|April 1st, 2011, 04:56 PM||#1|
Join Date: May 2008
I am all for people being healthy, but this is more nanny state stuff, this time by Republicans:
PHOENIX – Arizona's cash-strapped Medicaid program is considering charging patients $50 a year if they smoke, have diabetes or are overweight. A spokeswoman for the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System said Friday that the fee is intended to rein in health care costs by pushing patients to keep themselves healthy. How are you going to enforce the payment? It will cost more to collect than it will bring in. $50 won't make someone stop smoking if the extortive taxes do not already.
"It engages the consumer to start having a greater awareness of how they fit into the bigger health care puzzle," said Monica Coury, spokeswoman for AHCCCS. "We want to be able to provide health care to people. And we want to stretch our dollars as far as we can. Part of that is engaging people to take better care of themselves." Cut off their food stamps so they won't have so much to eat (I'm just kidding).
Some private employers and state governments have instituted higher insurance premiums for workers who are overweight or smoke, but Arizona's plan would mark the first time a state-federal health care program for low-income residents has charged people for unhealthy lifestyles.
The fee would apply only to certain childless adults. Someone who is responsible and does not have children that they cannot afford doesn't have to pay the $50. I realize that the children shouldn't be punished for their parent's issues, but we are also talking about $50.
One part of the proposal affects people with diabetes. Coury says diabetics who fail to follow their doctor's orders to lose weight would be subjected to the $50 charge.
Democratic state Sen. Kyrsten Sinema said that isn't fair to diabetics.
"This would fine people with medical conditions beyond their own power and control," Sinema said. "I just don't think it's fair to vilify someone with diabetes."
People who are obese or chronically ill, and those who smoke, would need to work with a primary-care physician to develop a plan to help them lose weight and otherwise improve their health. Patients who don't meet specified goals would be required to pay the $50 under the proposal. Doesn't that cost money?
The plan requires approval by the Republican-controlled Legislature, which has been considering $500 million of cuts to Arizona's Medicaid program to help eliminate a state budget deficit of nearly $1.5 billion.
A fee for Medicaid patients also would need federal authorization, and federal rules could prevent Arizona from enforcing the fee.
Coury says the $50 fee is a way of showing the federal government Arizona is serious about getting people healthy while stretching and managing dollars better.
"Part of that requires that we engage the consumer in active, healthy behaviors."
|April 1st, 2011, 05:41 PM||#2|
Eyes Wide Open
Join Date: Jul 2007
Some people are obese because they are sick and disabled. Do that have to pay $50 as well? Some things are genetic, and aren't necessarily changeable. This Brewer woman is an idiot. Is this smaller government? More involvement in the personal lives of citizens by the government?
|April 1st, 2011, 07:58 PM||#3|
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: San Diego, CA
If Arizona is going to start a program on getting people healthy, then they need to have the owner of the Heart Attack Grill in Tempe redo his restaurant. Get rid of the fatty cooking oil, known as lard. If any of you have not seen or heard of that place, look it up on Google. And don't go there to eat. 350 lbs. people eat there free.
|April 4th, 2011, 05:26 PM||#4|
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Martinez, California USA
Without getting into a debate about which is worse between meat and sugar, the idea that the government needs to attempt to modify behavior due to the health conditions of its citizens is the best example of how government health care starts out benevolent and caring, and then suffers from "mission creep."
When I pay for your health care, suddenly everything you do to yourself is my business. Literally every behavior can be viewed through the lens of affecting health care costs. From eating cookies to snowboarding to watching too much TV, your disapproved behavior is costing the government and society money. Time to legislate the solution.
It's what legislators do. Otherwise, what are they there for, eh?
|April 4th, 2011, 05:40 PM||#5|
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Northern California
When are Americans every going to accept and realize that some of us will be sickly, some of us will engage in unhealthy behavior, some of us are going to be reckless, some of us will be poor, some will make more money than they will ever need in one lifetime, some will be born at a disadvantage, and some will come into this world highly advantaged...some are stupid and some are smart, and some disabled and unable to care for themselves....and many, many, many of us will make a bad decision in our lives that will cost us money and health and whatever it may be. We share this with each other.....and if we want to belong to this free society, we pay a price for each other and ourselves. Freedom is not easy, but I for one don't mind paying for other people's bad habits if I know that if I needed help from the "nanny" state everyone complains about, it would be there for me.
We are just selfish and greedy, and THAT my friends will be our undoing......not having to pay for my neighbor's oxygen tank because of his emphysema caused by his bad behavior.
|April 5th, 2011, 06:20 AM||#6|
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Martinez, California USA
Maybe not so greedy as judgmental and self centered. I will pay for your oxygen tank if you have lived a life to the standards I have set for myself. Otherwise, there is something flawed with you and you must pay for your sin. The sin of exercising free will and bad judgement.
|April 5th, 2011, 07:17 AM||#7|
Join Date: May 2008
We don't have a nanny state because it wants to help, we have a nanny state because it wants to force us not to engage in certain behaviors that it decides are improper.
Your post was right on.
|April 5th, 2011, 07:23 AM||#8|
Join Date: May 2008
In Louisiana, a bunch of ministers got together and decided we needed a $1.50 tax on cigarettes "to help smokers." Yes, that's the quote. They had a picture, and two of them were fat with big guts. In my usual tactful and diplomatic way, I emailed the fattest one and said "If I was overweight with a big fat gut, I don't think I would be lecturing anyone on healthy habits."
I like this quote (from a letter - not mine - sent to the Methodist Bishop of Louisiana regarding the proposed tax):
Also, what I see here is scapegoating. I make this point until I am blue in the
face, but it seems to fall on deaf ears. Heart disease is still our leading
killer. This, like lung cancer, is also preventable. Healthy diet, exercise,
and the usual will prevent this. Yet people do not follow this simple advice.
Should we then tax them? Should we start singling unhealthy eaters out? Christ
advised against hypocrisy, so let's go all the way with this. Are you prepared
to do this? If not, I implore you to rethink what you are doing right now,
because there is negligible difference between the two.
I could go on, but I want to get down to what really bothers me. I am a firm
believer in separation of church and state, for the church's sake rather than
the state's. Politics is an ugly and divisive thing, and has no place in
church. Think about the evil that can be perpetrated by government, any
government. Wars, one of the gravest sins against Christ's own teaching come
immediately to mind. Are our citizens not taxed, both financially and
spiritually, enough by the government? How can you stand before a people
overburdened and demand more? The church's proper place is out of government,
and vice versa. I imagine you would say you agree with me on this point, but do
you really? How could you say it when you are using the government for
If you want to end smoking, there are ways within the church you can do this.
You can give all the anti-smoking information you have to people within your
church, you can tell it to kids in Sunday School. Programs, skits, plays; all
this is within your power and instead you take a route that frankly, I find
deplorable. Harsh words, perhaps, but I have a few more before I am finished.
This move will punish the poor, this move ignores larger problems, and this move
puts a fine institution in cahoots with one that is far less so. Look at the
current state of the world. Look at the moral character of some of our
leaders. Is this who you want to associate with? I, for one, will have no part
of it. I used to feel church was the one place I was safe from the rest of the
world, the one place where anyone could belong, and that is gone now.
|April 5th, 2011, 09:21 AM||#9|
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: laying on the fence
a hospital themed Hooters.
|April 5th, 2011, 11:13 AM||#10|
Fayt Storm ON [OFF]
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Not in MD
|nanny, republican, statism|
|Thread||Thread Starter||Forum||Replies||Last Post|
|La Nanny Government Trying To Force Condoms On Porn Stars||tadpole256||Current Events||21||February 9th, 2012 02:42 PM|
|'Nanny governments' seek playpen full of laws||CNN||Current Events||2||March 21st, 2007 06:53 PM|