July 27, 2009

"We have ways of changing behavior..."

A chilling locution.

Health economists assert that the obese consume $1,400 more in medical spending per year than those of normal weight. Do you think you're going to just be allowed to continue taking more than your share? Expenses must be cut.

89 comments:

rhhardin said...

Another reason to open McDonalds in hospitals.

Big Mike said...

So if I'm overweight according to the Body Mass Index but don't suffer from diabetes or heart disease, under Obamacare I'd be singled out for "particular" attention?

Well, I wasn't planning to support Obamacare anyway.

Florida said...

Vee haf vays of changing behaviors.

Did I just hear someone crank up the ovens?

Beth said...

$,1400 - what's that, half a tank of gas a month? I'll pay it upfront and enjoy my oyster po'boy and cold draft beer.

All these bean counters should be sent to New Orleans for a conference. We have ways of changing behavior, too.

EDH said...

Towards thee I roll, thou all-destroying but unconquering whale; to the last I grapple with thee; from hell’s heart I stab at thee; for hate’s sake I spit my last breath at thee. Sink all coffins and all hearses to one common pool! and since neither can be mine, let me then tow to pieces, while still chasing thee, though tied to thee, thou damned whale! Thus, I give up the spear!

- Moby Dick, Herman Melville

Quayle said...

People that are overweight: the new lebensunwerten Lebens?

Pogo said...

"We have ways of changing behavior..."

You bet your ass they have ways, and it's no nudge, but a big old shove.

It comes down to Kelo, among other recent laws and rulings, which together provide evidence that you have no right to property and therefore no right to make decisions about your own body.

In fact, because the state will be paying the bills, the state feels that it owns you, quite literally.

These are just the first smiley-faced salvos, but we're going to get some soft fascism real quick. No need for jackboots, because we voted for it.

madawaskan said...

You can almost hear the rant now.....

"You're costing the community!"

Can we outlaw fat people or tax them more heavily...?

Lem said...

Another "rhetorical flourish"?

Btw. How can something obviously negative be said to be a "rhetorical flourish"?

Flowers are beautiful. Aren’t they Meade?

David Walser said...

This reminds me of a conversation I had with my brother about 30 years ago. He had just purchased a motorcycle and was incensed the dealership would not allow him to take delivery without a helmet (this was per local law). He wanted to know what gave government the right to force him to own and use a motorcycle helmet?! My answer: If you're in an accident (and don't have adequate insurance) the government will ultimately be responsible for your health care. It has the right to insist you take reasonable steps to reduce the government's exposure to those costs. "What's next," he asked, "outlawing hang gliding?" That question started us on a long list of behaviors the government could legitimately regulate because of the health care costs associated with those behaviors. Among other things, on that list were smoking, drinking, over-eating, and sex.

If government is going to pay for health care, it's going to assume the right to control a lot of behaviors we've long thought beyond proper government review. For example, since (unwanted) pregnancies may lead to significant health care costs, would a future Supreme Court still defer to a woman and her doctor over what course of treatment to take -- when government's paying the bills? Will government decide it has the right to prohibit sex outside of marriage because of the potential health care costs? Perhaps government will regulate sex within marriage once a couple has the "right" number of children?

tim maguire said...

Good point Quayle. We would have more lebensraum if people had narrower waists.

Darcy said...

Am I the only one who is tired of being taunted about this from Obama voters?

I didn't vote for this. Of course I'm outraged. Enough said.

Larry J said...

This could set up an interesting confrontation between different parts of government. A few weeks ago, one part of the government was discussing the issue of whether the obese should be categorized as disabled. Imagine the lawsuits that would follow should "disabled people" (covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act) were singled out for government attention (taxes) by the health care bureaucrats.

If they're going to go after groups of people with higher health care expenses than the population at large, they need to add taxes to alcoholics, drug addicts, those with chronic illnesses such as diabetes and COPD, smokers (yet again) and even women. Do they really want to go there?

Quayle said...

We would have more lebensraum if people had narrower waists.

Too, too funny! And in another language, no less.

Impessive!

madawaskan said...

Lem-

I always see negative rhetorical flourishes as excessively painted in red.....

David-

This "health care costs" argument could be a foot into the doorway of banning guns.

In the military if you don't use a helmet, or take safety courses they can claim that you were reckless and sometimes it is said by extent that you "damaged government property".

The result is that you pay out of pocket for your health care and any insurance contract that you had with the military/government can be voided. That is what I hear...second hand but that idea has been floating around the military community for years.

madawaskan said...

Larry J-

and even women. Do they really want to go there?

Only the breeders. Please.

Quayle said...

tm, I'm still laughing.

Really! A forehand smash.

Made my day.

Perhaps my week.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

And we haven't addressed the issue of those who have illnesses that are not going to get better. Remember Obama said that they weren't going to pay for things that didn't make you better and you should just take a pain pill.

People with AIDs....just die. People with rheumatoid arthritis....get over it suffer. Faulty heart valve at 60....nope...too old, just die already.

How about people who have exceptional health like Mormons? Are they going to be forced to pay the same single payer rates as the not healthy?

I'm thinking of becoming a Christian Scientist and claim a religious exemption from medical insurance.

Or maybe become a Muslim and claim that insurance is the same as gambling and therefore I should be exempt.

I see a lot of possiblilties.

Alex said...

Americans want it all. Gold-plated healthcare free of charge, and "eat all you want" at the buffet with no consequences. Pick one.

Joe said...

This report is total nonsense. Researchers wanted to prove their thesis and did by using weak correlations of poorly done studies.

Almost all people gain weight as they approach and pass middle-age. We have a baby boom that is smack in the middle of this, so of course you're going to see all sorts of correlations between health and weight, but very few causative effects.

The second conceit is that weight is simply a factor of behavior. This isn't true. (And one thing we do know vis-a-vis actual scientific studies is that rapid weight loss is one of the worse things you can do to your health. There's pretty good evidence that yo-yo dieting and weight loss/gain has serious health repercussions.)

Ultimately, this report is simply another excuse for increasing the nanny state. That was its purpose and its conclusion. Nobody should be surprised.

BJM said...

They'll have to pry Haagen-Dazs "Five" Brown Sugar out of my cold dead hands.

David Walser said...

How about people who have exceptional health like Mormons? Are they going to be forced to pay the same single payer rates as the not healthy?

Excellent question. These differences in life expectancies are the obvious result of invidious discrimination. Perhaps the government should institute some form of affirmative action program that would reduce the Mormon life expectancy to that of the rest of America?

madawaskan said...

Ya but the Mormons are breeders so it's a wash...

madawaskan said...

As for the "life not worth living" argument-

that argument has already been lost.

George W. Bush fought it valiantly but many a Republican bailed on him.

They said she took up too many resources. That was the response that they hurled when the haters wanted her dead...

Quayle said...

If Mormons are net payers into the system, shouldn't the approach be to let them breed more?

Perhaps our Con Law President will propose that Reynolds v. United States be reconsidered, under these new facts and his healthcare policies.

AJ Lynch said...

Chris Matthews has a brother, Jim, who is a township commissioner in Pennsylvania. Not long ago, he wanted to charge township workers, who smoked, more money for their health insurance coverage. His idea went nowhere.

My point is liberals say insurance companies are evil when they charge higher premiums to smokers or folks with high blood pressure but Obama and liberals like Jim Matthews want to cut benefits to the same types of people.

Beth said...

Darcy - rage will raise your blood pressure. Send your $1400 rage fine directly to me, please, just to simplify things. kthnx.

Old RPM Daddy said...

Well, you can't very well have a Government Crusade without an Enemy, can you? Nobody's buying the "doctors who peform unecessary surgeries" bugaboo, and they sure as hell won't go after any lawyers. What better target than fat people? Better yet, fat people who smoke. Best of all, fat people who waddle into Wal Mart to get their smokes!

Roger J. said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Alex said...

I just did a calculation that the average 20-something McWorker could buy health insurance if they were willing to forego their entertainment budget. Those are simple facts. F.e., take a blue state like WA has probably $7.50/hour for a fast food worker. If that worker puts in 35 hours a week, that's $1050/month. If that person shares the rent, food & utilities with another person, they should have $50-$100 left, and that's what it costs to insure a 20-something on a reasonable plan. Of course it means no MP3 players, cocktails, concerts, fun. But they do have a choice, and it's not between food & health care.

madawaskan said...

Quayle-

True, that's why the state will always be interested in the business of marriage licenses....{apologies to Palladian.}

It will always be a revenue issue, even more so when you have the government taking up more of the private sector.

In fact Obama's stimulus package was about exactly that-

transfering the employed from the private to the public sector.

Kirby Olson said...

You can't have a giant new Health Program without a giant new Health Program Police.

Give me fifty push-ups for that Snicker's Bar.

AJ Lynch said...

Are Obama voters, on average, more svelte than McCain voters?

Roger J. said...

While the costs of health care are really difficult to get a handle on, one thing is clear: a large part of the health care dollar is spent in the last year of one's life. The solution is obvious: Take the life expectancies of men and women, and get them out of the program the year prior to their life expectancy. We will save a bundle.

Smokers? encourage them to smoke and buy their smokes--will kill them off faster, they wont use social security nor medicare should they survive past 65--a twofer as it were, and even with the costs of tobacco, we will come out money ahead.

Obese? BMI is the standard for health care insurance, and if we are generous, we can do BMI plus 10 pounds. Anything over that, no coverage. Again we will save a bundle. and we wont have to worry about wound management and amputations for diabetes, nor prosthetics.

And who needs dialysis--a waste of money since they are going to die ahead of time anyway. they get pretty crumbly as they get older.

Any cancer with a five year survival rate of less than 50%? Don't need to pay for that; odds are they arent going to make it; because we are empathetic we can buy them morphine which is a lot cheaper than pounding money down a rat hole on treatments the odds say wont work anyway.

Those strategies result in REAL cost savings and change you can believe in. Hope, on the other hand, gets a bit short changed.

You see how valuable epidemiology statistics are? They can justify each and every one of those policies.

For the ironically challenged,apologies to Johnathan Swift.

AJ Lynch said...

Yeah put those pushup bars in the checkout lines at Walmart. And do fifty jumping jacks before you get to the head of the checkout line!

MadisonMan said...

C'mon! Don't you want the Government to save money? It seems selfish to say They can save money as long as it doesn't impact ME!

(And yes, I'm joking).

Maybe it's because I'm in a farm state, but I see the word Obamacare and the non-existent word acre leaps out.

madawaskan said...

Oh interesting speaking of smokes they locked them up in a cage at the military commissary and then meshed it so that you could not even see them.

They even put that all on wheels for some reason.

This happened recently.

Then the Obama Administration floated the trail balloon that they were going to "outlaw smoking" in the military.

When an Obama representative was cornered about the idea he said Obama had nothing to do with it-

"It's the Pentagon's idea!"

MadisonMan said...

AJLynch, I would argue yes, Obama voters are more svelte, but only because they skew younger. I seem to be getting guttier as I age.

Alex said...

I think the larger issue is people can't accept their own mortality. No amount of single-payer or health-care service can change that. If Americans made a fundamental acceptance of their impending deaths, we could start to make real progress.

reader_iam said...

MadisonMan: But don't we keep hearing that socioeconomic status correlates with obesity, too, in the U.S.? (Not snark: I mean, I think that's been widely reported. Hasn't it?)

Alex said...

It's true socioeconomic status does correlate highly with obesity among all races. Interesting to note that obesity is virtually non-existent in Japan. I think they move a lot more, don't snack as much and have genetics that are not as conducive to fat storage. Needs more research.

Darcy said...

LOL, Beth. I'd rather, you know that?

I'm not going to be subject to the fat police (at least, I don't think I will be!) under government run health care, but the whole bill is scary. People were (and are) clearly out of their minds thinking this was a good idea.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

I'm just waiting for the next press conference on healthcare and the need to save money. Surely some reporter will ask President Obama when he last had a cigarette.

Alex said...

Here's another thing. From a moral standpoint, do Americans(70% overweight) deserve better health-care services?

Roger J. said...

Re correlation between SES and Obesity: last I looked it is negatively correlated.

Alex said...

Maybe it's the gold-plated health care plans that make people obese:

http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/22/getting-fat-maybe-its-your-health-insurance/

Roger J. said...

Oops--by negative I mean the higher one's SES the less likely they are to be obsese; (same for smoking)--One explanatory factor is probably that education is the intervening variable--Higher SES is a function of education, and educated people are more likely to know about bad behaviors and their effect on personal health.

Synova said...

I'm not convinced that they've got the obesity-poor health causality figured in the right direction.

Maybe, sure. People are different. But how likely is it that obese people are obese first and have health issues second? Isn't it more likely that whatever pushes some people toward obesity is also health related?

Age is the obvious thing, but not likely the only thing.

As a couple people mentioned, we get older and we get thicker... but most of us are thick, not huge, and don't have diabetes and heart disease.

Here in the South West the problem of health and obesity for native Americans is definitely not *caused by* obesity but obesity and diabetes and other health problems are *caused by* a population having adapted over time to *extreme* scarcity.

So what "behavior" is supposed to change? Do those people have to live on pine-nuts and squash and long distance foot travel or else be penalized?

MadisonMan said...

reader, I guess the question would be (I don't know the answer) which dominates? Youth or Socio-economic status.

I grew up middle-class (Dad was a Professor) and thin. Now I'm not-quite-as-high middle class and not quite so thin. And much much older. :)

Alex said...

Roger J - it's true the more affluent the less obesity. However, that doesn't mean I see lots of svelte upper middle class people. They're still borderline porkers.

Synova said...

"Oops--by negative I mean the higher one's SES the less likely they are to be obsese; (same for smoking)--One explanatory factor is probably that education is the intervening variable-"

True enough.

But it is also possible that a lower SES (*and* education) is at least partly related to energy levels and a positive attitude. High energy people "work off" the calories, pursue opportunities, and generally get more done.

Nicotine is a stimulant? No?

traditionalguy said...

The Constituton will need amending to eliminate life, liberty and the oursuit of happiness foe chubby people. The Government's strict new enviro/health controls are needed in this current imaginary Crisis. What will jovial fat people do? Can we just shoot them and sell their body parts like the Red Chinese Army does for money? Skinny Nancy Pelossi doesn't care. No, Nancy there is not a Santa Clause...we had to shoot him to meet the recycled parts needs for the Elite Democrats new Project Ponce de Leon.

BJM said...

AJ Lynch: Are Obama voters, on average, more svelte than McCain voters?

Not among the wealthy/elite in either politicial group. As with smoking, weight has become a indicator of class, education and status.

madawaskan said...

I dunno....

When you quit smoking-don't you get-

FAT!

jacksonianlawyer said...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_C992KPzKs

Roger J. said...

Synova (and Alex)--you are raising questions of causation and as an epi dude I can only speak to correlation--and therein lies the problem in deploying "science" I can describe the general health status of a population, but I can't tell you WHY. Something to remember when people trot out stats like life expectancy, infant mortality and disease rates.

If you are really interested in this stuff (causation theory) there is some very ineresting work being done in multivariate analysis. It is far more powerful than simple regression and relies on computer iterations--but like all modeling, its only as good as the underlying model (I am thinking here, for example, of global warming models.)

Kensington said...

I'm sick of hearing about how much fat people cost the system. What about the cost savings from the fact that the fat tend overwhelmingly to die at significantly younger ages than those who aren't fat?

The urge to constantly scapegoat is one of humanity's worst traits.

Alex said...

Roger, I think it's common sense to say that higher SES causes better education with regard to diet and exercise and less obesity.

TheOtherOne said...

Imagine the lawsuits that would follow should "disabled people" (covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act) were singled out for government attention (taxes) by the health care bureaucrats.

Silly! The government can't be expected to follow the laws they impose on the rest of us!

Joe said...

What about the cost savings from the fact that the fat tend overwhelmingly to die at significantly younger ages than those who aren't fat?

Actually, they don't. They tend to live longer.

dbp said...

I for one, welcome our new fat-police overlords.

I have already compiled a list of several known obese neighbors and am ready to turn them in.

Roger J. said...

Joe--I do believe there was a very recent study that suggested that, but the overwhelming majority of studies demonstrates pretty convincingly that obesity does reduce longevity. Here's a NEJM editorial:http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/352/11/1135

and a National Institute of Health article: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fcgi?rid=hstat4.section.1107

There is some thinking that BMI is too crude an indicator, and the distribution of fat deposits in the body may be more significant.

The American press does an exceptionally bad job in reporting medical studies, IMO, but what else is new--they do a bad job in everything.

bearbee said...

Will it be PC to discriminate against fat people? To profile them? To make fat jokes?

Th th th that's all folks!

Joseph said...

Its hard to imagine it getting worse than the current wildly inefficient and corrupt health care system

AJ Lynch said...

Joe:

It's very easy for me to imagine them f-ing up the current health care system.

And corrupt ?? Where do you get that from?

AJ Lynch said...

DBP said:

"I for one, welcome our new fat-police overlords. I have already compiled a list of several known obese neighbors and am ready to turn them in."

Well if they use affirmative action to hire the fat police, the police will be blind so you may have to turn them in.

Treacle said...

I suppose it won't be long before the gays aren't even allowed to have their barebacking orgies in the salons of the Upper West Side. You know how finicky taxpayers can be when it comes to treating the toxic stew that remains after such events.

Shanna said...

But it is also possible that a lower SES (*and* education) is at least partly related to energy levels and a positive attitude. High energy people "work off" the calories, pursue opportunities, and generally get more done.

Haven't there been studies that say that the overweight tend to be more likely to be passed over for promotions or not get jobs, compared to thinner counterparts? Is it possible that is a contributing factor?

chickenlittle said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
chickenlittle said...

Relax--obesity is just another form of carbon sequestration & I'm sure Al Gore would approve.

Indulgences can be bought.

Kirby Olson said...

Hillbillies are generally scrawnier than cityfolks. True or false?

Joe said...

Roger, there isn't just one study that finds both overweight and obese people live longer, it's been dozens of studies.

That last link you gave is a complete shit study made up of statistical crap. Among other problems, it has no controls. Using cohort studies, you can pretty much find a connection between anything you want. One sign that the "study" you referenced is bogus is that it found no difference between men and women (and it didn't control for smoking.)

Like far too many health and nutritional studies, these are extremely poorly done cohort studies that all fall apart when someone actually does a double blinded, focused study with a control group.

Kensington said...

"Actually, they don't. They tend to live longer."

Oh, that's nonsense. The evidence is all around you. How many obese old people do you ever see?

I can think of one, notable because it's so uncommon.

Joe said...

By the way, it's not just US media that does a horrible job reporting medical studies, that's true of most the world's press. To make it worse, the scientists doing the studies lie through their teeth all the time when reporting on their own studies (especially nutritional and sociological studies.) It's far too common for a "scientist" to say "we found this" only to look at the data and find that either it directly contradicts that, the actual findings are within the margin of error or both the study and control group showed the same response.

Joe said...

Kensington, first that's bullshit and you know it. Basing a finding on what you observe in your little world is bogus. How many old people do you see at all? How many of those old people did you know ten, twenty, thirty years ago? (I'd suggest you simply don't interact with very many old people.)

Second, there is a semantic problem in this debate. Obesity and morbid-obesity used to mean someone at the far edge of the bell curve of weight. Probably for dramatic purpose, that definition has expanded to the point where many people use it signify anyone who is more than a few pounds overweight (the silly BMI nonsense exacerbated this by classifying anyone with a BMI over 30 as obese.)

Third, and more importantly, as we pass middle age, we gain weight, we then lose that weight. The claim of the anti-obesity crowd is that ANY state of being overweight reduces life span.

Alex said...

Joe - that lost weight later in life usually precedes death. Not good.

Kensington said...

"Kensington, first that's bullshit and you know it."

Seriously, try not to be a condescending dick about this. If you think I'm wrong, just say so, but don't call me a liar. Do you think that strengthens your arguments? All it does is announce that you're a douche.

Allison said...

Synova,

I think you make an excellent point re: the causality of health and obesity.

I've now had two pregnancies. Both times, I had Gestational Diabetes, which is basically a kind of type 2 diabetes where your pancreas can't keep up with your glycogen needs because of your baby and placenta doing funky things to you.

I am 5'4", and weighed 110 pounds at 12 weeks gestation during the first pregnancy, and weighed 115 at 12 weeks during the 2nd pregnancy.

with the first, I ended up gaining 85 pounds by 40 weeks. with the second, when I was forced to manage my diabetes with a restricted diet, I gained 65 pounds.

the reason I gained so much weight? I was starving ALL OF THE TIME. I would wake up in the middle of the night STARVING--not "ooh, a hamburger sounds good" but "if i do not eat now I will fall down on the floor crying unable to stand up." And eating didn't help much, because I was still hunry--eat vegetables? hungry while eating. eat pork chop? hungry 1 hour later. eat macaroni and cheese and pork chop and 30 oz of orange juice? maybe maybe I could make it two hours.

My body was starving. Because of not enough insulin, I wasn't converting the sugars into energy, so I was still hungry and tired. The excess sugars were then converted into fat, but nothing was burning the sugars or fat ever!

the dieticians on the 2nd pregnancy told me I had to control my blood sugar (and eat basically the intro atkins diet for the last 12 weeks of my pregnancy), but this just made me hungrier to the point of being in the foulest of moods all of the time (like a smoker who's just gone 49 hours without a smoke). I was a complete bi*** to everyone and was literally biting my lip to stop myself from crying or screaming. the only time I didn't feel that way? during the 10 minutes that I was allowed to eat my exactly 1 measured serving of real ice cream a day.

in both cases, by the end, I was too heavy and too tired to exercise, too. Out of breath after walking 3 blocks.

how many obese people are diabetics who have been told its their fault? how many thin people have even the faintest idea what it feels like to be that hungry every hour of every day, with no food working to make it stop? (oh, and the diabetes medicines make you even MORE HUNGRY!!!) I'd be fat to avoid that despair, that's for sure.

Paul Zrimsek said...

"Arby's Macht Fries."

--old National Lampoon article on Fascist Food.

Cedarford said...

Quayle said...
If Mormons are net payers into the system, shouldn't the approach be to let them breed more?


Agree. And that goes for all net contributors into the system. Even if they smoke, drink, are slightly obese, eat at McDonalds.
They make the country. Not the outspoken mother-activist that wants a 2 dollar a bottle tax on beer to "make everyone healthier".

Contrast those contributors, 98% not Mormon - with the nutrition Nazis and safety fascists and smokers must be demonized, beer drinking banned!!, zealots.

All too many of them are parasites. They are paid from tax dollars that go into their government jobs and university spots in the 1st place. Or exist courtesy of tax writeoffs for wealthy people, firms that fuel activist NGOs who exist to attempt to control and meddle in larger society.

They may have useful functions. No one is saying we shouldn't have law professors, scientists, activist lawyers...

But bottom line..they exist only because the working slobs and business employees they lecture and harangue against and sue to take away their little pleasures and diversions happen to be the net contributors that create the surplus wealth. Wealth that enables their "crusades".

And such contributors may well balk at the selective harassment they have been subjected to since the 70s.
Their kid is banned from bringing peanut butter sandwiches in, but the same school does nothing with the violent little thugs running around disrupting school, extorting lunch money, beating other kids. But peanut butter is something the School Nazis can control...
The same people selectively suing to tax fast food are the same people fully supporting LGBT causes like free medical care for AIDs victims.
And so on....

Just Lurking said...

"the diabetes medicines make you even MORE HUNGRY!!!"

I wonder how many obese sick people started out average weight until they got sick and put on medication?

I know people who became obese after starting medications. They claim the meds increase their appetite, or cause uncontrollable cravings.

I thought that was a crock until I experienced it firsthand last Dec. with prednisone. It made me hungrier than I had ever been in my life. And food obsessed. I, someone who would often rather go to bed hungry than cook, started collecting recipes from magazines because the pictures looked so appealing. For about two months my appetite was never sated, and I cooked, and ate and ate, and gained weight. (I was also quite euphoric, BTW!)

After tapering off the drug, my interest in food went back to what it was, which is nil- I only eat when I have to, to avoid dying. And my weight is back to normal. (The euphoria is gone as well.)

The affects of meds on appetite is quite real.

TmjUtah said...

Fat, stoned, and stupid citizens were a government objective - were cool - right up until the logical consequences were manifested in an election. You didn't really think that 2010 was going to be a legal election, did you?

Say goodbye to all that.

Now that the votes of the intentionally ignorant are no longer needed they

will. be. dealt. with.

Congrats, Lefties. You WON!

MamaM said...

Psychiatric medications can also include weight gain as a side effect.

Who's next, after the obese and the mentally ill are regarded and dealt with as unfit consumers responsible for depleting the national storehouses? Gypsies?

kentuckyliz said...

I have two easy government solutions.

1. Poor people are fat.
Food makes you fat.
Government gives poor people food stamps.
Stop the food stamps!
Poor people get skinny.
Problem solved.

2. Free bariatric and cosmetic surgery for all overweight and obese people! Yeay!!! Let's achieve unanimous Barbiehood through surgery!

OK srsly, food can be used as a drug and often is by people with emotional problems. When all the human-caused-shitty-emotional problems crapola stops, then maybe there will be less emotional eating.

Paul Z Arby's quite - Lima Oscar Lima!!!! very funny

I have chronic cancer and will for a normal long otherwise healthy life. I have had some acute cancers and may again. I'm a freak. Er, outlier on the scatterplot. Just because I have a low but detectable cell count (largely due to the increased sensitivity of the test, doc calls me NED), will ObamasCare nix further treatment? Scans?

I think I'd be useful as a guinea pig for research...not many multicancer patients like me. Do I lack tumor suppressors that normal people have? That's what one oncologist thinks.

In Obamascare, I can be referred to their new research scientist, Dr. Mengele.

(Did that invoke Godwin's Law?)

kentuckyliz said...

For the same reason I deserve a lot of carbon credits and can litter like a pig and burn my trash in the back yard--I am nulliparous--I deserve the automatic Cadillac option in Obamascare. It ends with me. The line stops here.

20% of my age cohort are nulliparous according to the latest Census. We should be held up as natinal heroes for not inflicting a bunch of costs on the program and bringing about the pitter patter of yet more carbon footprints.

Eric said...

Maybe it's because I'm in a farm state, but I see the word Obamacare and the non-existent word acre leaps out.

That's not surprising, actually:

Aoccdrnig to rscheearch at an Elingsh uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, olny taht the frist and lsat ltteres are at the rghit pcleas. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae we do not raed ervey lteter by ilstef, but the wrod as a wlohe.

Kensington said...

"Who's next, after the obese and the mentally ill are regarded and dealt with as unfit consumers responsible for depleting the national storehouses? Gypsies?"

Gingers?

Jews?

Whoever it shall be, I'm sure it will all be worth it.

Yes we can!

Kensington said...

"Aoccdrnig to rscheearch at an Elingsh uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, olny taht the frist and lsat ltteres are at the rghit pcleas. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae we do not raed ervey lteter by ilstef, but the wrod as a wlohe."

This is fascinating. The only word that gave me the slightest pause was "mses".

MadisonMan said...

LOL. I did read toatl as toast though.