Has anyone read this article? Obese 3rd grader removed from home (veggies, quit smoking)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Do you want to pay the healthcare costs of the kid who breaks his arm playing scratch football? Should the state take him away from his parents because they let him play it? Why not? What's the difference?Different scenarios; comparing apples and oranges
And that old saw about "saving" health care costs doesn't wash any more. That was the excuse many used for supporting rigorous anti-smoking ordinances and higher taxes. So far, more than half of smokers have quit in the past decade or so. Tell me....how much have YOUR insurance premiums gone down? How much has the cost of healthcare gone down? (Here's a tip: It's rising faster than the rate of inflation and shows no sign of slowing).
Since that many smokers have kicked the habit, couldn't you logically assume you'd be seeing more money in your pocket by now? But, you're not, so what on earth leads you to believe you'll see anything after everyone is forced to become "healthy."
Once again, the underlying impetus seems to be hubris. Others are not behaving as you do, or raising their kids as you do, and government should force them to....right?
Flawed logic. Health care costs have gone up because of an aging population, over consumption of medical care and the over prescribing (in some cases) of medical care to CYA against malpractice suits. Just to name a few examples.
I'm not trivializing sleep apnea. I'm simply pointing out that it is not immediately life threatening and asking whether or not we ought to allow government to interfere in a family for something which MIGHT have long term health consequences. Apparently, you think we should.
Question: If the parent can lose control of her child to the state for not properly protecting her from being overweight, should a parent also lose their kids because they don't properly protect them from the effects of dirty air or exhaust pollution or improperly cooked foods or too much sugar in their diets? If you think so, remember that list can get awfully long and eventually will include you and your child unless a stopping point is determined.
Let me turn the tables on you, so the "state" should have done absolutely nothing in this case?
Do you want to pay the healthcare costs of the kid who breaks his arm playing scratch football? Should the state take him away from his parents because they let him play it? Why not? What's the difference?
And that old saw about "saving" health care costs doesn't wash any more. That was the excuse many used for supporting rigorous anti-smoking ordinances and higher taxes. So far, more than half of smokers have quit in the past decade or so. Tell me....how much have YOUR insurance premiums gone down? How much has the cost of healthcare gone down? (Here's a tip: It's rising faster than the rate of inflation and shows no sign of slowing).
Since that many smokers have kicked the habit, couldn't you logically assume you'd be seeing more money in your pocket by now? But, you're not, so what on earth leads you to believe you'll see anything after everyone is forced to become "healthy."
Once again, the underlying impetus seems to be hubris. Others are not behaving as you do, or raising their kids as you do, and government should force them to....right?
There is a problem with your hypothesis.
If people smoke, they die sooner. That saves the costs of medical care they would have generated if they lived longer.
Short term costs are lower; long term costs are higher.
I'm not trivializing sleep apnea. I'm simply pointing out that it is not immediately life threatening and asking whether or not we ought to allow government to interfere in a family for something which MIGHT have long term health consequences. Apparently, you think we should.
Question: If the parent can lose control of her child to the state for not properly protecting her from being overweight, should a parent also lose their kids because they don't properly protect them from the effects of dirty air or exhaust pollution or improperly cooked foods or too much sugar in their diets? If you think so, remember that list can get awfully long and eventually will include you and your child unless a stopping point is determined.
You keep using examples that reduce the argument to the extreme.
I keep pointing out that the decision to remove a child needs to be made on a case by case basis. What is in the best interest of this child on this day? We have courts that do nothing but make that decision, every day.
You seem to think a child should be removed from a home only if he is in immediate danger of being killed. I would hope social services would not wait that long.
Flawed logic. Health care costs have gone up because of an aging population, over consumption of medical care and the over prescribing (in some cases) of medical care to CYA against malpractice suits. Just to name a few examples.
So, you're saying they COULD have gone up even more had people not stopped smoking?
Prove it. Facts and figures, please. (Hint: You can't. All you can do is quote possibilities, the same as you can do if everyone were forced to be "healthy.")
The point is that no matter how "healthy" the government forces people to be, folks are still going to get old and suffer age-related illnesses and medical treatments. That's going to cost money...a lot of it. In fact, it's likely to drive UP healthcare costs because they'll live longer and spend more of their declining years in long term care.
By your idea, it would be cost effective to just kill everyone at birth or the first time they did something which might have an adverse health effect later on. Talk about saving money!
Let me turn the tables on you, so the "state" should have done absolutely nothing in this case?
Yes, that's right. This is not an issue the state needs to be involved in. Either parents have rights and children have rights, or they don't. Which would you prefer?
If the child were in imminent danger of physical harm, yes of course, but to me, this doesn't rise to that level. Generations of parents have successfully raised overweight kids with any "help" from the government and I see no reason to presume the current one can't too.
At what point did we buy into the lie that government knows best? Why did we?
Correction: If they smoke, they will POSSIBLY die younger. It's not cut and dried and nobody can prove any individual ever died "young," simply because nobody knows when that person would have died otherwise. It's just a matter of odds. Conversely, the same can be said of those who live "healthy" lives. It cannot be definitively proved that they lengthened their lives for the same reason.
In any case, if holding down healthcare costs is the objective, it would seem to be far more efficacious to encourage people to smoke, wouldn't you say?
You keep using examples that reduce the argument to the extreme.
I keep pointing out that the decision to remove a child needs to be made on a case by case basis. What is in the best interest of this child on this day? We have courts that do nothing but make that decision, every day.
You seem to think a child should be removed from a home only if he is in immediate danger of being killed. I would hope social services would not wait that long.
But, the extremes are precisely where the debate should be held. Those "extremes" are contracting every day, with every intervention, and will soon become the norm unless we establish a limit, a point where we say, "This far and no more."
For instance, you consider this particular case as warranting intervention, but you're missing a key ingredient: WHO notified CPS and why? At what point did this child come to their attention and who did it?
I think I recall reading that a doctor or hospital turned the child in because of his weight (is that right?). If so, when and how did that become a reportable issue and why?
In the name of child safety, we've empowered teachers, health care professionals and others to report suspected abuse or neglect cases. In fact, we COMPEL them to do it. Yet, we give them no clear-cut guidelines about what is, or is not, evidence of neglect or abuse, so everyone just sort of takes that ball and runs with it to the point that being overweight can now be defined as "medical neglect."
Can you not see where this can lead if not stopped? What else can be defined thusly, enabling CPS to involve itself with a family? High blood pressure? Too much salt in someone's diet? "Risky" behaviors such as unsupervised play?
One should never, ever forget the process of incrementalism. Once started, balls like this continue to roll and grow until the brakes are applied. If nobody cares enough to say, "That's enough," it will soon consume us all and our families.
So, you're saying they COULD have gone up even more had people not stopped smoking?
Prove it. Facts and figures, please. (Hint: You can't. All you can do is quote possibilities, the same as you can do if everyone were forced to be "healthy.")
The point is that no matter how "healthy" the government forces people to be, folks are still going to get old and suffer age-related illnesses and medical treatments. That's going to cost money...a lot of it. In fact, it's likely to drive UP healthcare costs because they'll live longer and spend more of their declining years in long term care.
By your idea, it would be cost effective to just kill everyone at birth or the first time they did something which might have an adverse health effect later on. Talk about saving money!
I have read many times that preventative medicine is cheaper that the more expensive cures. Staying at a healthy weight and not smoking and not drinking in excess are preventative medicine in my mind.
Yes, that's right. This is not an issue the state needs to be involved in. Either parents have rights and children have rights, or they don't. Which would you prefer?
If the child were in imminent danger of physical harm, yes of course, but to me, this doesn't rise to that level. Generations of parents have successfully raised overweight kids with any "help" from the government and I see no reason to presume the current one can't too.
At what point did we buy into the lie that government knows best? Why did we?
AGAIN, this is not the case of "just an overweight" kid. This is an extreme case of an excessively obese kid, who's parents-despite being given the resources-refused to or couldn't properly address this situation. This is not the case of the 20# husky boy who hits a growth spurt and fits inside or is close to the BMI scale again.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
