[Injecto]

Study: Cost of treating diabetes to triple by 2034 - CNN.com

I'm not going to get into the whole thing, but this specific point really hit me.

"He also likes the idea of allowing insurers to charge higher premiums to people who don't meet certain health benchmarks, such as losing weight if they're obese.

"The thing about diabetes, it's among the most preventable of major illnesses," Gruber said. "We need to put patient financial incentives at stake.""

This point is and should be most directed at T2, but in the insurance world, they won't give a ****, and as such will punish T1s for getting a disease that is NOT related to weight. So that's a concern.
On the other hand, there is something to say about incentives, and financial ones are always top, because face it, 99% of people will take their health for granted if they can get health care for free.

[foxl]

How about providing some financial incentive to public health officials for revising their dietary guidelines while we are at it?

How about providing some financial incentives to advertisers of fast food joints and processed foods ... and to the grain industry lobbyists?

To name a FEW.

[zakksmom]

Originally Posted by Injecto

Study: Cost of treating diabetes to triple by 2034 - CNN.com

I'm not going to get into the whole thing, but this specific point really hit me.

"He also likes the idea of allowing insurers to charge higher premiums to people who don't meet certain health benchmarks, such as losing weight if they're obese.

"The thing about diabetes, it's among the most preventable of major illnesses," Gruber said. "We need to put patient financial incentives at stake.""

This point is and should be most directed at T2, but in the insurance world, they won't give a ****, and as such will punish T1s for getting a disease that is NOT related to weight. So that's a concern.
On the other hand, there is something to say about incentives, and financial ones are always top, because face it, 99% of people will take their health for granted if they can get health care for free.

My son was recently diagnosed with T1, I was in the irs website inquiring about health related write off's and it states that you cannot write insulin off they are placing it in the same category as nicotine patches, ect.. after reading this I am enlightned.. this is totally unfair to the T1's.. what can we do as a group to 1 educate and 2 make a change.. I think they need to rename T1 as you guys are automatically placed into the T2 catagory.. not very fair when you have absolutley NO control over the life of your pancreas..

[foxl]

zakks, like that makes it fair to TYPE 2's???

IRS should not be making medical decisions, however.

[zakksmom]

Originally Posted by foxl

zakks, like that makes it fair to TYPE 2's???

IRS should not be making medical decisions, however.

Please dont take this as a spitting match- The IRS is not controlling diabetes they are merely stating that no insulin dependent diabetic can write off the expense of insulin because it is a "controlled" desease- Obviously they are not taking T1's into consideration as T1's have no control it's like being pregnant or not or smoking or not or not eatting unheathy foods in moderation.. but T1's; they have no option.. whereas T2's have the option to take control of this desease. Did you read the article? Only 10% account for T1. In only one 3 sentence statement do they say anything about T1's. However T1's are being cast into the pool of many of those that choose not to take control of their bad habits. Being lumped all together is not very fair.. Everytime Zakk's condition is brought up to anyone who has not even seen this kid automatically say oh, he just needs to change his lifestyle and he will be ok.. When this is far from the truth. Then we spend 20 minutes having to educate that no Zakk has no control or options: his pancreas died.. I vote for a name change for T'1s.. T2's you have choices.. I can only wish that we had a choice..

[foxl]

Zakks, it is not that I think you meant to start something, but that you are making an assumption common in our culture, about T2D. You, too, are taking control of your child's disease. And I do think there is a range of control, even within T1. There are also T1's who do not take good care of themselves, whether diet, or exercise, or alcohol or other drugs ... do you think they also be in some way penalized?

Type 2's can control progression to some extent by using diet and exercise ... but that is not a cure.

You could say people can take control of just about any condition ... to one degree or another, through one channel or another.

Take ... dental hygiene. Does everyone with periodontal disease neglect dantal hygiene? Maybe we should limit writeoffs or insurance for dental care then, too?

[Injecto]

Originally Posted by foxl

There are also T1's who do not take good care of themselves, whether diet, or exercise, or alcohol or other drugs ... do you think they also be in some way penalized?

Type 2's can control progression to some extent by using diet and exercise ... but that is not a cure.

Two notes.

Point 1 - sure, T1s can have some penalization too, but it has to be different because the causation is different.

Point 2 - It must just be a big correlation between weight and T2 diagnosis, because if losing weight does not "cure" T2 (which we know it does not), there must be some other factor that actually causes resistance to insulin. I suppose, however, it's easier to tell the public, "lose weight", than to explain to them the complexities of what a correlation is in reference to weight alone.

[Funnygrl]

It's just saying charge people with more risk factors more. Makes sense. Auto insurance and homeowners insurance has worked this way for years. If you constantly get pulled over for speeding, you pay more to insure your driving. If you get an pool and trampoline and lose your smoke detectors, you pay more to insure your house. If you are 100 pounds over weight and smoke, you pay more to insure your health. Just seems logical to me. Those who are likely to end up using the insurance are the ones with the higher premiums. Why should I pay for your shiney new insulin pump if you couldn't pass on McDonald's in favor of an apple? The suggestion is charging people for risk factors, not for catching non-preventable diseases. If you modify any risk factors you have possible, you are not affected by this.

[foxl]

Funny, the entire concept of insurance is risk-sharing. Not risk-stratifying.

Simplistic, yeah. But so are many arguments on both sides of the fence.

So I suppose you think people who "Chose" to live in the New Orleans region and other hurricane-prone regions should pay a higher homeowners' premium ... ? Short-term, I mean.

[zakksmom]

Originally Posted by foxl

Zakks, it is not that I think you meant to start something, but that you are making an assumption common in our culture, about T2D. You, too, are taking control of your child's disease. And I do think there is a range of control, even within T1. There are also T1's who do not take good care of themselves, whether diet, or exercise, or alcohol or other drugs ... do you think they also be in some way penalized?

Type 2's can control progression to some extent by using diet and exercise ... but that is not a cure.

You could say people can take control of just about any condition ... to one degree or another, through one channel or another.

Take ... dental hygiene. Does everyone with periodontal disease neglect dantal hygiene? Maybe we should limit writeoffs or insurance for dental care then, too?

The T1's then become a crossbreed as "they" made the "choice" to not take control of their habits just as people who make the choice not to go to the dentist every six months for cleanings.. and I also am aware of those that do not have the resources to get well care ibut I do find it interesting that most seem to have the extra funds to keep up their smoking habits though..
Its obvious that the big d is by far the most widespread, expensive desease to manage.. that is why their is such debate over whats covered whats not whats a write off and whats not.. Its obviously that the majority of the population me included on some things chose not to step up and take control of whatever issue is at hand and prefer to sweep the underlying conditions under the rug and rationalize to ourselves that we just dont want to deal with knowing what is going to eventually become an obvious beast.. Carzy isn't it?

[Injecto]

Originally Posted by foxl

Funny, the entire concept of insurance is risk-sharing. Not risk-stratifying.

Simplistic, yeah. But so are many arguments on both sides of the fence.

So I suppose you think people who "Chose" to live in the New Orleans region and other hurricane-prone regions should pay a higher homeowners' premium ... ? Short-term, I mean.

I agree with you. It's supposed to be Risk-Sharing, but insurance has gone down the drain and punishes people. We should have the right to opt out of auto insurance in this case, but that's not our topic.

In these wonderful countries of ours, we developed systems that were supposed to make things "fairer" and generally "help others".

I disagree, I should NOT have to pay MORE taxes, in MY country, because I got hit with a disease that I didn't ask for. It's basically saying I must pay more for the benefit of someone else to take care of me (Dr.s), albeit, in a very mediocre kind of way.

[zakksmom]

Originally Posted by Injecto

Two notes.

Point 1 - sure, T1s can have some penalization too, but it has to be different because the causation is different.

Point 2 - It must just be a big correlation between weight and T2 diagnosis, because if losing weight does not "cure" T2 (which we know it does not), there must be some other factor that actually causes resistance to insulin. I suppose, however, it's easier to tell the public, "lose weight", than to explain to them the complexities of what a correlation is in reference to weight alone.

Well spoken injecto.. Being new to the big d is certainly an exhausting one.

[Funnygrl]

Originally Posted by foxl

Funny, the entire concept of insurance is risk-sharing. Not risk-stratifying.

Simplistic, yeah. But so are many arguments on both sides of the fence.

So I suppose you think people who "Chose" to live in the New Orleans region and other hurricane-prone regions should pay a higher homeowners' premium ... ? Short-term, I mean.

Yes, people who live in high risk areas for natural disasters probably do pay more for that coverage. I'm not sure. I'm not too familiar with the home owner's insuance industry.

Risk sharing only works when equal risk can be presumed. Otherwise, the low risk people, who's premiums are what keeps funding the high risk people's expenses, would drop out of the pool, thus causing a funding/spending imbalance.

[Funnygrl]

Originally Posted by Injecto

I disagree, I should NOT have to pay MORE taxes, in MY country, because I got hit with a disease that I didn't ask for. It's basically saying I must pay more for the benefit of someone else to take care of me (Dr.s), albeit, in a very mediocre kind of way.

My understanding of this was not that you paid more for having the disease. It's that you paid more for not making the attempt to modify risk factors you have for getting sick. That is what all of the proposals I've seen have been, and it makes sense.

What I don't get it, as far as chronic disease go, diabetes is relatively cheap. Month-to-month my diabetes is cheaper than my asthma. My asthma has resulted in more ER visits. My asthma has resulted in more ambulance rides. Month to month my asthma medications cost more than my insulin, test strips, and pump supplies. So why aren't we seeing articles on cutting asthma costs? I mean, occasionally we do, but doesn't seem to be nearly as prevalent as with diabetes. My guess is that this is solely related to stereotypes. We picture asthma as the skinny kid who can't breath and takes a hit of albuterol once in awhile, and we picture a diabetic as a fat old man who couldn't put down the cake. I guess the fat old man is easier to point the finger at.