Universal Healthcare: World's fattest woman wannabe doesn't deserve same level

 First of all, everyone should get the most basic healthcare services for free for society to function normally. I have no problem with that. I am still not sure if our current healthcare bill addresses that issue.  But other than that safety net, I am against a person like this idiot, Donna Simpson, in getting the same kind of healthcare coverage at the same affordable rate as everyone else. She is eating her way intentionally to become the world's fattest woman.



Donna Simpson currently weighs 600 pounds, so she's going on a diet in hopes of reaching what she considers her ideal weight: 1,000 pounds. The 42-year-old mother, a resident of Old Bridge, NJ, consumes a whopping 12,000 calories a day in an effort to reach her goal.

Simpson already holds the Guinness World Record for world's fattest mother. She insists she's healthy despite the fact that she cannot walk more than 20 feet independently.

The grocery bills frequently reach $750 a week and Simpson supports her diet with money earned from a website where people pay to watch her eat. Her husband, Phillipe, who weighs a 150 pounds, fully supports her plans


 OK, so I don't mind a healthcare system that pays for her screening tests. But I think she should be forced to pay a premium above the average citizen to compensate for her wilful neglect regardless of her income. If she can't afford it, she gets very basic treatment with no expensive options in case she develops obesity related complications, even if it means she dies earlier. I say she gets the Darwin award.


There has to be an incentive in the healthcare system to make people get regular checkups and follow recommendations. I will say this. I wouldn't blame an insurance company for not covering someone like this lady.





Tags: donna simpson fattest woman healthcare (all tags)


1 Comment

RE: Universal Healthcare: World's fattest woman wannabe doesn't deserve same level

While I am disgusted that someone would do that to themselves intentionally, disgust is a very bad basis for public policy, and it's a very bad reason to assume prima facie that she is mentally ill. 

Similarly, while I agree in spirit that intentionally taking advantage of medical insurance (whether public or private) with such self-abuse is a bad thing, I am not sure that it is really safe to make such judgements a public policy matter.  Where do you draw the line?  I think, in general, that the bias must be towards inclusiveness and that it is worse to exclude someone from lifesaving medical treatments than it is to give treatment to a few people who need those treatments because of intentional self-abuse.

Liberty includes the right to make bad choices.  

One of the things a civilized society ought to do is to protect people from the worst consequences of their choices.

Striking the balance between prohibiting some bad choices entirely and accepting some shared cost of others' bad choices is a very tough problem.

by nkedel 2010-03-19 07:57PM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads