I stumbled across this article about Blue Cross Blue Shield of Tennessee’s decision to require all morbidly obese people under their coverage to take an IQ test before being covered for a gastric bypass surgery. After reading the article, I found myself asking two questions: 1. Is it right to require that patients have a certain degree of intelligence before recieving a potentially life saving operation? 2. Since many cases of obesity are the result of bad eating habits rather than disorders, should those without a disorder recieve coverage for something they caused themselves?

I do not mean to be insensitive to anyone who is overweight or obese, as I am not a twig myself, but there are certain proven trends in obesity. Obesity tends to be more common in the lower social and economic groups. This is a fact. Mississippi, one of the poorest states in the nation (if not THE poorest) has the highest percentage of obese residents in the US. If you look at the shift in advertising for such fast food chains as McDonald’s and Burger King, you see that more and more commercials are geared towards minorities and teenagers, and often have a rap, hip hop, r&b feel to them. This is hardly a coincidence, as these are the most likely groups to be attracted to cheap food. Unfortunately, in our culture of supersizing, obesity is becoming a huge problem and many people are looking towards gastric bypass as a cosmetic procedure rather than a life saving one.

Insurance companies have an obligation to cover their customers from anything that may befall them outside the realm of their control. Just as burning your house down purposely does not allow you to clain your insurance money, I do not think people with bad eating habits should be able to claim health insurance to finance this operation. People who are eating badly KNOW that continuing on the path they are on will lead them to obesity. This is common knowledge and anyone who does not know this will certainly not pass an IQ test given to them by their insurer. Why should insurance companies reward money to people who could have controlled their weight easily with a little bit of self control? Now, if a customer has a disorder in which they cannot control their weight, they should be allowed full coverage, especially if it is a matter of life and death.

On the issue of the IQ test, first we need to determine if IQ should have anything to do with someone recieving the medical care that they require. I think that requiring someone to be of a certain intelligence before recieveing treatment is blatant discrimination and is just plain wrong. Now, all of this was about medical attention, not about whether the insurance company should pay for these people or not. Of course the insurance company should pay for these people, but I suppose they reserve the right to require this of all people purchasing policies AFTER their change in doctrine. If this is the inevitable decision of the insurance company, I suggest that they make some changes to it. Perhaps instead of requiring an IQ test from everyone, it should only be required from people whose obesity was caused by their own bad eating habits. All people with disorders should recieve the operation with the full insurance coverage. Now from those taking the IQ test, the people on the LOW end of the spectrum should recieve the coverage because they are less likely to be able to realize and understand the consequences of their diet. Those who know the consequences but continue on the path should not recieve coverage.

Of course my proposed idea is discriminating, but it is less discriminating than that put into place by Blue Cross Blue Shield. Ultimately we are all responsible for ourselves, and for most people, obesity is within your control. Should this allow insurance companies to decide whose life they save? Absolutely not. Everyone in America should recieve the medical care they need. Operate first and worry about the money later.

Popularity: 11% [?]

Share this with the world:

If you enjoyed this article, you can subsribe to the College Critic Feed by clicking here! Also, please leave a comment if you enjoyed the article, agree with it, disagree with it, or even flat out hate it!

(No Ratings Yet)

 Loading ...

Comments(1)

I was waiting in the doctor’s office yesterday and I happened to pick up an issue of Forbes from November of ‘06.  It was a little outdated, but that didn’t stop me from finding a great editorial written by Steve Forbes himself.  As I have said in the past, I am a strong supporter of dividing Iraq into autonomous states with seperate governments according to the religious lines in the country.  However, the one major roadblock to this goal has been the uneven distribution of oil throughout the country.  We have the Kurds in the North, the Sunnis in the middle, and the Shia in the South.  The oil is deposited mostly in the North and South, leaving the proposed Sunni province with little black gold of its own.  So once again, greed is the main factor preventing us from leaving Iraq. 

How can we make everyone happy in this situation?  Steve Forbes points us towards Alaska.  How can Alaska help us to solve our Iraq problem?  Most people will be surprised to know that there is a fund that is managed by investment experts hired by the government called the Permanent Fund.  When the government pumps oil from the wells in Alaska, about one quarter of the profits are placed into this fund.  Each year, every registered and eligible Alaskan recieves about $1,100 from the fund.  Forbes argues that this would solve the oil distribution issue in Iraq, and I tend to agree.  It would end the argument over where the oil wells are geographically and it would provide an incentive for unity.  Each Iraqi would be compelled to provide an address if they wanted to recieve their money, effectively registering the location of every Iraqi citizen for the government.  While the government may have a problem with relinquishing control of a portion of their oil profits, it might just be the spark that Iraq needs to begin to realize the potential benefits of cooperating with the new government. 

Popularity: 7% [?]

Share this with the world:

If you enjoyed this article, you can subsribe to the College Critic Feed by clicking here! Also, please leave a comment if you enjoyed the article, agree with it, disagree with it, or even flat out hate it!

(No Ratings Yet)

 Loading ...

Comments(3)

With the new minimum wage increase almost guaranteed to pass, there are many people in America who feel as though this a victory for everyone.  Liberals, especially, believe that this is a great change.  The problem is that minimum wage increases hurt more people than they help.  In fact, only 4% of America’s workers are even affected by this increase, according to this article at Yahoo News.  So where is the victory?  Well, for one thing, this pay raise will help some of America’s lowest paid employees pay for their groceries, which is definitely a good thing.  Less people on welfare benefits us all, especially when tax time comes around. 

Unfortunately, the cost is high.  A minimum wage increase will also increase the prices of some goods and services, specifically those that are produced and performed by these low paid workers.  Since the owners lose profits when they pay employees more, they will compensate.  It is simple economics.  This forces all of us to pay a higher price.  By far the dumbest thing I have ever heard is this statement by Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.), “This is a great day for America’s middle class.  America’s workers have been waiting for a raise for too long.”   First of all, did he not realize the above figure of the 4% of workers that are currently making below the new $7.25 minimum wage?  Second of all, how does that help the middle class?  Are America’s lowest paid workers members of the middle class?   Somehow, I can’t see how helping the poorest members of work force benfits the middle class.  In fact, most middle class citizens are entrepreneurs who own or run their own business.  These are often the businesses that EMPLOY these low paid workers that are affected by the raise.  Technically, you are taking money from the middle class, not creating a “great day” for them. 

Even more ridiculous is the fact that most of the lowest paid workers are illegal aliens that have crossed the Mexican border.  These workers are not factored into the pay statistics.  In fact, this won’t help them because they can’t report the illegally low wages because they themselves are illegal.  So really, how is this minimum wage increase a true accomplishment.  Sadly, most of the people making below $7.25 are college students like me, who are just working part time jobs to spend the money on weekends.  Sometimes people don’t think things through before they react to an issue.

Popularity: 8% [?]

Share this with the world:

If you enjoyed this article, you can subsribe to the College Critic Feed by clicking here! Also, please leave a comment if you enjoyed the article, agree with it, disagree with it, or even flat out hate it!

(No Ratings Yet)

 Loading ...

Comments(1)