Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Paying the healthcare costs of obesity
Options
Replies
-
"My mom didn't have a "great job with great benefits." She had an okay job (because that's all she was interested in, it was just a job) with great benefits"
This is just a matter of perspective. My job is also okay, and that is also all I am interested in. My work/career doesn't define or fulfill me. I find fulfillment in other aspects of my life. So, to me it's a GREAT job, because it's just what I need. Not everyone needs a "follow your dream" type of job, and I don't see the equality in people like myself paying much of the burden because Joe or Jane Doe feels like art is their passion, and they decide to take a part-time minimum wage job at an art gallery with no benefits to pursue their dream. And at this point, you either get where I'm coming from or you don't. So . . . . meh.5 -
"My mom didn't have a "great job with great benefits." She had an okay job (because that's all she was interested in, it was just a job) with great benefits"
This is just a matter of perspective. My job is also okay, and that is also all I am interested in. My work/career doesn't define or fulfill me. I find fulfillment in other aspects of my life. So, to me it's a GREAT job, because it's just what I need. Not everyone needs a "follow your dream" type of job, and I don't see the equality in people like myself paying much of the burden because Joe or Jane Doe feels like art is their passion, and they decide to take a part-time minimum wage job at an art gallery with no benefits to pursue their dream. And at this point, you either get where I'm coming from or you don't. So . . . . meh.
But we need people to work at Art Galleries, don't we? Do Art Gallery workers deserve health care less than you or me?0 -
"My mom didn't have a "great job with great benefits." She had an okay job (because that's all she was interested in, it was just a job) with great benefits"
This is just a matter of perspective. My job is also okay, and that is also all I am interested in. My work/career doesn't define or fulfill me. I find fulfillment in other aspects of my life. So, to me it's a GREAT job, because it's just what I need. Not everyone needs a "follow your dream" type of job, and I don't see the equality in people like myself paying much of the burden because Joe or Jane Doe feels like art is their passion, and they decide to take a part-time minimum wage job at an art gallery with no benefits to pursue their dream. And at this point, you either get where I'm coming from or you don't. So . . . . meh.
I was just wondering if I should post this, and then you posted, so might as well.
I really don't get why you keep suggesting that I am asking you to pay for someone else to follow their dream just because I said I think the employer-based health care model is a bad one. Subsidies (which I am in favor of, personally--actually I'd rather have some kind of base level guaranteed program of some sort, as I think health care is a human right), are a separate issue from the model of how health care is provided.
Wanting to get rid of this model is hardly limited to the left. Indeed, it's been pushed in a variety of ways by the right. I mentioned the McCain plan (which, admittedly, I have problems with, but I love the effort to move away from employer-based, politically impossible as that is in the US), Here's a discussion of it from ultra bleeding heart /sarcasm Heritage:
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2008/10/the-mccain-health-care-plan-more-power-to-families
Crucial bit:Equal tax treatment for health coverage. The Senator would replace the special tax breaks for employer-based health insurance with a universal system of health care tax credits for the purchase of health insurance. These health care tax credits of $5,000 for a family and $2,500 for an individual would be indexed annually for inflation and would be available to Americans regardless of income, employment, or tax liability. Even prominent critics concede that such a tax change is a principled and far-reaching proposal.[2] This change alone would lay the groundwork for unprecedented consumer choice and competition in the health care sector.
Note: the employer-based system exists because of special tax breaks. They have unintended consequences on the labor market. It's inaccurate to claim that ACA is government action and the old system was not.
Pre ACA, it was perfectly possible--if you didn't have employer-based insurance--to be unable to buy insurance or to have to pay at a rate that makes in unaffordable. Had cancer? Bummer, sorry. Have a condition that requires tons of medication? Bummer, sorry. And, yeah, it's good for society (IMO) to make insurance affordable so that people will have it, as it's hardly cost-effective for people to go to the emergency room for care or to end up with a much worse problem than they otherwise would have had and then end up at the emergency room. Is ACA doing this as well as possible? I don't think so, but the old system didn't do it at all, IMO. That lots of people could get jobs with good insurance (which were becoming fewer and would continue to be given the cost of health care in the US) has nothing to do with that. Saying "I did it, so everyone else can, period," just makes no sense to me.
In any event, I really don't see what my position that health care ideally would not be employer-based (better for the employer and the employee, IMO), has to do with your strawman that I'm suggesting that we need to subsidize the starving artist or whatever. And it certainly has zero to do with my dad who quit his job that he hated to start a small engineering business that eventually employed a couple of other people and that he's continuing to do part time in his 70s. (He also paints, so I guess he's a worthless artist. Sigh.)3 -
"My mom didn't have a "great job with great benefits." She had an okay job (because that's all she was interested in, it was just a job) with great benefits"
This is just a matter of perspective. My job is also okay, and that is also all I am interested in. My work/career doesn't define or fulfill me. I find fulfillment in other aspects of my life. So, to me it's a GREAT job, because it's just what I need. Not everyone needs a "follow your dream" type of job, and I don't see the equality in people like myself paying much of the burden because Joe or Jane Doe feels like art is their passion, and they decide to take a part-time minimum wage job at an art gallery with no benefits to pursue their dream. And at this point, you either get where I'm coming from or you don't. So . . . . meh.
But we need people to work at Art Galleries, don't we? Do Art Gallery workers deserve health care less than you or me?
Do we? Really, we need people to work there? How about the art gallery worker is a young, healthy college student who needs to work part time due to school, is an art major, and plans to seek a job in advertising or graphic design after college. Art gallery need satisfied? Nope, because there's just some other part-time minimum wage job that you're going to throw out next. Look, I don't see it as a matter of deserving or not deserving. It's a matter of grow the *kitten* up, work for what you want, and take care of yourself. And, if you want to take half of your income and pay for someone you consider less fortunate to have better healthcare, go for it. But, if I work hard for my income and benefits, I should not be FORCED to pay for someone else who chooses not to. That should be my choice.
4 -
lemurcat, while I did quote you the other day and use your post to make a point, my comments are also intended to build upon the previous statements I posted regarding the larger discussion. Talk about a straw man, why do you keep acting like my comments were strictly to or about you and your family? And how dare you put words in my mouth. My daughter and multiple of my friends are artists. I NEVER said or even suggested that artists or any other person was worthless, and I think you know that.3
-
And by the way, those artists have jobs so they can take care of themselves while they pursue their passion on the side.0
-
"My mom didn't have a "great job with great benefits." She had an okay job (because that's all she was interested in, it was just a job) with great benefits"
This is just a matter of perspective. My job is also okay, and that is also all I am interested in. My work/career doesn't define or fulfill me. I find fulfillment in other aspects of my life. So, to me it's a GREAT job, because it's just what I need. Not everyone needs a "follow your dream" type of job, and I don't see the equality in people like myself paying much of the burden because Joe or Jane Doe feels like art is their passion, and they decide to take a part-time minimum wage job at an art gallery with no benefits to pursue their dream. And at this point, you either get where I'm coming from or you don't. So . . . . meh.
But we need people to work at Art Galleries, don't we? Do Art Gallery workers deserve health care less than you or me?
Do we? Really, we need people to work there? How about the art gallery worker is a young, healthy college student who needs to work part time due to school, is an art major, and plans to seek a job in advertising or graphic design after college. Art gallery need satisfied? Nope, because there's just some other part-time minimum wage job that you're going to throw out next. Look, I don't see it as a matter of deserving or not deserving. It's a matter of grow the *kitten* up, work for what you want, and take care of yourself. And, if you want to take half of your income and pay for someone you consider less fortunate to have better healthcare, go for it. But, if I work hard for my income and benefits, I should not be FORCED to pay for someone else who chooses not to. That should be my choice.
So people who work in Art Museums don't work hard?
(it may help to note the treasured cultural art/architecture monument behind my profile picture)1 -
Why not throw in alcohol drinkers and cigarette smokers in to the mix while you are at it? Or tax seniors who manage to live well beyond their appointed age?
Something I learned in my line of business is to get to root cause. Blame chasing never solves the problem.
The insurance companies already charge extra for smokers. Same for life insurance, extra if you engage in "risky" hobbies like sky-diving or motorcycle racing.0 -
"My mom didn't have a "great job with great benefits." She had an okay job (because that's all she was interested in, it was just a job) with great benefits"
This is just a matter of perspective. My job is also okay, and that is also all I am interested in. My work/career doesn't define or fulfill me. I find fulfillment in other aspects of my life. So, to me it's a GREAT job, because it's just what I need. Not everyone needs a "follow your dream" type of job, and I don't see the equality in people like myself paying much of the burden because Joe or Jane Doe feels like art is their passion, and they decide to take a part-time minimum wage job at an art gallery with no benefits to pursue their dream. And at this point, you either get where I'm coming from or you don't. So . . . . meh.
But we need people to work at Art Galleries, don't we? Do Art Gallery workers deserve health care less than you or me?
Do we? Really, we need people to work there? How about the art gallery worker is a young, healthy college student who needs to work part time due to school, is an art major, and plans to seek a job in advertising or graphic design after college. Art gallery need satisfied? Nope, because there's just some other part-time minimum wage job that you're going to throw out next. Look, I don't see it as a matter of deserving or not deserving. It's a matter of grow the *kitten* up, work for what you want, and take care of yourself. And, if you want to take half of your income and pay for someone you consider less fortunate to have better healthcare, go for it. But, if I work hard for my income and benefits, I should not be FORCED to pay for someone else who chooses not to. That should be my choice.
So people who work in Art Museums don't work hard?
(it may help to note the treasured cultural art/architecture monument behind my profile picture)
How the *kitten* would I know? But, I know that I DO. And, I know that I EARN what I get. But, by your suggested logic, they DESERVE part of my earnings. Um, no. But sounds like they DESERVE part of yours.0 -
Now there are a couple of you who are pointedly taking everything I say and trying to twist it into something that isn't there. You know what you're doing. I didn't say anything about anybody being worthless or anybody NOT WORKING HARD or denigrate anyone pursuing a passion for art. I simply stated that I work hard (50 hours per week or more) for what I get and I should keep it.0
-
"My mom didn't have a "great job with great benefits." She had an okay job (because that's all she was interested in, it was just a job) with great benefits"
This is just a matter of perspective. My job is also okay, and that is also all I am interested in. My work/career doesn't define or fulfill me. I find fulfillment in other aspects of my life. So, to me it's a GREAT job, because it's just what I need. Not everyone needs a "follow your dream" type of job, and I don't see the equality in people like myself paying much of the burden because Joe or Jane Doe feels like art is their passion, and they decide to take a part-time minimum wage job at an art gallery with no benefits to pursue their dream. And at this point, you either get where I'm coming from or you don't. So . . . . meh.
But we need people to work at Art Galleries, don't we? Do Art Gallery workers deserve health care less than you or me?
Do we? Really, we need people to work there? How about the art gallery worker is a young, healthy college student who needs to work part time due to school, is an art major, and plans to seek a job in advertising or graphic design after college. Art gallery need satisfied? Nope, because there's just some other part-time minimum wage job that you're going to throw out next. Look, I don't see it as a matter of deserving or not deserving. It's a matter of grow the *kitten* up, work for what you want, and take care of yourself. And, if you want to take half of your income and pay for someone you consider less fortunate to have better healthcare, go for it. But, if I work hard for my income and benefits, I should not be FORCED to pay for someone else who chooses not to. That should be my choice.
So people who work in Art Museums don't work hard?
(it may help to note the treasured cultural art/architecture monument behind my profile picture)
How the *kitten* would I know? But, I know that I DO. And, I know that I EARN what I get. But, by your suggested logic, they DESERVE part of my earnings. Um, no. But sounds like they DESERVE part of yours.
I have not once even attempted to imply that you don't earn your money. And I sincerely apologize if that is what you read in my responses and questions. I find it interested, however, that that's what you read in my replies.
You may want to spend more time in Art Museums.
One thing I learned from studying history and art was that when a society is stratified, there's always an incentive for people in higher rungs to prove they belong there and prove others don't.3 -
Now there are a couple of you who are pointedly taking everything I say and trying to twist it into something that isn't there. You know what you're doing. I didn't say anything about anybody being worthless or anybody NOT WORKING HARD or denigrate anyone pursuing a passion for art. I simply stated that I work hard (50 hours per week or more) for what I get and I should keep it.
You're in the "debate" threads of MFP. Debate. Defend your position. Counter ours with logical rebuttals.2 -
Do not patronize me. I am an educated person who enjoys art. And you are again twisting this to make it seem I was saying something different. I know that you didn't imply I don't earn my money. You did, however, imply that because I said I earn my money I was implying by default that the art gallery worker does not. I don't imply by default. I say what I mean. And, I am saying that if you choose to be a part-time employee earning minimum wage, and you've chosen to do so because that job fulfills you in some non-monetary way, don't expect me to help cover your MONETARY costs.1
-
Now there are a couple of you who are pointedly taking everything I say and trying to twist it into something that isn't there. You know what you're doing. I didn't say anything about anybody being worthless or anybody NOT WORKING HARD or denigrate anyone pursuing a passion for art. I simply stated that I work hard (50 hours per week or more) for what I get and I should keep it.
You're in the "debate" threads of MFP. Debate. Defend your position. Counter ours with logical rebuttals.
I think my position is quite logical. However, yours seem to be built on twisting logical statements into vaguely perceived insults.0 -
Can we get married?I wonder what kind of innovation we'd see as a country if people felt less tied to jobs they hated. I wonder what changes would come to certain industries if they lost the hook their job benefits held on people.
Idealistically, that's a good rhetorical question. Realistically, it's Maslow's Pyramind of Needs.
Most people on the planet are on the bottom two tiers trying to get basic (physical) and safety needs met. That's why they take grunt jobs for the insurance and it's perfectly understandable if one has been there. (I'm not saying you haven't - I'm just speaking generally.) The higher people move up this pyramid, the easier it is for them to forget when they were on the bottom two tiers.
And for some people, especially in wealthier nations, the bottom two needs were met by their parents and continued to be as they developed into adulthood. They moved rather effortlessly up through the higher tiers through no personal merit, just by luck of the draw. It's not something they ever really thought about, as it was built right into their lives from the beginning.
Anyhow, as far as my answer is relevant to this thread without descending into political views, I think getting basic healthcare needs met is at the bottom of this tier. Basic. Even for fat people. A fat person may develop cancer, heart disease or high blood pressure, but proving conclusively that obesity was the sole cause isn't really possible.0 -
Now there are a couple of you who are pointedly taking everything I say and trying to twist it into something that isn't there. You know what you're doing. I didn't say anything about anybody being worthless or anybody NOT WORKING HARD or denigrate anyone pursuing a passion for art. I simply stated that I work hard (50 hours per week or more) for what I get and I should keep it.
You're in the "debate" threads of MFP. Debate. Defend your position. Counter ours with logical rebuttals.
I think my position is quite logical. However, yours seem to be built on twisting logical statements into vaguely perceived insults.
My stance comes from the belief that it is most ethical to take care of the young, elderly and sick in a society. That it is the moral imperative of the "haves" to recognize that some people didn't start as close to the finish line as they did.5 -
Now there are a couple of you who are pointedly taking everything I say and trying to twist it into something that isn't there. You know what you're doing. I didn't say anything about anybody being worthless or anybody NOT WORKING HARD or denigrate anyone pursuing a passion for art. I simply stated that I work hard (50 hours per week or more) for what I get and I should keep it.
You're in the "debate" threads of MFP. Debate. Defend your position. Counter ours with logical rebuttals.
I think her answer was a good one. You asked her who deserved what. She said how the kitten would she know.
Someone who has the luxury to choose a minimum wage job in exchange for art love is probably in a pretty good position overall, but then again, what do I know about it? I prefer to choose work offering what amounts to a living wage (for me), which is a challenge because I hold no college degrees. But over the years I found a way to do it.
If I love art, or cooking, or sewing, or dog grooming I'll pursue those interests before or after work. I wouldn't limit myself to a minimum wage job in pursuit of those interests because it would not make any sense for me to do that. Or I would be unwilling to pay the consequences of making such a choice for art love, or jewelry making love, or ballroom dancing love or whatever.
Exactly so: And, if you accept X dollars for Y work at Z job, YOU have determined for yourself what you DESERVE.0 -
And even in 1996, I in speeches propose the following amendments to the Constitution:
Article XXVIII: Every newborn shall be sincerely welcomed and cared for until maturity.
Article XXIX: Every adult who needs it shall be given meaningful work to do, at a living wage.
-Kurt Vonnegut
Yeah, that's great and all, but realistically not possible. Since when is anything in life ever ideal ? Who's mom didn't teach them "life's not fair"?1 -
mommarnurse wrote: »And even in 1996, I in speeches propose the following amendments to the Constitution:
Article XXVIII: Every newborn shall be sincerely welcomed and cared for until maturity.
Article XXIX: Every adult who needs it shall be given meaningful work to do, at a living wage.
-Kurt Vonnegut
Yeah, that's great and all, but realistically not possible. Since when is anything in life ever ideal ? Who's mom didn't teach them "life's not fair"?
Kurt Vonnegut's?0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat, you and I will just agree to disagree.
Works for me. I feel constrained in what I can argue anyway, given that we aren't supposed to be political. You just used my post about my mom's cancer as a springboard for a claim that the old system was not broken and ACA is terrible, so I felt compelled to respond so it didn't appear I was nodding along. While I have issues with ACA myself (not as major as yours), I 100% disagree that the old system (which also existed because of the gov't, not the free market) was not broken, and the fact my mom had a job with good employer-based insurance (as do I) doesn't say anything about whether it is or not. No one, absolutely no one, makes the strawman argument that you were arguing against--that pre-ACA no one could afford cancer treatment.
There are many on this thread who suggest that (or other major illness, not just cancer treatment), and they were the one's I was disagreeing with. If you feel offended that I used your post about your mom's illness, I apologize for offending you. You said she survived, didn't know it was a sensitive subject. But my point was exactly opposite of what you just said. I proposed that people could afford treatment because they acted like adults and made adult decisions (including employment decisions), taking unplanned illness into account.
To be devils advocate (and also a voice of logic) everyone can't do that. I mean, even if everyone did do that, they can't because then there would be nothing to achieve up to because everyone would already be there. There's always going to be a need for those doing jobs in the "low wage" field & someone's gotta be at the top making the big choices and the profits. How's that going to work?0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 401 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 996 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions