N.Y. Diabetes-Tracking Plan Draws Concern

July 29, 2005 4:54 PM

Are we ready for the food police? "It's that they're pestering you." brandz
posted by brandz (28 comments total)

i am all for stuff like this. IMO, it's somewhat comparable to the smoking ban - the city is saying, "you're not smart enough to manage your health properly, so we're going to have make some rules that help."
posted by gnutron at 4:57 PM on July 29, 2005

/me pops fat-free organic soy-butter flavored popcorn
posted by moonbird at 5:09 PM on July 29, 2005

A double-signed single link Yahoo! News post. Yuck.
posted by Kwantsar at 5:18 PM on July 29, 2005

You are all for stuff like what? Gnutron? Are you a member of the target grouop? I am. In order to get an approved testing device through my (then) insurer, I had to participate in their education seminars. I was clearly in possession of more information than they were passing out. Every question I asked, the response was, "Oh, we don't cover that here. You are asking college level questions and we are dealing with grade-schoolers." And they meant by aptitude, not age. We were all over 30 in the group. The "snacks" they served us were plain bagels and (full sugar) yogurts. But I had to stay and play the whole week.

So, first, I don't have a problem with the public health service trying to do a better job, but fer chrissakes! Do a bettter job with preventive health care BEFORE there's a freaking problem. Trying to play house monitor is going to be a collosal clusterfuck, especially if the public sector ties access to treatment to participation in the "reeducation" seminars. I spend 5 days a year reupping on this crap in order to get a break on my supplies, but I get better information on the web.

Don't do me any favors. Take your patronizing attitude and focus on your problems.
posted by beelzbubba at 5:22 PM on July 29, 2005

I can't believe I snarked on the post without pointing out what a douchebag gnutron is.
posted by Kwantsar at 5:26 PM on July 29, 2005

i am always surprised how quickly people are willing to give up they're rights...or, somebody else's rights. high blood pressure? high cholesterol? drink much alcohol? maybe the patronizing attitude will go away when 'they' are the target group. it's quite possible these people are perfect!

kwanstar: i'm new at posting...gimme a break!

brandz
posted by brandz at 5:29 PM on July 29, 2005

Wait a minute...tuburculosis, smoking...those things are tracked/regulated because they affect other people. Just like with anything else, it's about your rights ending when they affect me.

Diabetics who can't/won't take care of themselves ony hurt...themselves. This really is the food police.
posted by PlusDistance at 5:30 PM on July 29, 2005

So the government can control my behavior because they have an economic interest in my health? Strange I don't remember going public.

Anyone who supports stuff like this lacks an imagination and even a modicum of historic knowledge.
posted by 517 at 5:34 PM on July 29, 2005

I'm all for this. Don't you all support a culture of life? Don't you know that people can't decide for themselves how to take care of their bodies or live their own lives?

It's not your body afterall. You're just renting it from Jesus Christ.
posted by es_de_bah at 5:37 PM on July 29, 2005

Oh I'm sorry> I didn't mean Jesus. You're renting it from the state.
posted by es_de_bah at 5:38 PM on July 29, 2005

If diabetics are costing the public so much, why not just track them, but also tax them for having such an inconvenient genetic disease? Brilliant!
posted by Foosnark at 5:46 PM on July 29, 2005

MeTa
posted by macadamiaranch at 5:47 PM on July 29, 2005

brandz, stop typing your name after your posts. Seriously, stop it.
posted by jonson at 5:47 PM on July 29, 2005

Jinx, macadamia, buy me a coke.
posted by jonson at 5:48 PM on July 29, 2005

Let's do this with music, too!

brandz
posted by hototogisu at 6:28 PM on July 29, 2005

people don't have to answer the doctor's questions, and they won't receive worse care or no care as a result, so i'm not upset about it. It is a gigantic health problem. (of course, they'd have to start doing it for all diseases i think, and for obese people, etc)
posted by amberglow at 6:51 PM on July 29, 2005

Wait a minute...tuburculosis, smoking...those things are tracked/regulated because they affect other people.

sexual intercourse affects other people. if someone has HIV/AIDS and is having unsafe sex, dire consequences could result. we don't regulate this, even if certain states track these folks. all i'm saying is people have a certain right to privacy, especially when it comes to issues of health.
posted by brandz at 7:12 PM on July 29, 2005

This is an absurdly intrusive proposal. This bit article, not in the Yahoo! piece, caught my eye:

The registry will have strict confidentially standards, limiting information solely to patients and their treating clinicians. The health agency says that it will not provide the information to other agencies, such as the motor vehicle division or insurers, and will not release data to others "even with patient consent."

Yeah, right. The health agency can say whatever it wants, but it's under no legal obligation to fulfill any promises. It's naive in the extreme to assume this kind of database won't end up in the hands of 1) the folks who run the NY state employees health plan and 2) private insurers. Erik Larsen put it nicely in his book "The Naked Consumer" -- once this kind of data is collected, it's only a matter of time before it gets put to uses not intended by the original collectors. It's just too valuable.

The simple solution: you are not allowed to collect this kind of data without the patients' permission. I'm stunned that anyone would fail to see that - particularly someone on the left end of the spectrum.
posted by mediareport at 7:26 PM on July 29, 2005

Wait a minute...tuburculosis, smoking...those things are tracked/regulated because they affect other people.
--
sexual intercourse affects other people. if someone has HIV/AIDS and is having unsafe sex, dire consequences could result.

It's apples and oranges, though. When you sleep with someone you realize the risk of exposure to HIV. You have to make a conscious decision to put yourself in harms way.

Something like TB can be passed along just by sitting next to the wrong person on the subway.
posted by Kellydamnit at 8:00 PM on July 29, 2005

this validates the existence of public health folks to have a job, usually, but not always, at taxpayer expense.

IMHO, both the left and the right are complicit in eroding the rights and freedoms of this country specifically, and society in general. and i speak from the left end of the spectrum.
posted by brandz at 8:08 PM on July 29, 2005

beelz, my apologies. i didn't mean to be patronizing, and i certainly don't want to tell anyone how to deal with their problems. and while i don't necessarily agree with the details proposal, i do believe that there are instances where some members of the general public are too frickin stupid to manage their own health wisely. you're a smart person. not everyone else is. sometimes, i think the government needs to create programs to help people manage their health and save health-care costs. i agree that preventative care may be more helpful and these institutions may not be functioning well, but i think the prinicpal is somewhat sound. bah, maybe i'm communist.
posted by gnutron at 10:41 AM on July 30, 2005

It seems to me the proper way to counteract the growing epidemic of diabetes would be to tax unhealthy food and pass that money back into the health system in ways that reduce cost for everyone. (Easier said than done, but easier done when tried.) That way, if people really want to kill themselves, the personal cost of doing so should come close to covering the cost to society. Those who say there is no cost to society are either wrong or self-insured, and I've never met anyone who is self-insured.
posted by scottreynen at 1:52 PM on July 30, 2005

I'm self-insured and it's expensive even in a "group plan"

That's a good idea, scott--a tax on unhealthy foods. We tax liquor, cigarettes, etc, so why not?
posted by amberglow at 2:32 PM on July 30, 2005

It's apples and oranges, though. When you sleep with someone you realize the risk of exposure to HIV.

oh, really? do you suppose a drunk person realizes the potential risk of sleeping with a stranger? or how about someone on crystal meth? or horny and curious teenagers? to me it's not apples and oranges at all. it's government invasion of privacy, plain and simple.

a tax on unhealthy foods

probably a good idea but who makes that list? we can't even make the food pyramid correctly.
posted by brandz at 7:14 PM on July 30, 2005

oh, really? do you suppose a drunk person realizes the potential risk of sleeping with a stranger? or how about someone on crystal meth? or horny and curious teenagers? to me it's not apples and oranges at all. it's government invasion of privacy, plain and simple.

Well, they made the decision to drink and/or do drugs, knowing the loss of inhibition that will result.

And, let me say, I was born in 1979. I don't know a time before AIDS. As horny and curious as I was as a teenager I was never stupid, since aids=death was drilled into me from childhood on.
posted by Kellydamnit at 7:44 PM on July 30, 2005

yeah, i'm a bit older than you and saw hundreds die from AIDS throughout the 1990s. believe me, when the government starts to make lists for any reason, we're all fucked. the question i always ask is 'how much power do you want to give the government?' people make poor choices all the time and that's the beauty of a so-called 'free' society.
posted by brandz at 8:24 PM on July 30, 2005

Of course this will have to be accompanied by a program to track people who engage in dangerous sporting activities, if not to ban those activities outright. Do you regularly risk severe injury or death because you enjoy rock climbing? Downhill skiing? NASCAR racing? Well, if you're not smart enough to manage your safety properly, then I'd say we're going to have make some rules that help.
posted by boredomjockey at 11:28 PM on July 30, 2005

silence = death
posted by brandz at 6:37 AM on July 31, 2005