http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13397306
Is this is a sensible way to manage Medicaid resources or simply a way to cut costs?
I'm doubtful that fines will provides an incentive to most people, they will simply take the hit.
Is it fair to fine fat people for not dieting?
- Thread starter JoeZhang
- Start date
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13397306
Is this is a sensible way to manage Medicaid resources or simply a way to cut costs?
I'm doubtful that fines will provides an incentive to most people, they will simply take the hit.
It might work better if people were rewarded for every pound they lost or something like that.
It's only fair that if medicaid intends to fine smokers and diabetics for not following guidelines that weight would be included.
Here's my question - presumably if you're own medicaid you're not exactly flush with cash to begin with. How do they intend to enforce this?
I'm assuming the sanction is that if they refuse to pay, they're left without medical cover of any kind. You could argue that it's their choice but where do you draw the line? If you want to be fair then it's not just smokers and diabetics is it? People who drink too much (how much is too much?), people who play contact sports, people who indulge in extreme sports, people who take recreational drugs, people who ride motorbikes. The list of risky activities gets longer the more you think about it.
They wouldn't pay for a heroine addict, so why would they pay for a nicotine addict? Or fat people. And by "fat", I mean those who simply can't restrain themselves, not those who have a genetic disposition.
Yea, the slippery slope argument would make many of our vices included on such a list. What about risky sexual behaviors? Or the ultimate one for women reproductive rights? Do women have the right to have a child paid for on the tax payers dime?
Except that being pregnant is not an illness. Since reproduction is a natural part of the life cycle it can't be regarded as other than a completely normal activity.
This smacks of just a way to cut costs. I'm all for letting the hard cases die for the good of the collective, but at the same time this isn't very likely to solve the underlying problems which cause obesity and addiction.
Smoking isn't an 'illness,' either until you may or may not get sick from it. Same goes for drinking. Pregnancy can also cause medical problems.
Smoking is an addiction. To compare it to pregnancy is utterly ridiculous.
Ingesting poison is not a normal activity. Nor is it part of the natural life cycle.
Smoking is an addiction you're 100% correct. Pregnancy is a choice. I'd argue that smoking is more difficult to 'quit,' than pregnancy.
Oh wow.
Staying alive being physically able to enjoy life should be all the motivation anybody needs. And yet ... too many of us abuse alcohol and drugs, eat too much of the wrong foods and eschew exercise.
That's right, fucking government better hand over the check and keep its damned mouth shut.
This sounds like just an attempt to bully poor people imo.
This is my (one of) my main objections to socialized medicine. When society is paying at least part of the cost of one's choices, it's not a stretch for society to begin to dictate those choices and enact punishment for those who chose otherwise. It leads to a loss of freedom. It's not just health care either--socialized anything can lead to such losses.
Yeah, if health itself isn't enough motivation, I doubt a $50 fine will have any effect at all. It's just a tax on the unfortunate, or perhaps on those who make poor decisions.
I think his point was don't hand over the check or demand any lifestyle choices.
It's simply an attempt to punish people for accepting public assistance.
