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
-
Almost half our tax dollars go to defense. The rest is doled out in (albeit disproportionally) to what the government see fit to spend on. My point was that we don't NEED to spend 45% on defense. The majority of money isn't even spent on soldiers or servicemen. It's spent on research and development along with over priced cost of attaining weaponry.The US COULD have a more affordable health care system if 45% of taxes weren't spent on defense (more than practically all countries spend together on defense). Mind you I'm not saying reduce what we need to do to protect the country as a whole, but when we spend 3 trillion on planes (F35 series) that aren't even finished yet (ongoing delays and overbudget) and likely won't be needed on US soil unless a war comes over here, diverting some of that money instead to a more "user friendly" health care system would help. Hell, even kids would be able to get college education with that money. Of course with the money spent and profited on due to defense cost, that's likely not going to happen.
What about the tax dollars spent on foreign aid, to countries who despise the U.S. and express delight when anything bad happens to us?
What about the tax dollars spent subsidizing non-citizens, who haven't earned or contributed significantly, so they can disproportionately collect perks such as: WIC, EBT cards, Section 8, free doctors' appointments, free hospital services, subsidized childcare, subsidized state run postsecondary education tuition and subsidized utility payments?
These are two examples, and a there are few more I'd like to list, but they're too controversial to be discussed on this thread. I don't know what percentage of the tax pie these examples comprise, but I'd rather see cuts here than cuts to our defense.
And if I've gotten too political in this discussion and broke the rules, let me know and I'll stop gabbing and just lurk.
Honestly I don't know because I'm not in the military. I'd like to hear from active service men and women though, regarding the bolded quote above.
You'd like to hear from active military on whether their jobs should exist? :bigsmile:
Well, yeah. I figure we should hear it from all sides. @kgeyser has the inside scoop and gave a good answer though. Stuff I didn't know about budgeting, policy and how civilians benefit, etc.
Was it surprising?
It was new information. I wasn't aware of it from that angle.
Ok. Regrettably, if I had to summarize the portions that struck me, it would be "let's figure out a way to spend the money we've been allotted so we get to keep our jobs".1 -
Almost half our tax dollars go to defense. The rest is doled out in (albeit disproportionally) to what the government see fit to spend on. My point was that we don't NEED to spend 45% on defense. The majority of money isn't even spent on soldiers or servicemen. It's spent on research and development along with over priced cost of attaining weaponry.The US COULD have a more affordable health care system if 45% of taxes weren't spent on defense (more than practically all countries spend together on defense). Mind you I'm not saying reduce what we need to do to protect the country as a whole, but when we spend 3 trillion on planes (F35 series) that aren't even finished yet (ongoing delays and overbudget) and likely won't be needed on US soil unless a war comes over here, diverting some of that money instead to a more "user friendly" health care system would help. Hell, even kids would be able to get college education with that money. Of course with the money spent and profited on due to defense cost, that's likely not going to happen.
What about the tax dollars spent on foreign aid, to countries who despise the U.S. and express delight when anything bad happens to us?
What about the tax dollars spent subsidizing non-citizens, who haven't earned or contributed significantly, so they can disproportionately collect perks such as: WIC, EBT cards, Section 8, free doctors' appointments, free hospital services, subsidized childcare, subsidized state run postsecondary education tuition and subsidized utility payments?
These are two examples, and a there are few more I'd like to list, but they're too controversial to be discussed on this thread. I don't know what percentage of the tax pie these examples comprise, but I'd rather see cuts here than cuts to our defense.
And if I've gotten too political in this discussion and broke the rules, let me know and I'll stop gabbing and just lurk.
Honestly I don't know because I'm not in the military. I'd like to hear from active service men and women though, regarding the bolded quote above.
You'd like to hear from active military on whether their jobs should exist? :bigsmile:
Well, yeah. I figure we should hear it from all sides. @kgeyser has the inside scoop and gave a good answer though. Stuff I didn't know about budgeting, policy and how civilians benefit, etc.
Was it surprising?
It was new information. I wasn't aware of it from that angle.
Ok. Regrettably, if I had to summarize the portions that struck me, it would be "let's figure out a way to spend the money we've been allotted so we get to keep our jobs".
I took it as: let's spend the money they've given us so we don't get shortchanged next year. Because, as luck would have it, next year we might need all the money and then some.
I don't see anything wrong with approaching it that way.
If my employer threw us a Christmas party and allotted us ten cartons of pork lo mein, 1 platter of fried softshell crab maki, 10 egg rolls, ten cartons of teriyaki chicken wings and 4 jugs of Pepsi, I'd eat and chug my fill and encourage everyone else to do the same. Plus we'd carry some home on the sly rather than dump it or put it in the workplace refridgerator. Especially if they were secretly plotting to give us 35% less at next year's party if they noticed it didn't all get eaten this time around. God only knows. Possibly next year's party would have hungrier people at it and also people who don't normally show up. Then some of us might go home still hungry
What if your employers had stolen it from unwilling "contributors" before giving it to you to serve?0 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »
Almost half our tax dollars go to defense. The rest is doled out in (albeit disproportionally) to what the government see fit to spend on. My point was that we don't NEED to spend 45% on defense. The majority of money isn't even spent on soldiers or servicemen. It's spent on research and development along with over priced cost of attaining weaponry.The US COULD have a more affordable health care system if 45% of taxes weren't spent on defense (more than practically all countries spend together on defense). Mind you I'm not saying reduce what we need to do to protect the country as a whole, but when we spend 3 trillion on planes (F35 series) that aren't even finished yet (ongoing delays and overbudget) and likely won't be needed on US soil unless a war comes over here, diverting some of that money instead to a more "user friendly" health care system would help. Hell, even kids would be able to get college education with that money. Of course with the money spent and profited on due to defense cost, that's likely not going to happen.
What about the tax dollars spent on foreign aid, to countries who despise the U.S. and express delight when anything bad happens to us?
What about the tax dollars spent subsidizing non-citizens, who haven't earned or contributed significantly, so they can disproportionately collect perks such as: WIC, EBT cards, Section 8, free doctors' appointments, free hospital services, subsidized childcare, subsidized state run postsecondary education tuition and subsidized utility payments?
These are two examples, and a there are few more I'd like to list, but they're too controversial to be discussed on this thread. I don't know what percentage of the tax pie these examples comprise, but I'd rather see cuts here than cuts to our defense.
And if I've gotten too political in this discussion and broke the rules, let me know and I'll stop gabbing and just lurk.
Honestly I don't know because I'm not in the military. I'd like to hear from active service men and women though, regarding the bolded quote above.
You'd like to hear from active military on whether their jobs should exist? :bigsmile:
Well, yeah. I figure we should hear it from all sides. @kgeyser has the inside scoop and gave a good answer though. Stuff I didn't know about budgeting, policy and how civilians benefit, etc.
Was it surprising?
It was new information. I wasn't aware of it from that angle.
Ok. Regrettably, if I had to summarize the portions that struck me, it would be "let's figure out a way to spend the money we've been allotted so we get to keep our jobs".
I took it as: let's spend the money they've given us so we don't get shortchanged next year. Because, as luck would have it, next year we might need all the money and then some.
I don't see anything wrong with approaching it that way.
If my employer threw us a Christmas party and allotted us ten cartons of pork lo mein, 1 platter of fried softshell crab maki, 10 egg rolls, ten cartons of teriyaki chicken wings and 4 jugs of Pepsi, I'd eat and chug my fill and encourage everyone else to do the same. Plus we'd carry some home on the sly rather than dump it or put it in the workplace refridgerator. Especially if they were secretly plotting to give us 35% less at next year's party if they noticed it didn't all get eaten this time around. God only knows. Possibly next year's party would have hungrier people at it and also people who don't normally show up. Then some of us might go home still hungry
What if your employers had stolen it from unwilling "contributors" before giving it to you to serve?
Or willing contributors? If they gave too much, shouldn't they know it and indeed have the option of giving less next time? So basically we are potentially being fleeced by government entities, where expenses are made up in order to avoid dealing with the process that has been established for getting more funding when and if the time comes.2 -
It is not a forgone conclusion that cutting military spending would mean cutting the number of service members.
The budget mismanagement issue that was described affects pretty much all of the federal organizations. It is a symptom of one of the main reasons why people are against government run services, inefficiency.
0 -
It is not a forgone conclusion that cutting military spending would mean cutting the number of service members.
The budget mismanagement issue that was described affects pretty much all of the federal organizations. It is a symptom of one of the main reasons why people are against government run services, inefficiency.
It's not just the federal government. Same thing happens with state, city, school districts, etc.1 -
@JaneiR36 and @Gallowmere1984 - how would you like to see it done differently (more ethically?) while still staying on the safe side as far as U.S. defense capability stands?
I don't think this is a serious worry. The military is one of the areas where I am sure that if we start to fall short the next year's appropriations would address it. The more likely situation is we consistently overspend out of the fear of falling short or just seeming not as hawkish/pro defense as the other guys.1 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »@JaneiR36 and @Gallowmere1984 - how would you like to see it done differently (more ethically?) while still staying on the safe side as far as U.S. defense capability stands?
I don't think this is a serious worry. The military is one of the areas where I am sure that if we start to fall short the next year's appropriations would address it. The more likely situation is we consistently overspend out of the fear of falling short or just seeming not as hawkish/pro defense as the other guys.
Precisely this. There are absolutely no credible threats to US security at this point, that our military could actually prevent. They got their *kitten* handed to them by guerrilla warfare every time it was used, so hoping for that to change is a non-starter, no matter how much money we kick out.
Honestly, for me, if we were to simply start using our military resources for actual defense, and not preemptively pissing away billions on having troops staged in places that should be handling their own problems, it would be a huge step in the right direction.
Pair that with getting the grease out of DoD pockets, and we could be on to something.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/charlestiefer/2016/01/01/the-10-most-blatantly-wasteful-defense-items-in-the-recent-1-8-trillion-spending-bill/2 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »@JaneiR36 and @Gallowmere1984 - how would you like to see it done differently (more ethically?) while still staying on the safe side as far as U.S. defense capability stands?
I don't think this is a serious worry. The military is one of the areas where I am sure that if we start to fall short the next year's appropriations would address it. The more likely situation is we consistently overspend out of the fear of falling short or just seeming not as hawkish/pro defense as the other guys.
Agreed. And @newmeadow you will notice I did say government entities - that everyone allegedly sandbags their spending to avoid losing future funds, does not make it right. To be good stewards of our money, they either need to follow the established process for requesting necessary funds at a later date, or work to simplify the process. Specifics I have not, but that's my wishful thinking, anyway.0 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »@JaneiR36 and @Gallowmere1984 - how would you like to see it done differently (more ethically?) while still staying on the safe side as far as U.S. defense capability stands?
I don't think this is a serious worry. The military is one of the areas where I am sure that if we start to fall short the next year's appropriations would address it. The more likely situation is we consistently overspend out of the fear of falling short or just seeming not as hawkish/pro defense as the other guys.
Precisely this. There are absolutely no credible threats to US security at this point, that our military could actually prevent. They got their *kitten* handed to them by guerrilla warfare every time it was used, so hoping for that to change is a non-starter, no matter how much money we kick out.
Honestly, for me, if we were to simply start using our military resources for actual defense, and not preemptively pissing away billions on having troops staged in places that should be handling their own problems, it would be a huge step in the right direction.
Pair that with getting the grease out of DoD pockets, and we could be on to something.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/charlestiefer/2016/01/01/the-10-most-blatantly-wasteful-defense-items-in-the-recent-1-8-trillion-spending-bill/
Spend some time in China and let's talk. As for guerilla warfare, our specialists know what they're doing. Politicians don't have the patience for it. Never will.
1 -
60% of people working for minimum wage are adults with families. After putting in 40-60 hours per week, they still (without the ACA in the the U.S.) could not afford regular health care insurance.
This is a privileged, elitist viewpoint.
Repeat after me... "I got mine, Jack."
Privileged, elitist? Nope. This is the viewpoint of a person who made responsible choices and changed her circumstances. I was an adult with a minimum wage job. Since that was not the greatest way to support a family, I put off having one until I changed my circumstances. Once again, that is what responsible adults do. Those adults with families earning minimum wage are victims of their own choices.
Privileged, elitist?! You have got to be kidding me. You know what is privileged and elitist? Someone using the force of law to enact moral dictates on everyone else because they think their morals and opinions are better, more important or right than others. [/quote]
So you've always waited until you could afford everything yourself, with no assistance? You've never bought something with a credit card, never had a vehicle loan, never had a student loan, never accepted a scholarship, never had a mortgage, and/or never sought to have an already paid for expense, be compensated by deducting the expense from your taxes, etc.? Heck even the largest public companies, wouldn't exist; if it weren't for shareholders.
Even with our life expectancy as high as it currently is, many of us wouldn't be young enough to have/raise a family, until we could afford all of the above; to sustain 1 on our own. Which'd indicate that then only the wealthy, should be able; to have them.1 -
FridayApril01st2016 wrote: »So you've always waited until you could afford everything yourself, with no assistance? You've never bought something with a credit card, never had a vehicle loan, never had a student loan, never accepted a scholarship, never had a mortgage, and/or never sought to have an already paid for expense, be compensated by deducting the expense from your taxes, etc.? Heck even the largest public companies, wouldn't exist; if it weren't for shareholders.
Even with our life expectancy as high as it currently is, many of us wouldn't be young enough to have/raise a family, until we could afford all of the above; to sustain 1 on our own. Which'd indicate that then only the wealthy, should be able; to have them.
You're comparing apples to oranges with mortgages, credit cards, student loans, scholarships, and vehicle loans to public wealth redistribution. Again, the difference is voluntary involvement in the contract.
When a bank gives a loan, it is a voluntary contract between both parties, with the bank ultimately accepting the risk. Now, one could argue that the whole "too big to fail" debacle put everything back on involuntary taxpayers, and I would agree. I firmly believe that if not for the initial meddling from the Feds (think mid to late 90s), 2008 wouldn't have been anywhere near as bad, and also, the banks should have been allowed to fold. Many did anyway.
Again, for me, the problem isn't the program. It's the fact that if I refuse to participate, and don't manage to find a legal loophole, I can expect boots to my door, and a quick haul-off to prison (or worse).5 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »FridayApril01st2016 wrote: »So you've always waited until you could afford everything yourself, with no assistance? You've never bought something with a credit card, never had a vehicle loan, never had a student loan, never accepted a scholarship, never had a mortgage, and/or never sought to have an already paid for expense, be compensated by deducting the expense from your taxes, etc.? Heck even the largest public companies, wouldn't exist; if it weren't for shareholders.
Even with our life expectancy as high as it currently is, many of us wouldn't be young enough to have/raise a family, until we could afford all of the above; to sustain 1 on our own. Which'd indicate that then only the wealthy, should be able; to have them.
You're comparing apples to oranges with mortgages, credit cards, student loans, scholarships, and vehicle loans to public wealth redistribution. Again, the difference is voluntary involvement in the contract.
When a bank gives a loan, it is a voluntary contract between both parties, with the bank ultimately accepting the risk. Now, one could argue that the whole "too big to fail" debacle put everything back on involuntary taxpayers, and I would agree. I firmly believe that if not for the initial meddling from the Feds (think mid to late 90s), 2008 wouldn't have been anywhere near as bad, and also, the banks should have been allowed to fold. Many did anyway.
Again, for me, the problem isn't the program. It's the fact that if I refuse to participate, and don't manage to find a legal loophole, I can expect boots to my door, and a quick haul-off to prison (or worse).
Wealth redistribution, is also voluntary involvement in the contract because when you voluntarily sign papers, agreeing to become an employee; you're also thus voluntarily agree to having apart of your earnings redistributed. Therefore you're able to choose, not to accumulate wealth for redistribution; by not signing contracts that'd permit wealth seizure!0 -
FridayApril01st2016 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »FridayApril01st2016 wrote: »So you've always waited until you could afford everything yourself, with no assistance? You've never bought something with a credit card, never had a vehicle loan, never had a student loan, never accepted a scholarship, never had a mortgage, and/or never sought to have an already paid for expense, be compensated by deducting the expense from your taxes, etc.? Heck even the largest public companies, wouldn't exist; if it weren't for shareholders.
Even with our life expectancy as high as it currently is, many of us wouldn't be young enough to have/raise a family, until we could afford all of the above; to sustain 1 on our own. Which'd indicate that then only the wealthy, should be able; to have them.
You're comparing apples to oranges with mortgages, credit cards, student loans, scholarships, and vehicle loans to public wealth redistribution. Again, the difference is voluntary involvement in the contract.
When a bank gives a loan, it is a voluntary contract between both parties, with the bank ultimately accepting the risk. Now, one could argue that the whole "too big to fail" debacle put everything back on involuntary taxpayers, and I would agree. I firmly believe that if not for the initial meddling from the Feds (think mid to late 90s), 2008 wouldn't have been anywhere near as bad, and also, the banks should have been allowed to fold. Many did anyway.
Again, for me, the problem isn't the program. It's the fact that if I refuse to participate, and don't manage to find a legal loophole, I can expect boots to my door, and a quick haul-off to prison (or worse).
Wealth redistribution, is also voluntary involvement in the contract because when you voluntarily sign papers, agreeing to become an employee; you're also thus voluntarily agree to having apart of your earnings redistributed. Therefore you're able to choose, not to accumulate wealth for redistribution; by not signing contracts that'd permit wealth seizure!
Laws prevent one from earning a living without paying taxes to the governement. What you put forth as a freedom to choose not to accumulate wealth is actually an ultimatum. If you want to accumulate wealth, you must pay taxes. Analogy: I have a gun pointed in your direction. If you want to live, give me your wealth. In either case, you have a choice, but I wouldn't characterize those choices as reasonable, per se.
On the other hand, what you described before was lending money. In those cases, both parties are actually free to do business with other parties, or none. I can shop around for different interest rates, banks can choose to only lend to people with better credit. Neither is forced to do business with the other as a means to survive. Both are forced to do business with the state in paying taxes.2 -
FridayApril01st2016 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »FridayApril01st2016 wrote: »So you've always waited until you could afford everything yourself, with no assistance? You've never bought something with a credit card, never had a vehicle loan, never had a student loan, never accepted a scholarship, never had a mortgage, and/or never sought to have an already paid for expense, be compensated by deducting the expense from your taxes, etc.? Heck even the largest public companies, wouldn't exist; if it weren't for shareholders.
Even with our life expectancy as high as it currently is, many of us wouldn't be young enough to have/raise a family, until we could afford all of the above; to sustain 1 on our own. Which'd indicate that then only the wealthy, should be able; to have them.
You're comparing apples to oranges with mortgages, credit cards, student loans, scholarships, and vehicle loans to public wealth redistribution. Again, the difference is voluntary involvement in the contract.
When a bank gives a loan, it is a voluntary contract between both parties, with the bank ultimately accepting the risk. Now, one could argue that the whole "too big to fail" debacle put everything back on involuntary taxpayers, and I would agree. I firmly believe that if not for the initial meddling from the Feds (think mid to late 90s), 2008 wouldn't have been anywhere near as bad, and also, the banks should have been allowed to fold. Many did anyway.
Again, for me, the problem isn't the program. It's the fact that if I refuse to participate, and don't manage to find a legal loophole, I can expect boots to my door, and a quick haul-off to prison (or worse).
Wealth redistribution, is also voluntary involvement in the contract because when you voluntarily sign papers, agreeing to become an employee; you're also thus voluntarily agree to having apart of your earnings redistributed. Therefore you're able to choose, not to accumulate wealth for redistribution; by not signing contracts that'd permit wealth seizure!
It's true. By the same logic, you also engage in voluntary wealth redistribution when a criminal points a gun at your head and demands your wallet, and you give it to him. The government just has bigger and better guns, as well as the prison industrial complex, and can strip you of all property and valuables, up to and including your freedom, your personal physical integrity, your rights as guaranteed by the Constitution, your sanity, and your life.3 -
Actually most of the money isn't spent on service members but the contracting of civilian employees. Civilian employees can easily make 6 figures a year if they are engineers.It is not a forgone conclusion that cutting military spending would mean cutting the number of service members.
The budget mismanagement issue that was described affects pretty much all of the federal organizations. It is a symptom of one of the main reasons why people are against government run services, inefficiency.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0 -
enterdanger wrote: »We would also need to start regulating fee ranges for medical services. I'm all for open markets, but the amount that can be charged for some services is simply ridiculous.
Last year I took my 5 year to the ER because he whacked his head on a table. (his head is in the 95th percentile at 5, freakin huge). It looked like it needed stitches. 2 hours later I walked out with a kid that just had his skin glued shut, no stitches, and a bill for $600 after my insurance. They basically did the equivalent of sticking a fancy band aid on this kid's head. The fee without insurance was like $4,000. Ridiculous.
I went to the ER 2 years ago for a stomach infection. I was unemployed with no insurance. I sat there 4 hours, with a doctor seeing me for approximately 15 minutes. Then he wrote me out an antibiotic script and sent me off. 5,000 bill. For 15 minutes of care. They basically charged me over 1,000$ an hour to sit there waiting. Which is insane and in no way justifiable.
If medical providers weren't seriously gouging people in a lot of cases, health care insurance and it's cost wouldn't even be an issue.
1 -
enterdanger wrote: »We would also need to start regulating fee ranges for medical services. I'm all for open markets, but the amount that can be charged for some services is simply ridiculous.
Last year I took my 5 year to the ER because he whacked his head on a table. (his head is in the 95th percentile at 5, freakin huge). It looked like it needed stitches. 2 hours later I walked out with a kid that just had his skin glued shut, no stitches, and a bill for $600 after my insurance. They basically did the equivalent of sticking a fancy band aid on this kid's head. The fee without insurance was like $4,000. Ridiculous.
I went to the ER 2 years ago for a stomach infection. I was unemployed with no insurance. I sat there 4 hours, with a doctor seeing me for approximately 15 minutes. Then he wrote me out an antibiotic script and sent me off. 5,000 bill. For 15 minutes of care. They basically charged me over 1,000$ an hour to sit there waiting. Which is insane and in no way justifiable.
If medical providers weren't seriously gouging people in a lot of cases, health care insurance and it's cost wouldn't even be an issue.
You can thank the chargemasters (and their chums at the insurance companies) for that one.1 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »enterdanger wrote: »We would also need to start regulating fee ranges for medical services. I'm all for open markets, but the amount that can be charged for some services is simply ridiculous.
Last year I took my 5 year to the ER because he whacked his head on a table. (his head is in the 95th percentile at 5, freakin huge). It looked like it needed stitches. 2 hours later I walked out with a kid that just had his skin glued shut, no stitches, and a bill for $600 after my insurance. They basically did the equivalent of sticking a fancy band aid on this kid's head. The fee without insurance was like $4,000. Ridiculous.
I went to the ER 2 years ago for a stomach infection. I was unemployed with no insurance. I sat there 4 hours, with a doctor seeing me for approximately 15 minutes. Then he wrote me out an antibiotic script and sent me off. 5,000 bill. For 15 minutes of care. They basically charged me over 1,000$ an hour to sit there waiting. Which is insane and in no way justifiable.
If medical providers weren't seriously gouging people in a lot of cases, health care insurance and it's cost wouldn't even be an issue.
You can thank the chargemasters (and their chums at the insurance companies) for that one.
Yea...in absolutely NO way can you blame the actual care provider for that one.0 -
mommarnurse wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »enterdanger wrote: »We would also need to start regulating fee ranges for medical services. I'm all for open markets, but the amount that can be charged for some services is simply ridiculous.
Last year I took my 5 year to the ER because he whacked his head on a table. (his head is in the 95th percentile at 5, freakin huge). It looked like it needed stitches. 2 hours later I walked out with a kid that just had his skin glued shut, no stitches, and a bill for $600 after my insurance. They basically did the equivalent of sticking a fancy band aid on this kid's head. The fee without insurance was like $4,000. Ridiculous.
I went to the ER 2 years ago for a stomach infection. I was unemployed with no insurance. I sat there 4 hours, with a doctor seeing me for approximately 15 minutes. Then he wrote me out an antibiotic script and sent me off. 5,000 bill. For 15 minutes of care. They basically charged me over 1,000$ an hour to sit there waiting. Which is insane and in no way justifiable.
If medical providers weren't seriously gouging people in a lot of cases, health care insurance and it's cost wouldn't even be an issue.
You can thank the chargemasters (and their chums at the insurance companies) for that one.
Yea...in absolutely NO way can you blame the actual care provider for that one.
The doctors and nurses (care providers) working in virtually any ER in the country are salaried, with virtually no connection whatsoever to the billing departments.
0 -
enterdanger wrote: »We would also need to start regulating fee ranges for medical services. I'm all for open markets, but the amount that can be charged for some services is simply ridiculous.
Last year I took my 5 year to the ER because he whacked his head on a table. (his head is in the 95th percentile at 5, freakin huge). It looked like it needed stitches. 2 hours later I walked out with a kid that just had his skin glued shut, no stitches, and a bill for $600 after my insurance. They basically did the equivalent of sticking a fancy band aid on this kid's head. The fee without insurance was like $4,000. Ridiculous.
I went to the ER 2 years ago for a stomach infection. I was unemployed with no insurance. I sat there 4 hours, with a doctor seeing me for approximately 15 minutes. Then he wrote me out an antibiotic script and sent me off. 5,000 bill. For 15 minutes of care. They basically charged me over 1,000$ an hour to sit there waiting. Which is insane and in no way justifiable.
If medical providers weren't seriously gouging people in a lot of cases, health care insurance and it's cost wouldn't even be an issue.
and you think the government is somehow going to make this better?1 -
Will someone settle the damned tab already, or do we need to play "pick a card" with the waiter again?0
-
sunnybeaches105 wrote: »Will someone settle the damned tab already, or do we need to play "pick a card" with the waiter again?
I am tired of paying the tab for 60% of the restaurant....0 -
sunnybeaches105 wrote: »Will someone settle the damned tab already, or do we need to play "pick a card" with the waiter again?
I am tired of paying the tab for 60% of the restaurant....
Dine 'n Dash. They can't catch all of us1 -
sunnybeaches105 wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »Will someone settle the damned tab already, or do we need to play "pick a card" with the waiter again?
I am tired of paying the tab for 60% of the restaurant....
Dine 'n Dash. They can't catch all of us
HA! Yea but you dont want to be the one that IRS does catch ...AKA Wesley Snipes....0 -
nytimes.com/2016/07/26/health/skinny-fat.html?_r=0
This article gets into the hormone factors at the end of true obesity.1 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »nytimes.com/2016/07/26/health/skinny-fat.html?_r=0
This article gets into the hormone factors at the end of true obesity.
This part bothers me, immensely.
"One sure way to get rid of it in liver and muscle cells is to lose weight — to stop providing the body with more calories than its fat tissue can handle, he notes.
That is not so easy. “Every patient I see, I say, ‘Let’s lose some weight and increase activity.’ They all nod their heads. ‘That’s a great idea.’ Maybe one in 100 does it, and even when they are successful, we know how easy it is to gain the weight back.”
Dr. Shulman is exploring another route, developing benign new variants of a toxic drug that he hopes will be safe and will reduce levels of fat and inflammation in the liver. The drug, dinitrophenol, was once widely used as an over-the counter medication for weight loss, but the Food and Drug Administration took it off the market in 1938 after a few people taking it dropped dead from severely high body temperatures.
He and his colleagues have modified dinitrophenol so, at least in rats, it does not raise body temperature or cause weight loss. But it lowers diacylglycerol levels in the liver and cures Type 2 diabetes and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, and other metabolic problems associated with obesity."
So, it's his goal to eventually make it okay to be a heaving mass of foul, because the organs can be saved by drugs. /facedesk2 -
enterdanger wrote: »We would also need to start regulating fee ranges for medical services. I'm all for open markets, but the amount that can be charged for some services is simply ridiculous.
Last year I took my 5 year to the ER because he whacked his head on a table. (his head is in the 95th percentile at 5, freakin huge). It looked like it needed stitches. 2 hours later I walked out with a kid that just had his skin glued shut, no stitches, and a bill for $600 after my insurance. They basically did the equivalent of sticking a fancy band aid on this kid's head. The fee without insurance was like $4,000. Ridiculous.
I went to the ER 2 years ago for a stomach infection. I was unemployed with no insurance. I sat there 4 hours, with a doctor seeing me for approximately 15 minutes. Then he wrote me out an antibiotic script and sent me off. 5,000 bill. For 15 minutes of care. They basically charged me over 1,000$ an hour to sit there waiting. Which is insane and in no way justifiable.
If medical providers weren't seriously gouging people in a lot of cases, health care insurance and it's cost wouldn't even be an issue.
and you think the government is somehow going to make this better?
Not even a little bit. I'm not one of the people pushing that argument.0 -
Pills over prevention appeals to the masses.2
-
GaleHawkins wrote: »Pills over prevention appeals to the masses.
Yep, moving one's *kitten* and eating less is much harder than taking a pill. I grieve for our society.2 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »Pills over prevention appeals to the masses.
So do fad diets and woo, vs. an understanding of nutrition and calories and the benefits of exercise and daily activity.1
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
- 426 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