Governmetnt Will Be Tracking B.M.I. by 2014

[PeterMP]

I will point out that this:

"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."

is just a ludicrious statement.

If I have your weigth and height I can determine your BMI.

[Ax]

Good. Obese people should be taxed more to help cover their share of universal health care.

So then, are you in favor of a tax scale based on ones health records?

[jnhay]

It also agrees with my statement. Not once did I say HFCS is the ONLY cause of obesity.

I guess our definitions of "cause" are different. You said HFCS causes obesity, which I think is an exaggeration because all other things remaining normal, it doesn't. While excess fat, calories etc. (calories mostly) can make you obese on their own, so I'd say they "cause" obesity.

For the VAST MAJORITY of the population, BMI is fine.

http://www.nhlbisupport.com/bmi/

Lebron doesn't come out as overweight (6-2; 203; 22.3)

Neither is Dwight Howard (6-11; 211; 21.5)

We'll make a check box for NFL football player to know to treat them differently.

Howard is 265 while Lebron is 250. Wow, you could never run one of those weight guessing games at a carnival! Lebron is 6-8 as well!

[dockeryfan]

Glad to know that according to you, the CDC is "behind the times" in its medical advice

If you really don't think it is, then you just are not reading the literature.

I was testing homocysteine levels when Kaiser Permanente thought it was "experimental" (I'm do not participate with Kaiser, but I have family that is)

This was 2003. 2003 Kaiser didn't approve the testing. Why? The major regulatory bodies (CDC included) did not think enough proof was there. Nevermind that homocysteine had been written up in the literature sine the 1980s.

So yes. They are behind the curve, and you are as well if you are not reading the lit.

[War Paint]

I guess our definitions of "cause" are different. You said HFCS causes obesity, which I think is an exaggeration because all other things remaining normal, it doesn't. While excess fat, calories etc. (calories mostly) can make you obese on their own, so I'd say they "cause" obesity.

I said HFCS causes obesity. It does. However, I didn't say it was the ONLY cause.

You're first quote....

No one is going to be obese because they consume HFCS.

You are the one who overstated your argument, saying "No one".

[PeterMP]

Howard is 265 while Lebron is 250. Wow, you could never run one of those weight guessing games at a carnival! Lebron is 6-8 as well!

All right. I messed up, but the point stands. For the VAST MAJORITY of the population BMI is a fine.

It then is a fine thing in terms of doing large scale statistical studies in terms of where we are going as a nation and looking for associations with different diseases.

Nobody is talking about taxing individuals based on their BMI.

[Burgold]

So then, are you in favor of a tax scale based on ones health records?

Sure, smokers and drinkers and the morbidly obese should pay their pound of flesh! Afterall, their pound of flesh is worth about an ounce of anyone else's flesh!!!

[twa]

So then, are you in favor of a tax scale based on ones health records?

Well if you are gonna tax based on BMI,you should certainly tax based on sexual disease history,number of partners,drug use as well as genetic factors .

All certainly can be projected into risk,

[Bang]

I wonder if the government is going to lock down on the food corporations that put harmful chemicals in our food supply? I wonder if they are going to order corporations to remove high fructose corn syrup from our food which causes obesity? Probably not considering corporations and elite bankers run the country.

That would be the way to go, and not without precedent. We need an Orwellian muckraker that people will believe.

~Bang

[War Paint]

So if they use the BMI to determine taxes, what else will they use? What else will they implement? Will certain activities be taxed due to potential hazards, such as mountain hiking, motorcycle riding, contact sports......

[Thiebear]

I think its hilarious your arguing the details...

Do you actually believe 'details' will ever enter into this

it'll be another 300% above poverty because the details are 'hard'

[Ax]

Sure, smokers and drinkers and the morbidly obese should pay their pound of flesh! Afterall, their pound of flesh is worth about an ounce of anyone else's flesh!!!

Where do diabetics hit the scale.

Is there a different rate for those who are born with it?

A different rate for those who come down with it later, based on the age at which they were afflicted?

What about the smokers/drinkers who use the healthcare system less than non smokers/drinkers?

Should women with breast cancer pay more, since women get it in far greater numbers than men?

And yes, these are absurd questions, based on an absurd suggestion. IMO

[Bang]

So if they use the BMI to determine taxes, what else will they use? What else will they implement? Will certain activities be taxed due to potential hazards, such as mountain hiking, motorcycle riding, contact sports......

I think you've touched on exactly why it shouldn't be a worry. It opens up too many issues. As many are also pointing out, who is affected, how will it work.. the best answer is to not tax our health and avoid the problem. (Maybe tax the food that is not so good,, sin taxes. A lot of folks seem to agree with this approach)

Odds are that if any personal taxes are affected at all it will probably be more in the form of a tax credit if certain weight loss goals are met. Incentive to lose weight thru reward rather than punishment. It seems to be a trend of our government over the last two decades to offer rebates or credits to try and institute change. That still leaves the choice up to the individual, and just puts a carrot out there for those who try. (pardon the bad joke there.)

~Bang

[Special K]

If you really don't think it is, then you just are not reading the literature.

I was testing homocysteine levels when Kaiser Permanente thought it was "experimental" (I'm do not participate with Kaiser, but I have family that is)

This was 2003. 2003 Kaiser didn't approve the testing. Why? The major regulatory bodies (CDC included) did not think enough proof was there. Nevermind that homocysteine had been written up in the literature sine the 1980s.

So yes. They are behind the curve, and you are as well if you are not reading the lit.

Let's see, hemocysteine levels vs. BMI.........

I'm not working at a cardiovascular clinic. This is OB/Gyn. BMI along with many other measurements (no hemocysteine measurements though, sorry) work just fine to give us a picture of health of a patient.

The fact that people are going crazy about BMI is quite hilarious though. As PeterMP said, we have your height, we have your weight, it's 2 extra seconds to get the BMI. It's not like it's some super secret number that isn't already out there.

[Bang]

We have your height, we have your weight, it's 2 extra seconds to get the BMI.

My GOD!

You MONSTERS!!

They're going to tax everyone under six feet!

~Bang

[Special K]

Who is talking about about taxing people based on BMI? Can someone please enlighten me on this? Or is this another action that has not yet been taken, not yet been talked about, but is "probably" going to happen based on our active imagination?

[Ax]

Who is talking about about taxing people based on BMI? Can someone please enlighten me on this? Or is this another action that has not yet been taken, not yet been talked about, but is "probably" going to happen based on our active imagination?

Good. Obese people should be taxed more to help cover their share of universal health care.

[Special K]

My GOD!

You MONSTERS!!

They're going to tax everyone under six feet!

~Bang

Just wait 'till we track your date of birth. Or eye color. Then you're truly ****ed.

[Special K]

AX- Please give me names of government officials, if you don't mind. I mean, I know Burgy's pretty important, but not even he can affect policy to that extent.

[Corcaigh]

Who is talking about about taxing people based on BMI?

I'm not sure about taxes, but I heard that BMI will be used to determine whose guns to take away first and who also to incarcerate in the FEMA camps.

[Corcaigh]

They're going to tax everyone under six feet!

I support this policy.

[twa]

AX- Please give me names of government officials, if you don't mind. I mean, I know Burgy's pretty important, but not even he can affect policy to that extent.

NC Fat Tax – North Carolina may soon become the second state to impose a fat tax, or specifically penalize state employees insurance plans based on their body mass among other health factors.

http://1stnews.org/699/nc-fat-tax/#

The problem with the NC fat tax, is that the primary indicator of whether a person is overweight is by using the BMI calculator, or the Body Mass Index calculator. This would indeed penalize over weight state employees, but will also penalize very healthy people as well.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,414861,00.html

Alabama Plans to Tax Fat Employees to Recoup Insurance Costs

Clarian Health Partners, a hospital chain in Indiana, has taken a different approach. In 2009, they will start deducting money from the paychecks of workers who do not meet — and don't show efforts to meet — various health criteria. Smoking without trying to quit will cost $5; high glucose, high blood pressure and high cholesterol levels will cost $5 each; a high Body Mass Index will cost $10.

This is also happening abroad. Japan is monitoring the waist measurements of its policyholders, according to official government websites. Citizens receive jury duty-like summonses to appear for measurements — and if they're too fat, their employer will be slapped with a hefty fine. The maximum waist size allowed for men is 33.5 inches and 35.4 inches for women.

It's unlikely that Japan's program will catch on stateside, but that doesn't mean Americans are off the hook. Alabama's so-called "fat tax" could just be the beginning of a trend.

"A lot of employers are talking about this," Pauly said. "There's the feeling that you have to do something. What you do then is a matter of design and discretion."

[Ax]

AX- Please give me names of government officials, if you don't mind. I mean, I know Burgy's pretty important, but not even he can affect policy to that extent.

None I know of. I have been responding to Burgy's suggestion alone.

However, it's not hard for me to imagine it taking place in the future. The government will be as intrusive as the people allow them to be.

[Smoot Point Really]

Good. Obese people should be taxed more to help cover their share of universal health care.

You mean fat rich people...

[Corcaigh]

The problem with the NC fat tax, is that the primary indicator of whether a person is overweight is by using the BMI calculator, or the Body Mass Index calculator. This would indeed penalize over weight state employees, but will also penalize very healthy people as well.

This is completely misleading. Some very healthy people would only be penalized if you apply the same thresholds for acceptable BMI as the zones on the chart. In fact, NC was talking about no penalty for BMI of 40 or less, so only the seriously obese would pay more for their health insurance.

Alabama did this first and their threshold for the overweight penalty was a BMI over 35.

http://www.newsobserver.com/2009/10/07/129651/nc-to-impose-fat-tax.html