Death Panel Demands "Obesity" Info in Health Records
-
Death Panel Demands "Obesity" Info in Health Records
Once Obamacare kicks in, the Federal government will set rules as to who is "qualified" for medical procedures and who needs to make sure their will is in order.
The Feds will use your drinking habits, smoking, EXERCISE habits, age and more as determinants as to whether "expensive" medical procedures will be allowed. Life and death is not important, it is all "About the Benjamins" [big bucks].
Add to the list your weight--if you do not meet the government weight limits you might not get the cancer medicine to keep you alive, the heart surgery, the hip replacement; all might be out of the question.
Here is a question. Let us say you lose 50 pounds, then have a heart attack, how long will it take for that information to get from Corona, California to a high school graduate working for Dr. Berswick (the death loving doctor appointed by Obama to "cull" the herd), in the basement of a building in Kentucky, to decide if you get to live or die?
Now the kicker--this was NOT a part of the Obamacare bill, it was part of the STIMULUS bill.
"Section 3001 of the stimulus law says: "The National Coordinator shall, in consultation with other appropriate Federal agencies (including the National Institute of Standards and Technology), update the Federal Health IT Strategic Plan (developed as of June 3, 2008) to include specific objectives, milestones, and metrics with respect to the following: (i) The electronic exchange and use of health information and the enterprise integration of such information.(ii) The utilization of an electronic health record for each person in the United States by 2014."
Under this mandate in the stimulus law, Secretary Sebelius issued a regulation--developed by Dr. Blumenthal--that requires that all EHRs keep track of a persons Body Mass Index (BMI) score. Body Mass Index is a ratio between a persons weight and height, and is used to determine whether or not someone is overweight or obese. It is the preferred method of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for measuring obesity."
How totalitarian is this? Were I on Congress I would just vote no on everything--Obama is killing us--even when he is stealing money for special interests.
Source Here and Here!
You may think twice before you buy those chips and icecream, big brother wants to know everything about you since you are no longer Free!
-
I had a discussion with an MD that my lab collaborates its research with the other day. What he said wasn't... very uplifting. We discussed the future of healthcare and how the changes are going to be implemented. What he said is that if we want enough doctors to take care of everyone, then the people who do choose to become doctors must be financially rewarded. He then went on to say that 1/6 of our nation's economy goes into medicine, but that most of it is being spent on marginally improving the limited lives of the elderly. He thought that if one thing was going to change, it'd be that these people would not receive care that would extend their lives. As callous as that is, I'd argue that this should be done, because xxxx me if I ever plan on spending my last moments in a god damned hospital.
As far as obesity goes, it's something that (in most cases) can be helped with simply an hour of exercise a day. Whenever I go to Golden Corral or Hometown Buffet, it just makes me sad at how bad of shape 90% of the people there are, and especially how fat their kids are. I think there should be a penalty, or reduced benefits or higher fees, for being obese or at least some incentive to not be obese, as it causes a bunch of health problems, and this too, creates a boon on the economy of medicine. Granted, there are some cases where obesity is so ingrained in your genes that it cannot be helped, but this is a very negligible amount (I mean, look at the biggest loser, if those fat xxxxs can exercise and lose weight, then every other fat xxxx can at least try it). But if you sit on your fat ass all day, stuffing your face to the point that you aren't able to leave your house, to hell with you and all the health problems you bring upon yourself.
//edit
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/...2001013,00.html
Check out this article, it's about raising taxes on the amount of sugar in soft drinks.
The average American drinks a gallon of soda a week, which delivers roughly 1,000 calories and no nutrition. The average American is also overweight or obese.
I think it's a great idea. Personally, I never drink pop (I get enough useless calories from alcohol, anyways), unless I need to stay up and study for an exam. I just haven't done the whole thing since 2adays in high school. Cutting pop out of my diet has made me healthier (I think), and I'm not regularly getting a habit-forming drug (caffeine), which is also good.
-
It is funny in a way, that in order for big brother's health care program to be succesful they are going to mandate a healthy diet and exercise on everyone. I agree with you on the Golden Corral buffet, but some feel they need to eat as much as they can while they are there to get their moneys worth.
Not taking into the consideration of how unhealthy these eating habits are. I'm sure many will have a steady diet of free cheese since the Obama economy is in the tank.
So this bit of legislation is supposed to stimulate our economy?
Between Golden Corral and O'Charleys they do have some of the best rolls around.
-
I had a discussion with an MD that my lab collaborates its research with the other day. What he said wasn't... very uplifting. We discussed the future of healthcare and how the changes are going to be implemented. What he said is that if we want enough doctors to take care of everyone, then the people who do choose to become doctors must be financially rewarded. He then went on to say that 1/6 of our nation's economy goes into medicine, but that most of it is being spent on marginally improving the limited lives of the elderly. He thought that if one thing was going to change, it'd be that these people would not receive care that would extend their lives. As callous as that is, I'd argue that this should be done, because xxxx me if I ever plan on spending my last moments in a god damned hospital.
As far as obesity goes, it's something that (in most cases) can be helped with simply an hour of exercise a day. Whenever I go to Golden Corral or Hometown Buffet, it just makes me sad at how bad of shape 90% of the people there are, and especially how fat their kids are. I think there should be a penalty, or reduced benefits or higher fees, for being obese or at least some incentive to not be obese, as it causes a bunch of health problems, and this too, creates a boon on the economy of medicine. Granted, there are some cases where obesity is so ingrained in your genes that it cannot be helped, but this is a very negligible amount (I mean, look at the biggest loser, if those fat xxxxs can exercise and lose weight, then every other fat xxxx can at least try it). But if you sit on your fat ass all day, stuffing your face to the point that you aren't able to leave your house, to hell with you and all the health problems you bring upon yourself.
//edit
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/...2001013,00.html
Check out this article, it's about raising taxes on the amount of sugar in soft drinks.
The average American drinks a gallon of soda a week, which delivers roughly 1,000 calories and no nutrition. The average American is also overweight or obese.
I think it's a great idea. Personally, I never drink pop (I get enough useless calories from alcohol, anyways), unless I need to stay up and study for an exam. I just haven't done the whole thing since 2adays in high school. Cutting pop out of my diet has made me healthier (I think), and I'm not regularly getting a habit-forming drug (caffeine), which is also good.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/...2001013,00.html
Check out this article, it's about raising taxes on the amount of sugar in soft drinks.
This looks like we are stimulating revenue for the Fed.
It would be safe to bet that if we can make others angry or upset for being fat and out of shape we will go along with the tax.
-
For me part of what is so confusing and frustrating is the obesity scale in and of itself. This is link to a BMI site... according to their numbers @5'10" 185lbs, I am overweight. Not obese, but still overweight, according to this scale I would have to be around 170 to even get to the high end of normal weight. I realize that none of you know me from Adam but @170 I look very sickly. I was only at that range once in my adult life and it was a result of a head trauma causing me to loose (desensitize) my sense of taste. For comparisons sake, when I was in high school, running, lifting and playing baseball I was carrying a consistent 215.
-
BMI is an okay measure of general health if you're skinny or fat. It is horrible at taking into account people that are very muscular. If I was where I want to be, I'd be "overweight", now I'm at 22.6.
-
Are you guys kidding? There's nothing strange or Orwellian whatsoever about these quotes from the health care legislation. There's nothing here to freak out about, unless that's what you do on a daily basis anyway. This is a story written by a lunatic.
One quote is about a more efficient electronic health records system, which everyone agrees we need. The second has no source, and even if it is true it's just about keeping an index of your height/weight ratio.
How totalitarian is this? Um, how about not at all? Your doctor already records your height and weight every time you have a physical. The BMI index is just a formula that uses those two measurements. This is somehow scary to you?
You're suggesting that doctors having access to your height and your weight is totalitarian, T. In the paranoid/uninformed/crazy department, you've outdone yourself once again.
-
And once again Heck doesn't get it, the whole purpose of recording BMI will come into play down the road when mandatory HC comes into play. Just wait until businesses will have to record and report those who eat a lot of junk food at work..and another freedom is lost while we start to ridicule and create hysteria over folks bmi, then maybe we can tax all the fatties or we can start with hidden taxes on junk food.
The whole thing about this that should have you ticked off is this was part of the stimulus bill (National Recovery Act). Ask yourself what the hell does this have to do with stimulating anything in the economy? Or was this just a precursor to the HC bill so big brother could apply mandates on the american citizens so their will be less HC claims on the government insurance.
The only thing anyone should be paranoid about if anything is people like you Heck, you tote the company line on every piece of legislation weather it is constitutional or not, sometimes I believe you are a member of the socialist party.
-
Maybe they are trying to whip everyone into shape so were prepared for another draft when they try to take over the world. You never know.
-
And once again Heck doesn't get it, the whole purpose of recording BMI will come into play down the road when mandatory HC comes into play. Just wait until businesses will have to record and report those who eat a lot of junk food at work..and another freedom is lost while we start to ridicule and create hysteria over folks bmi, then maybe we can tax all the fatties or we can start with hidden taxes on junk food.
The whole thing about this that should have you ticked off is this was part of the stimulus bill (National Recovery Act). Ask yourself what the hell does this have to do with stimulating anything in the economy? Or was this just a precursor to the HC bill so big brother could apply mandates on the american citizens so their will be less HC claims on the government insurance.
The only thing anyone should be paranoid about if anything is people like you Heck, you tote the company line on every piece of legislation weather it is constitutional or not, sometimes I believe you are a member of the socialist party.
And once again Heck doesn't get it, the whole purpose of recording BMI will come into play down the road when mandatory HC comes into play. Just wait until businesses will have to record and report those who eat a lot of junk food at work..and another freedom is lost while we start to ridicule and create hysteria over folks bmi, then maybe we can tax all the fatties or we can start with hidden taxes on junk food.
The whole thing about this that should have you ticked off is this was part of the stimulus bill (National Recovery Act). Ask yourself what the hell does this have to do with stimulating anything in the economy? Or was this just a precursor to the HC bill so big brother could apply mandates on the american citizens so their will be less HC claims on the government insurance.
The only thing anyone should be paranoid about if anything is people like you Heck, you tote the company line on every piece of legislation weather it is constitutional or not, sometimes I believe you are a member of the socialist party.
I know this is not worth responding to, but you're taking the fact that doctors record your height and weight (gasp!) and then using that complete non-event to make up scenarios where that "comes into play down the road", and businesses are reporting people who eat junk food, and denying people health coverage, and organizing death panels.
Your evidence is the stuff you imagine will happen in your head, but won't.
Your doctor is going to take your height and weight, T, because it's a basic diagnostic measurement of your health. They will also write it down in your records, put it in a manila envelope, and store it on the wall with the thousands of other manila envelopes. Or they might type it into a computer and save it that way. It happens every day, thousands and thousands of time, and yet somehow I'm not face down on the floor with a jackboot on my neck, and neither are you.
If you can get from the idea that your doctor will take your height and weight to death panels and our liberties being seized by the government, there's not an idea dumb enough to slip through your grate.
-
You still dont get Heck. It is only going to be used for taxation. This is just another way progressives like yourself create class envy, but in this case it will not be envy at all.
If someone does not hold the the national BMI would you propose they do not get proper treatment under government HC, or do you want to make all fatboys and girls wear a badge.
-
Yes, T, height and weight measurements are the Trojan horse for requiring employers to rat out their donut eaters and making fat people wear badges.
Personally, I'm against all mathematical representations of every day measurements. You know what else is terrifying? QB ratings.
-
Yes, T, height and weight measurements are the Trojan horse for requiring employers to rat out their donut eaters and making fat people wear badges.
Personally, I'm against all mathematical representations of every day measurements. You know what else is terrifying? QB ratings.
You know what else is terrifying? QB ratings.
Only if your DA or BQ lol.
-
Yes, T, height and weight measurements are the Trojan horse for requiring employers to rat out their donut eaters and making fat people wear badges.
Personally, I'm against all mathematical representations of every day measurements. You know what else is terrifying? QB ratings.
Yes, T, height and weight measurements are the Trojan horse for requiring employers to rat out their donut eaters and making fat people wear badges.
Personally, I'm against all mathematical representations of every day measurements. You know what else is terrifying? QB ratings.
Those numbers served DA and Quinn well.
-
I had a discussion with an MD that my lab collaborates its research with the other day. What he said wasn't... very uplifting. We discussed the future of healthcare and how the changes are going to be implemented. What he said is that if we want enough doctors to take care of everyone, then the people who do choose to become doctors must be financially rewarded. He then went on to say that 1/6 of our nation's economy goes into medicine, but that most of it is being spent on marginally improving the limited lives of the elderly. He thought that if one thing was going to change, it'd be that these people would not receive care that would extend their lives. As callous as that is, I'd argue that this should be done, because xxxx me if I ever plan on spending my last moments in a god damned hospital.
As far as obesity goes, it's something that (in most cases) can be helped with simply an hour of exercise a day. Whenever I go to Golden Corral or Hometown Buffet, it just makes me sad at how bad of shape 90% of the people there are, and especially how fat their kids are. I think there should be a penalty, or reduced benefits or higher fees, for being obese or at least some incentive to not be obese, as it causes a bunch of health problems, and this too, creates a boon on the economy of medicine. Granted, there are some cases where obesity is so ingrained in your genes that it cannot be helped, but this is a very negligible amount (I mean, look at the biggest loser, if those fat xxxxs can exercise and lose weight, then every other fat xxxx can at least try it). But if you sit on your fat ass all day, stuffing your face to the point that you aren't able to leave your house, to hell with you and all the health problems you bring upon yourself.
//edit
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/...2001013,00.html
Check out this article, it's about raising taxes on the amount of sugar in soft drinks.
The average American drinks a gallon of soda a week, which delivers roughly 1,000 calories and no nutrition. The average American is also overweight or obese.
I think it's a great idea. Personally, I never drink pop (I get enough useless calories from alcohol, anyways), unless I need to stay up and study for an exam. I just haven't done the whole thing since 2adays in high school. Cutting pop out of my diet has made me healthier (I think), and I'm not regularly getting a habit-forming drug (caffeine), which is also good.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/...2001013,00.html
Check out this article, it's about raising taxes on the amount of sugar in soft drinks.
I think it's a great idea. Personally, I never drink pop (I get enough useless calories from alcohol, anyways), unless I need to stay up and study for an exam. I just haven't done the whole thing since 2adays in high school. Cutting pop out of my diet has made me healthier (I think), and I'm not regularly getting a habit-forming drug (caffeine), which is also good.
It is a great idea. Carbonated soft drinks have no nutritional value whatsoever. It is a luxury, therefore taxing it is not a problem at all. It's bad for your kidneys, stomach, teeth.
-
I don't think it's a very good idea to focus on soda. It's not good for you, but lots of things aren't good for you. You want to make a difference in that area, stop subsidizing unhealthy foods and the farmers that grow them.
-
You can't really "grow" stuff that's that unhealthy for you. I mean, obviously anything in excess is bad, but what can you really "grow?" All the unhealthy shit is manufactured in factories. How do you stop power houses with ad bucks like coke and pepsi?
-
well, i'll answer that after heck does...
-
Well, I suppose that's true, Vapor. But we know what happens when we subsidize, say, corn. Lots of it gets turned into stuff like high-fructose corn syrup, because they have to do something with the surplus. And since it's subsidized, it's cheaper than sugar. So it's in everything, including all the sodas we're talking about.
So while corn isn't bad for you, it is when they process it into a sugar substitute because we've created financial incentives for them to do that, and for food companies to use it in their products because it's cheaper. Go to Whole Foods and you'll find the best produce around, and the best products. You'll also find them incredibly expensive when compared to the prices at the regular supermarket. Subsidies aren't the only reason for this, but they're a big part of it.
We could subsidize carrots and tomatoes and broccoli, but we don't. We subsidize unhealthy crops, which, in turn, subsidizes the creation of unhealthy foods. $25 billion a year for the big five - rice, wheat (carbs), soy (fats), and corn (sugar). (Cotton is the other, but you don't eat that, obviously.)
Why are poor people the most likely to be obese in this country? Because shitty food is a lot cheaper than good food. And a big part of the reason why is because of our horrific farm policy.
So how do you stop Coke and Pepsi? Well, I have no desire to stop Coke and Pepsi. But there's no reason to subsidize Coke and Pepsi to be cheaper than it should be, and less healthy. I'd rather subsidize fruit growers, or better yet, nothing at all. (You can pour lots of corn syrup into fruit juice too, and most of them do. This is why singling out soda is sort of unfair.)
As crazy as Cal is, we'd be a whole lot better if we subsidized what he grows, and how he takes care of his land, than what we do now.
-
Interesting points. Gotta say I've never looked at it that way before. I mean, I forget that a bunch of the chemicals we use we get from common things. It's a really interesting problem, I kinda wanna learn more about it.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login