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
Replies
-
eveandqsmom wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »tlflag1620 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »tlflag1620 wrote: »
To bring this back to the topic at hand, do you then logically believe birth control and abortions and adoptions should be free to all women who are not married or independently financially secure?...The reasonable choice for anyone who is not part of a two parent married unit and who is unable to independently support offspring would be to not make babies until they are married and financially able to support who they bring into the world....
No. Let them keep their legs closed. It's not that hard. And if they have a lapse in judgment and want to put a baby up for adoption, I'm pretty sure they don't have to pay to do that.
What if they have a "lapse in judgment" and don't want to give their child away? You would want them to be forced to do so?
What if their legs are forced open, against their will? You would also take away their choice as to what to do in the even they became pregnant?
To be fair, equating a spawn of rape, to people who just have poor judgment is a bit...out there. In such cases, I'd recommend that the aggressor face prison time, hard labor, and all proceeds of said labor be put into a trust fund for the child, useable by the victim, if she decided to keep the child.
You were equating the two - you said women should just "...keep their legs closed. It's not that hard."
Do you know what prisoners earn? Do your really expect that dollar or two a day to provide for a child? Who picks up the slack?
Eta - sorry, it wasn't you that said that, it was newmeadow. I apologize. But the question still stands - do you really think a prisoners wages could even come close to covering the cost of raising a child? Or even the prenatal care if the mother did choose adoption? Or even the cost of an abortion (this has the best chance, after several years)?
Yes, assuming two things: cost per inmate is left at it's nominal level, BUT said inmate is stripped on any and all added cost "niceties". If it's not required for survivial, it's not provided, and those funds are funneled over.
Is medical care one of those "niceties" you'd deny them under your plan?
If it's not acutely lifethreatening or infectious, then yeap. I have precisely zero sympathy for rapists, and would actually prefer execution or chemical castration in cases with proper evidence (DNA and obvious signs of physical trauma, etc.). However, that execution bit would prevent their being useful in this particular instance.
Everybody in jail is not a rapist. In fact the vast majority are in for non-violent drug offenses.
Read the quotes. I was talking about something very specific.
ETA: and to hit your point, I don't even believe that a non-violent drug offense should be a crime, let alone one that has people in prison.1 -
eveandqsmom wrote: »I'm trying to stay away but I just keep trying to wrap my head around the way some people think...you do know that living in a strong, healthy, educated society is better for YOU in a selfish way right?
Be the change you want to see in the world.
2 -
Equality doctrine is already in effect. Let's say I earn $5 per year, and I pay $2 in taxes. And Joe Blow earns $3 per year and pays $0 in taxes because he's exempt. Big Gov will take my $2, of which I will be refunded $0 when I file taxes, and use $1 for deficit interest payments, and they will give the other $1 to Joe Blow who paid in nothing. He pays in nothing, but receives a tax 'refund'.
ETA: Sorry, this was in response to lemurcat.
Taxes are less progressive than they have been at many times in the past, of course. (Not saying there's anything wrong with that.) Therefore, this idea that progressive taxes=everyone must be absolutely equal and make the same amount of money is inaccurate.
I'm not going to address the overly simplistic idea of how taxes work or what they actually pay for. I'm just focusing for now on this idea that because we have a safety net or progressive taxation that we are on a slippery slope to mandating that everyone make the same amount of money. It's just not a serious argument.0 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »eveandqsmom wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »tlflag1620 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »tlflag1620 wrote: »
To bring this back to the topic at hand, do you then logically believe birth control and abortions and adoptions should be free to all women who are not married or independently financially secure?...The reasonable choice for anyone who is not part of a two parent married unit and who is unable to independently support offspring would be to not make babies until they are married and financially able to support who they bring into the world....
No. Let them keep their legs closed. It's not that hard. And if they have a lapse in judgment and want to put a baby up for adoption, I'm pretty sure they don't have to pay to do that.
What if they have a "lapse in judgment" and don't want to give their child away? You would want them to be forced to do so?
What if their legs are forced open, against their will? You would also take away their choice as to what to do in the even they became pregnant?
To be fair, equating a spawn of rape, to people who just have poor judgment is a bit...out there. In such cases, I'd recommend that the aggressor face prison time, hard labor, and all proceeds of said labor be put into a trust fund for the child, useable by the victim, if she decided to keep the child.
You were equating the two - you said women should just "...keep their legs closed. It's not that hard."
Do you know what prisoners earn? Do your really expect that dollar or two a day to provide for a child? Who picks up the slack?
Eta - sorry, it wasn't you that said that, it was newmeadow. I apologize. But the question still stands - do you really think a prisoners wages could even come close to covering the cost of raising a child? Or even the prenatal care if the mother did choose adoption? Or even the cost of an abortion (this has the best chance, after several years)?
Yes, assuming two things: cost per inmate is left at it's nominal level, BUT said inmate is stripped on any and all added cost "niceties". If it's not required for survivial, it's not provided, and those funds are funneled over.
Is medical care one of those "niceties" you'd deny them under your plan?
If it's not acutely lifethreatening or infectious, then yeap. I have precisely zero sympathy for rapists, and would actually prefer execution or chemical castration in cases with proper evidence (DNA and obvious signs of physical trauma, etc.). However, that execution bit would prevent their being useful in this particular instance.
Everybody in jail is not a rapist. In fact the vast majority are in for non-violent drug offenses.
Read the quotes. I was talking about something very specific.
ETA: and to hit your point, I don't even believe that a non-violent drug offense should be a crime, let alone one that has people in prison.
I'm sorry, I forgot that line of discussion. And I agree (that drug offenses should not result in prison) not the rest.0 -
terricherry2 wrote: »terricherry2 wrote: »Soooo happy to live in the UK with socialised healthcare, paid for through taxes and which has better clinical outcomes and is cheaper per capita than private models. And I say that as a high rate tax payer who likely pays for the healthcare of others that are less well off than me. I get why so many Americans are so wedded to the insurance system, given that huge corporations have told people for years that anything else is filthy communism or giving away their hard earned money to the lazy, but I just can't get my head around it.
I guess I just prefer paying 28% in taxes rather than 38-40%, but that's just me.....
Actually the majority of my tax is paid at around 25%, with no insurance premium on top to worry about.
That's nice for you I guess.....
For what I make, it's in the 28%. Socialize healthcare (purely estimating of the Canadian model), it would be in the 38-40% range. Get it under 5%, I can listen.
The only people who pay 28% effective federal taxes in the US are in the top 1%. Effective tax rate chart, uses 2010 data.
Yep, that includes the couple grand we get back at the end of they year (in deductions, etc), and that is federal only. I'm adding state, federal, etc...to get to 28%.
0 -
eveandqsmom wrote: »I'm trying to stay away but I just keep trying to wrap my head around the way some people think...you do know that living in a strong, healthy, educated society is better for YOU in a selfish way right?
Yep. And health, strength, and education aren't automatic giveaways. First, individuals must really WANT these things. And to value them when they aren't automatically provided, individuals must WORK for them, which not every individual is willing to do.
You really believe you are on an even playing field, don't you?0 -
eveandqsmom wrote: »eveandqsmom wrote: »I'm trying to stay away but I just keep trying to wrap my head around the way some people think...you do know that living in a strong, healthy, educated society is better for YOU in a selfish way right?
Yep. And health, strength, and education aren't automatic giveaways. First, individuals must really WANT these things. And to value them when they aren't automatically provided, individuals must WORK for them, which not every individual is willing to do.
You really believe you are on an even playing field, don't you?
It doesn't need to be even; only free of obstacles, which the feds aren't too great at accomplishing.2 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »terricherry2 wrote: »Soooo happy to live in the UK with socialised healthcare, paid for through taxes and which has better clinical outcomes and is cheaper per capita than private models. And I say that as a high rate tax payer who likely pays for the healthcare of others that are less well off than me. I get why so many Americans are so wedded to the insurance system, given that huge corporations have told people for years that anything else is filthy communism or giving away their hard earned money to the lazy, but I just can't get my head around it.
I guess I just prefer paying 28% in taxes rather than 38-40%, but that's just me.....
The implicit assumption seems to be that the USA's healthcare system is free market while the UK's is not. Not the case even a teeny tiny bit. USA's healthcare market is largely cartelized and corporatized. The UK's healthcare market is largely socialized. I'm certainly willing to believe the UK system's outcomes are better than those in the US (although I'm guessing it's probably arguable and the picture is far more complex than is being suggested here), but given the above, that really isn't saying much.
Outcomes are debatable -- depends on what you look at. US costs are higher, though.
I'm willing to believe that, I suppose - in the United States our healthcare market is drowning in a welter of laws, regulations, and edicts that have resulted in a schizophrenic, duplicative morass of subsidies, welfare programs and entitlements that aren't free-market in the least, have high administrative costs, and end up increasingly enriching corporations and bureaucrats to all of our detriment.
Still, I'm not sure why the argument against the above should be "just socialize everything like the UK."
I don't think it is, although I would like something more of a European model, personally. Back in '08 I knew a lot more about this than I currently remember, but there were other models I thought would fit the US better than the UK's. The insurance-based and employer-based model isn't cost-effective or efficient, IMO, and has various unintended consequences.How about we try the free market? When in comes to information technology, which comparatively has been subject to far less regulation in the USA, consumers have for the past several decades reaped the benefits of a blistering pace of innovation combined with steadily decreasing costs.
I don't think free market works because it doesn't solve problems like pre-existing conditions and people being uninsurable and I do want to share risk across society in some way (we do this to a significant extent with Medicare, but that doesn't help younger people). Also, unfortunately, the area in which health care is probably most price responsive to market pressures is routine care, and that's what we probably want people to take advanage of, as it saves costs in the long run (and in theory is one avenue for addressing obesity).
I did post above about McCain's proposal which I think can serve as a springboard for an interesting policy discussion.0 -
So Newmarket--
When you said: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.
What did you mean? It seems somewhat inconsistent with your more recent comments, so I'm thinking I misunderstood it.0 -
eveandqsmom wrote: »eveandqsmom wrote: »I'm trying to stay away but I just keep trying to wrap my head around the way some people think...you do know that living in a strong, healthy, educated society is better for YOU in a selfish way right?
Yep. And health, strength, and education aren't automatic giveaways. First, individuals must really WANT these things. And to value them when they aren't automatically provided, individuals must WORK for them, which not every individual is willing to do.
You really believe you are on an even playing field, don't you?
What? Re-read my posts. I've had to work harder and suffer more for every morsel of comfort and security I now enjoy at the age of 49. Which is quite minimal compared to the average American.
I've experienced homelessness and have spent many years without health insurance. I had to put off surgery on a benign tumor for years for lack of insurance. Until the thing got so big in my abdomen I looked 9 months pregnant and it weighed 10 pounds after it was excised.
I sent myself to vocational schools in my late 20s and again when I was 39 in order to get skilled in fields I knew had work available and would pay me a living wage. I worked the crappiest jobs, sometimes two at a time, for years to pay the tuition at those vocational schools.
And I have never taken a penny of welfare in my life, in any form. Even when I was uninsured. Even when I was homeless. Even when I would have to go a week eating only beans, rice and apples.
So, please, tell me all about the level playing field I spent my life larking on.
Oh, I see. I suffered so everyone should. That's a different thing.
Personally, through my struggles, I realized that it's better to turn around and help the next person up rather than just turn my back...but that's me.5 -
eveandqsmom wrote: »eveandqsmom wrote: »I'm trying to stay away but I just keep trying to wrap my head around the way some people think...you do know that living in a strong, healthy, educated society is better for YOU in a selfish way right?
Yep. And health, strength, and education aren't automatic giveaways. First, individuals must really WANT these things. And to value them when they aren't automatically provided, individuals must WORK for them, which not every individual is willing to do.
You really believe you are on an even playing field, don't you?
What? Re-read my posts. I've had to work harder and suffer more for every morsel of comfort and security I now enjoy at the age of 49. Which is quite minimal compared to the average American.
I've experienced homelessness and have spent many years without health insurance. I had to put off surgery on a benign tumor for years for lack of insurance. Until the thing got so big in my abdomen I looked 9 months pregnant and it weighed 10 pounds after it was excised.
I sent myself to vocational schools in my late 20s and again when I was 39 in order to get skilled in fields I knew had work available and would pay me a living wage. I worked the crappiest jobs, sometimes two at a time, for years to pay the tuition at those vocational schools.
And I have never taken a penny of welfare in my life, in any form. Even when I was uninsured. Even when I was homeless. Even when I would have to go a week eating only beans, rice and apples.
So, please, tell me all about the level playing field I spent my life larking on.
This is a very similar argument that people used in the US when they were debating passing the first SS bill. This is a very similar argument that people used in the US when they were debating medicare for the first time. This is a very similar argument that people used in the US when they were debating medicaid for the first time. "I worked hard for what I have, so can everyone else." It is completely normal to feel this way. I urge you to get involved and demand your representatives do something. (Am I talking politics now? oops) Something like 87% of them are up for re-election in the fall.
ETA: I see that the poster is in favor of socialized medicine. I still urge them to get involved!0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »How about we try the free market? When in comes to information technology, which comparatively has been subject to far less regulation in the USA, consumers have for the past several decades reaped the benefits of a blistering pace of innovation combined with steadily decreasing costs.
I don't think free market works because it doesn't solve problems like pre-existing conditions and people being unemployable and I do want to share risk across society in some way (we do this to a significant extent with Medicare, but that doesn't help younger people). Also, unfortunately, the area in which health care is probably most price responsive to market pressures is routine care, and that's what we probably want people to take advanage of, as it saves costs in the long run (and in theory is one avenue for addressing obesity).
I did post above about McCain's proposal which I think can serve as a springboard for an interesting policy discussion.
I don't think any of us should be seriously viewed as offering approaches that "solve" anything, just approaches that address problems better than other approaches.
1 -
eveandqsmom wrote: »eveandqsmom wrote: »eveandqsmom wrote: »I'm trying to stay away but I just keep trying to wrap my head around the way some people think...you do know that living in a strong, healthy, educated society is better for YOU in a selfish way right?
Yep. And health, strength, and education aren't automatic giveaways. First, individuals must really WANT these things. And to value them when they aren't automatically provided, individuals must WORK for them, which not every individual is willing to do.
You really believe you are on an even playing field, don't you?
What? Re-read my posts. I've had to work harder and suffer more for every morsel of comfort and security I now enjoy at the age of 49. Which is quite minimal compared to the average American.
I've experienced homelessness and have spent many years without health insurance. I had to put off surgery on a benign tumor for years for lack of insurance. Until the thing got so big in my abdomen I looked 9 months pregnant and it weighed 10 pounds after it was excised.
I sent myself to vocational schools in my late 20s and again when I was 39 in order to get skilled in fields I knew had work available and would pay me a living wage. I worked the crappiest jobs, sometimes two at a time, for years to pay the tuition at those vocational schools.
And I have never taken a penny of welfare in my life, in any form. Even when I was uninsured. Even when I was homeless. Even when I would have to go a week eating only beans, rice and apples.
So, please, tell me all about the level playing field I spent my life larking on.
Oh, I see. I suffered so everyone should. That's a different thing.
Personally, through my struggles, I realized that it's better to turn around and help the next person up rather than just turn my back...but that's me.
You're right, it is, and I do what I can. I've let homeless guys shower and crash in my apartment. I've moved jobless friends in with me until they got on their feet. I will buy food for amy hungry person who asks.
That doesn't mean that I am okay with government using force to make everyone be "charitable".4 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »eveandqsmom wrote: »eveandqsmom wrote: »eveandqsmom wrote: »I'm trying to stay away but I just keep trying to wrap my head around the way some people think...you do know that living in a strong, healthy, educated society is better for YOU in a selfish way right?
Yep. And health, strength, and education aren't automatic giveaways. First, individuals must really WANT these things. And to value them when they aren't automatically provided, individuals must WORK for them, which not every individual is willing to do.
You really believe you are on an even playing field, don't you?
What? Re-read my posts. I've had to work harder and suffer more for every morsel of comfort and security I now enjoy at the age of 49. Which is quite minimal compared to the average American.
I've experienced homelessness and have spent many years without health insurance. I had to put off surgery on a benign tumor for years for lack of insurance. Until the thing got so big in my abdomen I looked 9 months pregnant and it weighed 10 pounds after it was excised.
I sent myself to vocational schools in my late 20s and again when I was 39 in order to get skilled in fields I knew had work available and would pay me a living wage. I worked the crappiest jobs, sometimes two at a time, for years to pay the tuition at those vocational schools.
And I have never taken a penny of welfare in my life, in any form. Even when I was uninsured. Even when I was homeless. Even when I would have to go a week eating only beans, rice and apples.
So, please, tell me all about the level playing field I spent my life larking on.
Oh, I see. I suffered so everyone should. That's a different thing.
Personally, through my struggles, I realized that it's better to turn around and help the next person up rather than just turn my back...but that's me.
You're right, it is, and I do what I can. I've let homeless guys shower and crash in my apartment. I've moved jobless friends in with me until they got on their feet. I will buy food for amy hungry person who asks.
That doesn't mean that I am okay with government using force to make everyone be "charitable".
I really think it comes back to my question of whether someone feels treating obesity is a public health concern or a luxury. I don't think everyone agrees that taxes going towards low income subsidies for the health care exchange is "charity."0 -
tlflag1620 wrote: »
To bring this back to the topic at hand, do you then logically believe birth control and abortions and adoptions should be free to all women who are not married or independently financially secure?...The reasonable choice for anyone who is not part of a two parent married unit and who is unable to independently support offspring would be to not make babies until they are married and financially able to support who they bring into the world....
No. Let them keep their legs closed. It's not that hard. And if they have a lapse in judgment and want to put a baby up for adoption, I'm pretty sure they don't have to pay to do that.
What if they have a "lapse in judgment" and don't want to give their child away? You would want them to be forced to do so?
What if their legs are forced open, against their will? You would also take away their choice as to what to do in the even they became pregnant?
I'm not free to opine on that here because I'm already walking the line with the MFP's rules about political conversation being discouraged. Needless to say, there seem to be millions and millions of "judgment lapses" happening in the U.S. every year and, obviously, the children aren't given away. I'll leave it at that.
This is true - IIRC something like 51% of pregnancies are reported to be "unitentional". Now, I'm fairly certain that "unintentional" includes consensual sex, where no protection was used, and I would debate that those pregnancies are far from "unintentional". However, even in clinical settings (think perfect use) the various birth control methods have failure rates, and in real world use, the failure rates are much higher.
You seem to be proposing that poor women should not be allowed to have sex. What about poor men? Should poor people simply not be allowed to get married? Who should enforce those rules?
Unintended pregnancy (whether it is due to failure to use birth control, actual birth control failure, or the result of rape) does happen. You stated "..if they have a lapse in judgment and want to put a baby up for adoption, I'm pretty sure they don't have to pay to do that." It begs the question - what if they don't want to put the baby up for adoption? What if they want to abort? What if they want to keep their child? Should poor women not have the same bodily autonomy as wealthier women? Who pays for the prenatal care prior to any adoption arrangement, assuming that is the woman's choice? Who pays for the care and maintenance of the child, if adoption cannot be secured prior to birth and the baby ends up in a "group home" (what we used to call orphanages)? Who pays for babies who aren't likely to be adopted (not every baby is born healthy, white, and male)?
You offhandedly refused to consider providing reproductive services (free or low cost birth control, abortion, and adoption services) to unmarried and/or poor women. So what of the children that will ultimately be produced (and yes, they WILL be produced, as they always have been)? Women who receive adequate prenatal care (whether they choose to keep the baby or place him/her up for adoption) have healthier babies, statistically, than those who receive no/inadequate care. You say it's up to the woman and the man who created the child to foot the bill for the prenatal care, up to and including labor and delivery (should they choose to carry the pregnancy to term). What if they cannot afford it? Screw the damn kid for being too stupid to pick wealthier parents?3 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »eveandqsmom wrote: »eveandqsmom wrote: »eveandqsmom wrote: »I'm trying to stay away but I just keep trying to wrap my head around the way some people think...you do know that living in a strong, healthy, educated society is better for YOU in a selfish way right?
Yep. And health, strength, and education aren't automatic giveaways. First, individuals must really WANT these things. And to value them when they aren't automatically provided, individuals must WORK for them, which not every individual is willing to do.
You really believe you are on an even playing field, don't you?
What? Re-read my posts. I've had to work harder and suffer more for every morsel of comfort and security I now enjoy at the age of 49. Which is quite minimal compared to the average American.
I've experienced homelessness and have spent many years without health insurance. I had to put off surgery on a benign tumor for years for lack of insurance. Until the thing got so big in my abdomen I looked 9 months pregnant and it weighed 10 pounds after it was excised.
I sent myself to vocational schools in my late 20s and again when I was 39 in order to get skilled in fields I knew had work available and would pay me a living wage. I worked the crappiest jobs, sometimes two at a time, for years to pay the tuition at those vocational schools.
And I have never taken a penny of welfare in my life, in any form. Even when I was uninsured. Even when I was homeless. Even when I would have to go a week eating only beans, rice and apples.
So, please, tell me all about the level playing field I spent my life larking on.
Oh, I see. I suffered so everyone should. That's a different thing.
Personally, through my struggles, I realized that it's better to turn around and help the next person up rather than just turn my back...but that's me.
You're right, it is, and I do what I can. I've let homeless guys shower and crash in my apartment. I've moved jobless friends in with me until they got on their feet. I will buy food for amy hungry person who asks.
That doesn't mean that I am okay with government using force to make everyone be "charitable".
I really think it comes back to my question of whether someone feels treating obesity is a public health concern or a luxury. I don't think everyone agrees that taxes going towards low income subsidies for the health care exchange is "charity."
In the earlier attempt to appeal to greed, one thing got forgotten. If the person receiving said subsidies is giving nothing useful back to society, then it is charity, a donation, a giveaway, whatever. I don't care if it's medical care, food, dance lessons, or a car. It's only a public health concern because we pay for it. If not for that, their being morbidly obese would be of no consequence to anyone else.0 -
I think that if the US government removed the subsidiaries on wheat, corn, and sugarcane, the price of high calorie food would correct itself. The government would have their subsidy money back to put into healthcare for those already dealing with obesity, and people would think long and hard before buying calorie dense foods, and obesity would not be anywhere as common as it is now...kind of like how when cigarettes became 10 bucks a pack everyone started quitting.5
-
eveandqsmom wrote: »eveandqsmom wrote: »eveandqsmom wrote: »I'm trying to stay away but I just keep trying to wrap my head around the way some people think...you do know that living in a strong, healthy, educated society is better for YOU in a selfish way right?
Yep. And health, strength, and education aren't automatic giveaways. First, individuals must really WANT these things. And to value them when they aren't automatically provided, individuals must WORK for them, which not every individual is willing to do.
You really believe you are on an even playing field, don't you?
What? Re-read my posts. I've had to work harder and suffer more for every morsel of comfort and security I now enjoy at the age of 49. Which is quite minimal compared to the average American.
I've experienced homelessness and have spent many years without health insurance. I had to put off surgery on a benign tumor for years for lack of insurance. Until the thing got so big in my abdomen I looked 9 months pregnant and it weighed 10 pounds after it was excised.
I sent myself to vocational schools in my late 20s and again when I was 39 in order to get skilled in fields I knew had work available and would pay me a living wage. I worked the crappiest jobs, sometimes two at a time, for years to pay the tuition at those vocational schools.
And I have never taken a penny of welfare in my life, in any form. Even when I was uninsured. Even when I was homeless. Even when I would have to go a week eating only beans, rice and apples.
So, please, tell me all about the level playing field I spent my life larking on.
Oh, I see. I suffered so everyone should. That's a different thing.
Personally, through my struggles, I realized that it's better to turn around and help the next person up rather than just turn my back...but that's me.
So you're implying I turn my back on people rather than help them? That's some assumption. I don't toot my own horn about what I do to help people, so I'm not taking that bait. But if and when I do help people, I help people with my own money, my own time, my own initiatives and my own resources. I don't delude myself into believing that supporting political positions that advocate certain budgetary practices should allow me to believe I'm standing on a higher moral ground. Nice covert virtue signaling though.
I'm sorry, I didn't mean it to be covert.1 -
eveandqsmom wrote: »I think that if the US government removed the subsidiaries on wheat, corn, and sugarcane, the price of high calorie food would correct itself. The government would have their subsidy money back to put into healthcare for those already dealing with obesity, and people would think long and hard before buying calorie dense foods, and obesity would not be anywhere as common as it is now...kind of like how when cigarettes became 10 bucks a pack everyone started quitting.
I'm in keto, have been for a while, and continuing to drop weight. What's the problem with calorie dense foods? Again, being too general.0 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »eveandqsmom wrote: »I think that if the US government removed the subsidiaries on wheat, corn, and sugarcane, the price of high calorie food would correct itself. The government would have their subsidy money back to put into healthcare for those already dealing with obesity, and people would think long and hard before buying calorie dense foods, and obesity would not be anywhere as common as it is now...kind of like how when cigarettes became 10 bucks a pack everyone started quitting.
I'm in keto, have been for a while, and continuing to drop weight. What's the problem with calorie dense foods? Again, being too general.
Sorry, over-processed, low-nutrient, hyperpalatable, high sugar, simple carbed, crap that the bulk of obese people are eating way too much of because it is priced artificially low.0 -
eveandqsmom wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »eveandqsmom wrote: »I think that if the US government removed the subsidiaries on wheat, corn, and sugarcane, the price of high calorie food would correct itself. The government would have their subsidy money back to put into healthcare for those already dealing with obesity, and people would think long and hard before buying calorie dense foods, and obesity would not be anywhere as common as it is now...kind of like how when cigarettes became 10 bucks a pack everyone started quitting.
I'm in keto, have been for a while, and continuing to drop weight. What's the problem with calorie dense foods? Again, being too general.
Sorry, over-processed, low-nutrient, hyperpalatable, high sugar, simple carbed, crap that the bulk of obese people are eating way too much of because it is priced artificially low.
Would you put breakfast sausage and/or salami into this? I mean, they're both processed all to hell, calorically dense, have all kinds of fats and added salt, etc. and I eat the hell out of both. Or are we specifically talking about corn based...stuff?0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »So Newmarket--
When you said: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.
What did you mean? It seems somewhat inconsistent with your more recent comments, so I'm thinking I misunderstood it.
I think healthcare should be socialized in the U.S. and available equally to all. I know it's inconsistent with my more conservative views but I work as a practical nurse and it's an issue close to my heart and experiences.
Did you mean to call me Newmarket or was that an oopsie? It's okay. Even if it was on purpose, I still like you.
Heh, oopsie, sorry. I'm not even sure what that would mean if it were intended as an insult, and my name is silly so I'm not going to be mocking anyone else's!
Thanks for clarifying. That's how I took it originally and then I was thinking I must have misunderstood.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »How about we try the free market? When in comes to information technology, which comparatively has been subject to far less regulation in the USA, consumers have for the past several decades reaped the benefits of a blistering pace of innovation combined with steadily decreasing costs.
I don't think free market works because it doesn't solve problems like pre-existing conditions and people being unemployable and I do want to share risk across society in some way (we do this to a significant extent with Medicare, but that doesn't help younger people). Also, unfortunately, the area in which health care is probably most price responsive to market pressures is routine care, and that's what we probably want people to take advanage of, as it saves costs in the long run (and in theory is one avenue for addressing obesity).
I did post above about McCain's proposal which I think can serve as a springboard for an interesting policy discussion.
I don't think any of us should be seriously viewed as offering approaches that "solve" anything, just approaches that address problems better than other approaches.
"Solve" may not be the right work, but an approach that does nothing to address the issues I mentioned is a non starter, IMO.0 -
Equality doctrine is already in effect. Let's say I earn $5 per year, and I pay $2 in taxes. And Joe Blow earns $3 per year and pays $0 in taxes because he's exempt. Big Gov will take my $2, of which I will be refunded $0 when I file taxes, and use $1 for deficit interest payments, and they will give the other $1 to Joe Blow who paid in nothing. He pays in nothing, but receives a tax 'refund'.
ETA: Sorry, this was in response to lemurcat.
I'll go with this. But I think it's more like you earn $4 plus $1 in health care benefits from your job you work hard at. Joe earns $1 at the job he works hard at. The feds tax you $2. You still have $2 plus your $1 in benefits. The feds give $0.50 to Joe and keep $0.50. Joe now has $1.50. You still have $3.
In my mind, though, you're mad at Joe when who you should be mad at is the person who earns 10x what you make working hard at their job, but still only pays the $2 in taxes. In my opinion Joe and his $0.50 isn't the problem.
I am not mad at Joe Blow. You are wrong about that. And, yes, my numbers might be a little skewed. My point was, there is already a mechanism in place that takes money from me and gives it to someone who earns less. If I'm Joe Blow, what am I going to do, not take the tax 'refund' when my family needs all the help it can get? Not a chance. If anything, I am mad at the system, and mad at people who think they can legislate and tax us into a utopian society (obesity tax being the trigger that drew me into this discussion).0 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »eveandqsmom wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »eveandqsmom wrote: »I think that if the US government removed the subsidiaries on wheat, corn, and sugarcane, the price of high calorie food would correct itself. The government would have their subsidy money back to put into healthcare for those already dealing with obesity, and people would think long and hard before buying calorie dense foods, and obesity would not be anywhere as common as it is now...kind of like how when cigarettes became 10 bucks a pack everyone started quitting.
I'm in keto, have been for a while, and continuing to drop weight. What's the problem with calorie dense foods? Again, being too general.
Sorry, over-processed, low-nutrient, hyperpalatable, high sugar, simple carbed, crap that the bulk of obese people are eating way too much of because it is priced artificially low.
Would you put breakfast sausage and/or salami into this? I mean, they're both processed all to hell, calorically dense, have all kinds of fats and added salt, etc. and I eat the hell out of both. Or are we specifically talking about corn based...stuff?
I am only aware of those particular subsidies but I bet the pig farmers have some too
0 -
eveandqsmom wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »eveandqsmom wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »eveandqsmom wrote: »I think that if the US government removed the subsidiaries on wheat, corn, and sugarcane, the price of high calorie food would correct itself. The government would have their subsidy money back to put into healthcare for those already dealing with obesity, and people would think long and hard before buying calorie dense foods, and obesity would not be anywhere as common as it is now...kind of like how when cigarettes became 10 bucks a pack everyone started quitting.
I'm in keto, have been for a while, and continuing to drop weight. What's the problem with calorie dense foods? Again, being too general.
Sorry, over-processed, low-nutrient, hyperpalatable, high sugar, simple carbed, crap that the bulk of obese people are eating way too much of because it is priced artificially low.
Would you put breakfast sausage and/or salami into this? I mean, they're both processed all to hell, calorically dense, have all kinds of fats and added salt, etc. and I eat the hell out of both. Or are we specifically talking about corn based...stuff?
I am only aware of those particular subsidies but I bet the pig farmers have some too
I'm actually perfectly fine with ending any and all subsidies. They do nothing but serve to distort the market, and most farmers will tell you that they are actually quite harmful to them, as well as waistlines.3 -
terricherry2 wrote: »terricherry2 wrote: »Soooo happy to live in the UK with socialised healthcare, paid for through taxes and which has better clinical outcomes and is cheaper per capita than private models. And I say that as a high rate tax payer who likely pays for the healthcare of others that are less well off than me. I get why so many Americans are so wedded to the insurance system, given that huge corporations have told people for years that anything else is filthy communism or giving away their hard earned money to the lazy, but I just can't get my head around it.
I guess I just prefer paying 28% in taxes rather than 38-40%, but that's just me.....
The implicit assumption seems to be that the USA's healthcare system is free market while the UK's is not. Not the case even a teeny tiny bit. USA's healthcare market is largely cartelized and corporatized. The UK's healthcare market is largely socialized. I'm certainly willing to believe the UK system's outcomes are better than those in the US (although I'm guessing it's probably arguable and the picture is far more complex than is being suggested here), but given the above, that really isn't saying much.
I don't remember exactly where it was, but there was an independent study done last year of the top 10 economies and their health systems. USA was top for cost and bottom for outcomes. UK was top for outcomes and somewhere near the bottom for cost. Sorry I don't have the link.
I'm personally a fan of Singapore.
http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=7923
0 -
Also, I believe corn subsidies have an effect on meat prices, because it affects the cost of animal feed.0
-
terricherry2 wrote: »Soooo happy to live in the UK with socialised healthcare, paid for through taxes and which has better clinical outcomes and is cheaper per capita than private models. And I say that as a high rate tax payer who likely pays for the healthcare of others that are less well off than me. I get why so many Americans are so wedded to the insurance system, given that huge corporations have told people for years that anything else is filthy communism or giving away their hard earned money to the lazy, but I just can't get my head around it.
I talked to a British National at my company about the heath care in the UK. He had a knee injury, went to the doctor who confirmed he needed surgery. Since he was an IT guy and didn't need the knee for work he was told he could take pain killers and be put on the list for surgery and his turn would come up in 2-3 years.
However, if he was willing to pay $10k towards the cost, he could get it done in 2 weeks. I could pay the $10k but others might not be able to and would have to wait. Is that socialized?
Not sure if I can get my head around that scenario.4 -
terricherry2 wrote: »terricherry2 wrote: »Soooo happy to live in the UK with socialised healthcare, paid for through taxes and which has better clinical outcomes and is cheaper per capita than private models. And I say that as a high rate tax payer who likely pays for the healthcare of others that are less well off than me. I get why so many Americans are so wedded to the insurance system, given that huge corporations have told people for years that anything else is filthy communism or giving away their hard earned money to the lazy, but I just can't get my head around it.
I guess I just prefer paying 28% in taxes rather than 38-40%, but that's just me.....
The implicit assumption seems to be that the USA's healthcare system is free market while the UK's is not. Not the case even a teeny tiny bit. USA's healthcare market is largely cartelized and corporatized. The UK's healthcare market is largely socialized. I'm certainly willing to believe the UK system's outcomes are better than those in the US (although I'm guessing it's probably arguable and the picture is far more complex than is being suggested here), but given the above, that really isn't saying much.
I don't remember exactly where it was, but there was an independent study done last year of the top 10 economies and their health systems. USA was top for cost and bottom for outcomes. UK was top for outcomes and somewhere near the bottom for cost. Sorry I don't have the link.
I'm personally a fan of Singapore.
http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=7923
I could be wrong but I feel like France came out as all around winner
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions