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
-
Packerjohn wrote: »Sonce a tax on junk food isn't popular, what are suggestions how the US can pay the increased health care costs of obesity and related conditions?
For purposes of.this qiestion, raising taxes on"the rich" or corporations isn't an acceptable answer.
how about taking some personal responsibility for ones choices and paying for it on their own? Not sure why I have to subsidize someone else's horrible decisions. If someone wants to be fat that is fine, just don't expect me to pick up the burden to bail them out.6 -
Lots of people can't live within their means due to low wages, or if they do, they have no extra per month and not because they're spending too much. A recent article demonstrated that a full time, minimum wage job will not afford you rent in any major US city.
These things contribute to why it's more complicated than a lot of people assume.
here is a noble idea, educate yourself and put in some hard work so that one does not need a minimum wage job...6 -
Society can only move as fast as their slowest person. By refusing socialism a country will only move backwards and not progress. Healthy people, who receive regular healthcare are more productive (ie. make more money) and contribute to the economy. By denying healthcare, everyone suffers.
thats hilarious given that any time pure socialism is attempted it fails miserably or reverts to tyranny...8 -
The young man getting the SHDA loan did not HAVE to. He could have saved up 20% down payment and gotten the same rate. Or, he could have went with a higher unsubsidized loan. The state subsidized loans were not the only option he had. He chose it because it benefited him. I didn't tell him to not drive on roads or sell his house. I just pointed out to him that he was a willing participant in an optional federal "handout."
In the end, the argument is still "if you benefit from a government program, you can't rightfully argue against government programs." I don't think people should be required to have a lower standard of living as a requirement for their argument against government to have legitimacy.
(Regarding my second point, yeah, I was responding to someone else).
I think it's our right as taxpayers to continually complain about the government. I just wanted to make sure that when he railed against people who accept government credits/subsidies that he understood he was talking about himself. That he himself was one of the "lazy" and "undeserving" he was talking about. Own up to your own contradictions and self-denial, is my motto.
I suppose. I just look at it differently. If that gentleman is working in a productive job (as opposed to being part of the parasitic class, like working for the IRS or something), I don't really see his accepting of government largesse as particularly contradictory - he's just trying to better his own situation as we all are. Again, it's interesting how someone who argues against government is frequently held to standard whereby they have to basically forgo a huge chunk of their own economic well-being just to be considered philosophically consistent, while a gung-ho government apologist can argue for taxing everything and everyone that moves and setting up all sorts of enormous government programs to supposedly help the downtrodden, but their arguments are seen as philosophically consistent (and laudable) on their face.
Thank you for the respectful debate. I agree with you regarding apologists. I think everyone should think critically about policy.2 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Packerjohn 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.
U nfortunately if you pass put on a street and someone calls 911 the hospital will still treat you and if you can't pay it.the hospital eats the cost.
This isn't the old west where you can just go.out back and die in peace. Sack up and get insurance so the rest of us aren't paying for you
You aren't paying for anything. I haven't been to a doctor or hospital (other than for my CDL physicals, which my company pays for) in more than 20 years. I'm not paying in on a "maybe". Not the gambling type. I've been injured several times in that duration, but the fact is, I utterly loathe the medical provider community, and would quite literally rather die than go to a hospital.
And the fact that you are paying for others is your own fault. The day everyone who pays says no at once, it ends.
So you're been fine, you drop in thr street tomorrow, who's paying a 3-400k medical bill?
They won't let you lay there and die.
They won't have any choice. That's as far as I will expand upon the matter.
If you are unconscious they will take you to the ER.
2 -
Are you also going to tax smokers? Alcoholics? Motorcycle riders? Race car driver? Equestrians?
People engage in all kinds of activities that increase risk of injury or illness. Choosing one group to tax is called discrimination.
I've had car insurance since I started driving. When I was younger, I paid more than a woman would have. That's because young men are more likely to be in an accident than young women. We're a higher risk to cover. I didn't like it, but I accepted it as the way it is. I guess I could have complained that it was "discrimination" but that and five bucks would get me a coffee.3 -
Plus, obese people generally don't need to be rescued by helicopter ambulances when they get hurt in the wilderness.
Talk about a strawman!
The same is true of healthy people. Healthy people generally tend to visit the wilderness and then leave unharmed.
A couple of years ago, a small mountain collapsed on itself in my state. Apparently this was caused by many decades of logging. The landslide that resulted was one of the worst disasters in state history, it killed more people than Mount Saint Helens erupting. People were killed in their homes and yards, one person was killed driving through the town. Survivors were trapped by debris, the river was temporarily dammed by sediment and downed trees, they couldn't escape, first responders couldn't reach them. Police say they could hear peoples' cries but could do nothing to help them. Pretty much everybody who lived, lived because the Snohomish Helicopter Rescue Team went in and plucked survivors out. These weren't your evil healthy people recklessly being in the woods, these were people trapped in their homes by a natural disaster.
I donate regularly to the Helicopter Rescue Team.
http://helicopterrescue.org/
"Using thermal imaging (FLIR), we can search for missing children and Alzheimers patients in urban environments. In the wilderness, our helicopters are essential to finding lost hikers, hunters and campers."
"For mass casualty incidents (aircraft accidents, landslides or a bridge collapse), we can rapidly deliver patients to definitive care using a 3 litter system or AirTEP device."0 -
enterdanger 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'm ok with this for adults who make decisions, but what about kids. Yes, I know that most of these issues are in adults, but there are more cases of type 2 diabetes now in kids and teens than ever. This is why I think the focus should be on teaching healthy eating. If some kid grows up with his parents feeding him crap and is obese by 12 is that really his fault?
Yes, I am perfectly fine with subsidizing the healthcare of children. I probably should have included that earlier. Honestly, they're about the only ones that I am okay with footing the bill for. By children, I mean actual children as well (sub-16), not 19 and 20 year old who still live with their parents.0 -
Lots of people can't live within their means due to low wages, or if they do, they have no extra per month and not because they're spending too much. A recent article demonstrated that a full time, minimum wage job will not afford you rent in any major US city.
These things contribute to why it's more complicated than a lot of people assume.
here is a noble idea, educate yourself and put in some hard work so that one does not need a minimum wage job...
I never understand this argument. SOMEONE has to do the minimum wage jobs. If everyone educates themselves and works hard, who's going to scrub the toilets in your office building? Do your dry-cleaning? Provide the manual labor in your warehouse to keep your business moving? Work as a line cook or server at your favorite restaurant? Staff registers at grocery stores? Considering the utter pittance entry-level teachers (you know, hard-working college-educated people) are currently paid, who's going to teach your kids?
If you don't want government programs filling in gaps to help low wage earners get by, do you want businesses to pay their employees more (thus creating higher costs for consumers)? Are you ok with these people living in housing that's not up to code because it's all they can afford, risking fires? Or in unsanitary conditions so they risk spreading illnesses at work? We're going to pay, one way or the other.16 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Sonce a tax on junk food isn't popular, what are suggestions how the US can pay the increased health care costs of obesity and related conditions?
For purposes of.this qiestion, raising taxes on"the rich" or corporations isn't an acceptable answer.
how about taking some personal responsibility for ones choices and paying for it on their own? Not sure why I have to subsidize someone else's horrible decisions. If someone wants to be fat that is fine, just don't expect me to pick up the burden to bail them out.
Nice response. The original question was asking how these costs will be paid for, self insurance by individuals is a possibility.
If someone chooses not to have insurance and they drop in the street do you just let them die there? Right wrong or indifferent we don't let people die in the street. They will be picked up cared for and billed. If they can't pay the rest of us do.
1 -
mskessler89 wrote: »Lots of people can't live within their means due to low wages, or if they do, they have no extra per month and not because they're spending too much. A recent article demonstrated that a full time, minimum wage job will not afford you rent in any major US city.
These things contribute to why it's more complicated than a lot of people assume.
here is a noble idea, educate yourself and put in some hard work so that one does not need a minimum wage job...
I never understand this argument. SOMEONE has to do the minimum wage jobs. If everyone educates themselves and works hard, who's going to scrub the toilets in your office building? Do your dry-cleaning? Provide the manual labor in your warehouse to keep your business moving? Work as a line cook or server at your favorite restaurant? Staff registers at grocery stores? Considering the utter pittance entry-level teachers (you know, hard-working college-educated people) are currently paid, who's going to teach your kids?
If you don't want government programs filling in gaps to help low wage earners get by, do you want businesses to pay their employees more (thus creating higher costs for consumers)? Are you ok with these people living in housing that's not up to code because it's all they can afford, risking fires? Or in unsanitary conditions so they risk spreading illnesses at work? We're going to pay, one way or the other.
We are getting very close to such jobs being made obsolete by tech. Instead of mourning this, we should be embracing it.1 -
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.
Thanks for giving the rest of us the privilege of paying for your healthcare. Welfare queens are awesome.
It's funny how many "I'm not paying for insurance because I don't need it" folks wind up with a chronic disease or serious injury and immediately run to the ER and collect their welfare. And then they whine about having to declare bankruptcy, which the rest of us also pay for.
6 -
xmichaelyx 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.
Thanks for giving the rest of us the privilege of paying for your healthcare. Welfare queens are awesome.
You must have missed the part where this was already covered.0 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »mskessler89 wrote: »Lots of people can't live within their means due to low wages, or if they do, they have no extra per month and not because they're spending too much. A recent article demonstrated that a full time, minimum wage job will not afford you rent in any major US city.
These things contribute to why it's more complicated than a lot of people assume.
here is a noble idea, educate yourself and put in some hard work so that one does not need a minimum wage job...
I never understand this argument. SOMEONE has to do the minimum wage jobs. If everyone educates themselves and works hard, who's going to scrub the toilets in your office building? Do your dry-cleaning? Provide the manual labor in your warehouse to keep your business moving? Work as a line cook or server at your favorite restaurant? Staff registers at grocery stores? Considering the utter pittance entry-level teachers (you know, hard-working college-educated people) are currently paid, who's going to teach your kids?
If you don't want government programs filling in gaps to help low wage earners get by, do you want businesses to pay their employees more (thus creating higher costs for consumers)? Are you ok with these people living in housing that's not up to code because it's all they can afford, risking fires? Or in unsanitary conditions so they risk spreading illnesses at work? We're going to pay, one way or the other.
We are getting very close to such jobs being made obsolete by tech. Instead of mourning this, we should be embracing it.
I haven't seen a robot making sushi for me yet, and some companies won't be able to afford automation. There will be many lower-wage jobs technology won't replace. Also, what do we do with the unemployed population and their children as tech makes their jobs obsolete? Let them die of starvation or of medical complications since apparently people should be paying for their own health care out of pocket? It will take time for society to shift to a balance between population and available work.4 -
mskessler89 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »mskessler89 wrote: »Lots of people can't live within their means due to low wages, or if they do, they have no extra per month and not because they're spending too much. A recent article demonstrated that a full time, minimum wage job will not afford you rent in any major US city.
These things contribute to why it's more complicated than a lot of people assume.
here is a noble idea, educate yourself and put in some hard work so that one does not need a minimum wage job...
I never understand this argument. SOMEONE has to do the minimum wage jobs. If everyone educates themselves and works hard, who's going to scrub the toilets in your office building? Do your dry-cleaning? Provide the manual labor in your warehouse to keep your business moving? Work as a line cook or server at your favorite restaurant? Staff registers at grocery stores? Considering the utter pittance entry-level teachers (you know, hard-working college-educated people) are currently paid, who's going to teach your kids?
If you don't want government programs filling in gaps to help low wage earners get by, do you want businesses to pay their employees more (thus creating higher costs for consumers)? Are you ok with these people living in housing that's not up to code because it's all they can afford, risking fires? Or in unsanitary conditions so they risk spreading illnesses at work? We're going to pay, one way or the other.
We are getting very close to such jobs being made obsolete by tech. Instead of mourning this, we should be embracing it.
I haven't seen a robot making sushi for me yet, and some companies won't be able to afford automation. There will be many lower-wage jobs technology won't replace. Also, what do we do with the unemployed population and their children as tech makes their jobs obsolete? Let them die of starvation or of medical complications since apparently people should be paying for their own health care out of pocket? It will take time for society to shift to a balance between population and available work.
Where do you eat sushi, that the chef is possibly making minimum wage? Everywhere I've eaten, the owner is the chef.
As for the other part: perhaps people should consider these things before breeding. Their choices are not everyone else's responsibility. But yes, it will take time for the shift, and I understand that. Never once did I say that my ideal should be implemented in a single day. That would cause some Road Warrior-esque stuff, at best.1 -
To the original question, a few random ideas: healthcare in America is far too expensive, especially when technology is available to slash those costs, so upgrade the technology. Reduce medical costs across the board by doing fewer "precautionary" tests like MRIs when they're not necessary. I'm currently paying for my medical expenses from a running injury out of an HSA, and I think the principle of paying more out of pocket before insurance kicks in is a good one. Make deductible limits a little higher across the board. Have premiums for being obese go up every year, allowing exemptions on the increase for people with specific medical conditions or for people who have lost a % of weight during the year (i.e going from 300 to 250 lbs). Limit how much obesity is accommodated in hospitals by not investing in more than X number of oversized beds (though this one feels yucky to me). Don't tax junk food, that's stupid... But tax the *kitten* out of weight loss products that don't do anything and put it all into health care.3
-
Speaking of HSAs, I have a few thousand in mine, and I really wish I could spend it on a set of wheels for my bike. That would be a profound health benefit for me, but IRS will not allow it.
0 -
how about you research what you are talking about before posting it here? Smokers, the obese, high blood pressured, die young and cost less to care for. So give them a BREAK on their cigarettes, tasty cakes, etc.1
-
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »mskessler89 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »mskessler89 wrote: »Lots of people can't live within their means due to low wages, or if they do, they have no extra per month and not because they're spending too much. A recent article demonstrated that a full time, minimum wage job will not afford you rent in any major US city.
These things contribute to why it's more complicated than a lot of people assume.
here is a noble idea, educate yourself and put in some hard work so that one does not need a minimum wage job...
I never understand this argument. SOMEONE has to do the minimum wage jobs. If everyone educates themselves and works hard, who's going to scrub the toilets in your office building? Do your dry-cleaning? Provide the manual labor in your warehouse to keep your business moving? Work as a line cook or server at your favorite restaurant? Staff registers at grocery stores? Considering the utter pittance entry-level teachers (you know, hard-working college-educated people) are currently paid, who's going to teach your kids?
If you don't want government programs filling in gaps to help low wage earners get by, do you want businesses to pay their employees more (thus creating higher costs for consumers)? Are you ok with these people living in housing that's not up to code because it's all they can afford, risking fires? Or in unsanitary conditions so they risk spreading illnesses at work? We're going to pay, one way or the other.
We are getting very close to such jobs being made obsolete by tech. Instead of mourning this, we should be embracing it.
I haven't seen a robot making sushi for me yet, and some companies won't be able to afford automation. There will be many lower-wage jobs technology won't replace. Also, what do we do with the unemployed population and their children as tech makes their jobs obsolete? Let them die of starvation or of medical complications since apparently people should be paying for their own health care out of pocket? It will take time for society to shift to a balance between population and available work.
Where do you eat sushi, that the chef is possibly making minimum wage? Everywhere I've eaten, the owner is the chef.
As for the other part: perhaps people should consider these things before breeding. Their choices are not everyone else's responsibility. But yes, it will take time for the shift, and I understand that. Never once did I say that my ideal should be implemented in a single day. That would cause some Road Warrior-esque stuff, at best.
There's a Japanese fast food place near work. There's usually 2 or 3 guys whipping up California rolls to go in bento boxes and slicing up sashimi. It's good enough to not make people sick, but it's cheap. I eat at expensive sushi places too, and the owner/chef is definitely making bank, but not every place is as successful or high end. It's also not always the owner making the sushi. Apprentices don't necessarily make very much.
There are a LOT of things I wish people would consider before breeding, the big one being if they're actually intending to breed. Birth control is free now, just saying... Probably my favorite thing about the ACA.1 -
mskessler89 wrote: »There's a Japanese fast food place near work. There's usually 2 or 3 guys whipping up California rolls to go in bento boxes and slicing up sashimi. It's good enough to not make people sick, but it's cheap. I eat at expensive sushi places too, and the owner/chef is definitely making bank, but not every place is as successful or high end. It's also not always the owner making the sushi. Apprentices don't necessarily make very much.
There are a LOT of things I wish people would consider before breeding, the big one being if they're actually intending to breed. Birth control is free now, just saying... Probably my favorite thing about the ACA.
Ah, gotcha. I'm fortunate in that aspect (well, I was before going keto) in that the area of Virginia where I live has several very good sushi places. All but one are small, family businesses, usually with the father/grandfather as the chef, and one of the grandchildren in training. They don't look like much from the outside, but damn they make some good stuff. The only place around that's bigger (over six employees) is actually pretty terrible, and I avoid it at all costs.
I feel like the Japanese currently have the right idea when it comes to breeding, even if it is temporarily screwing their country a bit. We really need the boomers to be the last huge "wave" generation, because as we've seen, it causes nothing but problems when they get old.0 -
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 mean, even prisoners get medical care.
Can you imagine going to the emergency room with acute appendicitis and being told to go away because you don't have the money/insurance? You'd be dead within a day or two. That's okay, though, because your life means less cause of money.6 -
I've always thought that an HSA would be the right solution for the healthcare issue (to include obesity). Individuals would be required to save a portion of their pay (before taxes) for broadly defined healthcare expenses. They could use these funds at their discretion for things like normal health costs, lasik, weight loss surgery, Insurance premiums, almost anything health related. These funds could also be willed or donated.
As people begin working while young, they will likely build up a surplus. This could be coupled high deductible insurance at affordable rates. It could also cause deflation in the lower healthcare market as people will be more judicious with their funds.
I like this. And, instead of the employer paying the costs of health insurance premiums, they could match, like, 50% of employee contribution - sort of like a 401K. And, you can only use it for healthcare costs (again, like a HSA). At the end of the year, you can either roll-over what you haven't used into next year's account or cash it out at 75%.1 -
mommarnurse 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 mean, even prisoners get medical care.
Can you imagine going to the emergency room with acute appendicitis and being told to go away because you don't have the money/insurance? You'd be dead within a day or two. That's okay, though, because your life means less cause of money.
Until we can break away from the framework of money as a concept, yeah, that's about right. You, I, and everyone else, only have as much value as our labor provides to the machine. You may dislike it, people may be in denial about it, politicians always lie about it, but that's reality.0 -
I love these wild west lone wolf people. lol8
-
The solution is obvious, we should kill all the fat and sick people so we don't have to spend money on useless eaters who are costing us money, duh. Kill all the old people too, they are expensive. After that kill all the disabled people, they are not going to be productive and just cost a lot in health care dollars and raise everyone's taxes. We have too many people on the planet anyhow. The earth will be a lot better off without all these rotten weak people on it ruining everything for everyone else. A good society is a strong healthy society!9
-
Packerjohn wrote: »Sonce a tax on junk food isn't popular, what are suggestions how the US can pay the increased health care costs of obesity and related conditions?
For purposes of.this qiestion, raising taxes on"the rich" or corporations isn't an acceptable answer.
Remove the subsidies on corn, sugar, wheat, etc. Let food cost what it actually costs and people will stop buying over processed food with low nutrients as well as the government having their subsidy money back. Problem solved, you're welcome
4 -
This content has been removed.
-
Why not throw in alcohol drinkers and cigarette smokers in to the mix while you are at it? Or tax seniors who manage to live well beyond their appointed age?
Something I learned in my line of business is to get to root cause. Blame chasing never solves the problem.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSjGouBmo0M
Alcohol and tobacco are taxed to the moon.0 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Sonce a tax on junk food isn't popular, what are suggestions how the US can pay the increased health care costs of obesity and related conditions?
For purposes of.this qiestion, raising taxes on"the rich" or corporations isn't an acceptable answer.
how about taking some personal responsibility for ones choices and paying for it on their own? Not sure why I have to subsidize someone else's horrible decisions. If someone wants to be fat that is fine, just don't expect me to pick up the burden to bail them out.
Your tax dollars are already subsiding people's bad choices.
We pay for everyone who doesn't have health insurance. We have been for years. Hospitals are not allowed to deny treatment because pepole can't pay. We pay through higher insurance premiums and taxes.
I don't want to pay for people's bad choices either. However, I would rather pay than let them suffer and/or die.1 -
seekingdaintiness wrote: »The solution is obvious, we should kill all the fat and sick people so we don't have to spend money on useless eaters who are costing us money, duh. Kill all the old people too, they are expensive. After that kill all the disabled people, they are not going to be productive and just cost a lot in health care dollars and raise everyone's taxes. We have too many people on the planet anyhow. The earth will be a lot better off without all these rotten weak people on it ruining everything for everyone else. A good society is a strong healthy society!
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.8K Introduce Yourself
- 43.9K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.1K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 15 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions