

Tricky.

John
narphonax.com/blog

What health care costs should not be borne by individuals?

How is the socialization of obesity less justified than any other public benefit?

or will it lengthen the lives of enrolles and there by increase the cost also?

I am going for the last one.