= 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