Daily Show Picks Fight With... American Heart Association?

The Daily Show had a really funny segment today about a bill that was killed in committee that would have allowed for discounts in health insurance for people who exercised and had BM Is around a certain level. This bill was lobbied against by such groups as the American Heart Association, the American Diabetes Association, and the American Cancer Society. While this looked at first glance like a story of interest groups gone batty, an article from Forbes includes a press release that gives the AHA's take.

To sum it up, AHA opposed it because they were worried that the bill would give insurance companies another way to discriminate against those with pre-existing conditions, many of which are genetic and cannot simply be exercised away. Unfortunately, none of these organizations were willing to talk with The Daily Show and give their view, so unless you try to root it out from the information sea that is the internet, you probably wouldn't be able to find that.

As you can probably guess, I actually come down on the side of the AHA on this one. Maybe the bill would have been better if you could qualify by showing that you were making effort in that direction instead of strictly requiring things like the BMI, but that probably would have allowed loopholes that could be exploited without any health benefits. In any case, the subject's far more complicated than it appears at first glance, and I was curious if anyone had any input on the subject.

BMI is actually a bad indicator of healthiness when taken on its own, anyway. It's perfectly possible to be healthy and fit and have a high BMI, or unhealthy and unfit but a low BMI. (Since thin doesn't always mean healthy, and large doesn't always mean unhealthy.)

And yeah, part of it is genetic. My whole mom's side of the family tends to be stout and bottom-heavy, so it's hard for us to lose weight. Heck, my mom nowadays has a naturally tiny appetite, and has to watch what she eats due to issues with high blood pressure and cholesterol, and exercised regularly back when her breathing was better, and she's still rather plump.

edited 1st Nov '11 7:54:24 PM by Jeysie

I mean, the bill does refer to what it calls "healthy behaviors." It lists six. Not smoking, low blood pressure (within normal range), BMI in normal range, low LDL levels, high HDL levels, and appropriate hemoglobin levels. However, the problem is that only one of these is actually a behavior - not smoking. All of the rest follow as results of behaviors, but results that don't necessarily follow. All of the improvements listed relate directly to this framework. A better way to work would have been "exercising 3 to 4 times a week," "lowering consumption of foods high in LDL," that sort of thing. But like I said, I don't know how on earth you would prove that.

Alright kids, what did we learn today?

It doesn't matter if you're factually correct if your argument and style aren't as good!

~sigh~

edited 1st Nov '11 8:59:12 PM by USAF721

I side with the AHA on this. It's just another attempt for insurance companies to make more money...and exploiting the prejudice against overweight people to do it. Fuck 'em.

I mean, come on; they've already proven that cholesterol is only slightly impacted by what you eat (granted, if you've got the genetic problem that leads to high cholesterol, probably should avoid going nuts with junk food), so why is obesity still tied to behavior?

We learned this with alcoholism, depression, bulimia, drug addiction and a host of other ills; treating a problem as a moral failing does not make the problem go away, it just drives those who suffer to not seek treatments they need.

^ Wait, insurance pays for alcohol and drug-related illnesses?

Because obesity is in many cases tied to behavior? I agree with AHA, but let's not pretend that an unfortunate combination of genetics and mental distress is anywhere close to the main reason for obesity.

@feo: some kinds will.

@Kash: sure, I've met plenty of people who could lose some weight if they'd stop eating so much. But I've met many more who really want to lose weight, who try to watch what they eat and get exercise...and the pounds just stay there.

Also, the food industry of America doesn't help this. Eating healthy is fucking expensive here, and requires reading a shit-ton of fine print. I know this because DG and I are trying to do it...our food bill has doubled and our time spent shopping has done likewise.

Eating truly healthy food is expensive and time-consuming, but your choice is not merely between organic ambrosia and a McNugget. There are plenty of cheap, non-fatty foods around, even if they aren't as healthy as your average yoga market crap.

edited 1st Nov '11 10:38:54 PM by kashchei

@kash: As I recall, you aren't an American...before I respond proper, is this so?

Interesting.

Credibility=>blown.

I don't see how allowing for discounts=discrimination. I'd certainly tweak how they measure this but the idea is sound.

@thatguythere

It's because it's essentially the same as jacking up the premiums for those with pre-existing conditions that can't be fixed with behavioral adjustments. That's been a problem with the US health system for a while, one that only recently got addressed at all with the Affordable Care Act.

The problem is that in this case the discounts are based on something not all that controllable by pure behavior, and may not even actually be a good indicator of good health.

Drunk, you recall incorrectly.

edited 2nd Nov '11 8:45:02 AM by kashchei