Arizona is First
It has long been argued by several states, municipalities and airlines that customers who are obese must pay a higher rate to fly on a plane or now pay a extra tax "fine" much like a "sin" tax. Many have debated that the free choice of those who "wreck" their health are imposing a heavy cost to others. Actuaries at insurance companies have looked at the health cost of overweight and obese and suggest that they pay higher premiums because of their unhealthy lifestyle choice(over-eating and lack of activity)is costing the company more due to over-utilization of health services as chronic illness. This has been looked at not only by airlines, but a serious look at obesity being a taxable condition was looked at in Philadelphia as the state's Governor Rondel looked at the possibility of taxing excess weight much as a "sin tax". But, noticeable results of taxing obesity was successfully done in one of the most "obese" states in the nation, Alabama.
In Alabama results from the CDC have shown that after charging $25.00 for a "lifestyle tax" that the state went from being the 2nd most obese state to the 7th most obese. Many felt this was due to the fact of sanctioning poor lifestyles, that individuals take more personal responsibility for their habits such as overeating burger,fries, chips and sodas. If they do it , they have to somehow pay for it proponents for this are saying.
Now comes Arizona which is the first state to have enacted a fine on its state Medicaid policy by hitting its recipients with a $50 fine for users of tobacco (smokers), those who have poor lifestyles(obesity) , and those with chronic disease is a result(diabetes). The state says it will save over a half a billion dollars in revenue.
A spokesperson for the Cato Institute argued that a person's lifestyle use of poor diets and lack of activity can not be monitored, but computers engineers of RFID technology out of Silicone Valley would beg to differ. Already hospitals use pulse oximetry to read blood gases.Hospital monitors can read blood pressure, capillary pressure and pulse rate.Computer chips already read home devices for your cholesterol and glucose monitoring and drug testing computers read toxins and chemical metabolites. This type of technology could read cholesterols, sugar, BMI, BMR(calories burned through exercise) on a routine base or in real time and be fed into a remote database.A fixed "health quantity" of blood fats, sugar and any other parameter would read your results and determine if you went over your limit.
Some have argued that a person whose high BMI(obese) breathes out more carbon dioxide , utilizes more oxygen and releases more methane gas from their body. Those who would want to monitor this might consider a type of personal "cap-and -trade" because these personal emissions contribute to greenhouse gas effects and would have to be fined.
The question is how far does fining an individual go? What is considered personal responsibility and what is considered a health risk or a derivative(a user of services and resources) that is unhealthy to invest in because of over-utilization of resources( food, air, etc...)
It appears that prevention is the only realistic option we have heading into the future for better health for the individiual , the family and the community. Prevention is the key underlying component of creating a "culture of wellness". Wellness includes regular fitness, nutritional support, behavior modification/motivation and educating indivduals about what prevention is.
If obesity/overweight is the largest epidemic in the USA which only continues to grow causing the biggest cost spending medical conditions , then healthy lifestyle programs are very important for bringing down healthcare cost and making us all a healthier nation.
What is the alternative to providing a prevention program with health coverage? Perhaps some mandatory committee monitoring your body's functions by some state agency which fines $100 if you you dare go over "your limits". Investing in a prevention program with healthcare coverage has now become vital.
In Alabama results from the CDC have shown that after charging $25.00 for a "lifestyle tax" that the state went from being the 2nd most obese state to the 7th most obese. Many felt this was due to the fact of sanctioning poor lifestyles, that individuals take more personal responsibility for their habits such as overeating burger,fries, chips and sodas. If they do it , they have to somehow pay for it proponents for this are saying.
Now comes Arizona which is the first state to have enacted a fine on its state Medicaid policy by hitting its recipients with a $50 fine for users of tobacco (smokers), those who have poor lifestyles(obesity) , and those with chronic disease is a result(diabetes). The state says it will save over a half a billion dollars in revenue.
A spokesperson for the Cato Institute argued that a person's lifestyle use of poor diets and lack of activity can not be monitored, but computers engineers of RFID technology out of Silicone Valley would beg to differ. Already hospitals use pulse oximetry to read blood gases.Hospital monitors can read blood pressure, capillary pressure and pulse rate.Computer chips already read home devices for your cholesterol and glucose monitoring and drug testing computers read toxins and chemical metabolites. This type of technology could read cholesterols, sugar, BMI, BMR(calories burned through exercise) on a routine base or in real time and be fed into a remote database.A fixed "health quantity" of blood fats, sugar and any other parameter would read your results and determine if you went over your limit.
Some have argued that a person whose high BMI(obese) breathes out more carbon dioxide , utilizes more oxygen and releases more methane gas from their body. Those who would want to monitor this might consider a type of personal "cap-and -trade" because these personal emissions contribute to greenhouse gas effects and would have to be fined.
The question is how far does fining an individual go? What is considered personal responsibility and what is considered a health risk or a derivative(a user of services and resources) that is unhealthy to invest in because of over-utilization of resources( food, air, etc...)
It appears that prevention is the only realistic option we have heading into the future for better health for the individiual , the family and the community. Prevention is the key underlying component of creating a "culture of wellness". Wellness includes regular fitness, nutritional support, behavior modification/motivation and educating indivduals about what prevention is.
If obesity/overweight is the largest epidemic in the USA which only continues to grow causing the biggest cost spending medical conditions , then healthy lifestyle programs are very important for bringing down healthcare cost and making us all a healthier nation.
What is the alternative to providing a prevention program with health coverage? Perhaps some mandatory committee monitoring your body's functions by some state agency which fines $100 if you you dare go over "your limits". Investing in a prevention program with healthcare coverage has now become vital.
Comments
Post a Comment