Wrong. It is financially rewarding after one gets declared "disabled" and begins collecting SSI (http://www.ssa.gov/disability/). This is a pervasive problem. I'm surprised how no attention is given to this problem in the media.
get people into real nutritionist and trainers
This is pie in the sky stuff, utter nonsense, and you have no clue what is going on in the real world if you believe what you wrote. Medicaid and the disability system make losing weight actually disadvantageous. Your unicorn-riding nutritionists and trainers are going to (and do) have a hard time getting anyone to lose weight, because losing weight by decreasing food intake and/or increasing activity takes willpower and motivation. There's no pill for that.
Remember this is the governor's attempt to save money on state Medicaid expenses. Anyone who has any involvement in this population knows that it is predominated by the obese, at a rate much higher than in the general population.
An all too common scenario is a follows:
Obesity --> chronic pain of back, knees, etc. from weight overloading --> "disability" designation --> continued obesity, now financially rewarded and self-perpetuating.
Please translate into "??? profit" format if the above doesn't make sense.
The assumption that many are making in their comments is that this sort of fee would apply to the general population of privately insured individuals. The Medicaid vs. privately insured populations are very different. The Medicaid population has incentive to stay within that group and in fact in situations like I outlined above, even gain or maintain weight. The privately insured population has disincentives already--more difficult to work, pay their bills, etc. I would imagine that the actuaries at the heath insurers have already calculated and continue to monitor how weight corresponds to their profit/loss statements and uses that information to increase premiums.
Now as to the specifics of the plan, a $50 surcharge will do nothing to reduce obesity. Suspending benefits entirely (perhaps with some grace period) would be very effective though in getting people to lose weight and reduce their need for surgery and medications.
Slashdot Mirror
The internet invented conspiracy theorists.
How long before the DMCA takedown notice arrives at the loft for all the unauthorized use?
No injuries reported, according to NHK. This was in the vicinity of the 9.0 quake, 40 km below the sea bed off Sendai.
At no point is it financially rewarding.
Wrong.
It is financially rewarding after one gets declared "disabled" and begins collecting SSI (http://www.ssa.gov/disability/). This is a pervasive problem. I'm surprised how no attention is given to this problem in the media.
get people into real nutritionist and trainers
This is pie in the sky stuff, utter nonsense, and you have no clue what is going on in the real world if you believe what you wrote. Medicaid and the disability system make losing weight actually disadvantageous. Your unicorn-riding nutritionists and trainers are going to (and do) have a hard time getting anyone to lose weight, because losing weight by decreasing food intake and/or increasing activity takes willpower and motivation. There's no pill for that.
You couldn't be more wrong. It is not the quality of food that leads to obesity. It is the quantity (in calories). End of story.
Remember this is the governor's attempt to save money on state Medicaid expenses. Anyone who has any involvement in this population knows that it is predominated by the obese, at a rate much higher than in the general population.
An all too common scenario is a follows:
Obesity --> chronic pain of back, knees, etc. from weight overloading --> "disability" designation --> continued obesity, now financially rewarded and self-perpetuating.
Please translate into "??? profit" format if the above doesn't make sense.
The assumption that many are making in their comments is that this sort of fee would apply to the general population of privately insured individuals. The Medicaid vs. privately insured populations are very different. The Medicaid population has incentive to stay within that group and in fact in situations like I outlined above, even gain or maintain weight. The privately insured population has disincentives already--more difficult to work, pay their bills, etc. I would imagine that the actuaries at the heath insurers have already calculated and continue to monitor how weight corresponds to their profit/loss statements and uses that information to increase premiums.
Now as to the specifics of the plan, a $50 surcharge will do nothing to reduce obesity. Suspending benefits entirely (perhaps with some grace period) would be very effective though in getting people to lose weight and reduce their need for surgery and medications.