Obesity classified as "disease"

Forum Index > News > Obesity classified as "disease" > Post a New Reply

Share/Bookmark this Topic:

Message

Author

Do you think smoking should be classified differently than obesity for health insurance purposes?

a. Yes, smoking is more destructive than overeating.

[ 0 ] 0%

b. No, if one group is going to be charged more for risky behavior, then all those who "misbehave" must pay for their sins. Otherwise, the rule is unconstitutional.

[ 9 ] 100%

c. Yes, I think smokers should be expected to give up what they like, but overeaters, alcoholics and crack addicts are totally out of control and can't be expected to embrace deprivation.

[ 0 ] 0%

Total Votes : 9

by violetfae on Fri Aug 14, 2009 3:12 pm

I haven't had a blood test... yet. I worry that if a health care reform bill passes that requires everyone to have insurance, we're all going to have to submit bodily fluids. I already tell doctors and dentists that I'm a nonsmoker because they blame any and every illness on smoking. Viruses cause colds and flu, not smoking. I would like to think that well educated health care professionals have the common sense to understand that.

violetfae

Newbie Joined: Mar 22, 2009 Posts: 33

by Smoker Sympathizer on Fri Aug 14, 2009 11:22 pm

violetfae wrote:

This is why I'm so against nationalized healthcare. In my opinion, the politicization of medicine is unforgivable and I fear it will only get worse if we have such a system. I realize I'm probably in the extreme minority, but I am not a fan of preventative care. The concept itself is okay, but in my opinion, there's too much abuse potential for doctors to overstep their bounds. Then we end up with scenerios like the one above, where the patient is automatically blamed for living the "wrong" lifestyle. I call bull*** on that. People have a right to live how they choose; to try to force them to be like those chairs where the plastic is never taken off, or the "good" dishes never eaten on or enjoyed cheapens life itself. I say no and will continue to say no. I'll take the best care of myself that I can, but I'm not sacrificing the quality of my life to avoid a few scratches and dings.

Smoker Sympathizer Toker

Toker Joined: Jul 19, 2009 Posts: 86

by gilster on Sat Aug 15, 2009 8:14 am

It is scary, if you are sick and tell a doctor you smoke - they skip 20 steps in pinpointing your illness and attribute what you have to smoking.

A friend of mine has been getting breathing difficulties every summer for the past four years, to my small mind I think it's an allergy of some sort that is causing it. The doctors, every year when medication is needed to alleviate the symptoms, always says it's because of the smoking, they don't even consider testing for allergies.

This last year an emergency room doctor who diagnosed it as COPD [because they smoke] and I got into an argument. I asked a simple question:"Is COPD seasonal?" She said No. So I asked her why she would diagnose it as COPD - she said, because he smokes. We went round-and-round on this small factoid - in the end she just walked away from me, as I was still trying to fathom her logic - she could do nothing but walk away.

One good thing though - Not a word of Chantix scripts - as in the past. I would have had a ball with that prescription. Cool

gilster

Smoking Lobby Sponsor Joined: Apr 19, 2006 Posts: 1213

by libertarian99 on Sat Aug 15, 2009 2:50 pm

gilster wrote:

A friend of mine has been getting breathing difficulties every summer for the past four years, to my small mind I think it's an allergy of some sort that is causing it. The doctors, every year when medication is needed to alleviate the symptoms, always says it's because of the smoking, they don't even consider testing for allergies.

This last year an emergency room doctor who diagnosed it as COPD [because they smoke] and I got into an argument. I asked a simple question:"Is COPD seasonal?" She said No. So I asked her why she would diagnose it as COPD - she said, because he smokes. We went round-and-round on this small factoid - in the end she just walked away from me, as I was still trying to fathom her logic - she could do nothing but walk away.

I think your friend would probably get better results by going straight to an allergy specialist and getting the "stick" test, where they poke you about 200 times to find out what's really causing your problems. That's the only way to know for sure. Regardless of a person's smoking status, allergies can be identified and dealt with to improve the situation. I would suggest your friend do a little doctor shopping, because the fact that he or she smokes does not mean that other treatable conditions like allergies don't need to be addressed.

Another thing that can worsen problems in the summer is ozone and air pollution. I don't even have to watch the weather forecast to know whether or not the ozone levels are high. Whatever breathing issues a person has, they are worsened by bad air quality. Many non-smokers have to stay inside when pollution is bad, especially elderly people.

Note: I've never heard the weathercaster say, "Only elderly smokers need to stay inside. Elderly non-smokers can go outside." Everyone tends to lose lung capacity as they age, not just the smokers.

libertarian99 Enthusiastic Smoker

Enthusiastic Smoker Joined: May 01, 2009 Posts: 453

by violetfae on Sat Aug 15, 2009 3:05 pm

No one will admit to smoking if it means they will have to pay a higher premium ("user fee"). That's why I think we'll be blood/ piss tested.

violetfae

Newbie Joined: Mar 22, 2009 Posts: 33

by libertarian99 on Sat Aug 15, 2009 3:25 pm

violetfae wrote:

If it's any comfort, Medicare recipients are not required to follow any certain lifestyle or pass any tests to be covered. If the government requires people, by law, to pay into a system, it can't then turn around and refuse to cover people due to lifestyle factors. Also, the cost of testing every single person for smoking status would be prohibitive. Since smoking status can change over the course of a lifetime and since many people lie in self-defense about their smoking behavior, a cotinine test would have to be administered every time a person showed up at the doctor to keep the record straight.

I can understand lying to both the doctor and dentist about smoking, but keep in mind that medication really can be affected by smoking. So if the doctor doesn't know you smoke, they may not prescribe the most effective dose of a medicine for you. You might want to do a little research about any medications you're taking to make sure they've given you the right dose.

libertarian99 Enthusiastic Smoker

Enthusiastic Smoker Joined: May 01, 2009 Posts: 453

by libertarian99 on Sat Aug 15, 2009 11:11 pm

violetfae wrote:

No one will admit to smoking if it means they will have to pay a higher premium ("user fee"). That's why I think we'll be blood/ piss tested.

One thing you have to remember about the current insurance system, though, is the fact that insurance companies are always looking for ways to deny claims. They have everything to gain by just asking you if you smoke and then letting you lie about it on your application.

That little bit of fraud might be all they need to deny your claims in the future. If you happen to get into a car accident or have some other catastrophic health issue, the fact that you lied about smoking on your application can be used to nullify the whole policy. All they have to do is refund your premiums, and they're off the hook for paying your claim.

That's why it's a very, very bad idea to lie about anything on an insurance application unless you are absolutely sure the insurance company can't find anything to prove you lied. They have people whose full-time job is to ferret out that kind of thing.

If we ever go to electronic health records, life will get a lot worse because both insurance companies and doctors will have instant access to medical records that you would rather leave buried in the past. If a doctor puts something on your record when you're 20 years old, even if it's a misdiagnosis, that doctor's opinion is going to haunt you for the rest of your life.

libertarian99 Enthusiastic Smoker

Enthusiastic Smoker Joined: May 01, 2009 Posts: 453

by libertarian99 on Sat Aug 15, 2009 11:51 pm

Smoker Sympathizer wrote:

Preventive care has a good side and a bad side. It's good to provide information so people can educate themselves and pursue whatever lifestyle modifications they are willing to try, but the patient should ultimately be the one who decides what they are and are not willing to modify.

I've actually read a few of Dr. Dean Ornish's books, and he's got a lot of good ideas that can help people, especially those who have already suffered a heart attack. What bothers me is his use of the phrase "intensive lifestyle interventions." That sounds coercive, like the doctors and nurses are going to force people into “lifestyle rehab” programs designed to reform their behavior, whether they like it or not.

I think Dr. Dean Ornish probably has good intentions, but his enthusiasm is blinding him to the realities of how many people are actually willing to make the changes he recommends. For example, most people know they can improve their health by following a good exercise program. Unfortunately, only a minority of people are actually going to do that, despite hearing the benefits touted for decades.

I worked at a gym for four years, and I can tell you about 80 percent of people who sign up at a gym quit working out within the first three months. It doesn’t matter what the benefits are; only about 20 percent of people will stick with their program long enough to see results. It’s usually the athletic people who stick with it because they enjoy exercising just for its own sake. Most people who join because they want to lower their blood pressure or cholesterol levels don’t stick with it, once they realize how much time and energy it takes to reduce those levels by even a few points.

When you go beyond lifestyle counseling, preventive health care is apparently not the moneysaving panacea the politicians have been touting. I don't think we have to worry too much about massive screening programs because they apparently increase medical costs, rather than saving money.

Here's an interesting link about preventive care costs versus benefits:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MTA3MTVjOWM4MWVkNTk3NDQ0Mjg3MDVkMGY4M2EwMWY=

libertarian99 Enthusiastic Smoker

Enthusiastic Smoker Joined: May 01, 2009 Posts: 453

by violetfae on Sun Aug 16, 2009 2:55 pm

Thanks Lib. But if i did have insurance and something catastrophic happened, for all they know I could have been a nonsmoker at the time of applying for insurance and just started smoking the day before, unless they interview everyone an applicant knows or have surveillance on people 24/7.

violetfae

Newbie Joined: Mar 22, 2009 Posts: 33

by libertarian99 on Sun Aug 16, 2009 3:27 pm

violetfae wrote:

You're right. I didn't think of that.

libertarian99 Enthusiastic Smoker

Enthusiastic Smoker Joined: May 01, 2009 Posts: 453

All times are GMT - 5 Hours

Page 2 of 2 Goto page Previous 1, 2 Smoking Lobby Smokers Rights Forum Index ~ News

Smoking Lobby Forum for Smokers Rights