While our Supreme Court is debating the legality of ObamaCare, I thought this story of the U.K.'s National Health Service's problem of staying financially afloat by rationing that care, would be pertinent.

The debate is over who's care should take precedence; the elderly or the obese? ........... Imagine.......

Why should fat people take precedence over the elderly in the NHS? – Telegraph Blogs

That's the type of questions that will be asked if obamaCare is not overturned
because old people go to the back of the line.

Originally Posted by RichieLion

While our Supreme Court is debating the legality of ObamaCare, I thought this story of the U.K.'s National Health Service's problem of staying financially afloat by rationing that care, would be pertinent.

The debate is over who's care should take precedence; the elderly or the obese? ........... Imagine.......

Why should fat people take precedence over the elderly in the NHS? – Telegraph Blogs

Thanks for the link RICHIE......interesting and if this bill remains, a glimpse into our future.

Originally Posted by RichieLion

While our Supreme Court is debating the legality of ObamaCare, I thought this story of the U.K.'s National Health Service's problem of staying financially afloat by rationing that care, would be pertinent.

The debate is over who's care should take precedence; the elderly or the obese? ........... Imagine.......

Why should fat people take precedence over the elderly in the NHS? – Telegraph Blogs

I think it needs to be taken on a case by case basis. The elderly and the obese are often in the same age group. The elderly are often overweight and suffering from cardiovascular disease. Why should the government or medicare spend any money on by pass surgery when it has been known for decades that cardiovascular disease can be reversed through diet, exercise and stress control? I suppose one could call it rationing, but if by pass surgery was no longer paid for by the government or medicare, people would simply have to make a choice. 1) they could pay for it themselves 2) they could reverse it by changing their lifestyle or 3) they could do nothing and risk dying from a heart attack or stroke.

In the end, the answer is that we need to get back to personal responsibility.

Originally Posted by Villages PL

I think it needs to be taken on a case by case basis. The elderly and the obese are often in the same age group. The elderly are often overweight and suffering from cardiovascular disease. Why should the government or medicare spend any money on by pass surgery when it has been known for decades that cardiovascular disease can be reversed through diet, exercise and stress control? I suppose one could call it rationing, but if by pass surgery was no longer paid for by the government or medicare, people would simply have to make a choice. 1) they could pay for it themselves 2) they could reverse it by changing their lifestyle or 3) they could do nothing and risk dying from a heart attack or stroke.

In the end, the answer is that we need to get back to personal responsibility.

Same standard should be appplied to those who drink and those who smoke. They could just change their lifestyle.

Originally Posted by ladydoc

Same standard should be appplied to those who drink and those who smoke. They could just change their lifestyle.

AMEN to that

Originally Posted by Villages PL

I think it needs to be taken on a case by case basis. The elderly and the obese are often in the same age group. The elderly are often overweight and suffering from cardiovascular disease. Why should the government or medicare spend any money on by pass surgery when it has been known for decades that cardiovascular disease can be reversed through diet, exercise and stress control? I suppose one could call it rationing, but if by pass surgery was no longer paid for by the government or medicare, people would simply have to make a choice. 1) they could pay for it themselves 2) they could reverse it by changing their lifestyle or 3) they could do nothing and risk dying from a heart attack or stroke.

In the end, the answer is that we need to get back to personal responsibility.

Originally Posted by ladydoc

Same standard should be appplied to those who drink and those who smoke. They could just change their lifestyle.

Originally Posted by Bucco

AMEN to that

I don't want the government making those decisions for me. I guess when you're on Medicare there's a fine line. But this story about the U.K.'s socialized medicine has the government rationing out care from the day you're born, basically. You cannot have your own policy there. If you're wealthy you can leave the country and get care, but that's about it.

In the U.S. you don't have to be wealthy to supply your own healthcare. The correlation here is to see the U.K.'s National Health Service and think about how it would be under ObamaCare. Like in the U.K. only the U.S. wealthy would be able to circumvent the bureaucracy. Where they would go, I don't know.

Originally Posted by RichieLion

I don't want the government making those decisions for me. I guess when you're on Medicare there's a fine line. But this story about the U.K.'s socialized medicine has the government rationing out care from the day you're born, basically. You cannot have your own policy there. If you're wealthy you can leave the country and get care, but that's about it.

In the U.S. you don't have to be wealthy to supply your own healthcare. The correlation here is to see the U.K.'s National Health Service and think about how it would be under ObamaCare. Like in the U.K. only the U.S. wealthy would be able to circumvent the bureaucracy. Where they would go, I don't know.

Just as an aside and I feel stupid but my post was being a bit sarcastic, without really understanding what I was replying to...said only as a non drinker and non smoker.

Sorry said the dumb guy No more to say...it should be clear from my posts how I feel about this entire travesty

I've got bad news. It may have already started. It used to be that Medicare would pay for a colonoscopy up to the age of 80...now it is only covered up to the age of 75.

Originally Posted by Villages PL

I think it needs to be taken on a case by case basis. The elderly and the obese are often in the same age group. The elderly are often overweight and suffering from cardiovascular disease. Why should the government or medicare spend any money on by pass surgery when it has been known for decades that cardiovascular disease can be reversed through diet, exercise and stress control? I suppose one could call it rationing, but if by pass surgery was no longer paid for by the government or medicare, people would simply have to make a choice. 1) they could pay for it themselves 2) they could reverse it by changing their lifestyle or 3) they could do nothing and risk dying from a heart attack or stroke.

In the end, the answer is that we need to get back to personal responsibility.

I'm tired of these encyclicals of yours that say that a person has total control over the dreaded diseases that can overcome us, by "simply" eating right and exercising.

There are hoards of people across the nation who HAVE eaten properly and exercised religiously, have NOT smoked, have reduced their fat intake and have kept their weight at better than average levels.....and they still get clogged arteries because of their genetics!!!

Or they get cancer because of unknown reasons, having no significant risk factors beforehand.

Or some get juvenile diabetes at age 16 when all the way up to that time, they have been star athletes who've practiced and lifted weights and run for 20 hours a week and were already being scouted by universities and pre-olympic training scouts.

Or some lead healthy lifestyles and work out like Olympic gold medalist swimmer Michael Phelps, and yet they have Marfan Syndrome which leads to aortic rupture.

:: National Marfan Foundation ::

Stop blaming people for getting dreaded disease when they are NOT living a risky lifestyle that's conducive for it to form.

The bottom line is that often, people get these diseases because "Sh*t happens." Period.

And we sure as heck don't want you being judge and jury, deciding that we self-inflicted it and therefore are undeserving of treatment in a theocracy in which the religion is Righteous Eating.

"for people who restrict or who make an attempt, the attention given to calories, fat or carbohydrate grams, weight loss or gain, and exercise-rituals often give a sense of control, order, and meaning. Foods are categorized into “good” and “bad,” much like the precepts of religions. People can judge themselves as better or worse depending on their food choices, which, even when punishing, can be reassuring to someone who craves certainty. People who are starved are known to make elaborate rituals of eating, stretching very little food into long meals. Because the rest of their lives, time, attention and activities are shrinking while the eating disorder takes precedence, the sequence and “ceremony” of the eating disorder gradually become the only meaningful source of ritual and purpose.

An eating disorder thus becomes a perverse sort of religion: one’s ideas about food and weight are the dogma; the allowance of calories or carbohydrate the commandments; and the familiar routine of eating disorder behaviors the ritual.

A low weight on the scale might elevate one to a momentary heaven of certainty, while a higher weight plunges one into a hell of terror......"

"Eating Disorders as a Source of Meaning, Religion, and Ritual"
Eating Disorders Newsletters - Eating Disorders as a Source of Meaning, Religion, and Ritual

Rise in 'orthorexic eating disorders sparked by healthy food obsession' - Telegraph

Originally Posted by RichieLion

I don't want the government making those decisions for me....

And I have even less confidence in profit-driven private insurance companies making those decisions either, Richie.

With the government, at least you have a vote every 2-4-6 years. What is your recourse if the private insurers tell you, "...sorry, we're not covering that anymore"?

I try to stay away, but I think you are missing the point. We all know that the way money is being spent has to change.

The UK is trying to ration in a logical way.

The US wants health care to go to the rich and not the poor.

So give a Heart transplant to a 71 year old while a child dies from lack of medical attention due to funding.


Either lower the population or one section of it will suffer.

Outlaw abortion, but do not help those you force to be born.

I say, if you conservatives would loose all your money and health care insurance, you would also loose your ME ME ME attitude. Medicaid only kicks in after it is too late to save the lives of the poor children.

I better go. I will be logging off again, so don't waste your personal attacks, just please consider what you say when you comment on issues that affect so many of the poor and young.

Originally Posted by Bucco

Just as an aside and I feel stupid but my post was being a bit sarcastic, without really understanding what I was replying to...said only as a non drinker and non smoker.

Sorry said the dumb guy No more to say...it should be clear from my posts how I feel about this entire travesty

I do think I know how you really feel about this subject. People overindulging or doing dangerous things to their own bodies naturally leads to the discussion of personal responsibility, and I understand how you feel people should accept consequences for their actions, and I really don't disagree. We can't expand that to mean that an unelected bureaucrat gets to decide if we're "worthy" of medical care based on arbitrary standards. I'm sure you also agree with that.

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

And I have even less confidence in profit-driven private insurance companies making those decisions either, Richie.

With the government, at least you have a vote every 2-4-6 years. What is your recourse if the private insurers tell you, "...sorry, we're not covering that anymore"?

"what if's"; here we go with the "what if's".

"If" an insurance company decides to withhold coverage for treatment, I have legal recourse, unlike I what I would have with the government.

You don't vote out bureaucrats, so your reasoning is fatally flawed; emphasis on the "fatally".

Originally Posted by The Villager II

I try to stay away, but I think you are missing the point. We all know that the way money is being spent has to change.

The UK is trying to ration in a logical way.

The US wants health care to go to the rich and not the poor.

So give a Heart transplant to a 71 year old while a child dies from lack of medical attention due to funding.


Either lower the population or one section of it will suffer.

Outlaw abortion, but do not help those you force to be born.

I say, if you conservatives would loose all your money and health care insurance, you would also loose your ME ME ME attitude. Medicaid only kicks in after it is too late to save the lives of the poor children.

I better go. I will be logging off again, so don't waste your personal attacks, just please consider what you say when you comment on issues that affect so many of the poor and young.

I don't have to say anything. Your illogic is shining like a beacon.