If you watch or read any news, you know that the American government is a few days away from defaulting on our loan obligations because we are about to surpass the legal debt limit. Once we pass that $14.29 trillion debt mark, the U.S. can’t borrow any more money.
All it takes to fix this situation is an agreement from congress to raise the debt limit. Unfortunately, it would be irresponsible to raise the debt limit without addressing the root cause of our overspending.
Republicans and Democrats can’t agree on how much to cut and how much (if any) we should raise taxes. They are working on reducing costs of large entitlement programs like social security, medicare, and medicaid. That’s a great idea because we are losing tons of money on all of those programs.
In fact, I like the idea so much, I have a nice little proposal to save tons of taxpayer money.
Stop covering treatment for Type 2 Diabetes.
Type 2 Diabetes Shouldn’t Be Covered by the Government
Why should taxpayers be responsible to pay for a disease that is not only 100% preventable with a healthy lifestyle, but can also be treated with a healthy lifestyle?
It’s a simple principle of making people responsible for their own actions. If you are a senior with cancer, Medicare should pay for that. Or maybe you have multiple sclerosis. Or Parkinson’s disease. You didn’t ask for those things; they just happened to you. And it’s a good thing when the government pays for that treatment.
But when you go to McDonald’s for breakfast, and then have a butter sandwich for lunch, and then a 1/2 lb beef hamburger and french fries for dinner, you’re asking for Type 2 Diabetes.
Prevention is free and treatment is free, yet the American taxpayer is saddled with billions in medicare payments for this disease.
You Shouldn’t Expect to Be Healthy While Living an Unhealthy Lifestyle
Take Karen Christian for example. She has type 2 diabetes and is pissed that California won’t pay for all of her medical costs. The poor thing had to move to Arizona so she could qualify for Medicaid and have taxpayer money pay for all of her medical bills.
“I used to live half a mile away from the coast,” she said. “I miss the cool breezes, the fog and my garden. I’m still getting used to the heat out here. But the trade-off is good health, and that’s worth it.”
So the American taxpayer and the Arizonan taxpayer are paying basically 100% of her medical bills for a disease that she wouldn’t even have if she took better care of herself.
A recent study shows that type 2 diabetes is reversible if people adhere to a 600 calorie-a-day diet for two months. Even if your sedentary lifestyle ends up sticking you with the disease, you can cure yourself of it just by going on a diet.
About $174 billion was spent on diabetes in 2007. Take away about 10% of that for type 1 diabetes (which is not caused by poor eating habits and a sedentary lifestyle), and you still have around $150 billion a year. If we just guess and say 50% of that is paid for by the government (i could be way off base here), we can save $75 billion a year by eliminating treatment for this one disease. Now that’s a serious deficit reduction solution.
Let’s Take it a Step Further
The principle of taking financial responsibility for your own poor health decisions can be expanded to other things as well. Lung cancer in smokers should never be paid for by the government. I’m no medical expert, but I’m sure there are other diseases that are caused 100% by individual’s actions.
If those people want treatment, they are more than welcome to it. They should just have to pay for it themselves instead of relying on yours and my tax dollars.
I know I’m going to get comments saying that I’m heartless. That couldn’t be further from the truth. I’m just advocating personal responsibility. If you make a bad decision and marry the wrong person, and they take 50% of your money in a divorce, the government doesn’t pay for that. If you make bad decisions to rack up debt, the government doesn’t pay to get you out. Why should making bad decisions about your health be the exception?
Kevin McKee is an entrepreneur, IT guru, and personal finance leader. In addition to his writing, Kevin is the head of IT at Buildingstars, Co-Founder of Padmission, and organizer of Laravel STL. He is also the creator of www.contributetoopensource.com. When he’s not working, Kevin enjoys podcasting about movies and spending time with his wife and four children.
Kevin, I agree with you that obesity and lack of physical activity are the two most common causes of type 2 diabetes. However, type 2 diabetes is the result of a combination of environmental AND genetic factors. Not everyone with type 2 diabetes is overweight and the disease disproportionately affects African Americans, Hispanic Americans, and Native Americans at higher rates than White Americans.
This story is much more complex than simply stating that type 2 diabetes is the result of individual inaction. Thus, your statement that NIDDM is “100% preventable” is inaccurate.
Healthcare in America is an interesting economy since it is one of our most heavily regulated industries. As Americans we demand high quality care, which requires high levels of oversight by the government to ensure that you aren’t harmed by your healthcare provider in the name of cost savings. Healthcare costs have increased exponentially and simply requiring the individual to pay more for healthcare will not fix the underlying problem, which is that the increases in healthcare costs are unsustainable in the long term. Furthermore, requiring the individual to bear more of the healthcare cost increase is a free market solution for a healthcare market that is decidedly not free market.
Healthcare in America is as much of a ticking time bomb as Social Security. We need to completely rethink healthcare and as a society we have some tough decisions to make.
Dan
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/diabetes.html
What Dan said about your statement being inaccurate, PLUS, one needs to realize that the reason many people have T2 Diabetes is a result of following the USDA guidelines! Yes, their emphasis on grains and carbohydrates are a literal prescription for Diabetes.
I personally know of whence I speak. I was diagnosed with T2 diabetes in 1997, basically as a result of following Dean Ornish’s recommendations for high-carb, low fat. In 1999, I decided to ditch his advice and started a strict low carbohydrate diet and was able to lose weight AND throw away my diabetes medication within two months. And 600 calories…yeah….that was my breakfast!
All these years later, my T2 Diabetes is gone, and my HBA1c readings are normal. One hundred percent normal, even after all these years. And I am certainly only one of thousands that follow the low carb lifestyle and have had similar success. Those poor folks that are still following the USDA guidelines….you see them waddling in the streets in those TV stories about “the obesity epidemic.”
So, I am not a big fan of the government paying for anything, but in this case, since following the USDA guidelines is causing much of this illness….I thin we should take the healthcare payments for T2 Diabetes directly out of the budget for the USDA.
Yeah, sometimes you post things that are incredibly controversial and maybe that’s the point. I’m all for freedom of speech, but posts like this make you sound ignorant. You have a lot of knowledge about investing, but making such bold statements about a medical diagnoses is probably not your best territory. Dave is right. Not all type 2 diabetes is preventable. You also took a study out of context, and that’s a big pet peeve of mine. Especially as a PhD student in nutrition. I can’t stand it when the media takes research out of context. The majority of people with type 2 Diabetes can control it with lifestyle modification, but the disease is very complicated. Even those who are controlling the disease with behavior modification require medical care and nutrition advice for prevention of life-threatening complications. Not your best post.
AZ pays for something CA won’t… wow. To me, that’s the shocker of this post. haha.
Man, Kevin, you’re batting a thousand (no pun intended)! Just read this post after reading your “won’t hire anyone on unemployment for over three months.” You’ve got strong opinions and it’s your prerogative to use your blog as your megaphone. BUT you don’t seem to have any flexibility whatsoever when it comes to these strong convictions. I guess I’m under the impression that blanket statements are generally bad. (is that a blanket statement?) What about the waitress who works at a restaurant in the smoking section and contracts lung cancer? Should she be denied government assistance because she made the choice to stay in such an environment?
You can go on with the “What If’s” forever. What I’m saying, though, is that if you become more polarizing, you may just alienate the people that you once impressed with your financial knowledge.
I’m with Austin. I’ve been reading this blog for about a week and have come across the unemployment post he listed, the “coupon sharing is stealing” nonsense, and now this one… and I’m starting to get the distinct impression that your intent with this blog is to say things controversial just to drive up your traffic. It’s either that, or you’re just not very bright. Since I am charitable enough to think you’re not dumb, you must be a cynic who gets people riled up purely for personal profit.
It may be harsh, but my view from this week has been that you care more about hit counts than the quality of the content on your site. That’s a shame, because I think you’ll find that in the long run, the former will greatly depend on the latter.
I’ve seen enough…
I’ll admit that this particular proposal needs a lot more medical research to turn this into a real law, as far as dealing with exceptions and everything, but it’s an idea that I truly believe should be explored. If you stop paying for diseases that are brought on by decades of continuously making poor health decisions, you either encourage people to start making better decisions or you don’t waste money caring for people who don’t care about themselves.
My philosophy is that people should get what they deserve, not what they believe they are entitled to. If your personal philosophy is the opposite of that, you’ll probably find this website rather frustrating.
If you think I’m writing articles just to drum up hits and increase traffic to make money, I’d invite you read my post last Friday about how I went almost an entire year without even attempting to monetize this site. To say I’m in this for the money means you truly don’t know me very well.
If you want the same “max out your 401k” and “save money on store brand cereal” articles, there are tons of personal finance sites to fulfill your need. if you want some outside the box thinking, you’re welcome to keep coming back here.
When I read what glancep said I didn’t think that he meant you were posting these controversial things to increase how much money you make off your blog. Now that I re-read it though I do see that he did mention “profit”. My impression of things is that you post these things to make your blog more popular so you get more followers. I think you’re in it for the popularity at this point, not the money. When I first started following your blog I did it because you had some good ideas about using a HTPC with an antenna and using web streaming to get TV instead of having a cable bill. Lately though your posts are so generalized and I find your research on the topics lacking. You may have done some research but you don’t seem to look into both sides of an issue before you take a stance on it.
And here’s a better idea for saving the taxpayers money, add extra taxes on cigarettes which go directly towards health care funding. Since cigarettes are purely someones choice to start and have direct health implications. And even though I have done no research on this I would assume that a tax on all cigarette sales would provide more funds for health care than a cut on supporting type 2 diabetes care.
Not exactly true. Here we go again. Some minority races(African Americans) are more prone to Diabetes then other races and more Women then Men. I hate to burst your bubble but Diabetes runs in families. Diabetes 1 or 2 if it’s in your blood line watch out you may be next. If you live a healthier life style you may lower your odds,but, your not out of the woods if it runs in your family.
Speaker Boehner:future HEART BYPASS patient. He has a White Collar high Stress job and I just bet he drinks. That’s probably the small business his family owned a Tavern. He’s a SMOKER!! He has great MEDICAL INSURANCE so he’ll never have to worry how he’ll pay his Dr. bills. I know Obama smokes, but, he’s not the one wanting to cut MEDICARE and MEDICAID.
MOMS:USE your VOICE or LOSE your VOICE so your DAUGHTERS will have a VOICE!
I’m on google blog. I’m new at it so bear with me. Issues concerning Women hoping to make you think a little before judging.
www.realitycheckrayray.com
www.realitycheckrayray.weebly.com
Nothing this complicated is that simple. Just remember that.
On the surface this appears correct, but as others have pointed out, every case is unique. I don’t think a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach is safe here. Even if 75% of the cases were along the lines of what you describe, as a moral society we couldn’t ‘throw out’ the 25% who maybe have no control over this disease. It’s the same reason that our justice system is flawed in that Casey Anthony can walk free simply because the process is designed to ensure that someone in the next courtroom who really is innocent doesn’t get sent to jail by mistake.
Is it fair? Not always. Does it suck? Sure. But is there an easy way to fix it? No, and certainly not within the realms of a one page blog post.
The government needs to drop Medicare all together, and by drop I mean phase out. The government needs to focus on making healthCARE affordable, not health insurance.
Health insurance is the main reason heathcare is unaffordable. It takes away choices, and visibility. Do you shop your health services around to get the best prices? I don’t. My insurance provider tells me where I can go. There is no incentive to lower prices.
Do you have any idea how much an X-ray costs? Neither do I.
On one hand I agree with you, but if we go down this road, there will be hundreds of thousands of special cases that need to be written into the laws.
I am completely against paying for any diseases caused by personal choices, eg. obesity, smoking, etc. But it’s the special cases that we can’t ignore.
Bing, bango. The real issue is that costs rise when we don’t prioritize/can’t see them.
@Tom – That is so right on the money. One of my family members recently had some out patient surgery handled. As I always do whenever there is something we are going to pay for, I tried to find out the costs, and details.
I spent almost a week, numerous phone calls, and emails trying to find out what the actual cost was on the procedure. At one point, I actually send an email to a division of the hospital called, “Price-Estimate”. They sent me the details of my insurance coverage. When I contacted them back, they said all I needed to worry about was my portion. I tried to tell them that in order to know whether they were charging me correctly, I needed to know the cost of the procedure. They said, “Nobody ever asks that.” Then the hospital said they couldn’t give me the price, I would have to contact my insurance.
I contacted my insurance, and they said they couldn’t give out the price because it was a contract with the hospital, and the hospital would have to give me the actual numbers. I finally did get the numbers, but it took forever. I probably could have gotten plans for a nuclear bomb easier.
The reason our medical costs are so high is because nobody bothers to check the costs.
I kind of agree with the notion of this post, but I think there are just way too many variables and what ifs. The one mentioned above, about diabetes being partially genetic is a good one. How do you decide who gets treatment and who doesn’t when it’s both genetic and environmental? Or, say, what if a child developed T2 diabetes because of a bad lifestyle, but because that’s the way the parents raised them. Should they be denied treatment? What about like, a 20-year-old that is no longer a minor, but was always fed horrible food and then it just caught up to them with T2 diabetes? What if someone leads a horrible lifestyle, and it’s the diagnosis that makes them change their ways? Even if they’re actively seeking to get better, they still need medical treatment in the in between. See what I mean?
I’d say I’d much rather see the government invest money in education and prevention, to make people understand the realities of their health decisions and stay fit and eat right, rather than offering them nothing in that regard and then just trying to pick up the pieces when it all goes to crap. OR encourage more regular check up with a doctor (not just going when you get sick) so people can be seriously warned they’re on a dangerous path, and can make changes before it gets to the point of diabetes.
Then again, I’m one of those silly Canadian socialists who thinks medical care should be free for everybody all the time, so… (This was, coincidentally, the topic of my own blog post today. Food for thought.)
@Melissa – fortunately for you silly Canadians that think healthcare should be free, you have the US next door to should the really big things for you.
BTW, I guess that means you are also in favor of indentured servitude and slavery?
Literally nothing in that comment makes any sense.
The only way to have “free” healthcare is to have a slave or indentured servant. Now, if you want government paid healthcare, that is something completely different. Unfortunately, whenever the government gets involved in anything, the costs go up and the quality goes down.
One of the reasons government healthcare works for Canada is because the US is next door, and the folks that cannot get the treatment they need in Canada can always travel down to the US to get it handled. Go to any US-Canadian border hospital and you’ll see loads of Canadians in there getting treatment.
One of the other reasons is the low population of Canada. The population for Canada is 34,030,589. The population of the US is 313,232,044, almost ten times the population of Canada.
Also include in there is the fact that the US pays for the research that all the other countries (including Canada) use. We shoulder the cost of the research on medications that you pay very little for because of the pharmaceutical companies pact. We pay for YOUR medications.
Oh, and your country is now experiencing a large shortage of doctors. Why? Nobody likes to have a cap on their earning potential, especially if they have just spent a ton of time and money in school for their chosen profession.
Personally, I do not want government involved in my healthcare. Period. I’d like to see all third payers entities removed so people will actually have an idea of what their healthcare costs. Competition is the backbone of a capitalist society and it is what keeps costs down. If you want to lower costs, make sure the people REALLY know the cost of their healthcare, and the only way they will ever know the cost of their healthcare is to get all third party payers out of the system.
We say that we want capitalism to drive our healthcare, but in reality we want competition to drive down price while safety and quality stay high. Price, Safety, and Quality in healthcare function in ways that are not always advantageous to you as the patient.
The government is the number 1 reason why we have safe healthcare in America and the government does a lot that most free market advocates fail to recognize like subsidizing the cost of MD Resident training so that you have a well trained and board certified doctor.
Cheap healthcare does not always equal better or more safe healthcare. I agree with you in that we need much better medical procedure price clarity to make informed comparisons as consumers.
So…it should only apply to diseases/illnesses and not any other type of injury? Why not extend it to physical injury? If you engage in extreme sports and injure yourself, I suppose any treatment for that shouldn’t be covered either, since you should know better than to participate. Heck, you should stop walking or moving altogether, you just might break a leg just walking down the street and twisting your ankle the wrong way. You could have prevented that injury by not walking, so no coverage for you – you shouldn’t have been walking in the first place! Where do you draw the line?
Although I do agree with some parts of the post, getting rid of “entitlement” programs is not quite the answer. Besides…aren’t most (at least many) people really entitled to receive social security/medicare, since they paid taxes SPECIFICALLY for these services (look at your pay stub). If social security still exists when I’m ready to collect, I don’t feel like it’s wrong for me to receive social security…I’ve been paying into it all my working life, and the government has been “holding” it for me letting it earn interest in the meantime. I’ve also been paying for Medicare. If they want to raise the qualifying age since people are living longer, fine. How efficiently they are managing my money may be in question, but hey, I paid, and I would like it back when it’s time, so yeah, I am entitled to that money.
Sorry Jenny, but that is exactly the problem with entitlement programs. You feel entitled to something that is not really yours. When you gave that money to the government, it stopped becoming your money. It became the property of the US government. They can use it however they like. You aren’t entitled to anything.
When the government pays for your medical care or unemployment that you feel so entitled to, they won’t be using “your” money to do so. They will be taking it from some other working citizen to give to you. Unfortunately, over time, more and more people feel entitled to what’s “theirs”. As more people start to realize that it is easier to collect entitlements than to pay for them in the form of taxes, the burden starts to shift. That’s when the fun starts. As it becomes apparent that the well is going dry, elected officials are forced to:
A. Cut benefits that so many voters feel “entitled” to
B. Print more money to pay for the benefits out of the “government’s pocket”
C. Take on debt to finance those entitlements.
D. Some combination of the above
Option A pisses people off and can result in civil unrest (see Greece). Option B accelerates inflation which is really just another form of taxation on the people. Option C devalues the country’s currency in the global markets and costs the tax payers in interest.
I don’t have a magic solution. I honestly believe that there isn’t one. I do know that no amount of change is going to fix the inherent problems in socialism. These problems are nothing new. History does teach us that if we don’t man up and own the problem today, we could be facing some horrific consequences tomorrow. I would recommend reading The Road to Serfdom by Friedrich Hayek and Money Mischief by Milton Friedman to get yourself educated on the reality of entitlement programs and socialism.
“Sorry Jenny, but that is exactly the problem with entitlement programs. You feel entitled to something that is not really yours. When you gave that money to the government, it stopped becoming your money. It became the property of the US government. They can use it however they like. You aren’t entitled to anything.”
And herein is the lie: trust me, I didn’t “GIVE” one penny of my paycheck to the government. It was taken from me, literally at the point of a gun (meaning, if I don’t pay my taxes, I can go to jail.)
That money has always been mine. I earned it. The government took it away from me. They absolutely, definitely DO owe it to me, though I doubt I will ever see it. That doesn’t make the theft any more morally correct.
Gharkness, I agree with your sentiment that “the government took it away from me” and that that money is yours since you earned it. No argument there.
However, what we all must remember is that we all chose to be a part of the system we live in today. Even if you voted against every politician, referendum, etc. you still have a choice to work and pay taxes in the US. While the alternatives to that choice might be less than desirable, you ALWAYS have a choice. So even though the government can use force to coerce you into paying taxes, you still are complicit with their demands and GAVE them that money.
Digging our collective heels and demanding what is “ours” or what we feel we are entitled to is an exercise in futility. Again, I’d refer you to the recent outbursts of violence in England as an example of what manifests from those thoughts and feelings.
I’d rather take that energy and use it to support politicians who are actively trying to change the way things handled in government, such as Dr. Ron Paul.
I’m probably not the best person for you to be lecturing about tax theory. I am a CPA and my Master’s Degree is in ……Taxation.
Make no mistake about it. Taxation is NEVER giving when at the point of a gun. Never. Thus: Taxation is not giving.
I believe that the political system of the United States is the worst in the world. Except for all the others So, yes, I choose to live here, and understand that there is a financial price to pay for that. However it is never futile to demand that our “leaders” stop taking from us and spreading it around to those who are more “deserving.”
This discussion has gone far afield, but my original -and still the same – position is that, while there are many things Medicare should not pay for (and really shouldn’t exist anyway), T2 Diabetes is largely the result of FOLLOWING USDA GUIDELINES, and if for no other reason, should be paid for **as much as** any other illness.
How much that should be is another discussion entirely. But I would state categorically that the USDA has no business even suggesting what people should eat.
First let me apologize gharkness. You are of course right that taxation is not giving in the same sense as a charitable donation. I’m not trying to lecture you about taxation. I am merely trying to point out that you have a CHOICE to give the government the money that it asks of you or to not give it the money that it wants. It is a matter of semantics at this point, so if you feel better about it, then I concede to your point that “Taxation is not giving”.
Second, let me say that I don’t mean any disrespect by my current or previous comments. I am merely trying to share my view of things.
Third, I also agree with you that it is “never futile to demand that our ‘leaders’ stop taking from us and spreading it around to those who are more ‘deserving.'” However, I definitely do not agree with your conclusion that the government owes you or anyone else anything. How’s is the government owing YOU because they “took” money from you any different than any other justification for any other government entitlement?
The logic (my Masters Degree btw) for your conclusion is faulty and muddles the bigger issue which is the sense of entitlement that all tax payers have. Here’s a quick logical run down of your arguments:
Assertion 1 is that taxation is morally incorrect (we’ll say ‘wrong’).
Assertion 2 the government “absolutely, definitely DO owe” you (the tax payer) for those taxes.
Assertion 3: “spreading it [taxation] around to those who are more ‘deserving'” (let’s call this ‘entitlements’) should be stopped.
Assertion 4 is that Medicare “shouldn’t really exist”.
Finally, you assert that “T2 Diabetes is largely the result of FOLLOWING USDA GUIDELINES” (a weak assertion as T2 Diabetes occurs elsewhere in the world were the USDA does not exist) therefore “should be paid for **as much as** any other illness.” (we’ll call this ‘Medicare coverage’)
So in a nutshell: taxation is wrong. Tax payers are owed. Entitlements should be stopped. Medicare shouldn’t exist. T2 Diabetes should have Medicare coverage.
Here’s the issue:
1. if **as much as** any other illness = $0, then you violate Assertion 2, since you paid for those services and will not get the services you are “owed”.
2. if **as much as** any other illness > $0, then you violate Assertions 1, 3, and 4
Either way you slice it anyone who buys in to this argument sets themselves up for failure. We (the American people) can’t have it both ways. Either we square with the idea that we won’t get what we are “owed” or we have to continue kicking the proverbial can down the road. That’s the point. Everything else is just noise.
Yeah, what Georgene said. I was going to say something very similar buy she beat me to it. The USDA guidelines are proof that politicians and bureaucrats know less than nothing about nutrition, and need to stay away from that topic entirely.
Since the government is the primary *CAUSE* of NIDDM, it should bear at least some of the cost of treating it. Except that politicians and bureaucrats are also clueless about how that is done (and so is the lamestream medical establishment, and so are you, by the way). To cure T2/NIDDM, you have merely to quit eating what causes it – which you have exactly backwards (the “less than nothing” fits here, too). The principal causes of NIDDM are, in order of importance: 1) high-fructose corn syrup, 2) other sugars and sugar equivalents such as starchy vegetables and oatmeal, 3) gluten grains, and 4) vegetable oils (especially if heated).
Animal proteins (e.g., yum, red meat) and saturated fats (e.g., yum, butter!) are good for you. They are the natural diet of humans. They have made up the majority of my diet for the last dozen years, during which time I lost 100 lbs, and improved my health tremendously.
I have a blog on the subject. I don’t know if you allow links, but if you Google “Your small intestine has taste buds” with the quotes, it should be in the top two or three listings.
Everyone else has made the majority of the points that came up when I read this, but I wanted to add one more thing.
What you’re talking about would primarily punish the poor and those already suffering from health disparities, i.e. African Americans and Latinos, when they already suffer from lack of access to whole foods (grocery stores are much less common in poor areas), lack of education regarding nutrition (our own government has changed it’s tune rather frequently regarding what we should and shouldn’t eat), and lack of access to preventive services (most poor people don’t get the routine check ups to know they’re headed towards diabetes in the first place).
So basically you’re saying let’s just fuck the people who we’ve already been fucking pretty hard for decades. This is pretty much the definition of institutionalized racism. Doesn’t sound even remotely like a good idea.
that whole statement is ridiculous, and the most ignorate thing i have read in reading this whole line of rebuttals, I think people who dont know, shouldn’t assert.
Are you actually implying that poor people have bad health due to a lack of access to “Whole foods”? Being poor doesn’t mean you dont have access to decent nutrition. It is usually a time factor, as were i live in Chicago, the best and cheapest produce markets with the best fresh stuff around isn’t a whole foods(which by the way has tons of unhealthy food options, such as fried food ect), its the Fresh Market locations all over Hispanic areas in Chicago. Just because you have access to a whole foods doesn’t mean you will pick a salad over a CheeseBurger…
You cant tell you are headed to diabetes when you are massively over weight for your frame and body? Get the hell out of here… Who ever goes to the scale and weights in at 350 and goes, ya thats healthy… If you are that Stupid, someone telling you to eat more veggies, isn’t going to change your whole life
And for the Record, I grew up quite poor, as well did Kevin. You cant say that being poor equals being fucked as you say, its all about personal choices…
put that in your pipe and smoke it…
And how would you divy up the healthcare expenses if the cause is ambiguous? My aunt is a heavy smoker and she got lung cancer… Ironically it was one of the few NOT caused by smoking. So under your plan, would her treatments be covered? Or what if the cancer was in her liver and matastisized to her lungs? You’re entitled to your opinions, but they appear to be very black-and-white even though there are a thousand shades of grey.
I think that medicare should cover Type 2 Diabetes because it is one of the largest diseases in the U.S.
I first read this post this morning. It was a bit callous, but I didn’t have a huge problem with it.
As I thought about it throughout the day, I realized the flaw in the logic. Just about every health problem can be traced back to stupidity. I hurt my quad the other week playing soccer. If I hadn’t pushed myself a little too hard I wouldn’t have hurt myself. The same logic applies to a car accident or hurting yourself at work. These things are preventable 99.9% of the time. Should we not help those people either?
As a Canadian, I’m constantly amazed at America’s attitude towards health care. Canada’s health care system treats everyone the same. We believe that basic health care is something that everyone deserves. It sounds a lot like socialism, but it works. Americans are able to accept the government is best for handling police, or fire fighters, or defense, but can’t handle letting it run the hospitals. I just don’t get it.
Yes, Canadian healthcare is wonderful. Would you care to explain why the US border hospitals are filled with Canadians coming over the border to get treatment for the things the Canadian healthcare plan won’t cover? Please don’t even try telling me at doesn’t happen, as I’ve been in the hospital with the folks coming over the border.
The reason Canadian healthcare works is because your next-door neighbor is the US.
I’m going to respond to everyone in one post because pretty much everyone disagrees with me:
I was probably wrong in calling out Type 2 diabetes right now. The fact that the 600 calorie diet cured the disease in 11 people doesn’t necessarily mean it will cure it in everyone. With that being said, if there is more testing done around that study and we find it is a true cure, then I believe medical coverage for Type 2 diabetes shouldn’t be covered if people refuse the diet.
I do understand there are gray areas, and to seriously implement something like this would be very hard. However, it’s the only thing I can think of that will increase accountability for people taking care of themselves. We need more preventative medicine and less reactionary treatment. If there is a better way to increase preventative measures, I’m all for them. Until I hear a better idea though, I like the idea to stop paying for people who bring diseases upon themselves.
This would definitely require more thought to put it into a law and propose it to Congress, but I think it would be a step in the right direction.
That would require Congress to get their collective heads out of their ass.
Obviously this will never happen and we will continue to spiral into health care cost crisis.
Let’s start by recognizing that a recommended intake for a 130-pound man with low activity is about 1800 calories. 600, a starvation diet, may affect diabetes in the short term, but what happens afterwards when the person returns to poor habits?
Yes, we should place more emphasis on prevention than disease, but ironically insurance covers diseases and does little to compensate efforts at prevention.
Nonetheless, let’s pursue this idea of Kevin’s further. He wants no funding for T2 diabetes, a disease with the potential for many complications, including stroke, heart attack, blindness, kidney failure, amputation, and more. These are all very expensive medical events. Kevin is angry because if someone has T2 diabetes, it’s their own damn fault, and Kevin is being made to pay. But if the person can’t afford treatment in these cases, what should be done for them? Let ’em rot, pick ’em off by firing squad, send ’em off to an island in Norway, etc? And for that matter, what’s Kevin’s solution for the long-term unemployed? Our friend is showing a lot of resentment, but he certainly isn’t coming up with any solutions.
The fact is: we all pay insurance for other people. I pay auto, homeowners’, a portion of my medical – even though I may never make a claim on any of my policies. That’s how it works. We all pay for each other, so that if we ever need to use our benefits, they are there for us.
You are confusing insurance and government welfare. Insurance is something that you choose to buy. Even if insurance is required to drive a car or have a mortgage, you can choose not to participate in those activities. The only choice you have to not pay for welfare is to not pay taxes, which for most people means choosing to not work. This is a violation of the third unalienable right, “the pursuit of happiness”.
Kevin is right to be angry about being FORCED to pay for someone else. Being forced to do anything is the opposite of “liberty”, the second unalienable right.
Let’s round this out by addressing the first unalienable right, “Life”. The right to life only means that no one has the right to restrict or cut your life short. It does not mean that you are entitled to have you life preserved by another’s efforts.
I always wanted to go to a third world country, but thanks to Obama I don’t even need to move. 🙂
The “unalienable rights” are not Constitutional protections, but “self-evident truths” posited in the Declaration of Independence, meaning that they have no force of law. Even if they did, their meaning is not so specifically defined as to support the distinction posited in your final paragraph.
Paying for Medicare is funded by the payroll taxes we must all pay if we are working. Every one of us must pay some taxes, and we have no personal say as to the exact disposition of our tax money. I may not like my tax money going towards wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but I cannot prevent that money from so being used. If you don’t like the way the government spends its money, you have only two options in a representative democracy: to petition your lawmakers, or to elect different lawmakers who support your preferences.
As for funding diabetes per se, Kevin comes up with a whacko “cure” that to my knowledge is in no way accepted by the medical community at large. There are a lot of treatments that medical insurance does and doesn’t cover, but the patient’s responsibility or not for his/her condition has never been an issue in coverage. As has been mentioned above, trying to fix responsibility for a condition is often ambiguous and could lead to all kinds of law suits and insurance appeals.
The best way to prevent diabetes 2 is to keep one’s weight down, exercise, and eat lots of fruits/vegetables while staying away from high-calorie crap. Yet needless to say, when Michelle Obama proposed healthier diets for Americans, she was roundly attacked – why, for interfering with Americans’ *freedoms* to eat fattening crap. Go figure.
One more comment from me, and that’s it:
Obesity does increase the risk of developing diabetes, but the disease involves more than being obese. Only 5 percent to 10 percent of obese people have diabetes, and many with diabetes are not obese. To a large extent, Type 2 diabetes is genetically determined — if one identical twin has it, the other has an 80 percent chance of having it too.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/20/health/20diabetes.html?pagewanted=2
Being black, Hispanic, or Indian is also a risk factor.
Care to think this through some more, Kevin?
@Larry – My personal reason for being so infuriated that Michelle Obama is pushing the “healthy living” is twofold:
A. Her husband smokes. Period. If she wants to push the “healthy living” thing, maybe she should start at home, where her husband keeps his weight down by smoking. Smoking is an appetite suppressant, hence the reason he is slim.
B. Part of the reason the country is getting fatter is the cost of healthy, fresh food is much higher than the cost of less healthy processed food, and her husband tanked the economy. Check out the price on fish, or fresh vegetables as opposed to the price on cheap processed foods. The healthier the food, the higher the cost.
I am lucky in the fact that I am able to keep a large garden, and keep bees. During the summer I don’t pay much for vegetables at all, but what about the less affluent, renting, etc.? I know my family would not be able to eat as healthy as we do if it were not for my garden. The cost on all the things we grow and harvest is extremely high.
Speaking of harvesting, I have a few bushels of apples to handle.
I like fresh young ideas, which is why I keep checking back. But age does have it’s advantages such as wisdom and compassion. Hopefully you’ll find both eventually. If you put out any more videos, I’m interested, else, I’ll just move on…..
I’m assuming from that comment, you do not agree with Winston Churchill.
The health care system is definitely extremely broken. And I am willing to do radical things that others are not ready for yet (reduce very expensive care for terminally ill patients). I don’t think I would go for your suggestion yet though. But I would consider it (something has to be done), which I would guess is more than 85% of people would do. We need to reduce costs dramatically. We need to focus on “health care” not treatment. Spend more helping people be healthy and less on expensive treatments. I am not sure we are going to be willing to deal with the special interests until we are in at least as bad shape as Greece is now, maybe worse 🙁 http://investing.curiouscatblog.net/2011/04/10/the-usa-cant-afford-to-pay-for-the-current-health-care-system/ http://investing.curiouscatblog.net/2009/12/30/the-usa-pays-double-for-worse-health-results/
Factual correction: Type 2 diabetes is not 100 percent preventable. Contrary to popular belief, genes play an enormous role in Type 2 diabetes — in many cases, an even larger role than environmental factors.
WebMD states that risk factors for Type 2 include lifestyle (smoking, obesity) as well as i”people with family members who have type 2 diabetes.”
WebMD goes on to state: “Type 2 diabetes can run in families, but the exact nature of how it’s inherited or the identity of a single genetic factor is not known.”
This is the situation on my mom’s side of the family. They’re all vegetarian (by religion) so their diet is, obviously, devoid of saturated/animal fats. Their diet is predominantly rice, lentils, and vegetables. No one smokes, and — again, by religion — they don’t drink any alcohol.
Yet all of them — every single person — developed Type 2 diabetes when they were in their 50’s. My mom, who weighs a whopping 110 pounds and can fit into kids clothing sizes, was “lucky” — she didn’t develop Type 2 until she turned 60, which was considered a victory in her family.
Unfortunately, the media portrays Type 2 as a lifestyle consequence. This is true for some diagnoses, but certainly not all.
Kevin, I just love how always you say it how it is without caring if people find it offensive 🙂 I completely agree with you and not just type 2 diabetes, but also many other problems which are blatantly self-inflicted. Why should responsible people who try hard to live healthy have to pay for those who make poor decisions every day (i.e. eating poorly).
I sure do love me a butter sandwich… 🙂
Seriously though, I agree with you in theory, though my next question would be: if the government ceases payment for T2 diabetes, should it cease payment for medical care for other “preventable” diseases/medical issues? It seems like this is a less-defensible position.
There is increasing medical research and evidence supporting the idea that the onset of type 2 diabetes causes obesity; not the other way around.
I know some very slim type 2 diabetics who have never been overweight, and I also know a few very overweight (obese) people who have very normal blood glucose levels.
Um, I’m a type 2 Diabetic and I’m 150 pounds . I’m probably more fit than you ! I don’t shovel junk food down my throat, I Bike, Run and Swim. Never been overweight in my life ! Did i ask for this ? Nup !!! Sure didn’t ! I also know many obese people with perfect blood glucose levels who in all probability will never develop type 2 diabetes. Read up ! Type 2 Diabetes is a genetic condition, a disorder of the metabolism ! Type 2 Diabetes left unchecked will make you hungry, very hungry ! You will crave carbs to get an energy hit that is never going to happen because you aren’t processing glucose correctly. This is why you see a lot of Type 2 Diabetics that are overweight.
I suppose people with HIV shouldn’t get medical treatment at all too right ? After all they asked for it didn’t they because HIV is totally preventable !