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
-
This plan looks like it still includes enrollment for people in a state exchange, but you can opt out of it afterwards in writing. Instead of the sliding scale subsidies of the ACA, everyone gets a flat tax credit. And it's largely funded by eliminating tax credits for employers. What do you see as other major differences between this and the ACA?lemurcat12 wrote: »This was part of the McCain proposal I posted (which honestly is worth discussion).
Here's the link again in case anyone else is reading, since it's quite far back now.
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2008/10/the-mccain-health-care-plan-more-power-to-families
One main way I see it as different is it attacks employer-based. ACA does not, and is in large part built around employer-based (people who pushed the public option had hopes of changing this, but in a different way than McCain and it failed, of course).
A big part of ACA is maintaining the special tax treatment of employer-based insurance and forcing even more businesses to have it/provide it to all employees (with some unintended consequences), as well as micromanaging (sorry, a bit biased here, although I understand the purpose) what employer-based insurance must include. McCain took away the tax benefits from employers connected with employer-based which would mean that very quickly it would go away, to be replaced entirely by the exchanges. (This is also why McCain's plan would not have passed.)
You mentioned the difference between a for-need subsidy and a tax credit.
Beyond that, another big part of ACA is federal regulation of what an insurance plan must require and not permitting discrimination based on such things as preexisting conditions. McCain's plan doesn't mess with the market on this. It also allows more room for the states to experiment.
There are some good things in both approaches (although I'd like to just ditch the insurance approach). It's an interesting problem for wonks and made for a much more interesting discussion before it got politicized to the extent it is now, IMO.0 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »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.
You talked about sharing costs, dealing with pre-existing conditions, and dealing with the unemployable, then assume that free market approaches don't address these issues. I don't think that's correct, at all.
I don't think they do, no. Left to the free market, insurance companies aren't going to cover pre existence conditions, period.
Insurance companies don't insure buildings for fire damage after they've caught fire. Imagine the premiums on insuring fire damage if that was the case?
Totally agree. That's why the insurance model for health care doesn't work well. We are trying to share risk, but also to cover/spread existing costs, as I understand it (or as I would have it).It just means free. Allow people to voluntarily cooperate to find solutions that suit them the best, free of force or coercion. That includes charity, mutual aid societies, creative crowdsourcing, technological solutions, a whole universe of approaches that haven't even been attempted or imagined yet.
So I see nothing here that suggests that it would address the problems I mentioned.
That's kind of the main rhetorical advantage of pro-government solutions over free-market proponents. Relying on the spontaneous order of the free market means by definition I don't have a wonkish policy proposal that I can trot out to argue is better than yours. You can insist that people are simply incapable of helping the sick and needy if government is out of the picture. I disagree.
We started the employer-based insurance system, plus the various add ons, because the free market solution was not adequate. We "reformed" it because of problems that even those did not solve, such as the ones I mentioned. If someone says we should go back to free market, I think they need to explain why the problems that originally existed leading to the change away from the free market are (a) no longer a problem, or (b) shouldn't matter to us, or (c) would actually be addressed by the free market in some way.
And no, I don't think an acceptable alternative is saying that people with urgent or expensive health care needs need to convince the community to pay for their chemo.
but its OK to force people through the tax code to subsidize others care???????
I think it is okay (through the tax code or otherwise, I don't like the current model) to force people to subsidize a basic level of care, yes, with people free to add on if they like through purchasing services or insurance. In fact, I think basic health care is a human right (and we pay for a lot of it anyway as hospitals are required to provide emergency care paid or not).
To suggest that basic healthcare is a right, is to suggest that those who provide and pay for it (assuming that no prior contract was signed by the payer) have no rights.
It's not a right, it's a service, just like any other business transaction, and should be treated as such. As soon as a "right" requires the action of another person, it's no longer a "right", it's enslavement by any other name.
I'm not in any way trying to pick a fight at all. I'm just trying to understand how you're using words. For instance, would you say access to clean water is a right? Would you say ability to petition the government to redress grievances is a right?
1: Not unless you provide that water yourself without stealing it from another person.
2: Yes, but only insofar as you are capable of doing for yourself, or with the assistance of one holding an oathsworn public office (ie, district attorney)
Reagrding 1. a.) Who "owns" the water in rivers? b.) If you and your neighbor's wells are both tapping the same aquafer, who "owns" it?
So far as I am concerned, natural free-flowing water is not the property of anyone, until it is collected.
Aquafers are not necessarily flowing, they can be contained. It's why I asked part (b)
if the well is on my property then I own what is in the well.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »
This plan looks like it still includes enrollment for people in a state exchange, but you can opt out of it afterwards in writing. Instead of the sliding scale subsidies of the ACA, everyone gets a flat tax credit. And it's largely funded by eliminating tax credits for employers. What do you see as other major differences between this and the ACA?lemurcat12 wrote: »This was part of the McCain proposal I posted (which honestly is worth discussion).
Here's the link again in case anyone else is reading, since it's quite far back now.
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2008/10/the-mccain-health-care-plan-more-power-to-families
One main way I see it as different is it attacks employer-based. ACA does not, and is in large part built around employer-based (people who pushed the public option had hopes of changing this, but in a different way than McCain and it failed, of course).
A big part of ACA is maintaining the special tax treatment of employer-based insurance and forcing even more businesses to have it/provide it to all employees (with some unintended consequences), as well as micromanaging (sorry, a bit biased here, although I understand the purpose) what employer-based insurance must include. McCain took away the tax benefits from employers connected with employer-based which would mean that very quickly it would go away, to be replaced entirely by the exchanges. (This is also why McCain's plan would not have passed.)
You mentioned the difference between a for-need subsidy and a tax credit.
Beyond that, another big part of ACA is federal regulation of what an insurance plan must require and not permitting discrimination based on such things as preexisting conditions. McCain's plan doesn't mess with the market on this. It also allows more room for the states to experiment.
There are some good things in both approaches (although I'd like to just ditch the insurance approach). It's an interesting problem for wonks and made for a much more interesting discussion before it got politicized to the extent it is now, IMO.
why do we trust the same clowns that blow money on "star wars" and "shrimp on treadmills" to regulate healthcare??3 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »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.
You talked about sharing costs, dealing with pre-existing conditions, and dealing with the unemployable, then assume that free market approaches don't address these issues. I don't think that's correct, at all.
I don't think they do, no. Left to the free market, insurance companies aren't going to cover pre existence conditions, period.
Insurance companies don't insure buildings for fire damage after they've caught fire. Imagine the premiums on insuring fire damage if that was the case?
Totally agree. That's why the insurance model for health care doesn't work well. We are trying to share risk, but also to cover/spread existing costs, as I understand it (or as I would have it).It just means free. Allow people to voluntarily cooperate to find solutions that suit them the best, free of force or coercion. That includes charity, mutual aid societies, creative crowdsourcing, technological solutions, a whole universe of approaches that haven't even been attempted or imagined yet.
So I see nothing here that suggests that it would address the problems I mentioned.
That's kind of the main rhetorical advantage of pro-government solutions over free-market proponents. Relying on the spontaneous order of the free market means by definition I don't have a wonkish policy proposal that I can trot out to argue is better than yours. You can insist that people are simply incapable of helping the sick and needy if government is out of the picture. I disagree.
We started the employer-based insurance system, plus the various add ons, because the free market solution was not adequate. We "reformed" it because of problems that even those did not solve, such as the ones I mentioned. If someone says we should go back to free market, I think they need to explain why the problems that originally existed leading to the change away from the free market are (a) no longer a problem, or (b) shouldn't matter to us, or (c) would actually be addressed by the free market in some way.
And no, I don't think an acceptable alternative is saying that people with urgent or expensive health care needs need to convince the community to pay for their chemo.
but its OK to force people through the tax code to subsidize others care???????
I think it is okay (through the tax code or otherwise, I don't like the current model) to force people to subsidize a basic level of care, yes, with people free to add on if they like through purchasing services or insurance. In fact, I think basic health care is a human right (and we pay for a lot of it anyway as hospitals are required to provide emergency care paid or not).
To suggest that basic healthcare is a right, is to suggest that those who provide and pay for it (assuming that no prior contract was signed by the payer) have no rights.
It's not a right, it's a service, just like any other business transaction, and should be treated as such. As soon as a "right" requires the action of another person, it's no longer a "right", it's enslavement by any other name.
I'm not in any way trying to pick a fight at all. I'm just trying to understand how you're using words. For instance, would you say access to clean water is a right? Would you say ability to petition the government to redress grievances is a right?
1: Not unless you provide that water yourself without stealing it from another person.
2: Yes, but only insofar as you are capable of doing for yourself, or with the assistance of one holding an oathsworn public office (ie, district attorney)
Reagrding 1. a.) Who "owns" the water in rivers? b.) If you and your neighbor's wells are both tapping the same aquafer, who "owns" it?
So far as I am concerned, natural free-flowing water is not the property of anyone, until it is collected.
Aquafers are not necessarily flowing, they can be contained. It's why I asked part (b)
Sorry for missing that. I would say, in the case of an aquifer, you only own whatever water is present under your property at any given time. Now, I could see a scenario where a flowing aquifer were drained prior to it reaching a property that was initially part of it, and in this case, civil redress may be necessary, but obviously more specific details would be needed. Did it just run dry, or is the "upstream" neighbor a *kitten* who suddenly found a need for an entire formation's flow.0 -
Hi
Venezuela is in a state of near Chaos so Yes Some of us know how that is working. OTOH a lot of its woes can also be blamed at least in part on the large drop in Oil revenue.
Cheers
Roger0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »
This plan looks like it still includes enrollment for people in a state exchange, but you can opt out of it afterwards in writing. Instead of the sliding scale subsidies of the ACA, everyone gets a flat tax credit. And it's largely funded by eliminating tax credits for employers. What do you see as other major differences between this and the ACA?lemurcat12 wrote: »This was part of the McCain proposal I posted (which honestly is worth discussion).
Here's the link again in case anyone else is reading, since it's quite far back now.
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2008/10/the-mccain-health-care-plan-more-power-to-families
One main way I see it as different is it attacks employer-based. ACA does not, and is in large part built around employer-based (people who pushed the public option had hopes of changing this, but in a different way than McCain and it failed, of course).
A big part of ACA is maintaining the special tax treatment of employer-based insurance and forcing even more businesses to have it/provide it to all employees (with some unintended consequences), as well as micromanaging (sorry, a bit biased here, although I understand the purpose) what employer-based insurance must include. McCain took away the tax benefits from employers connected with employer-based which would mean that very quickly it would go away, to be replaced entirely by the exchanges. (This is also why McCain's plan would not have passed.)
You mentioned the difference between a for-need subsidy and a tax credit.
Beyond that, another big part of ACA is federal regulation of what an insurance plan must require and not permitting discrimination based on such things as preexisting conditions. McCain's plan doesn't mess with the market on this. It also allows more room for the states to experiment.
There are some good things in both approaches (although I'd like to just ditch the insurance approach). It's an interesting problem for wonks and made for a much more interesting discussion before it got politicized to the extent it is now, IMO.
There's some things the VHA and Medicare/aid does better than private insurance, for the most part. And there's things private insurance does better. In my socialist fantasies, I wish we could have a single-payer system that was essentially Medicaid for all, but with the lessons we've learned elsewhere applied to it.
But given the politics of the US, I feel like the German model might be the most feasible. (If I understand it right) Most everyone has coverage. Something like nearly 2/3 get it from their job and the employer and employee split the cost of paying for the government plan. And the other nearly 1/3 are on, basically, state payer because they're deemed too poor to pay. If you don't have it through your job and you're poor, you're covered under the state plan. Another like 10% either have private coverage or pay the fine to opt out. It's known as universal multi-payer. It'd be like as if Medicare was better, and everyone could buy into it and most do because it's cheap and awesome.0 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »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.
You talked about sharing costs, dealing with pre-existing conditions, and dealing with the unemployable, then assume that free market approaches don't address these issues. I don't think that's correct, at all.
I don't think they do, no. Left to the free market, insurance companies aren't going to cover pre existence conditions, period.
Insurance companies don't insure buildings for fire damage after they've caught fire. Imagine the premiums on insuring fire damage if that was the case?
Totally agree. That's why the insurance model for health care doesn't work well. We are trying to share risk, but also to cover/spread existing costs, as I understand it (or as I would have it).It just means free. Allow people to voluntarily cooperate to find solutions that suit them the best, free of force or coercion. That includes charity, mutual aid societies, creative crowdsourcing, technological solutions, a whole universe of approaches that haven't even been attempted or imagined yet.
So I see nothing here that suggests that it would address the problems I mentioned.
That's kind of the main rhetorical advantage of pro-government solutions over free-market proponents. Relying on the spontaneous order of the free market means by definition I don't have a wonkish policy proposal that I can trot out to argue is better than yours. You can insist that people are simply incapable of helping the sick and needy if government is out of the picture. I disagree.
We started the employer-based insurance system, plus the various add ons, because the free market solution was not adequate. We "reformed" it because of problems that even those did not solve, such as the ones I mentioned. If someone says we should go back to free market, I think they need to explain why the problems that originally existed leading to the change away from the free market are (a) no longer a problem, or (b) shouldn't matter to us, or (c) would actually be addressed by the free market in some way.
And no, I don't think an acceptable alternative is saying that people with urgent or expensive health care needs need to convince the community to pay for their chemo.
but its OK to force people through the tax code to subsidize others care???????
I think it is okay (through the tax code or otherwise, I don't like the current model) to force people to subsidize a basic level of care, yes, with people free to add on if they like through purchasing services or insurance. In fact, I think basic health care is a human right (and we pay for a lot of it anyway as hospitals are required to provide emergency care paid or not).
To suggest that basic healthcare is a right, is to suggest that those who provide and pay for it (assuming that no prior contract was signed by the payer) have no rights.
It's not a right, it's a service, just like any other business transaction, and should be treated as such. As soon as a "right" requires the action of another person, it's no longer a "right", it's enslavement by any other name.
I'm not in any way trying to pick a fight at all. I'm just trying to understand how you're using words. For instance, would you say access to clean water is a right? Would you say ability to petition the government to redress grievances is a right?
1: Not unless you provide that water yourself without stealing it from another person.
2: Yes, but only insofar as you are capable of doing for yourself, or with the assistance of one holding an oathsworn public office (ie, district attorney)
Reagrding 1. a.) Who "owns" the water in rivers? b.) If you and your neighbor's wells are both tapping the same aquafer, who "owns" it?
So far as I am concerned, natural free-flowing water is not the property of anyone, until it is collected.
Aquafers are not necessarily flowing, they can be contained. It's why I asked part (b)
if the well is on my property then I own what is in the well.
The well is in fact on your property, but it taps into a body of water underground that is present under your neighbor's house, as well. You're both tapping into the same body of water underground.1 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »
This plan looks like it still includes enrollment for people in a state exchange, but you can opt out of it afterwards in writing. Instead of the sliding scale subsidies of the ACA, everyone gets a flat tax credit. And it's largely funded by eliminating tax credits for employers. What do you see as other major differences between this and the ACA?lemurcat12 wrote: »This was part of the McCain proposal I posted (which honestly is worth discussion).
Here's the link again in case anyone else is reading, since it's quite far back now.
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2008/10/the-mccain-health-care-plan-more-power-to-families
One main way I see it as different is it attacks employer-based. ACA does not, and is in large part built around employer-based (people who pushed the public option had hopes of changing this, but in a different way than McCain and it failed, of course).
A big part of ACA is maintaining the special tax treatment of employer-based insurance and forcing even more businesses to have it/provide it to all employees (with some unintended consequences), as well as micromanaging (sorry, a bit biased here, although I understand the purpose) what employer-based insurance must include. McCain took away the tax benefits from employers connected with employer-based which would mean that very quickly it would go away, to be replaced entirely by the exchanges. (This is also why McCain's plan would not have passed.)
You mentioned the difference between a for-need subsidy and a tax credit.
Beyond that, another big part of ACA is federal regulation of what an insurance plan must require and not permitting discrimination based on such things as preexisting conditions. McCain's plan doesn't mess with the market on this. It also allows more room for the states to experiment.
There are some good things in both approaches (although I'd like to just ditch the insurance approach). It's an interesting problem for wonks and made for a much more interesting discussion before it got politicized to the extent it is now, IMO.
There's some things the VHA and Medicare/aid does better than private insurance, for the most part. And there's things private insurance does better. In my socialist fantasies, I wish we could have a single-payer system that was essentially Medicaid for all, but with the lessons we've learned elsewhere applied to it.
But given the politics of the US, I feel like the German model might be the most feasible. (If I understand it right) Most everyone has coverage. Something like nearly 2/3 get it from their job and the employer and employee split the cost of paying for the government plan. And the other nearly 1/3 are on, basically, state payer because they're deemed too poor to pay. If you don't have it through your job and you're poor, you're covered under the state plan. Another like 10% either have private coverage or pay the fine to opt out. It's known as universal multi-payer. It'd be like as if Medicare was better, and everyone could buy into it and most do because it's cheap and awesome.
That sounds reasonable. It's been years since I focused on this, but I was exploring the various European models at one point, and that's what I think we should do -- look at a variety of approaches.0 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »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.
You talked about sharing costs, dealing with pre-existing conditions, and dealing with the unemployable, then assume that free market approaches don't address these issues. I don't think that's correct, at all.
I don't think they do, no. Left to the free market, insurance companies aren't going to cover pre existence conditions, period.
Insurance companies don't insure buildings for fire damage after they've caught fire. Imagine the premiums on insuring fire damage if that was the case?
Totally agree. That's why the insurance model for health care doesn't work well. We are trying to share risk, but also to cover/spread existing costs, as I understand it (or as I would have it).It just means free. Allow people to voluntarily cooperate to find solutions that suit them the best, free of force or coercion. That includes charity, mutual aid societies, creative crowdsourcing, technological solutions, a whole universe of approaches that haven't even been attempted or imagined yet.
So I see nothing here that suggests that it would address the problems I mentioned.
That's kind of the main rhetorical advantage of pro-government solutions over free-market proponents. Relying on the spontaneous order of the free market means by definition I don't have a wonkish policy proposal that I can trot out to argue is better than yours. You can insist that people are simply incapable of helping the sick and needy if government is out of the picture. I disagree.
We started the employer-based insurance system, plus the various add ons, because the free market solution was not adequate. We "reformed" it because of problems that even those did not solve, such as the ones I mentioned. If someone says we should go back to free market, I think they need to explain why the problems that originally existed leading to the change away from the free market are (a) no longer a problem, or (b) shouldn't matter to us, or (c) would actually be addressed by the free market in some way.
And no, I don't think an acceptable alternative is saying that people with urgent or expensive health care needs need to convince the community to pay for their chemo.
but its OK to force people through the tax code to subsidize others care???????
I think it is okay (through the tax code or otherwise, I don't like the current model) to force people to subsidize a basic level of care, yes, with people free to add on if they like through purchasing services or insurance. In fact, I think basic health care is a human right (and we pay for a lot of it anyway as hospitals are required to provide emergency care paid or not).
To suggest that basic healthcare is a right, is to suggest that those who provide and pay for it (assuming that no prior contract was signed by the payer) have no rights.
It's not a right, it's a service, just like any other business transaction, and should be treated as such. As soon as a "right" requires the action of another person, it's no longer a "right", it's enslavement by any other name.
I'm not in any way trying to pick a fight at all. I'm just trying to understand how you're using words. For instance, would you say access to clean water is a right? Would you say ability to petition the government to redress grievances is a right?
1: Not unless you provide that water yourself without stealing it from another person.
2: Yes, but only insofar as you are capable of doing for yourself, or with the assistance of one holding an oathsworn public office (ie, district attorney)
Reagrding 1. a.) Who "owns" the water in rivers? b.) If you and your neighbor's wells are both tapping the same aquafer, who "owns" it?
So far as I am concerned, natural free-flowing water is not the property of anyone, until it is collected.
Aquafers are not necessarily flowing, they can be contained. It's why I asked part (b)
if the well is on my property then I own what is in the well.
The well is in fact on your property, but it taps into a body of water underground that is present under your neighbor's house, as well. You're both tapping into the same body of water underground.
Not to mention that in some titles You may not own all the mineral or water rights as I understand it. Some Areas of the country from what I have read control wells too, to prevent depletion of the underground water.
Cheers
Roger0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »
This plan looks like it still includes enrollment for people in a state exchange, but you can opt out of it afterwards in writing. Instead of the sliding scale subsidies of the ACA, everyone gets a flat tax credit. And it's largely funded by eliminating tax credits for employers. What do you see as other major differences between this and the ACA?lemurcat12 wrote: »This was part of the McCain proposal I posted (which honestly is worth discussion).
Here's the link again in case anyone else is reading, since it's quite far back now.
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2008/10/the-mccain-health-care-plan-more-power-to-families
One main way I see it as different is it attacks employer-based. ACA does not, and is in large part built around employer-based (people who pushed the public option had hopes of changing this, but in a different way than McCain and it failed, of course).
A big part of ACA is maintaining the special tax treatment of employer-based insurance and forcing even more businesses to have it/provide it to all employees (with some unintended consequences), as well as micromanaging (sorry, a bit biased here, although I understand the purpose) what employer-based insurance must include. McCain took away the tax benefits from employers connected with employer-based which would mean that very quickly it would go away, to be replaced entirely by the exchanges. (This is also why McCain's plan would not have passed.)
You mentioned the difference between a for-need subsidy and a tax credit.
Beyond that, another big part of ACA is federal regulation of what an insurance plan must require and not permitting discrimination based on such things as preexisting conditions. McCain's plan doesn't mess with the market on this. It also allows more room for the states to experiment.
There are some good things in both approaches (although I'd like to just ditch the insurance approach). It's an interesting problem for wonks and made for a much more interesting discussion before it got politicized to the extent it is now, IMO.
There's some things the VHA and Medicare/aid does better than private insurance, for the most part. And there's things private insurance does better. In my socialist fantasies, I wish we could have a single-payer system that was essentially Medicaid for all, but with the lessons we've learned elsewhere applied to it.
But given the politics of the US, I feel like the German model might be the most feasible. (If I understand it right) Most everyone has coverage. Something like nearly 2/3 get it from their job and the employer and employee split the cost of paying for the government plan. And the other nearly 1/3 are on, basically, state payer because they're deemed too poor to pay. If you don't have it through your job and you're poor, you're covered under the state plan. Another like 10% either have private coverage or pay the fine to opt out. It's known as universal multi-payer. It'd be like as if Medicare was better, and everyone could buy into it and most do because it's cheap and awesome.
If it's legitimate "buy-in", I'm fine with it. If it's "we're taking this money, or taking you to jail", I'm not. I will always be in favor of an opt-out system that functions similar to how the whole "pay or we let your house burn down" fire departments work.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »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.
You talked about sharing costs, dealing with pre-existing conditions, and dealing with the unemployable, then assume that free market approaches don't address these issues. I don't think that's correct, at all.
I don't think they do, no. Left to the free market, insurance companies aren't going to cover pre existence conditions, period.
Insurance companies don't insure buildings for fire damage after they've caught fire. Imagine the premiums on insuring fire damage if that was the case?
Totally agree. That's why the insurance model for health care doesn't work well. We are trying to share risk, but also to cover/spread existing costs, as I understand it (or as I would have it).It just means free. Allow people to voluntarily cooperate to find solutions that suit them the best, free of force or coercion. That includes charity, mutual aid societies, creative crowdsourcing, technological solutions, a whole universe of approaches that haven't even been attempted or imagined yet.
So I see nothing here that suggests that it would address the problems I mentioned.
That's kind of the main rhetorical advantage of pro-government solutions over free-market proponents. Relying on the spontaneous order of the free market means by definition I don't have a wonkish policy proposal that I can trot out to argue is better than yours. You can insist that people are simply incapable of helping the sick and needy if government is out of the picture. I disagree.
We started the employer-based insurance system, plus the various add ons, because the free market solution was not adequate. We "reformed" it because of problems that even those did not solve, such as the ones I mentioned. If someone says we should go back to free market, I think they need to explain why the problems that originally existed leading to the change away from the free market are (a) no longer a problem, or (b) shouldn't matter to us, or (c) would actually be addressed by the free market in some way.
And no, I don't think an acceptable alternative is saying that people with urgent or expensive health care needs need to convince the community to pay for their chemo.
but its OK to force people through the tax code to subsidize others care???????
I think it is okay (through the tax code or otherwise, I don't like the current model) to force people to subsidize a basic level of care, yes, with people free to add on if they like through purchasing services or insurance. In fact, I think basic health care is a human right (and we pay for a lot of it anyway as hospitals are required to provide emergency care paid or not).
I never understood the rational that says health care is a human right...Liberty, Life, and property yes, but health care, sorry that one does not fly with me and never will.
You pay taxes to fund many, many public services. We all do. Schools. Emergency services. Roads. Public libraries. It goes on and on. A healthy society benefits everyone, including you.
Btw- emergency care costs would go way down if every person had access to preventative care.1 -
We used to have obese people paying more if you didn't have coverage through your employer. Underwriters did it.
I for one NEVER want to see us go back to that silliness. Ever been denied coverage because of birth defects? I have, pretty silly.0 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »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.
You talked about sharing costs, dealing with pre-existing conditions, and dealing with the unemployable, then assume that free market approaches don't address these issues. I don't think that's correct, at all.
I don't think they do, no. Left to the free market, insurance companies aren't going to cover pre existence conditions, period.
Insurance companies don't insure buildings for fire damage after they've caught fire. Imagine the premiums on insuring fire damage if that was the case?
Totally agree. That's why the insurance model for health care doesn't work well. We are trying to share risk, but also to cover/spread existing costs, as I understand it (or as I would have it).It just means free. Allow people to voluntarily cooperate to find solutions that suit them the best, free of force or coercion. That includes charity, mutual aid societies, creative crowdsourcing, technological solutions, a whole universe of approaches that haven't even been attempted or imagined yet.
So I see nothing here that suggests that it would address the problems I mentioned.
That's kind of the main rhetorical advantage of pro-government solutions over free-market proponents. Relying on the spontaneous order of the free market means by definition I don't have a wonkish policy proposal that I can trot out to argue is better than yours. You can insist that people are simply incapable of helping the sick and needy if government is out of the picture. I disagree.
We started the employer-based insurance system, plus the various add ons, because the free market solution was not adequate. We "reformed" it because of problems that even those did not solve, such as the ones I mentioned. If someone says we should go back to free market, I think they need to explain why the problems that originally existed leading to the change away from the free market are (a) no longer a problem, or (b) shouldn't matter to us, or (c) would actually be addressed by the free market in some way.
And no, I don't think an acceptable alternative is saying that people with urgent or expensive health care needs need to convince the community to pay for their chemo.
but its OK to force people through the tax code to subsidize others care???????
I think it is okay (through the tax code or otherwise, I don't like the current model) to force people to subsidize a basic level of care, yes, with people free to add on if they like through purchasing services or insurance. In fact, I think basic health care is a human right (and we pay for a lot of it anyway as hospitals are required to provide emergency care paid or not).
To suggest that basic healthcare is a right, is to suggest that those who provide and pay for it (assuming that no prior contract was signed by the payer) have no rights.
It's not a right, it's a service, just like any other business transaction, and should be treated as such. As soon as a "right" requires the action of another person, it's no longer a "right", it's enslavement by any other name.
Yup, precisely, and like another poster said to me - people aren't property.1 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »
This plan looks like it still includes enrollment for people in a state exchange, but you can opt out of it afterwards in writing. Instead of the sliding scale subsidies of the ACA, everyone gets a flat tax credit. And it's largely funded by eliminating tax credits for employers. What do you see as other major differences between this and the ACA?lemurcat12 wrote: »This was part of the McCain proposal I posted (which honestly is worth discussion).
Here's the link again in case anyone else is reading, since it's quite far back now.
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2008/10/the-mccain-health-care-plan-more-power-to-families
One main way I see it as different is it attacks employer-based. ACA does not, and is in large part built around employer-based (people who pushed the public option had hopes of changing this, but in a different way than McCain and it failed, of course).
A big part of ACA is maintaining the special tax treatment of employer-based insurance and forcing even more businesses to have it/provide it to all employees (with some unintended consequences), as well as micromanaging (sorry, a bit biased here, although I understand the purpose) what employer-based insurance must include. McCain took away the tax benefits from employers connected with employer-based which would mean that very quickly it would go away, to be replaced entirely by the exchanges. (This is also why McCain's plan would not have passed.)
You mentioned the difference between a for-need subsidy and a tax credit.
Beyond that, another big part of ACA is federal regulation of what an insurance plan must require and not permitting discrimination based on such things as preexisting conditions. McCain's plan doesn't mess with the market on this. It also allows more room for the states to experiment.
There are some good things in both approaches (although I'd like to just ditch the insurance approach). It's an interesting problem for wonks and made for a much more interesting discussion before it got politicized to the extent it is now, IMO.
why do we trust the same clowns that blow money on "star wars" and "shrimp on treadmills" to regulate healthcare??
Excellent point, but we keep on doing it. The scam goes like this.
Step 1- Government goons break the healthcare market.
Step 2 - People complain. Another crop of government goons demonize private enterprise and private charity, and suggest government fixes.
Step 3- Government goons then break the healthcare market further.
Step 4 - Repeat steps 2, and 3 ad nauseam.
2 -
tlflag1620 wrote: »Engagement ring or wedding ring?
In the interest of resisting the temptation towards being too much of a hardasss, I'll go with engagement ring.tlflag1620 wrote: »So basically you think poor people shouldn't have sex (or be allowed to get married?).
No, I think they should be allowed to sex each other and also get married. Cubic zirconias and sterling silver wedding bands are generally affordable by all. Plus there's layaway.tlflag1620 wrote: »You could refuse marriage licenses on the basis of verifiable income I suppose, but how do you stop poor people from having sex, exactly?
That would be a bit over the top. Not in favor of that, no.tlflag1620 wrote: »And isn't it punishing the wrong person by refusing to assist children born into poverty?
I know this is a slippery slope, and I've been avoiding getting into this conversation due to its high controversy index and MFP's discouragement of discussion of divisive political topics on the open forums. So I'll have to limit my reply to this: Unless we, the citizens of the U.S., make out-of-wedlock births socially unacceptable and difficult to navigate after the fact - the illegitimacy rates, and all the social consequences that go with them, which are documented and irrefutable - will continue to rise.tlflag1620 wrote: »Withholding prenatal care because of inability to pay can have adverse consequences for women, sure, but the consequences are generally greater for the baby.
Do you ever ask women who bear out of wedlock children this question? Or do you only ask this question of people who hold conservative views on the matter? Do you ask these women if they thought about the prenatal care angle while sipping white wine on the third date and planning the rest of the evening? Or if they considered the consequences which would be suffered by the baby, when the decision was made not to use birth control? And yes, it's a decision. Did you ever ask if she ever considered to forego the sexual experience altogether rather than take a risk which would adversely affect her own child?tlflag1620 wrote: »You don't think it's more than a little naive to expect that only financially stable people will have sex?
I don't consider myself to be the least bit naïve nor does anyone who knows me. My expectations of others are low. I'm naturally pessimistic.tlflag1620 wrote: »And what of teen pregnancy?
What about it? Yeah, there's plenty of it. But anyone under 18 is not an independent individual and is the legal responsibility of a guardian. A guardian could be one parent, both biological parents, adoptive parents, a grandparent, foster parents, an orphanage, whatever. I can't stop them from having sex and they're not my problem. I didn't have kids for a reason. If I had a pregnant teen I'd send her to a Catholic Home for Wayward Ding Dongs out of state and not discuss it with the neighbors. If I had a teen son who impregnated a girl out of wedlock, I'd put him to work full time, take all his money and hand it over towards his future offspring. And make him stay in high school and finish his homework every night too.tlflag1620 wrote: »What if the grandparents (both sets) were responsible people who only had sex for procreation purposes one or two times in their whole marriage, having only the number of children they could financially afford, but now their kids get pregnant/get someone pregnant, and obviously as teens cannot afford to have the baby, but the grandparents can't afford the child either? What then?
See above. Let's stop mollycoddling teenagers, shall we?tlflag1620 wrote: »Look, otoh, I agree. People should only have sex when/if they are able to deal with the consequences (mentally, physically, and financially).
Good.tlflag1620 wrote: »But now who's trying for some utopian dream world?
Not me. I keep things in order in my own world, and despite my efforts, it's still no utopia.tlflag1620 wrote: »Unplanned pregnancies happen, to the rich and poor alike. The wealthy are obviously more able to deal with the fallout. But does that mean children born into poverty shouldn't been taken care of?
The word poverty isn't universally defined. There are fully utilized social safety nets for women who bear out-of-wedlock children in the U.S. The basic needs of the women and their out-of-wedlock dependents are met by the social programs the tax payers pay for (Food, shelter, public education, fully subsidized healthcare, etc). To me, poverty is a mother in India begging and whoring on the streets to go back to a corrugated tin shack assembled next to an open sewer in order to feed her five children a single daily meal of a few pieces of bread and some boiled eggs. That's just not happening here.tlflag1620 wrote: »So you maintained your virginity until you landed yourself a wealthy husband?
I already said above I've known it from both angles, legs open and legs closed. Translation if you didn't get it: I was a big slut (but not anymore). I already said in this thread I'm unmarried, childless by choice and saddled with a broken filter. Meaning when I was young and gorgeous, I was terrible at choosing stable, provider types who could have set me up in a comfortable house and allowed me a cushy life of housewifery while financially supporting me and my imaginary children. Despite the fact that they were interested in me, I squandered those opportunities in exchange for rolls in the hay with attractive, exciting sociopathic types. Doh.tlflag1620 wrote: »How.... 1950s of you
.
I was born in the 1960s Dear. Started slutting around town in the 1980s.tlflag1620 wrote: »Oh wait, scratch that, unplanned pregnancies, out of wedlock at that, happened then too.
Yes Darling. I know. I really know.
So... Do as I say, not as I do (did). Got it.
At least you're up front about your hypocrisy.
0 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »lessismore130 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Let them pay for it themselves. They did it to themselves. Allow hospitals the right to turn away people who cannot afford to pay for their services.
And this is coming from someone who refuses to have health insurance, so yeah, I'd probably get turned away too. Doesn't change the fact that I don't deserve to receive anyone else's labor value for free.
I will happily pay a portion of my paycheck to not watch you die in the street or catch your untreated communicable disease. I'm also assuming you contribute financially to your family, so in the interest of keeping them off welfare, I'd pay to keep you healthy. Oh, and fatherless kids tend to turn to jail/drugs, so it's cheaper to patch you up and keep you around.
A healthy population benefits society as a whole. This isn't every man for himself and never has been. We should have universal health care with a big push for preventative care and nutrition education. It'd be cheaper for everyone in the long run and I think MOST people would make good choices if they had the knowledge available to them.
Fortunately for you (and society) I have no children for which you have to worry leeching the system, upon my demise. This is a conscious decision that I have made, and one that most...breeders should give more consideration.
And when you're very old and need someone to wipe your backside for you and spoon feed you your meals and remind you to take your meds and ambulate you to prevent bedsores, one of the "breeder's" children will be the one helping you out. Huh.
Funny how society needs new people (read - the crotch fruit of breeders) to keep going...
0 -
tlflag1620 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »lessismore130 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Let them pay for it themselves. They did it to themselves. Allow hospitals the right to turn away people who cannot afford to pay for their services.
And this is coming from someone who refuses to have health insurance, so yeah, I'd probably get turned away too. Doesn't change the fact that I don't deserve to receive anyone else's labor value for free.
I will happily pay a portion of my paycheck to not watch you die in the street or catch your untreated communicable disease. I'm also assuming you contribute financially to your family, so in the interest of keeping them off welfare, I'd pay to keep you healthy. Oh, and fatherless kids tend to turn to jail/drugs, so it's cheaper to patch you up and keep you around.
A healthy population benefits society as a whole. This isn't every man for himself and never has been. We should have universal health care with a big push for preventative care and nutrition education. It'd be cheaper for everyone in the long run and I think MOST people would make good choices if they had the knowledge available to them.
Fortunately for you (and society) I have no children for which you have to worry leeching the system, upon my demise. This is a conscious decision that I have made, and one that most...breeders should give more consideration.
And when you're very old and need someone to wipe your backside for you and spoon feed you your meals and remind you to take your meds and ambulate you to prevent bedsores, one of the "breeder's" children will be the one helping you out. Huh.
Funny how society needs new people (read - the crotch fruit of breeders) to keep going...
This is already planned and accounted for. Don't worry about that.
I am a staunch advocate against people outliving their usefulness, and I'm not so hypocritical as to not follow my own beliefs.
ETA: for clairifcation sake, no male in my genetic line has lived beyond the age of 63, at least, not since family tree record keeping became a thing.0 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »tlflag1620 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »lessismore130 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Let them pay for it themselves. They did it to themselves. Allow hospitals the right to turn away people who cannot afford to pay for their services.
And this is coming from someone who refuses to have health insurance, so yeah, I'd probably get turned away too. Doesn't change the fact that I don't deserve to receive anyone else's labor value for free.
I will happily pay a portion of my paycheck to not watch you die in the street or catch your untreated communicable disease. I'm also assuming you contribute financially to your family, so in the interest of keeping them off welfare, I'd pay to keep you healthy. Oh, and fatherless kids tend to turn to jail/drugs, so it's cheaper to patch you up and keep you around.
A healthy population benefits society as a whole. This isn't every man for himself and never has been. We should have universal health care with a big push for preventative care and nutrition education. It'd be cheaper for everyone in the long run and I think MOST people would make good choices if they had the knowledge available to them.
Fortunately for you (and society) I have no children for which you have to worry leeching the system, upon my demise. This is a conscious decision that I have made, and one that most...breeders should give more consideration.
And when you're very old and need someone to wipe your backside for you and spoon feed you your meals and remind you to take your meds and ambulate you to prevent bedsores, one of the "breeder's" children will be the one helping you out. Huh.
Funny how society needs new people (read - the crotch fruit of breeders) to keep going...
This is already planned and accounted for. Don't worry about that.
I am a staunch advocate against people outliving their usefulness, and I'm not so hypocritical as to not follow my own beliefs.
ETA: for clairifcation sake, no male in my genetic line has lived beyond the age of 63, at least, not since family tree record keeping became a thing.
With all due respect, you really can't predict the future. IIRC, you mentioned being in your 20s? (Sorry if I'm confusing you with someone else). It's really easy to pretend that you won't ever be old when you are in your 20s. And just because you don't know of any male living past 63 in your family doesn't necessarily mean you won't. Unless you are planning suicide upon retirement, you are being delusional.
0 -
tlflag1620 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »tlflag1620 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »lessismore130 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Let them pay for it themselves. They did it to themselves. Allow hospitals the right to turn away people who cannot afford to pay for their services.
And this is coming from someone who refuses to have health insurance, so yeah, I'd probably get turned away too. Doesn't change the fact that I don't deserve to receive anyone else's labor value for free.
I will happily pay a portion of my paycheck to not watch you die in the street or catch your untreated communicable disease. I'm also assuming you contribute financially to your family, so in the interest of keeping them off welfare, I'd pay to keep you healthy. Oh, and fatherless kids tend to turn to jail/drugs, so it's cheaper to patch you up and keep you around.
A healthy population benefits society as a whole. This isn't every man for himself and never has been. We should have universal health care with a big push for preventative care and nutrition education. It'd be cheaper for everyone in the long run and I think MOST people would make good choices if they had the knowledge available to them.
Fortunately for you (and society) I have no children for which you have to worry leeching the system, upon my demise. This is a conscious decision that I have made, and one that most...breeders should give more consideration.
And when you're very old and need someone to wipe your backside for you and spoon feed you your meals and remind you to take your meds and ambulate you to prevent bedsores, one of the "breeder's" children will be the one helping you out. Huh.
Funny how society needs new people (read - the crotch fruit of breeders) to keep going...
This is already planned and accounted for. Don't worry about that.
I am a staunch advocate against people outliving their usefulness, and I'm not so hypocritical as to not follow my own beliefs.
ETA: for clairifcation sake, no male in my genetic line has lived beyond the age of 63, at least, not since family tree record keeping became a thing.
With all due respect, you really can't predict the future. IIRC, you mentioned being in your 20s? (Sorry if I'm confusing you with someone else). It's really easy to pretend that you won't ever be old when you are in your 20s. And just because you don't know of any male living past 63 in your family doesn't necessarily mean you won't. Unless you are planning suicide upon retirement, you are being delusional.
I'm in my 30s. Also, you said it, I'm just not denying it. Bodies broken by age make me, quite frankly, physically ill. Yes yes, it's probably some kind of disorder, but spare me.0 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »tlflag1620 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »tlflag1620 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »lessismore130 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Let them pay for it themselves. They did it to themselves. Allow hospitals the right to turn away people who cannot afford to pay for their services.
And this is coming from someone who refuses to have health insurance, so yeah, I'd probably get turned away too. Doesn't change the fact that I don't deserve to receive anyone else's labor value for free.
I will happily pay a portion of my paycheck to not watch you die in the street or catch your untreated communicable disease. I'm also assuming you contribute financially to your family, so in the interest of keeping them off welfare, I'd pay to keep you healthy. Oh, and fatherless kids tend to turn to jail/drugs, so it's cheaper to patch you up and keep you around.
A healthy population benefits society as a whole. This isn't every man for himself and never has been. We should have universal health care with a big push for preventative care and nutrition education. It'd be cheaper for everyone in the long run and I think MOST people would make good choices if they had the knowledge available to them.
Fortunately for you (and society) I have no children for which you have to worry leeching the system, upon my demise. This is a conscious decision that I have made, and one that most...breeders should give more consideration.
And when you're very old and need someone to wipe your backside for you and spoon feed you your meals and remind you to take your meds and ambulate you to prevent bedsores, one of the "breeder's" children will be the one helping you out. Huh.
Funny how society needs new people (read - the crotch fruit of breeders) to keep going...
This is already planned and accounted for. Don't worry about that.
I am a staunch advocate against people outliving their usefulness, and I'm not so hypocritical as to not follow my own beliefs.
ETA: for clairifcation sake, no male in my genetic line has lived beyond the age of 63, at least, not since family tree record keeping became a thing.
With all due respect, you really can't predict the future. IIRC, you mentioned being in your 20s? (Sorry if I'm confusing you with someone else). It's really easy to pretend that you won't ever be old when you are in your 20s. And just because you don't know of any male living past 63 in your family doesn't necessarily mean you won't. Unless you are planning suicide upon retirement, you are being delusional.
I'm in my 30s. Also, you said it, I'm just not denying it. Bodies broken by age make me, quite frankly, physically ill. Yes yes, it's probably some kind of disorder, but spare me.
Fair enough.
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
- 992 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions