"Daddy" knows best: Obesity ratings for every American

[rbell]

We have a government whose incompetence seems to know no bounds, and whose hunger for power is now insatiable.

We have a government who simply ignores the law and the Constitution when it does not suit them.

We have a government that insists it knows better for us than we do for ourselves.

So...what's their next stroke of unmitigated genius?

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/69436

New federal regulations issued this week stipulate that the electronic health records--that all Americans are supposed to have by 2014 under the terms of the stimulus law that President Barack Obama signed last year--must record not only the traditional measures of height and weight, but also the Body Mass Index: a measure of obesity.


The law also requires that these electronic health records be available--with appropriate security measures--on a national exchange.

Hence the danger of socialized medicine: The rationale of "well, since I'm paying for your healthcare, I can tell you how to live your life" becomes a valid argument.

Hence, the result: We have government looking over our shoulder, telling us how many crackers we can eat. I'm sure that Jefferson, Madison, and Franklin would be overjoyed to know that government will "look after us" cradle to grave. We might not be free, but by golly, we'll be safe.

 

[HankD]

We have a government whose incompetence seems to know no bounds, and whose hunger for power is now insatiable.

We have a government who simply ignores the law and the Constitution when it does not suit them.

We have a government that insists it knows better for us than we do for ourselves.

So...what's their next stroke of unmitigated genius?

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/69436



Hence the danger of socialized medicine: The rationale of "well, since I'm paying for your healthcare, I can tell you how to live your life" becomes a valid argument.

Hence, the result: We have government looking over our shoulder, telling us how many crackers we can eat. I'm sure that Jefferson, Madison, and Franklin would be overjoyed to know that government will "look after us" cradle to grave. We might not be free, but by golly, we'll be safe.

All part of the profiling and control as to who gets what treatment.

I would be interested in knowing what the penalty for a BMI above 30 might be. Food rationing, wearing an ankle bracelet and GPS tracking?

If the government allows the murder of babies in the womb and "death with dignity" why am I not allowed death by Big Mac?

HankD

 

[rbell]

The irony of all this:

Proponents of this bill include a gay, overweight congressman (Barney Frank), a smoker (Obama), an overweight surgeon general (Regina Benjamin), and a speaker of the house who's about half-pickled from Botox (Nancy Pelosi).

Now, I'm not picking on physical condition...I'm not where I wish I was. But I just find it ironic that these losers are prepared to invade our private lives, when frankly, they fail their own tests.

And, it related news....Obama has appointed Mel Gibson as his new "healthy relationship" czar...

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Dang, I am in trouble. The Lord over the years has moved all my super muscles to my mid-section.

 

[abcgrad94]

All part of the profiling and control as to who gets what treatment.

I would be interested in knowing what the penalty for a BMI above 30 might be. Food rationing, wearing an ankle bracelet and GPS tracking?
HankD

Exactly. Why else would they even "need" this info? Looks like they are preparing to ration health care according to who benefits society the most. (Who does this remind us of?) Get rid of the extra babies, old folks, and anyone else who "drains" their system. What's next, people with MS, Downs Syndrome, or other costly conditions? Heaven forbid they go after the smokers as long as Barry inhales his cancer sticks.

Why don't they ask welfare queens if they've had their tubes tied?

 

[Jason Garrett]

Obesity is a product of a sinful, gluttonous lifestyle. Unless, of course, there are medical reasons for it.

Considering that thought, shouldn't we as Christians support a government regulation regarding this sin just as we do abortion, homosexuality issues, etc? Just throwing that out there.

Our body is the temple of the holy spirit...to abuse it to the point we are overweight is sin, plain and simple.

 

[rbell]

Obesity is a product of a sinful, gluttonous lifestyle. Unless, of course, there are medical reasons for it.

Considering that thought, shouldn't we as Christians support a government regulation regarding this sin just as we do abortion, homosexuality issues, etc? Just throwing that out there.

Our body is the temple of the holy spirit...to abuse it to the point we are overweight is sin, plain and simple.

You mind pointing me to the "dividing line" between sinfully overweight and not?
Who decides? What metric is used? Will an extra "allowance" be given to ethnic groups who typically don't do that well with regards to this issue?

See, that's one of the multible problems we'll run into...

Are we going to criminalize looking at a woman with lust in our hearts? How 'bout mixing two kinds of fabric together?

Not to mention you would seem to be advocating a theocracy with your post. Tends not to work that well.

 

[Jason Garrett]

No, just playing the devil's advocate here. Although I firmly put overeating, obesity, etc. in the same list as any other sin. It's wrong. However, when's the last time anyone heard of Christians getting on their soap box about this subject? As a child, I recall a revival preacher that would come to town regularly and preach in our church. Fantastic preacher, but he was HUGE. No different to me than smoking or drinking too much booze or any other number of behaviors that negatively affect our bodies.

I guess my point was just to play the devil's advocate here is all.

 

[Salty]

Considering that thought, shouldn't we as Christians support a government regulation regarding this sin just as we do abortion, homosexuality issues, etc? Just throwing that out there.
.

NO! - key word - Regulation. I would support information and recommendation, but not regulation.
Here in NY, there is talk about regulating who may be allowed to use a tanning salon.

Suppose some "expert" tells us that attending church/activities more than 3 hours a week is bad for our health. So now the govt regulates how much time we can spend on spiritual affairs? Hmmmm

 

[abcgrad94]

Although I firmly put overeating, obesity, etc. in the same list as any other sin. It's wrong. However, when's the last time anyone heard of Christians getting on their soap box about this subject?

Haven't been reading the BB much lately, have you Jason? We've had MANY lively debates over this issue within the last year or so.

It's not the government's job to prevent daily sin in my life. That's the Holy Spirit's job. I'm not talking about crime, like murder or theft, but daily sin we all commit like gossip, spending too much money, losing our temper, eating too much sugar, salt, cholesterol, or junk.

By your rationale, we should support government regulation of these as well since they are considered sin. If we let that happen, we would have a dictatorship for government.

 

[Jason Garrett]

Let's talk about that. Why does government regulate some sins, or crimes, but not others?

 

[targus]

Let's talk about that. Why does government regulate some sins, or crimes, but not others?

Why do they regulate some sins?

In a word - greed.

They regulate what they think will bring in the tax money - or get votes.

And why or why would anyone want the government regulating sin?

They are for abortion - for gay marriage - ok with porn - ok with alcohol consumption (as long as it brings in taxes) - ok with smoking (as long as it brings in taxes) - you name it.

 

[Jason Garrett]

Well, I agree with that to a point. However, I also think in more pure terms as well. Government deems some sins crime to regulate society, to keep it safe. Murder, assault, theft, robbery, etc. etc. are all sins that society regulates. There are crimes gov regulates because it impacts others, and there are personal behaviors gov regulates because by impacting yourself it impacts others. I contend that overeating and the subsequent health issues related to that puts a strain on our healthcare system and thus increases costs for all. I would support a system that takes into account ones healthy lifestyle or lack thereof and adjust our insurance premiums accordingly. No sense charging me (I work out almost daily, eat correctly, and am very healthy) the same premium that an unhealthy person is charged.

 

[targus]

Well, I agree with that to a point. However, I also think in more pure terms as well. Government deems some sins crime to regulate society, to keep it safe. Murder, assault, theft, robbery, etc. etc. are all sins that society regulates. There are crimes gov regulates because it impacts others, and there are personal behaviors gov regulates because by impacting yourself it impacts others. I contend that overeating and the subsequent health issues related to that puts a strain on our healthcare system and thus increases costs for all. I would support a system that takes into account ones healthy lifestyle or lack thereof and adjust our insurance premiums accordingly. No sense charging me (I work out almost daily, eat correctly, and am very healthy) the same premium that an unhealthy person is charged.

Isn't that something to take up with the insurance companies - not the government?

And actually the government is going the opposite direction that you wish - in that they are forcing insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions.

So it you don't like subsidizing someone else to the extent that they are a little less fit than you are - wait until you see the premium hike when you start subsidizing people who are signing up with an existing major illness like cancer or AIDS.

 

[rbell]

Well, I agree with that to a point. However, I also think in more pure terms as well. Government deems some sins crime to regulate society, to keep it safe. Murder, assault, theft, robbery, etc. etc. are all sins that society regulates. There are crimes gov regulates because it impacts others, and there are personal behaviors gov regulates because by impacting yourself it impacts others.

um...please tell me we're not putting super-sizing a Big Mac meal on par with rape.

Well, I agree with that to a point. However, I also think in more pure terms as well. Government deems some sins crime to regulate society, to keep it safe. Murder, assault, theft, robbery, etc. etc. are all sins that society regulates. There are crimes gov regulates because it impacts others, and there are personal behaviors gov regulates because by impacting yourself it impacts others. I contend that overeating and the subsequent health issues related to that puts a strain on our healthcare system and thus increases costs for all. I would support a system that takes into account ones healthy lifestyle or lack thereof and adjust our insurance premiums accordingly. No sense charging me (I work out almost daily, eat correctly, and am very healthy) the same premium that an unhealthy person is charged.

Overeating would not strain a non-socialistic system. We need to be careful as well...once we adopt the, "Well, since I'm helping pay for your healthcare costs, I can have a say in your lifestyle choices..." then we've arrived at a nanny state. I have a better idea: Let's quit trying to protect everybody from themselves, and let's get back to the novel concept of freedom and individual liberty.

I would support a system that takes into account ones healthy lifestyle or lack thereof and adjust our insurance premiums accordingly. No sense charging me (I work out almost daily, eat correctly, and am very healthy) the same premium that an unhealthy person is charged.

Hmm....well, I would support a system that kept the government off of my back and out of my business.
I would support a system that didn't charge me at all...because it left my healthcare up to me, and there wasn't any government intervention in the pricing of healthcare.

In fact, if government would get out of the way, there would be more of the pricing to which you are referring...because all the stupid mandates that drive up regulation and prices would fall by the wayside.

But, of course, that isn't about to happen anytime soon...because government's addicted to the power, and unlike yourself, many folks can't make it on their own without being mothered...

 

[thegospelgeek]

No real need to include the BMI. BMI is a function of height and weight, so if they have those two they already have BMI

 

[billwald]

>Why does government regulate some sins, or crimes, but not others?

Same reasons we hear sermons on some sins and not others. We hear sermons on sins the preacher and the congregation don't commit. Same as this list.

 

[targus]

>Why does government regulate some sins, or crimes, but not others?

Same reasons we hear sermons on some sins and not others. We hear sermons on sins the preacher and the congregation don't commit. Same as this list.

Really??

The government wants to regulate obesity - because they are not fat?

What bizzaro world are you living in?

 

[HankD]

Well, I agree with that to a point. However, I also think in more pure terms as well. Government deems some sins crime to regulate society, to keep it safe. Murder, assault, theft, robbery, etc. etc. are all sins that society regulates. There are crimes gov regulates because it impacts others, and there are personal behaviors gov regulates because by impacting yourself it impacts others. I contend that overeating and the subsequent health issues related to that puts a strain on our healthcare system and thus increases costs for all. I would support a system that takes into account ones healthy lifestyle or lack thereof and adjust our insurance premiums accordingly. No sense charging me (I work out almost daily, eat correctly, and am very healthy) the same premium that an unhealthy person is charged.

Hi Jason,

In a word "CONTROL".

We are being moved in the direction of a socialist oligarchy.

Do some google work on Ezekiel Emanual (Rahm's brother).
He is a (maybe "the") medical advisor to the President and the silent medical czar.

Look up his name with the word "eugenics" added to the string and you will be in shock and awe as to his ideas.

"Survival of the fittest" in a word. Only the healthy should get medical attention (prevention) to keep them that way.

Once you become a burden to society (You take more than you give in terms of $$) , it's off to the hospice where you are "offed"
in a kind way ("death with dignity") of course you are counseled to do it as an act of good will towards the rest of mankind.

This includes the elderly, yes the administration wants to "kill grandma", with her permission of course.
That is unless she is deemed incompetent by the socilaist state to make the decision for herself, then guess what?

It could happen.
In fact it happens in WA and OR.
At least Oregon calls it what it is "assisted suicide".
In Washington State it's called "death with dignity".

HankD

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Exactly. Why else would they even "need" this info? Looks like they are preparing to ration health care according to who benefits society the most. (Who does this remind us of?) Get rid of the extra babies, old folks, and anyone else who "drains" their system. What's next, people with MS, Downs Syndrome, or other costly conditions? Heaven forbid they go after the smokers as long as Barry inhales his cancer sticks.

Why don't they ask welfare queens if they've had their tubes tied?

I think they are partial to people with blond hair & blue eyes....no wait....