Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSS
Ron Bailey looks to a future when working out and watching what you eat will be mandatory. Literally.
New at Reason
Comments to "New at Reason":
Jennifer | July 14, 2006, 12:11pm | #
Oh, my God.It's not that I'm surprised about this; it's that I'm surprised it's happening so soon. I really thought we'd have at least another ten years or so before levels of intrusion ramped up so high.
Clean Hands | July 14, 2006, 12:18pm | #
"When anyone dies at an early age from a preventable cause in New York City, it's my fault," New York City Health Commissioner Thomas Frieden declared recently.I look forward to this being held against him in a lawsuit or three thousand.
When the huddled masses are forced to be skinny, will it become fashionable to be fat again, ala the middle ages?
wellfellow | July 14, 2006, 12:21pm | #
"What's wrong with a little education, courtesy of the DOH? As it stands, nothing much"Really?? Who's paying for that?
So will the telescreen watch us and make sure that we're doing our exercise properly, and allow the aerobics instructor to chide us when we're doing less than our best?
wellfellow | July 14, 2006, 12:25pm | #
Illicit drug ban- pretty soon they'll ban smoking!"As usual, you guys may be a little hysterical about this."
Smoking ban- pretty soon they'll monitor caloric intake.
"As usual, you guys may be a little hysterical about this."
Fatty food ban- pretty soon they'll mandate exercise.
"As usual, you guys may be a little hysterical about this."
etc...
R C Dean | July 14, 2006, 12:26pm | #
As usual, you guys may be a little hysterical about this.Yeah, I mean its not like the most dire predictions about smoking haven't been seen and raised.
Sure, lots of people saw the creeping prohibition of cigarettes, but who predicted that you could be jailed for child abuse and have your kids taken from you if you exposed them to second hand smoke?
I know I've said this before, but maybe this really is a good thing. I mean, who wants to look at a behemoth?
Jennifer | July 14, 2006, 12:35pm | #
any diabetics who don't want to hear from the DOH can opt out, but they cannot prevent their test results from being filed in the registry.So what happens if they keep their test results private anyway?
AC | July 14, 2006, 12:38pm | #
So will the telescreen watch us and make sure that we're doing our exercise properly, and allow the aerobics instructor to chide us when we're doing less than our best?It will probably be a variation of A Clockwork Orange. I can see "patients" being forcefed Twinkies while watching videos of morbidly obese people until the patients cannot imagine eating unhealthy food.
Clean Hands | July 14, 2006, 12:39pm | #
Actually, the thought that occured to me right away was how many diabetics will simply stop being tested (and injure their health thereby) in order to escape the roving eye of the DOH?Wellfellow...If Medicare stopped paying for diabetes-related treatment, would you oppose an educational role for public health dollars?
wellfellow | July 14, 2006, 12:41pm | #
sage+P,I agree whole heartedly, also, who wants to be a brunette anyway? Or who wants to have to choose what toothpaste they buy? Have I got a plan for you!
Christ, how much more "education" do we need? Is there any non-microcephalic American above the age of five who does NOT know that: eating too much makes you fat; being fat may not be healthy; diabetes is also a less-than-optimal condition; smoking is likely bad for you; drinking 'til you puke each night is also a bad idea . . . seriously, who does NOT know this? And who has the attitude "I know that being fat is bad for me but I don't care. However, if my exposure to anti-fat messages increases from ten times a day to twenty, that's what will make me put down the Twinkie and start getting some exercise?"
the other Mark | July 14, 2006, 1:03pm | #
Things like this are why I have recurrent fantasies of dying gloriously on the field of battle in Iraq...or something like that.Clean Hands | July 14, 2006, 1:03pm | #
As usual, you guys may be a little hysterical about this.As usual, you have your head shoved so far up your ass you can perform your own colonoscopy unassisted.
Where do you draw the line, Dan? How much force is too much? How much intervention is more than you will personally tolerate? From what I've seen of your comments here, you're willing to "compromise" forever, so long as you can keep getting your Starbucks and listening to your Morning Edition, slouching through your workday, and going home to drift off watching HGTV.
mediageek | July 14, 2006, 1:05pm | #
"As usual, you guys may be a little hysterical about this."I look forward to you having to eat those words once this system spirals off into it's own little universe, becoming evermore coercive.
smacky | July 14, 2006, 1:09pm | #
wellfellow -- good comments.I know I've said this before, but maybe this really is a good thing. I mean, who wants to look at a behemoth?
Viewing a behemoth can be motivation enough to watch your own weight. Also, seeing a behemoth can sometimes be a wonderous sight. Especially those that fall into the category of "ultimate behemoth". Kind of zen-like, you know.
SR | July 14, 2006, 1:14pm | #
"From what I've seen of your comments here, you're willing to 'compromise' forever, so long as you can keep getting your Starbucks and listening to your Morning Edition, slouching through your workday, and going home to drift off watching HGTV."As a regular consumer of Starbucks, regular listener to Morning Edition, and regular viewer of HGTV (indeed, I have even consumed Starbucks' products while performing either of the other two, although never all three at once) I resent being lumped in with Dan T.
Phileleutherus Lipsiensis | July 14, 2006, 1:22pm | #
Frieden says that the surveillance information collected will remain confidential...Right. There is no such thing as confidential.
ATR | July 14, 2006, 1:28pm | #
There are already some states that require more years of phys.ed than Math or history. Not to be overly flip, but where's the government program for combatting stupidity?On the plus side, I usually managed to cut gym in high school. I'm sure the non-athletically inclined among us could find creative excuses.
smacky | July 14, 2006, 1:56pm | #
On the plus side, I usually managed to cut gym in high school. I'm sure the non-athletically inclined among us could find creative excuses.But the point is: why should I have to make excuses for myself to other people? It's none of the state's or anyone else's goddamn business how big I am, as long as I'm paying (and taxpayers aren't paying) for my healthcare/insurance.
Timothy | July 14, 2006, 2:12pm | #
On the plus side, I usually managed to cut gym in high school. I'm sure the non-athletically inclined among us could find creative excuses.Lucky you, they tried to force me to work out during my two semesters of required gym, eventhough I was a varsity XC and Track runner. Figure that out.
"Listen, you've got to put some effort into gym it's for your own good!"
"But, seriously, I'm going to go run 10 miles after school, I'm tired, leave me alone!"
"I don't care, lazy ass, do those squats or you're going to fail this class."
Aresen | July 14, 2006, 2:28pm | #
"As usual, you guys may be a little hysterical about this."And how long do you think it will be before someone suggests that "having hysterics" should be reported?
ralphus | July 14, 2006, 2:28pm | #
Viewing a behemoth can be motivation enough to watch your own weight.That's why my new diet plan consists of shopping at WalMart.
It is true that there is no better motivation than seeing an un-healthy person. I used to workout at a hospital gym. When you see some poor old bastard dragging an oxygen tank around the track, you can't help but pick up your pace.
Seems to me that a reasonable way the gov could motivate me to exercise is to let me write off my gym membership or make my health plan to cover it.
ATR | July 14, 2006, 2:33pm | #
But the point is: why should I have to make excuses for myself to other people? It's none of the state's or anyone else's goddamn business how big I am, as long as I'm paying (and taxpayers aren't paying) for my healthcare/insurance.No argument there; I hated that I had to make up excuses (well, lies usually) to get out of gym class, and I will hate it if the day comes when I have to make excuses to get out of government-mandated exercise classes.
Obviously, there are health risks involved with being overweight, but there are health risks involved in just about everything. I live in New York and breath in exhaust fumes when I walk down the street. Next, the government will make me wear a mask because I should be protecting my lungs.
zeroentitlement | July 14, 2006, 2:34pm | #
I know I've said this before, but maybe this really is a good thing. I mean, who wants to look at a behemoth?Who wants to look at you, Sage? Can you cite the section of the Constitution that protects us from ever, ever seeing anything unsightly?
"When anyone dies at an early age from a preventable cause in New York City, it's my fault"
Now the whiny 9/11 financiers' widows finally have somebody to go after.
Mandatory aerobics? That's nothing. If he's going after every preventable death, look for mandatory three-inch-thick suits of foam padding worn over bulletproof/stab-proof full body armor, with mandatory high-traction shoes, helmets, and mandatory SPF-50 sunscreen. Try hopping onto the subway wearing that. Oh, and all children will be enrolled in government rearing camps at birth, to prevent child abuse.
van | July 14, 2006, 2:40pm | #
>Seems to me that a reasonable way the gov could motivate me to exercise is to let me write off my gym membershipGreat suggestion. If I could do that, I could afford to join a gym.
wellfellow:
>Fatty food ban- pretty soon they'll mandate exercise.
>>"As usual, you guys may be a little hysterical about this."
It doesn't look like Mr. T has been paying attention.
sage +P | July 14, 2006, 2:41pm | #
Whoa, zero, I've got a live one here. Let's all try to remain calm. Calm down please.I thought fat people were supposed to be jolly.
Dan T. | July 14, 2006, 2:41pm | #
...look for mandatory three-inch-thick suits of foam padding worn over bulletproof/stab-proof full body armor, with mandatory high-traction shoes, helmets, and mandatory SPF-50 sunscreen. Try hopping onto the subway wearing that. Oh, and all children will be enrolled in government rearing camps at birth, to prevent child abuse.Like I said...
smacky | July 14, 2006, 2:47pm | #
Mandatory aerobics? That's nothing. If he's going after every preventable death, look for mandatory three-inch-thick suits of foam padding worn over bulletproof/stab-proof full body armor, with mandatory high-traction shoes, helmets, and mandatory SPF-50 sunscreen. Try hopping onto the subway wearing that. Oh, and all children will be enrolled in government rearing camps at birth, to prevent child abuse.*sigh*
Sometimes I think we lost the Cold War.
John | July 14, 2006, 2:53pm | #
It is not hard to figure out where this goes. Diabetics continue to ignore their doctors and the city and doing things to hurt their health and the program becomes mandatory for anyone wanting the government assistance for healthcare. At this point, people who think they might be diabetic avoid being tested or seeking medical treatment, which of course is a health problem in itself. To deal with this problem, the entire population will then be required to have yearly diabetes testing to make sure no one is left out of the program. In addition, as the jobs and money associated with the program get bigger, the definition of diabetes is expanded to include those who are "at risk", who will of course be put on their own mandatory program.I don't know that this would actually happen because hopefully people would have enough sense to revolt at some point and put a stop to it. My point is, however, that the people to a lot of public health "advocates" the scenario I describe, mandatory testing and mandatory diet programs for diabetics and those at risk of the disease, would be a perfectly acceptable and desirable end state. It is for this reason that you cannot react too strongly to this program or condemn its advocates too harshly.
Clean Hands | July 14, 2006, 3:03pm | #
Seems to me that a reasonable way the gov could motivate me to exercise is to let me write off my gym membership or make my health plan to cover it.<Sigh> And how, exactly, is it the gov't's responsibility to motivate you to exercise? And how does this putative "responsibility" justify further social engineering via the tax code, or worse yet, invoking the force of gov't to inflict your "there oughta be a law" musings on a private company?
joe | July 14, 2006, 3:07pm | #
This is an outrage. Collecting medical data is even worse than collecting phone records.A mass sweep with personally identifiying data?
Oh My God.
van | July 14, 2006, 3:38pm | #
> And how, exactly, is it the gov't's responsibility to motivate you to exercise?I don't think it is. But I agree, if it wants to go down that road, a tax break is a more or less acceptable means to me. But I don't think my insurance should cover it.
I realize you weren't addressing me, but I did respond favorably to the comment you were addressing, so I wanted to clarify myself.
ralphus | July 14, 2006, 4:58pm | #
And how, exactly, is it the gov't's responsibility to motivate you to exercise?Clean Hands,
It's not. But it seems like they are going to make it their business whether I like it or not. When they do I would rather get a tax break than a summons to palates class. I agree the tax code sucks, but its what I have to live with until the Libertarian administration takes power. Which means until the day I die.
The health insurance thing was just a bad idea. Regretted it as soon as I hit post. The ideal would be that my health insurer would choose to give me a discount for having a gym membership.
keith | July 14, 2006, 5:18pm | #
If an insurance company maintained a glucose-test data repository (or other medical-test data repository) and used some threshold value or values-over-time to encourage preventive measures, the result would probably be positive for both parties. Preventive care tends to cost less to provide than crisis care; and if it reduces diabetes complications, it should improve patient quality of life.If a private insurer had this program, we'd all applaud their proactivity.
Even if Medicare/Medicaid had this program, in the role of insurer, it makes a lot of sense for that organization to run this, and cost-effective benefits would flow to all their stakeholders, both clients and taxpayers. The elements of control and compulsion in this story argue against any single-payer-healthcare system, but otherwise poor and old folks are stuck with Medicare/Medicaid for at least the intermediate term. If Medicare were the ones rolling out this program, I'd surely support this program on it's own, other concerns about Medicare aside.
But a municipal department of health??? WTF? Is this one of those crazy federal "Block Grant" to a local provider of medicare services? Or are they just butting themselves into a different relationship as a bureaucratic turf war?
Akira MacKenzie | July 14, 2006, 5:43pm | #
I've said it once, I'll say it again: It's a sad day when insurance rates become a greater influence of determining our freedoms than the Bill Of Rights.thoreau | July 14, 2006, 7:38pm | #
I agree with joe. This is horrible.Consider another aspect: I don't know about these types of tests, but whenever I go see a doctor of any type for any reason I'm asked to write down what medicines I'm on. Dental cleaning, eye exam, you name it. (There are good reasons: A lot of medicines that you wouldn't even think of can produce side effects in the eyes, some of them rather subtle. And a lot of medicines, including Advil, can affect bleeding during dental cleanings. Since excessive bleeding during cleaning can be a symptom of gum disease, they have to know whether you're bleeding because of gum disease or because you took a few Advil.)
Anyway, I don't know what info they request from diabetic patients when these tests are conducted. But I can see the potential for the city authorities to get their hands on medication lists, including psychiatric meds (yes, I know, libertarians don't believe in psychiatry, but surely you don't want the gov't to know who's seeing a shrink), meds for sexually transmitted STDs, and other things that you might not want authorities to know about.
They might not have those records yet, even under this measure, but it's only a matter of time. And it will continue to expand. Do we really want the cops to know who's been to a shrink, who's been in drug rehab, who has an STD, who's had an abortion, etc?
smacky | July 14, 2006, 8:10pm | #
They might not have those records yet, even under this measure, but it's only a matter of time. And it will continue to expand. Do we really want the cops to know who's been to a shrink, who's been in drug rehab, who has an STD, who's had an abortion, etc?No.
And moreover, this isn't any of their goddamn business. That is when civil diobedience will become commonplace. As will many, many privately filed lawsuits.
Question about a quote from the article:
"One physician friend told me that he adds ten years to the age of his diabetic patients."
What is this supposed to mean?
presumably, diabetics will die ten years sooner than non-diabetics of the same age.
smacky | July 14, 2006, 10:21pm | #
van,The way I took it, he was suggesting that he assumes all diabetics will die in ten years from their current age. I don't know if that's right. Little help, anyone?
fletch | July 14, 2006, 10:51pm | #
smacky-I agree w/ van...
I assumed the doctor was only saying he would consider a 35 yr old diabetic's "overall health" the same as an otherwise similar non-diabetic 45 yr old, or a diabetic 50 yr old much like he would a non-diabetic 60 yr old..., etc.
Kara | July 15, 2006, 11:06am | #
My father is a Type 1 and is not overweight. He manages his sugar with his own system that he has developed over the years--not the "standard" food exchanges. At almost 70 he is one of the longest living Type 1 cases. Is the Gov. going to force him to use their food exchange method??This is the future.
A few weeks ago I went to buy cold medicine at CVS. The shelves only had cards that you had to present at the pharmacy.
(I knew what would happen but decided to make a point).
The pharmacist then took out a huge book where I was to sign and present my drivers license. My answer to her was, "no way comrade". She looked confused. I may have been the only one ever to refuse. My mom says this is a Federal Law, but I am not sure. Anyone know??