Question 7

saveferris2009 · Dec 26, 2008

your point is well taken and it's my fault for not clarifying. there are definitely type I diabetics who are born with the disease, but there's no disputing the fact that in the States type II diabetes and heart disease are on the rise due to lack of exercise and poor diet.

but as you will see when your daughter gets older and works to pay her own health insurance, it's infuriating to watch health insurance premiums rise in large part because these companies must swallow the costs of treating diseases that people (for the most part) bring upon themselves.

why does your daughter have to pay more out of pocket for her health insurance because some person decides to sit in front of the TV and work while your daughter works her tail off to do her meds, exercise and be a compliant CFer - a disease that she was just born with.

you get my point. the fact is that due to our lifestyle, certain diseases are lifestyle related and are preventable if you're willing to do the hard work. as i should have said before, not ALL.

would this be hard to implement? probably. but it doesn't mean we can stand up and say hey! there is a big difference between diseases you chose to have (stead % of the population has had these diseases throughout history) versus those that are related in the way you chose to live.

your examples of athletes, as i'm sure you would agree, are the exception rather than the rule.

i think you and i see eye to eye on this more than we initially may think <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif" border="0">

saveferris2009 · Dec 26, 2008

your point is well taken and it's my fault for not clarifying. there are definitely type I diabetics who are born with the disease, but there's no disputing the fact that in the States type II diabetes and heart disease are on the rise due to lack of exercise and poor diet.

but as you will see when your daughter gets older and works to pay her own health insurance, it's infuriating to watch health insurance premiums rise in large part because these companies must swallow the costs of treating diseases that people (for the most part) bring upon themselves.

why does your daughter have to pay more out of pocket for her health insurance because some person decides to sit in front of the TV and work while your daughter works her tail off to do her meds, exercise and be a compliant CFer - a disease that she was just born with.

you get my point. the fact is that due to our lifestyle, certain diseases are lifestyle related and are preventable if you're willing to do the hard work. as i should have said before, not ALL.

would this be hard to implement? probably. but it doesn't mean we can stand up and say hey! there is a big difference between diseases you chose to have (stead % of the population has had these diseases throughout history) versus those that are related in the way you chose to live.

your examples of athletes, as i'm sure you would agree, are the exception rather than the rule.

i think you and i see eye to eye on this more than we initially may think <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif" border="0">

saveferris2009 · Dec 26, 2008

your point is well taken and it's my fault for not clarifying. there are definitely type I diabetics who are born with the disease, but there's no disputing the fact that in the States type II diabetes and heart disease are on the rise due to lack of exercise and poor diet.

but as you will see when your daughter gets older and works to pay her own health insurance, it's infuriating to watch health insurance premiums rise in large part because these companies must swallow the costs of treating diseases that people (for the most part) bring upon themselves.

why does your daughter have to pay more out of pocket for her health insurance because some person decides to sit in front of the TV and work while your daughter works her tail off to do her meds, exercise and be a compliant CFer - a disease that she was just born with.

you get my point. the fact is that due to our lifestyle, certain diseases are lifestyle related and are preventable if you're willing to do the hard work. as i should have said before, not ALL.

would this be hard to implement? probably. but it doesn't mean we can stand up and say hey! there is a big difference between diseases you chose to have (stead % of the population has had these diseases throughout history) versus those that are related in the way you chose to live.

your examples of athletes, as i'm sure you would agree, are the exception rather than the rule.

i think you and i see eye to eye on this more than we initially may think <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif" border="0">

saveferris2009 · Dec 26, 2008

your point is well taken and it's my fault for not clarifying. there are definitely type I diabetics who are born with the disease, but there's no disputing the fact that in the States type II diabetes and heart disease are on the rise due to lack of exercise and poor diet.

but as you will see when your daughter gets older and works to pay her own health insurance, it's infuriating to watch health insurance premiums rise in large part because these companies must swallow the costs of treating diseases that people (for the most part) bring upon themselves.

why does your daughter have to pay more out of pocket for her health insurance because some person decides to sit in front of the TV and work while your daughter works her tail off to do her meds, exercise and be a compliant CFer - a disease that she was just born with.

you get my point. the fact is that due to our lifestyle, certain diseases are lifestyle related and are preventable if you're willing to do the hard work. as i should have said before, not ALL.

would this be hard to implement? probably. but it doesn't mean we can stand up and say hey! there is a big difference between diseases you chose to have (stead % of the population has had these diseases throughout history) versus those that are related in the way you chose to live.

your examples of athletes, as i'm sure you would agree, are the exception rather than the rule.

i think you and i see eye to eye on this more than we initially may think <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif" border="0">

saveferris2009 · Dec 26, 2008

your point is well taken and it's my fault for not clarifying. there are definitely type I diabetics who are born with the disease, but there's no disputing the fact that in the States type II diabetes and heart disease are on the rise due to lack of exercise and poor diet.
 
 but as you will see when your daughter gets older and works to pay her own health insurance, it's infuriating to watch health insurance premiums rise in large part because these companies must swallow the costs of treating diseases that people (for the most part) bring upon themselves.
 
 why does your daughter have to pay more out of pocket for her health insurance because some person decides to sit in front of the TV and work while your daughter works her tail off to do her meds, exercise and be a compliant CFer - a disease that she was just born with.
 
 you get my point. the fact is that due to our lifestyle, certain diseases are lifestyle related and are preventable if you're willing to do the hard work. as i should have said before, not ALL.
 
 would this be hard to implement? probably. but it doesn't mean we can stand up and say hey! there is a big difference between diseases you chose to have (stead % of the population has had these diseases throughout history) versus those that are related in the way you chose to live.
 
 your examples of athletes, as i'm sure you would agree, are the exception rather than the rule.
 
 i think you and i see eye to eye on this more than we initially may think <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif" border="0">

NYCLawGirl · Jan 26, 2009

Interesting discussion, however, I think in the end defining "lifestyle disease" is far too subjective to entrust to the government.

Example A: Type II diabetes, which is undeniably on the rise due to poor diet and exercise habits, can also be linked to genetic predisposition. This means that certain people may develop the disease without demonstrating any clear "unhealthy" habits. In these instances, where people may have lived a normal, healthy lifestyle with periodic lapses in diet and exercise (let's face it, we all have them), should they be punished for what is essentially a consequence of their genetic code?

Example B: People with CF typically grow up adhering to a very intense medical routine, even by chronic illness standards. Many CFers consequently go through a period of lapsed compliance -- for some this is simple teenage/college rebellion, for others it is more linked to depression/anxiety linked to illness, and others probably have their own reasons. Should a CFer who has invested more time and effort into his/her health than any average american, but who has perhaps dropped the ball during a period of his/her life and thus lost some critical lung function be punished for that lapse in judgment? Does the fact that the individual might have been able to prevent or delay the onset of disease progression render it a "lifestyle" issue? Are we comparing the CF patient to a normal "healthy" american, or are we comparing him/her to the perfectly compliant CF patient?

Example C: Some people engage in totally normal alcohol consumption but, because of other factors that the individual might not even know about at the time, still develop fatty liver disease or other complications. Should the standard be that an individual cannot engage in KNOWINGLY reckless behavior (i.e., if the person knows him/herself to be predisposed towards liver issues, he or she should not drink at all), or should everyone who engages in any type of behavior, legal or not, that is known to possibly have ill effects be held responsible (i.e., anyone who drinks at all, even just a glass of wine at dinner, is prohibited from collecting medicare for any alcohol-related issues that might arise out of that behavior)?

sorry to play devil's advocate here, but I think it's important to consider these things before lobbying for that sort of change. Diseases strike PEOPLE - and they are as individual as the people they affect. There are always genetics and other factors in play, including ability to pay for preventative care and even the knowledge that a person is predisposed to certain conditions and should avoid certain behaviors. Even with smokers, it's often not nearly as black and white as we would all like to think.

NYCLawGirl · Jan 26, 2009

Interesting discussion, however, I think in the end defining "lifestyle disease" is far too subjective to entrust to the government.

Example A: Type II diabetes, which is undeniably on the rise due to poor diet and exercise habits, can also be linked to genetic predisposition. This means that certain people may develop the disease without demonstrating any clear "unhealthy" habits. In these instances, where people may have lived a normal, healthy lifestyle with periodic lapses in diet and exercise (let's face it, we all have them), should they be punished for what is essentially a consequence of their genetic code?

Example B: People with CF typically grow up adhering to a very intense medical routine, even by chronic illness standards. Many CFers consequently go through a period of lapsed compliance -- for some this is simple teenage/college rebellion, for others it is more linked to depression/anxiety linked to illness, and others probably have their own reasons. Should a CFer who has invested more time and effort into his/her health than any average american, but who has perhaps dropped the ball during a period of his/her life and thus lost some critical lung function be punished for that lapse in judgment? Does the fact that the individual might have been able to prevent or delay the onset of disease progression render it a "lifestyle" issue? Are we comparing the CF patient to a normal "healthy" american, or are we comparing him/her to the perfectly compliant CF patient?

Example C: Some people engage in totally normal alcohol consumption but, because of other factors that the individual might not even know about at the time, still develop fatty liver disease or other complications. Should the standard be that an individual cannot engage in KNOWINGLY reckless behavior (i.e., if the person knows him/herself to be predisposed towards liver issues, he or she should not drink at all), or should everyone who engages in any type of behavior, legal or not, that is known to possibly have ill effects be held responsible (i.e., anyone who drinks at all, even just a glass of wine at dinner, is prohibited from collecting medicare for any alcohol-related issues that might arise out of that behavior)?

sorry to play devil's advocate here, but I think it's important to consider these things before lobbying for that sort of change. Diseases strike PEOPLE - and they are as individual as the people they affect. There are always genetics and other factors in play, including ability to pay for preventative care and even the knowledge that a person is predisposed to certain conditions and should avoid certain behaviors. Even with smokers, it's often not nearly as black and white as we would all like to think.

NYCLawGirl · Jan 26, 2009

Interesting discussion, however, I think in the end defining "lifestyle disease" is far too subjective to entrust to the government.

Example A: Type II diabetes, which is undeniably on the rise due to poor diet and exercise habits, can also be linked to genetic predisposition. This means that certain people may develop the disease without demonstrating any clear "unhealthy" habits. In these instances, where people may have lived a normal, healthy lifestyle with periodic lapses in diet and exercise (let's face it, we all have them), should they be punished for what is essentially a consequence of their genetic code?

Example B: People with CF typically grow up adhering to a very intense medical routine, even by chronic illness standards. Many CFers consequently go through a period of lapsed compliance -- for some this is simple teenage/college rebellion, for others it is more linked to depression/anxiety linked to illness, and others probably have their own reasons. Should a CFer who has invested more time and effort into his/her health than any average american, but who has perhaps dropped the ball during a period of his/her life and thus lost some critical lung function be punished for that lapse in judgment? Does the fact that the individual might have been able to prevent or delay the onset of disease progression render it a "lifestyle" issue? Are we comparing the CF patient to a normal "healthy" american, or are we comparing him/her to the perfectly compliant CF patient?

Example C: Some people engage in totally normal alcohol consumption but, because of other factors that the individual might not even know about at the time, still develop fatty liver disease or other complications. Should the standard be that an individual cannot engage in KNOWINGLY reckless behavior (i.e., if the person knows him/herself to be predisposed towards liver issues, he or she should not drink at all), or should everyone who engages in any type of behavior, legal or not, that is known to possibly have ill effects be held responsible (i.e., anyone who drinks at all, even just a glass of wine at dinner, is prohibited from collecting medicare for any alcohol-related issues that might arise out of that behavior)?

sorry to play devil's advocate here, but I think it's important to consider these things before lobbying for that sort of change. Diseases strike PEOPLE - and they are as individual as the people they affect. There are always genetics and other factors in play, including ability to pay for preventative care and even the knowledge that a person is predisposed to certain conditions and should avoid certain behaviors. Even with smokers, it's often not nearly as black and white as we would all like to think.

NYCLawGirl · Jan 26, 2009

Interesting discussion, however, I think in the end defining "lifestyle disease" is far too subjective to entrust to the government.

Example A: Type II diabetes, which is undeniably on the rise due to poor diet and exercise habits, can also be linked to genetic predisposition. This means that certain people may develop the disease without demonstrating any clear "unhealthy" habits. In these instances, where people may have lived a normal, healthy lifestyle with periodic lapses in diet and exercise (let's face it, we all have them), should they be punished for what is essentially a consequence of their genetic code?

Example B: People with CF typically grow up adhering to a very intense medical routine, even by chronic illness standards. Many CFers consequently go through a period of lapsed compliance -- for some this is simple teenage/college rebellion, for others it is more linked to depression/anxiety linked to illness, and others probably have their own reasons. Should a CFer who has invested more time and effort into his/her health than any average american, but who has perhaps dropped the ball during a period of his/her life and thus lost some critical lung function be punished for that lapse in judgment? Does the fact that the individual might have been able to prevent or delay the onset of disease progression render it a "lifestyle" issue? Are we comparing the CF patient to a normal "healthy" american, or are we comparing him/her to the perfectly compliant CF patient?

Example C: Some people engage in totally normal alcohol consumption but, because of other factors that the individual might not even know about at the time, still develop fatty liver disease or other complications. Should the standard be that an individual cannot engage in KNOWINGLY reckless behavior (i.e., if the person knows him/herself to be predisposed towards liver issues, he or she should not drink at all), or should everyone who engages in any type of behavior, legal or not, that is known to possibly have ill effects be held responsible (i.e., anyone who drinks at all, even just a glass of wine at dinner, is prohibited from collecting medicare for any alcohol-related issues that might arise out of that behavior)?

sorry to play devil's advocate here, but I think it's important to consider these things before lobbying for that sort of change. Diseases strike PEOPLE - and they are as individual as the people they affect. There are always genetics and other factors in play, including ability to pay for preventative care and even the knowledge that a person is predisposed to certain conditions and should avoid certain behaviors. Even with smokers, it's often not nearly as black and white as we would all like to think.

NYCLawGirl · Jan 26, 2009

Interesting discussion, however, I think in the end defining "lifestyle disease" is far too subjective to entrust to the government.
 
 Example A: Type II diabetes, which is undeniably on the rise due to poor diet and exercise habits, can also be linked to genetic predisposition. This means that certain people may develop the disease without demonstrating any clear "unhealthy" habits. In these instances, where people may have lived a normal, healthy lifestyle with periodic lapses in diet and exercise (let's face it, we all have them), should they be punished for what is essentially a consequence of their genetic code?
 
 Example B: People with CF typically grow up adhering to a very intense medical routine, even by chronic illness standards. Many CFers consequently go through a period of lapsed compliance -- for some this is simple teenage/college rebellion, for others it is more linked to depression/anxiety linked to illness, and others probably have their own reasons. Should a CFer who has invested more time and effort into his/her health than any average american, but who has perhaps dropped the ball during a period of his/her life and thus lost some critical lung function be punished for that lapse in judgment? Does the fact that the individual might have been able to prevent or delay the onset of disease progression render it a "lifestyle" issue? Are we comparing the CF patient to a normal "healthy" american, or are we comparing him/her to the perfectly compliant CF patient?
 
 Example C: Some people engage in totally normal alcohol consumption but, because of other factors that the individual might not even know about at the time, still develop fatty liver disease or other complications. Should the standard be that an individual cannot engage in KNOWINGLY reckless behavior (i.e., if the person knows him/herself to be predisposed towards liver issues, he or she should not drink at all), or should everyone who engages in any type of behavior, legal or not, that is known to possibly have ill effects be held responsible (i.e., anyone who drinks at all, even just a glass of wine at dinner, is prohibited from collecting medicare for any alcohol-related issues that might arise out of that behavior)?
 
 sorry to play devil's advocate here, but I think it's important to consider these things before lobbying for that sort of change. Diseases strike PEOPLE - and they are as individual as the people they affect. There are always genetics and other factors in play, including ability to pay for preventative care and even the knowledge that a person is predisposed to certain conditions and should avoid certain behaviors. Even with smokers, it's often not nearly as black and white as we would all like to think.

janddburke · Mar 27, 2009

this is a very slippery slope.

for instance....

would pregnancy be considered a 'lifestyle' choice?

should insurance companies be forced to pay for a preganacy and delivery for each insured?

how about 8, 10 or 14 preganancies?

janddburke · Mar 27, 2009

this is a very slippery slope.

for instance....

would pregnancy be considered a 'lifestyle' choice?

should insurance companies be forced to pay for a preganacy and delivery for each insured?

how about 8, 10 or 14 preganancies?

janddburke · Mar 27, 2009

this is a very slippery slope.

for instance....

would pregnancy be considered a 'lifestyle' choice?

should insurance companies be forced to pay for a preganacy and delivery for each insured?

how about 8, 10 or 14 preganancies?

janddburke · Mar 27, 2009

this is a very slippery slope.

for instance....

would pregnancy be considered a 'lifestyle' choice?

should insurance companies be forced to pay for a preganacy and delivery for each insured?

how about 8, 10 or 14 preganancies?

janddburke · Mar 27, 2009

this is a very slippery slope.
 
 for instance....
 
 would pregnancy be considered a 'lifestyle' choice?
 
 should insurance companies be forced to pay for a preganacy and delivery for each insured?
 
 how about 8, 10 or 14 preganancies?

Tammy15 · Jul 27, 2009

Lifestyle diseases, then everything would fall into that category I don't trust the insurance companies or gov not to use that as a catch all. My thing is quit flying people over here from other countries for dental work medical work and having medicare pay for it. I have no problem with people coming to live in this country and getting benefits, but I was in a dental office a dew years ago and I heard someone say that they had come over for dental work, they were only going to stay in country a mos or so and go back to their country and medicaid was paying for it

Tammy15 · Jul 27, 2009

Lifestyle diseases, then everything would fall into that category I don't trust the insurance companies or gov not to use that as a catch all. My thing is quit flying people over here from other countries for dental work medical work and having medicare pay for it. I have no problem with people coming to live in this country and getting benefits, but I was in a dental office a dew years ago and I heard someone say that they had come over for dental work, they were only going to stay in country a mos or so and go back to their country and medicaid was paying for it

Tammy15 · Jul 27, 2009

Lifestyle diseases, then everything would fall into that category I don't trust the insurance companies or gov not to use that as a catch all. My thing is quit flying people over here from other countries for dental work medical work and having medicare pay for it. I have no problem with people coming to live in this country and getting benefits, but I was in a dental office a dew years ago and I heard someone say that they had come over for dental work, they were only going to stay in country a mos or so and go back to their country and medicaid was paying for it

Tammy15 · Jul 27, 2009

Lifestyle diseases, then everything would fall into that category I don't trust the insurance companies or gov not to use that as a catch all. My thing is quit flying people over here from other countries for dental work medical work and having medicare pay for it. I have no problem with people coming to live in this country and getting benefits, but I was in a dental office a dew years ago and I heard someone say that they had come over for dental work, they were only going to stay in country a mos or so and go back to their country and medicaid was paying for it

Tammy15 · Jul 27, 2009

Lifestyle diseases, then everything would fall into that category I don't trust the insurance companies or gov not to use that as a catch all. My thing is quit flying people over here from other countries for dental work medical work and having medicare pay for it. I have no problem with people coming to live in this country and getting benefits, but I was in a dental office a dew years ago and I heard someone say that they had come over for dental work, they were only going to stay in country a mos or so and go back to their country and medicaid was paying for it

Question 7

New member

New member

New member

New member

New member

New member

New member

New member

New member

New member

New member

New member

New member

New member

New member

New member

New member

New member

New member

New member