Image provided by: Texas A&M University
About The Battalion. (College Station, Tex.) 1893-current | View Entire Issue (April 15, 2002)
= BATTALit Opinion eight relief IRS creates good incentive for eople to combat obesity 11 Monday, April 15, 2002 COLLINS EZEANYIM besity long has been known as America’s silent epidemic. It appears no matter how many lire statistics are released about the lealth risks associated with being Iverweight , Americans refuse to treat lie situation with the gravity that it deserves. But that Jiay change this tax season — as the Internal Revenue Service has released a new policy that rec- Ignizes America’s growing weight problem. In early pril, the IRS announced that it would allow taxpay ers to claim weight loss and weight control expenses medical deductions. The ramifications of this ction are potentially huge, because the IRS recog- izes obesity as a disease rather than just a catalyst to lis secondstra^ther disorders. According to The Associated Press, his has opened the door for insurance companies and >overnment programs, such as Medicare, to offer overage for the treatment of obesity. Critics say the ruling by the IRS is faulty because , ibesity is not a disease. Instead, they say obesity and jP® King overweight are a result from a lack of self-con- rol in an individual. But the health community dis- j )g rees international Classification of Diseases which is used by the United States Public Health Service and published by the World Health organiza- ;ion lists obesity as a disease. The IRS used conclu sions from the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute to classify obesity as a disease in the revenue ruling that announced the policy. If anything, the IRS policy does not go far enough in its coverage. According to the American Obesity Association, diet and low-fat foods will not be deductible under the new policy. The IRS argues that people have to pay for food anyway, regardless of whether they are trying to lose weight. But proper nutrition is essential when treating obesity. Another shortcoming is that weight loss that is for the purpose ofimproving the general health of an individual or for his or her sense of well being also does not fall under ihenew policy. And on this matter, the IRS has failed todevelop an adequate argument to defend its position. Despite these shortcomings, the ruling by the IRS 's a positive action. Americans now have a pocketbook reason to lose those unnecessary pounds. Almost isters title Suniii t even Ji >sen said, ire setting close: tade this Masie: st. became the fir: ic Masters bear a major chi irs in a row. n, Daryle jam Everett drone ir the Astros, * by the Card®' iur-run, fifth-iit'S. in Edmonds' seventh ofi Nelson tor taking two of last weekend in : ive-game winning i end as they fifl' Collins Ezeanyim is a junior computer engineering major. everyone knows that obesity causes major health problems. Many people can cite these health problems such as heart disease, hypertension, stroke, dia betes and various types of cancer. But what many may not know is how huge a toll they take on the population. Obesity is a scourge whose magnitude already can be comparable to smok ing’s — it causes 300,000 deaths each year. The problem is that America has quickly grown into a nation of couch potatoes. Perhaps not coin cidentally, the National Center for Health Statistics released a report on the sedentary nature of Americans soon after the IRS announced its new policy to the public. The report states only 3 out of 10 American adults are physically active on a regular basis — 4 out of 10 are not physically active at all. All the previous health warnings have not convinced people that maintaining a good weight is important. Many times, the excuse for some one not losing weight was that it was “too expen sive.” Americans can no longer make that claim. Thus, critics of the IRS policy miss the point. Even if they do not consider obesity to be a disease, America still needs a way to deal with its weight problem. And this new policy IRS will hopefully moti vate some people to re-eval uate their priorities and take better care of themselves. Even if only one person is motivated to take care of their weight problem because of the new IRS policy, that is one more healthy individual. CHAD MALLAM* THE BATTALION omestand. iltation ns!!- 1 ic Optoirietrisis )n . 404 University 693-3177 Bnarcrest, Suited 731-1691 Circle Co. s ?ve p r in W rutd# Maintain medical BRIEANNE PORTER H ealth and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson, announced recently the Bush administration’s version of medical privacy rules. While the Bush plan retains many °1 the provisions that were in jhe Clinton plan, one alarm ing change in the plan is the lack of written patient con sent for things such as med ial marketing advertising and its removal of privacy Protection for minors. The medical privacy rules written during the Clinton er a included a provision for Patients to sign written con sent forms before their med ical records could be trans ferred to other health care Professionals including other doctors, insurance compa nies and pharmacies. Critics °1 this plan argued that con- se nt forms would cause Problems for emergency care Workers and pharmacies fill- ln g prescriptions over the telephone. While these are v alid concerns, without con sent forms, the door is open 0r n on-authorized people to ac cess a patient’s medical necords. In a New York Times article, former Health and Human Services Secretary onna Shalala said, “any ^ u g company can pay a Pharmacy to mail informa- hon about a new drug to its customers, without their nowledge or consent. Even Worse, there is no way for a Patient to get off the mailing Ust - ever.” The new regulations nave made it easier for medical professionals to transfer documents to each other, but they also have allowed people outside the system, such as drug com panies, to have access. The new regulations also allow medical researchers access to patient records without their knowledge. Instead of written consent forms, the Bush plan calls for medical professionals to inform the patients of their rights. However, it does not require that the patients are informed before record access is given. In addition, it does not require these professionals to inform patients exactly who has been allowed access to their medical records. This prob lem extends to the ability of the health and human serv ices department to access Without consent forms, the door is open for non-au thor ized people to access a patienfs medical records. medical records including case notes from psychother apy sessions according to a Rocky Mountain News edi- toriai. Medical records con tain sensitive and personal material and patients should have complete control over who has access and uses the material outside necessary personnel. Another problem with the Bush plan is the ability for parents to access their chil dren's (minors) records. This regulation is for states that do not specifically pro hibit this access. While this idea seems understandable and reasonable, there are privacy some unacceptable conse quences. The regulation will allow parents to access mate rial including information on mental illness treatment and treatment for other sensitive material like sexually trans mitted infections. This regu lation will cause problems for teenagers more than any other age group. According to The Palm Beach Post edi torial, “Privacy advocates said that change would deter teenagers from seeking sen sitive health services.” A long-term outcome of this regulation could be an increase in untreated sexual ly transmitted infections among teenagers and the proliferation of untreated mental illness. While the Bush plan is similar to the Clinton plan with many safeguards for medical privacy, these are two noticeable gaps in priva cy protection. Restricting the use of written consent forms for the transfer of patient information allows for quicker treatment and less hassle for doctors, it also opens the door for many other questionable access to these sensitive documents. The Bush plan will also reduce privacy protection for minors from their parents, which could cause many medical problems to go untreated for the fear of their parents finding out about it. These consequences are unacceptable and the public needs to fight for their med ical privacy. Brieanne Porter is a senior political science major. Death requests unnecessary I n March, death row inmate Rodolfo Hernandez made a last request for a prosthetic leg so he could walk to the death chamber. Many inmates make ridiculous requests while they await their exe cution and prisons should not grant death row inmates their last requests, regardless of the criminal’s need. Hernandez was given the death penalty for allegedly robbing and shooting five illegal immi grants from Mexico in 1985. Although he was identified by the victims, Hernandez still claimed his innocence. While in prison, Hernandez’s left leg was amputated due to diabetes complications. Hernandez’s request was not granted because he had an infection in his leg that prohibited him from being fitted for a prosthetic leg. But Hemandez said prison officials refused to give him the leg because it was too expensive. Naturally, cost is an important consideration when prisoners make a death request. In Hernandez’s case, the prosthetic leg he wanted was valued at $15,000. The artificial limb was more costly than normal because his leg had been ampu tated above the knee. To grant a prisoner a leg that will only be used as he walks to his death is a waste of taxpayers’ money. There are many other costs that need to be paid and filling requests for dying criminals should be at the bottom of the list. American citizens should not have to pay to give a convicted criminal a last request. When someone commits a crime, especially one serious enough to receive the death penalty, they should lose all rights to any kind of luxury or demand outside of basic survival necessities. If a person wants to practice their rights to their full ability, then they should live as a law- abiding citizen. Prisons should not be expected or allowed to play “Santa” for inmates. Hernandez was angered that he would not receive a prosthetic leg. According to MSNBC, he said, “I am still hop ing and praying for my leg or some thing to walk with to help me get to that gurney if they do execute me.” Hemandez expects his request will be filled, but a man being put to death is not enough reason to fill an unnecessary request. Compared to other countries, America is con siderably lenient on its criminals when it should not be. Human Rights Watch reported that pris ons in Cuba use physical violence and meager food rations to control inmates. Cuban prisons also restrict inmates’ religious freedom. In Colombia, prisoners suffer from food and water shortages and receive little medical care. Granting inmates requests makes American pris ons a five-star resort for criminals. Many people believe that a dying man should have a last request — the system owes it to him. However, this feeling is probably not shared by family and friends of the victims, who live with the loss of their loved ones everyday. Hernandez was granted a 30-day reprieve by Gov. Rick Perry because he might have been involved in several other murders in San Antonio. Authorities are try ing to link him to other murders, consequently if evidence proves he is a repeated offender, he defi nitely does not deserve a reward. Prisoners who receive the death penalty should not be given any death requests. A criminal gave up his rights when he committed the crime, there fore he does not deserve the same liberties as good, law abiding citizens. Andi Baca is a senior journalism major. ANDIBACA Protests are a step in the right direction In response Christina Hoffman's April 11 article: Many people feel that we can not deal with terrorists in a peaceful manner, because terror ists "are willing to kill innocent men, women and children to accomplish their goals." While I agree that terrorists should be dealt with a strong hand, there is MAIL CALL no justification for taking lives of innocent civilians in response to terrorist's actions. Terrorism can not be an answer to terrorism. It is only going to fuel hatred among those surviving and they are going to continue to respond with terrorism. Jones said "certain Muslims hate us and respond by blowing up anything American." Has he ever stopped to think why those Muslims hate the U.S. in the first place? Decades of imperialistic policies, economic and military subjugation by the western powers cannot simply be wished away. America must take a hard look at its foreign policy and stop being hypocritical when it comes to dealing with terror ism, human rights and democ racy. One cannot have different yardsticks for different countries depending on whether they are your allies or not. Vinod Srinivasan Graduate Student