Want to see a logical extension of federalized health care and the kind of rationing choices that will be made?
This story here is fascinating.
Richie Trezise, 35, a rugby-playing Welshman, lost weight to gain entry to New Zealand after initially being rejected for being overweight and a potential burden on the health care system.
His wife, Rowan, 33, a photographer, has been battling for months to shed the pounds so they can be reunited and live Down Under but has so far been unable to overcome New Zealand’s weight regulations.
Robyn Toomath, a spokesman for Fight the Obesity Epidemic and an endocrinologist, said the BMI limit was valid in the vast majority of people. She said she was opposed to obese people being stigmatised. "However, the immigration department’s focus is different," she said. "It cannot afford to import people into the country who are going to be a significant drain on our health resources.
"You can see the logic in assessing if there is a significant health cost associated with this individual and that would be a reason for them not coming in."blockquote>
The implications of this are interesting. Is it discrimination or is it making people take personal responsibility when you treat someone different based on what are (often) controllable health risk factors?
We've already clearly made this value judgement with smokers and we're moving that direction with obesity. It's clear that obesity (as opposed to be merely overweight), much like smoking, is a devastating drain on our resources from a systems level. This was federally recognized in this example from New Zealand. Expect to see some incentives for BMI parameters to more frequently appear in your health insurance policy or be sponsored by your employer, as they've clearly fingered this subgroup as an area for cost containment in their employee costs.