Should Obesity Be Considered A Disease?

RogueMinstrel · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **RogueMinstrel** on Wed Feb 22, 2012 7:09 pm

Here in the States, I have been noticing commercials for the CDC (Center for Disease Control) that have been trying to rally support to recognize obesity as a disease. I have even noticed that Wikipedia defines obesity as medical condition and yet the first two causes of obesity that they list are excessive food energy intake and lack of physical activity.

I just don't get it. I understand that obesity does not have to do only with people being fat as it is possible for genetics to play a role in obesity and that even Type 2 Diabetes can make weight management a difficult thing to manage. But I cannot imagine that there are that many obese people in the States who can rightfully claim that their obesity comes from genetics (although I hear the excuse all of the time) and if obesity is recognized as a disease then that means that people who are simply too fat and lazy to do anything about their increasing weight will be able to receive free or reduced medical help, medications, and treatment that will be coming straight out of the taxpayer's pocket. They could even be looking at unemployment if their obesity stops them from working.

I'm not here to make fun of overweight people but I am 100% positive that the majority of obese people in the States are obese because they do nothing but eat and they do not exercise. It just worries me, is all.

So, what is your take on it?

dealing with it · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **dealing with it** on Thu Feb 23, 2012 1:09 am

Although I could bring up a definition of "disease" to show that obesity does qualify as one by, say, dictionary.com or wikipedia, this is a little more political than that. And I don't mean in the sense of political correctness. The question is, who benefits?

Preventative health care, of which weight and nutritional management is an integral part, benefits practically everyone. Not only is it cheaper than medicating away all the consequences of obesity, it is healthier. A man who works 2 jobs to feed his family probably may not have the time, money, or energy left over afterward to exercise at a proper gym and plan the most nutritional meals. Can you think of any options? For instance, any country that might have more reasonable approaches to the problem of finding time to exercise (*coughJapancough*)?

However, "cheaper" means that less money is changing hands, so I suppose there are some people who might be making less money. Fast-food chains, for instance, will have to redesign their menus to combat an obesity epidemic. Pharmaceutical companies, as well, make a killing off of thyroid pills, cholesterol pills, medicine for diabetics, and so forth. Factory farms might have to find alternatives to just harvesting corn (since the high-calorie, low-nutrition content derivatives of corn go into practically everything Americans eat). So, in conclusion, if you're lobbying for one of those interest groups, you might have a reason to be against public health. Otherwise, don't buy the propaganda, since obesity is a disease and it's not in your benefit or the benefit of your countrymen even to want to leave it untreated.

By the way, alcoholism is a disease, and "gender identity disorder" (transsexualism) appears in the DSM-IV. The stigma associated with the words "disease" and "disorder" are completely inappropriate; GID is in the DSM-IV for insurance purposes -- so that your insurance company will cover hormone therapy and such. If obesity were a disease, Americans might see bizarre and awesome things happen, like $300/month gyms being covered by insurance.

Rulke · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Rulke** on Thu Feb 23, 2012 11:26 am

http://www.alternet.org/health/154225/w ... em/?page=1

I'll just post this here, and let it speak for itself.

RogueMinstrel · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **RogueMinstrel** on Thu Feb 23, 2012 7:20 pm

dealing with it wrote:Although I could bring up a definition of "disease" to show that obesity does qualify as one by, say, dictionary.com or wikipedia, this is a little more political than that. And I don't mean in the sense of political correctness. The question is, who benefits?

Preventative health care, of which weight and nutritional management is an integral part, benefits practically everyone. Not only is it cheaper than medicating away all the consequences of obesity, it is healthier. A man who works 2 jobs to feed his family probably may not have the time, money, or energy left over afterward to exercise at a proper gym and plan the most nutritional meals. Can you think of any options? For instance, any country that might have more reasonable approaches to the problem of finding time to exercise (*coughJapancough*)?

However, "cheaper" means that less money is changing hands, so I suppose there are some people who might be making less money. Fast-food chains, for instance, will have to redesign their menus to combat an obesity epidemic. Pharmaceutical companies, as well, make a killing off of thyroid pills, cholesterol pills, medicine for diabetics, and so forth. Factory farms might have to find alternatives to just harvesting corn (since the high-calorie, low-nutrition content derivatives of corn go into practically everything Americans eat). So, in conclusion, if you're lobbying for one of those interest groups, you might have a reason to be against public health. Otherwise, don't buy the propaganda, since obesity is a disease and it's not in your benefit or the benefit of your countrymen even to want to leave it untreated.

By the way, alcoholism is a disease, and "gender identity disorder" (transsexualism) appears in the DSM-IV. The stigma associated with the words "disease" and "disorder" are completely inappropriate; GID is in the DSM-IV for insurance purposes -- so that your insurance company will cover hormone therapy and such. If obesity were a disease, Americans might see bizarre and awesome things happen, like $300/month gyms being covered by insurance.

Alcoholism as a disease? I'm sorry but I will happily disagree with anybody who tries to tell me that it is a disease. Scientist or otherwise. I'm sure all of the studies have been done and all of the tests have come back but I will never believe alcoholism to be a disease. Both sides of my family have deep roots in alcoholism (especially my father, mother, and siblings) while I cannot even stand the smell of it never mind have some sort of genetic urge to drink myself in to a stupor.

I have seen alcohol ruin people where alcoholism has never been a problem in their family and I have seen just the opposite. When my father was in AA (I was either just a babe or I had not been born yet) they had tried telling him that alcoholism was a disease that he would have forever even if he never touched another drink for the rest of his life. I find that laughable.

Children are exposed to alcohol at an early age by their parents, their siblings, and even their friends who are in turn exposed to it by the first two mentioned. It is made to look cool and sophisticated. Just like cigarettes. Now I'm not discounting addiction. Alcoholics obviously have a problem and if they are sincere in trying to find help then that is wonderful. But to say that alcoholism is genetic. I'll never believe that. Watching alcoholism ruin my family is what caused me to understand my limits and I am perfectly capable of getting drunk one night without becoming addicted or any such nonsense.

As for obesity being recognized as a disease and then insurance covering gym memberships then that would not be so bad. But for insurance to cover a gym membership would not fix anything according to what you said earlier about a man with 2 jobs who has no time to exercise. He will not have anymore time regardless of if insurance covers his gym membership. Then again, a man who works two jobs is not likely to be obese, either. In fact (and I actually poke fun at him for this xD), my good friend's dad has recently lost a lot of weight because he had to take up a second job.

But I think you might have been missing my point. My problem is with those people who are obese not because they have some sort of disease but because at some point in their lives they stopped caring about their body and they substituted convenient food (chips, candy, fast food) for nutritional food. It does not take a lot of time to plan a nutritional meal. In fact, it takes virtually no planning. Picking up a salad instead of a cheeseburger at McDonald's is not that hard. Replacing a bag of Funyuns with a bag of veggie chips is not that hard, either. What a lot of people have a problem with is self-control. If eating healthy means I have to do a little more work even after I got done with my 2 jobs and I am dead tired then so be it. It is people who use to excuse of being too tired to exercise and cook decent meals that then set the example for their children that it is okay to substitute junk food for good food and those same parents who use television and video games to babysit their children rather than encouraging them to go outside and be active.
You don't have to be skinny to be in good shape. I'm not skinny. My girlfriend's not even skinny. But we are in good-enough shape because we choose our meals and because we do things like taking a short walk rather than plopping on the couch to watch a movie. We are even trying to get in to better shape by joining the gym after we get back from vacation. Not having enough time to eat healthy and to exercise is the worst and among the most common excuses ever used. I mean really, how many people sit down and eat a whole bag of chips not because their hungry but because their bored or because they are 'emotional eaters'.

It is these people who refuse to help themselves that I am upset will be getting free healthcare and unemployment. Not to mention that obesity causes a whole mess of other medical problems that these people are already receiving help for. There are people who are physically disabled (such as veterans who may have lost a limb) that actually have an excuse for being overweight and even a lot of them still have the willpower to go to physical therapy and to not let themselves go.

RogueMinstrel · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **RogueMinstrel** on Thu Feb 23, 2012 7:28 pm

Rulke wrote:http://www.alternet.org/health/154225/would_we_have_drugged_up_einstein_how_anti-authoritarianism_is_deemed_a_mental_health_problem/?page=1

I'll just post this here, and let it speak for itself.

Well, that's an interesting article and all but what does it have to do with obesity? It looks like it has to do with ADD and over-medication.

Rulke · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Rulke** on Thu Feb 23, 2012 7:33 pm

Just to point out how these things are considered, Obesity is largely created by our culture, before mass media it wasn't a huge problem. Thus it's not the fault of the person completely. You are simplifying an issue based on your opinions, but then you need to consider culture of size zero and things like anorexia.

dealing with it · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **dealing with it** on Thu Feb 23, 2012 8:17 pm

RogueMinstrel, why can't someone have a disease and be responsible for it? The word "disease" has a particular meaning. I think hinting at it wasn't enough, so I'll reiterate one point. The first definition on dictionary.com:

disease: a disordered or incorrectly functioning organ, part, structure, or system of the body resulting from the effect of genetic or developmental errors, infection, poisons, nutritional deficiency or imbalance, toxicity, or unfavorable environmental factors; illness; sickness; ailment.

Both alcoholism and obesity (and, as Rulke brought up, anorexia, which is an even better analogy than mine) fit the definition of disease perfectly. What you seem to be asking, rather, is whether or not someone with this disease deserves treatment, or merits "benefits" from their disease. You are asking questions of how well you should treat someone when their habits contributed to their condition. Is this a fair assessment?

Certainly someone suffering from alcoholism should not be on the top of the list for a replacement liver when his shuts down. If there wasn't a waiting list, there doesn't seem to be any reason not to treat him.

RogueMinstrel · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **RogueMinstrel** on Sat Feb 25, 2012 3:38 am

Again, you seem to be missing my point. I'm not saying that there is no way obesity can be a disease. My problem is with those people who are not sick and are simply fat (but naturally they end up becoming sick because they are fat and suddenly they have a disease). Those people who have nothing wrong with them other than the fact that they are lazy and choose not to address their problems. These are the people that will be getting free medical care when it is their fault that they are overweight in the first place.

And back to the alcoholism bit I will never agree with that being a disease. Once a person becomes an alcoholic then they have a chemical dependency and thus they are addicted. However, it is their fault that they are an alcoholic in the first place. My dad had battled with alcoholism but I refuse to believe that he became an alcoholic because of genetics (his father was an alcoholic as well and still is as far as I know). He became an alcoholic because he was weak and he chose to cope with his life problems in the wrong way, not because he had some sort of genetic predisposition towards alcohol.

I don't think an alcoholic should be on the list for a new liver what-so-ever never mind the top or the bottom (unless it can proven that he is no longer chemically dependent on it). I also do not think that an obese person who is obese simply because they chose to eat and not exercise should be covered by insurance for liposuction.
A person who has weight issues because of diabetes can be treated for diabetes which would include all of the side-effects of diabetes such as weight control. But why should a person who is too lazy to eat healthy and go for a walk be granted those same benefits? It's just wrong.

As for there not being a reason to give an alcoholic that liver transplant when there is no waiting list does not make sense to me either. That is still one less liver that a child could use the next day and it is also costs money for the transplant so now that alcoholic can go out and ruin a whole new liver.
Many years ago my uncle was hurt at work and received disability for a while (for quite a while). This was legitimate and I held nothing against him for accepting disability. However, as he was coming close to getting better and being able to go back to work he decided that he did not want to go back and preferred living for free. So he got really drunk and laid his right leg down on the tracks so that it was torn off when the train came by (he made this decision while he was drunk and the idea only occurred to him as the train was coming). None of his drunk friends were smart enough to stop him as they did not think he would do it. Well, he did it and he lost his leg and he has been on government assistance since then (and this has been like 15 years).
As far as I am concerned, the government should tell him that he is SOL rather than paying him for something that he did to himself.

dealing with it · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **dealing with it** on Sat Feb 25, 2012 4:12 pm

Since you already said you'd "happily disagree" with specialists, I shouldn't be shocked you weren't swayed by a dictionary definition. A definition that clearly said there are more causes of disease than genetics. This argument isn't going anywhere, so now I ask you: what is the definition of "disease"?

Swagzy · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Swagzy** on Sat Feb 25, 2012 11:17 pm

No, in my opinion a disease cant be prevented. i mean with some cases obesity cant be prevented but in most it can. like if you excercise and eat right you can prevent obesity therefore in my eyes it should not be considered a disease.

RogueMinstrel · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **RogueMinstrel** on Sun Feb 26, 2012 4:33 am

dealing with it wrote:Since you already said you'd "happily disagree" with specialists, I shouldn't be shocked you weren't swayed by a dictionary definition. A definition that clearly said there are more causes of disease than genetics. This argument isn't going anywhere, so now I ask you: what is the definition of "disease"?

You're misquoting me. My disagreeing with these specialists involved alcoholism. I also never said that genetics is the only cause of disease so I am getting the impression that you are merely skimming what I have been typing rather than actually reading it all. I said that genetics does not play a role in whether or not someone becomes an alcoholic.

All you are doing is defining what the word disease means. The definition of the word disease really has nothing to do with this. If you go back and read my first statement then you will see that my concern is with taxpayer money covering treatments for people who are too lazy to take care of themselves. While you can sit here and argue the point of obesity being a disease the fact remains that it is not yet recognized as one in the States.

You asked why someone cannot have a disease and be responsible for it. You made my point with that statement. Why can't an obese person be responsible for their "disease"? While other diseases may cause a person to become obese, obesity can just as easily be caused by someone who does not take care of themselves. Why should these people receive free medical care? Why should my tax dollars pay for their mistakes?

I'm not a fan of redundancy so I am not going to answer your question as to what the definition of the word disease is because you already gave it. The issue is not whether or not obesity is a disease it is if it should be recognized as one. Once again, as much as I hate repeating myself, while I am sure that there are those who are obese because of some genetic disorder or otherwise, I am also quite sure that the majority of obese people in the States are obese by their own doing and because they do not have the proper willpower.

As far as I am concerned, it is a disease if you cannot help it or personally stop it but is more akin to a disorder if you are the cause of it. What I am getting from your explanations, though is that obesity is more closely related to a mental disorder as a lot of these people seem to be unable to stop themselves from eating and unable to motivate themselves to get up and do something.

dealing with it · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **dealing with it** on Sun Feb 26, 2012 7:18 pm

Swagzy,
By your standard, if someone gets lung cancer from smoking, it's not a disease. Are you sure you don't want to consider lung cancer a disease?

RogueMinstrel,
There are a few things which I don't mind tax dollars being spent on, since they are so essential to life and happiness that they are essential services. Free public education is one. Free public healthcare is another.

The way you interpreted the word "responsibility" really captures that American "FYGM" attitude that for some reason always become policy. I simply meant that the person's habits contributed to the disease, not that they had committed some kind of Health Felony that means that they no longer merit proper treatment. I find your views quite mean-spirited, and a little dystopian; you aren't really trying to get any humanitarian Brownie points, are you? It's like you have some kind of weird vendetta against your fellow citizens, your own family included. What motive other than simple meanness would cause someone to advocate a more exclusive healthcare system? That is the objectively worse alternative.

(Thank god I don't live in the States.)

Anyway, compare these two quotes:

And back to the alcoholism bit I will never agree with that being a disease. Once a person becomes an alcoholic then they have a chemical dependency and thus they are addicted. However, it is their fault that they are an alcoholic in the first place. My dad had battled with alcoholism but I refuse to believe that he became an alcoholic because of genetics (his father was an alcoholic as well and still is as far as I know). He became an alcoholic because he was weak and he chose to cope with his life problems in the wrong way, not because he had some sort of genetic predisposition towards alcohol.

I also never said that genetics is the only cause of disease so I am getting the impression that you are merely skimming what I have been typing rather than actually reading it all. I said that genetics does not play a role in whether or not someone becomes an alcoholic.

In the same way that Swagzy implied that lung cancer is not a disease because it can be prevented, you implied that alcoholism is not a disease because it's not genetic. I didn't bring up genetics; you did. On top of that, genetics was literally your only reason you "will never agree with [alcoholism] being a disease." It may not be what you meant to say, which is why you think I misinterpreted you. But, in that case you'll have to explain how, according to the definition of disease that you accepted as valid, alcoholism is not one.

It's a very simple formula: if you don't want me to think that genetics is your only reason, then you are going to have to talk about more than genetics.

I think alcoholism is a disease, because alcoholism is "a disordered or incorrectly functioning organ, part, structure, or system of the body resulting from the effect of genetic or developmental errors, infection, poisons, nutritional deficiency or imbalance, toxicity, or unfavorable environmental factors." (bolding mine; notice I didn't put any emphasis on genetics)

Tea · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Tea** on Tue Feb 28, 2012 10:11 am

No offense to Dwit. Truly.

dealing with it wrote:disease: a disordered or incorrectly functioning organ, part, structure, or system of the body resulting from the effect of genetic or developmental errors, infection, poisons, nutritional deficiency or imbalance, toxicity, or unfavorable environmental factors; illness; sickness; ailment.

Definition Clarification:
A disease is a thing caused by a bacterium, a virus, or a parasite. A disease is caused by an infectious organism or biological substance. A disorder is a collection of bad habits inside a person. Therefore alcoholism and obesism are disorders and are reversible by over-riding bad habits with good ones. Because obesity is caused by a human being rather than an infectious substance (1) obesity can not be defined as a disease.

...and telling others that obesism and alcoholism are diseases is the very worst advice to give. Why? Because the Food & Drug Administration can determine what drugs are legal based on the definition of a disease. Drugs are then sold to correct symptoms, and not the cause of the disease. Because the drugs correct the symptoms and not the disease the common people are not cured. This makes the businesses responsible for the production and distribution of these drugs large amounts of money while the populace remains sick.

So no, obesity is not a disease. Please be certain to share this information, kindly, with every-one that you know.

(1) Many foods that are highly processed contain chemical-grade sweeteners ( sweetener: a chemical excito-toxin which can not function as a natural sugar ( such as from fruit ) ) which, when consumed, will cause malnutrition and the development of obeseness.

dealing with it · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **dealing with it** on Tue Feb 28, 2012 11:36 am

Tea, arguing semantics isn't going to offend me. It isn't the meat of the issue. If you're reading this and don't care about semantics, skip to the break.

Not all diseases are infections. What you said should have begun, "An infection is a thing caused by..."

Obesity itself is a disorder just as far as it is also a disease, since all diseases are disorders. As a symptom of disorder and disease, obesity is caused by many things, from poor eating habits to hypothyroidism. As a disease, obesity can be treated with exercise and proper nutrition, or in extreme cases medication or surgery. As a disease in its own right, it can lead to further diseases, many of which are similarly non-infectious (heart disease, liver cancer, sleep apnea, etc.)

Saying that alcoholism and obesity are diseases is definitionally accurate. It's not a matter of personal advice; it's a simple yes/no question. If you want to use a different definition, please cite where you get the new definition from. Then you can answer with a different yes/no, but that still doesn't answer the important part of the question. Which follows the break.

*****

The part of the question that does matter as far as "advice" goes is whether or not doctors should assist people in losing weight, if excessive weight is their only problem. I consider this the political part of this question. It's the question of whether Americans want preventative health care. Personally, I think that this resource should always be available to people who need it. Doctors, nutritionists, and other such specialists know a lot more about health than the average person. This stuff is actually already free in Canada; we already pay for it with taxes. America's approach to health care, as always, depresses me.

We can treat the cause of future illness, not the symptoms as they emerge, by treating obesity. Which I think was your ideal, was it not?

The other thing we need to look into is whether or not severely obese people should be put on disability. Rogue emphatically says no, but I think it depends entirely on whether or not their obesity is so severe that they can't work.

Tea · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Tea** on Tue Feb 28, 2012 6:54 pm

dealing with it wrote:Saying that alcoholism and obesity are diseases is definitionally accurate. It's not a matter of personal advice; it's a simple yes/no question. If you want to use a different definition, please cite where you get the new definition from. Then you can answer with a different yes/no, but that still doesn't answer the important part of the question. Which follows the break.

I firmly disagree. Politely and quietly, but firmly.

How many human beings have used disease as an excuse? How many lives have been destroyed by the assumption that a person has a disease and is thus not responsible for their actions? How many more lives will suffer long years of pain and physical torment from biological abnormalities caused by their own personal choices? Alcoholicy and obesity ( or call them what they are, alcoholism and obesism ) are choices. They are not accidents. They are not infections. Disorders are, if they do not start as such they usually become such, habitual life-styles.

Cancer patients do not often choose for their flesh to become cancerous. However, the same cancerous lungs mentioned earlier are the result of chronic exposure to smoke. Just as liver, stomach, intestine, and throat cancers can be caused by chronic exposure to liquor. Even saying that smokers and drinkers can develop cancer, they, almost without exception, made a choice to habitually expose themselves to the stimuli which would eventually cause their cancer.

So then...well-fare. People who eat too much and do not ~~work~~ exercise...should they be allowed to legally live off of the honest-earned wealth of other citizens simply because they are greedy? Simply because they made a choice to develop and grow their own personal disability? What a ludicrous and insulting proposition.

...precisely and quietly, I say, but also firmly.

For reasons of full account:

dealing with it wrote:It's the question of whether Americans want preventative health care.

I believe that I, personally, am wise enough to seek out preventative medicines and care for both myself and those I care for. Not everyone is so wise. I can not force other humans to be wise. For those who choose not to be there should be the end result of natural selection. But perhaps the greedy fools are too many because a health-care system exists which steals wealth from the laboring common people and is given to those who are lazy and should know to do better than what they choose to do.

This...twisting of the conceptual definition of disease is what allows exactly that.

RogueMinstrel · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **RogueMinstrel** on Sat Mar 03, 2012 7:30 pm

Here is my biggest issue. Is a healthy baby born obese? No. Is a healthy baby born an alcoholic? No. They become these things through poor choices. Why should my tax dollars pay for someone else's bad choices? I don't think that I am being mean. I think I'm being fair. Sometimes being fair may come across as being mean but it only comes across that way to those people who are not willing to help themselves.

Micro-analyzing the definitions of 'disorder' and 'disease' is not going to help anyone get anywhere. The real question should be is it fair for a healthy person to pay for someone else's bad habits? Why did my uncle get to collect disability because he chose to lay his leg down on the tracks and let a train run it over? How is that fair?

A child gets a new toy and plays with it by rolling it down the steps. His parents warn him that if he keeps down that it is going to break. He keeps doing it. It breaks. How does mommy and daddy going out and buying him the same toy help that child to learn that there are consequences from his action? The answer is simple. It doesn't. As far as that child is concerned, he can do the same exact thing with his new toy because mommy and daddy will just buy him a new one.

Would you feel sorry for me (and buy me calamine lotion) after I purposely and knowingly rolled around in poison ivy? I would hope not. And so I will not feel bad for an obese person when their diet consists of a bag of Doritos and Twinkies every night for dinner.

Why is it that obesity is most prevalent in the United States than anywhere else? The two main causes of obesity are overeating and lack of exercise. This should explain it all. But again people do not seem to understand my question. I am not asking whether or not obesity is a disease. I am asking if it is in the best interest of the United States (especially considering our current economic state) for obesity to be covered by insurance.
I have a hard enough time paying MY medical bills and putting food in MY stomach without an increase in taxes to cover someone who obvious has no problem with buying food. And I am not exaggerating when I say that I struggle with buying food. I work at a fast food restaurant and yet I still manage to eat healthy (enough) and find time to stay physically active.

I'm not saying that these people do not deserve medical treatment. I'm saying they do not deserve FREE medical treatment. They shelled out the bucks to give themselves this "disease" so why can't they pay to help get rid of it?

What is to stop your average, lazy American from putting his leg or arm down on the tracks and letting a train rip it off when he knows that mommy and daddy (the government) are going to take care of him after it happens? Nothing but the fear of pain is going to stop them and all they really need to do to get past that is a little bit of liquid courage.

dealing with it · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **dealing with it** on Sun Mar 04, 2012 3:57 am

RogueMinstrel,

I see true fairness as doing the best by the least privileged, not as a way of punishing people as much as possible. Fairness is egalitarian, not punitive. Thus, for instance, I think if a woman gets pregnant and can't afford an abortion, she should be able to leverage her insurance to her advantage, and have that abortion. I don't care about punishing her for her mistake of having sex.

Likewise, I don't see any reason to punish obese people for being fat. Why take away free health care if you can keep it? Aristotle considered health one of the most important things in life. I think so, as well. Money, on the other hand, is among the meanest of motivators.

I think obese people should be given opportunities to manage their weight, by way of health education, free access to nutritionists, and gymnasiums, and so forth. People who are obese should be given every possible opportunity to enjoy full health. This makes the playing field fair. Consequently, I also believe that smoking cessation kits -- one of the few vestiges of private enterprise in our public health care system -- should be free. It's a lot cheaper to give someone gum, patches, and inhalers than it is to treat them for throat cancer. It's fair: it brings the worst off up to the condition of the healthiest.

If obesity were labelled a disease: people generally don't like having diseases. They avoid them, and treating obesity as a disease, covered by insurance, is motivation enough for a lot of people. If I had the option, for instance, I would rather not have to deal with bipolar disorder and work, than have to live off of disability. (A ridiculously small amount of people here in Alberta take advantage of the AISH program (Assured Income for the Severely Handicapped), even in many cases where they can barely survive, let alone function, without it. A fairly in-depth study of the entire benefits system found that fraud is quite rare. I frankly don't see a horde of fat people mooching off the system if they can help it. Especially if they have to live with the label "Severely Handicapped".)

Anyway, if money is your primary concern -- and, sadly, I think it is -- then you should consider two facts. One, it is cheaper to manage someone's weight than prescribe them drugs for conditions that arise because of obesity. And two, if you want an expensive injustice to rally against, you'd look better (and certainly more in line with your ideal of fairness) attacking America's misguided attempts to police the globe. Compared to the pharmaceutical companies and the war machine, projects to combat adult obesity cost pennies.

RogueMinstrel · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **RogueMinstrel** on Sun Mar 04, 2012 11:17 am

Who is talking about punishing people? I never said anything about punishment. I do not think letting someone deal with the consequences of their own actions is punishment. It is just. Of course money is a motivator. How am I expected to support not just myself but my family as well unless I have the means to do so?

Like I said, I don't think it is punishment. I don't think letting an adult deal with the consequences of their own actions is punishment. People who are obese gave up their opportunity to enjoy full health when they decided that they wanted to stuff themselves with junk food and chose not to exercise.

What you are implying is that if people who got lung cancer from smoking had free health care that this would motivate other people to stop smoking. That is just ridiculous. How many people pick up smoking even though they know what the consequences are? And now these people will know that they will get free health care if they end up developing lung cancer. Where is the motivation for them to quit their bad habits? It goes back to the child who breaks his toy. Where is the motivation for that child to treat his toys better when he knows that mommy and daddy are just going to go out and buy him a new one? There is none.

What is to stop an obese person from continuing to be lazy and consume bad food when he knows that he can get free liposuction? Nothing. He was already too lazy to take care of himself and now his "disease" gives him motivation to keep doing what he is doing.

I don't want my tax dollars going towards their insurance not because I am greedy and I want to spend all of my money on video games and other things I don't need. I want to save my money so that I can pay my rent and I do not wind up homeless as I once was and so that I can afford to put (healthy) food in my fridge and cupboards. It has nothing to do with greed. I would be more than happy to help an obese person lose weight by running with them and helping them to plan better meals but why do I have to use my hard-earned money to do it?

loowman141414 · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **loowman141414** on Sat Mar 10, 2012 5:04 pm

YES obesity is a disease some people can't control their hunger.

dealing with it · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **dealing with it** on Sun Mar 11, 2012 6:19 am

loowman141414, I didn't even consider appetite disorders until now. Some people literally cannot stop eating, and blaming them for it is nonsensical.

RogueMinstrel, I think we agree up to the point where obesity is unhealthy. Then, you take a libertarian slant on public health and welfare, whereas I start defending socialist healthcare and preventative medicine. If the kid breaks the toy, I don't force her into one set of consequences -- the amoral Darwinian ones -- especially if she can learn from me how to fix it. Leaving someone to deal with the worst possible consequences when it would take virtually no effort to be kind, is a form of punishment. As Edmund Burke said, "the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." The demented form of justice you present here is an argument to do nothing when bad things happen, because it might cost some money.

We also seem to have different views on what constitutes a disease; I have tried to keep my definitions in line with my dictionary sources. I don't consider over-eating, drinking soda, failure to exercise, or weight gain or loss, to be diseases. What is a disease is having a BMI over 30, combined with a circumference -- IIRC -- over 40 inches (in men) around the belly at the navel, and a high ratio of fat to muscle. That is obesity, and that, I believe, should be treated by health care professionals, and not by an army of volunteer fitness coaches. I think the latter option is insanely impractical. This should not be an issue of money. Just like an education system, a proper health care system should be a high priority in government spending. Build a few less aircraft carriers, and hire a few more doctors.

Anyway, I didn't even look this up until now, but because you said you were going by the definition of "alcoholism", here's the opening of the "Alcoholism" entry in Wikipedia:

Alcoholism is a broad term for problems with alcohol, and is generally used to mean compulsive and uncontrolled consumption of alcoholic beverages, usually to the detriment of the drinker's health, personal relationships, and social standing. It is medically considered a disease, specifically a neurological disorder, and in medicine several other terms are used, specifically "alcohol abuse" and "alcohol dependence," which have more specific definitions.

Should Obesity Be Considered A Disease?

a topic in Discussion & Debate, a part of the RPG forum.

Should Obesity Be Considered A Disease?

Re: Should Obesity Be Considered A Disease?

Re: Should Obesity Be Considered A Disease?

Re: Should Obesity Be Considered A Disease?

Re: Should Obesity Be Considered A Disease?

Re: Should Obesity Be Considered A Disease?

Re: Should Obesity Be Considered A Disease?

Re: Should Obesity Be Considered A Disease?

Re: Should Obesity Be Considered A Disease?

Re: Should Obesity Be Considered A Disease?

Re: Should Obesity Be Considered A Disease?

Re: Should Obesity Be Considered A Disease?

Re: Should Obesity Be Considered A Disease?

Re: Should Obesity Be Considered A Disease?

Re: Should Obesity Be Considered A Disease?

Re: Should Obesity Be Considered A Disease?

Re: Should Obesity Be Considered A Disease?

Re: Should Obesity Be Considered A Disease?

Re: Should Obesity Be Considered A Disease?

Re: Should Obesity Be Considered A Disease?

Post a reply

Make a Donation

Who is online