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
-
I have friends who are fine but claim disability while camping, being on computer, organizing gardening parties, drinking, getting free housing, etc. They also spend time coaching others how to do this, and what to say. No kidding. I have worked for 50 years myself, so this gets old3
-
When the health care system becomes a "not for profit" system. The outrageous amounts for health care costs in the US dwarf so many other countries who have free healthcare. The US can do the same, but government chooses not to.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
8 -
Dying to know if anyone actually looked into Venezuela . . . . You won't see that on your mainstream media nightly news in the U.S.2
-
When the health care system becomes a "not for profit" system. The outrageous amounts for health care costs in the US dwarf so many other countries who have free healthcare. The US can do the same, but government chooses not to.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
The US healthcare spending per person is twice that of other industrialized nations. Show a reconciliation of the differences, fix that and the will be plenty left over to care for the truly needy.1 -
I vote lowering the cost of tuitions medical school for qualified candidates to make it more affordable for students to become health care providers. Same with Nursing school, I vote lowering the cost of Graduate degrees for those students who wish to enter health care professions.
Paying higher taxes is not going to help anyone but the politicians who Lobby on the Hill.2 -
allaboutthecake wrote: »I vote lowering the cost of tuitions medical school for qualified candidates to make it more affordable for students to become health care providers. Same with Nursing school, I vote lowering the cost of Graduate degrees for those students who wish to enter health care professions.
Paying higher taxes is not going to help anyone but the politicians who Lobby on the Hill.
How do we create the tuition cuts? Get cheaper faculty? Force high-caliber faculty to take a 50% pay cut? Get the rich people and corporations to pay the tuition? Maybe we can make getting a medical degree a lot easier while we're at it, without all that science and stuff.
ETA, this is not aimed at the post to which I am responding, I just think it's freakin' hilarious, and one of the dangers of lowering standards by cheaping out. Personally, I want the doctor or nurse from the most rigorous institutions with the best training.0 -
On health care costs and "everyone should pay their own way"...
I have an autoimmune disease that, after many years of treatment, responds only to one class of medications at this point. There is no routing around it, there are no lifestyle changes that will make a significant difference in my medication requirements.
Medication costs run USD 48,000 annually.
The "pay your own way" crowd by not taking people with issues like this into account - and there are quite literally millions in this situation - are in essence telling me "You're inconvenient and should just die."12 -
I think when it comes to paying medical costs, yes there are definitely exceptions like in your case. On the other hand, I would say that dealing with the general healthcare costs of obesity is very different.CipherZero wrote: »On health care costs and "everyone should pay their own way"...
I have an autoimmune disease that, after many years of treatment, responds only to one class of medications at this point. There is no routing around it, there are no lifestyle changes that will make a significant difference in my medication requirements.
Medication costs run USD 48,000 annually.
The "pay your own way" crowd by not taking people with issues like this into account - and there are quite literally millions in this situation - are in essence telling me "You're inconvenient and should just die."
2 -
jmbmilholland wrote: »jmbmilholland wrote: »I vote lowering the cost of tuitions medical school for qualified candidates to make it more affordable for students to become health care providers. Same with Nursing school, I vote lowering the cost of Graduate degrees for those students who wish to enter health care professions.
Paying higher taxes is not going to help anyone but the politicians who Lobby on the Hill.
jmbmilholland wrote: How do we create the tuition cuts? Get cheaper faculty?
allaboutthecake answered: That is a possibility. Faculty, Dean's, and Presidents of colleges. Make those in charge be held at a higher standard by having them accountable for ways to fill the seats with qualified candidates that doesn't line their own pockets at the same time.
jmbmilholland wrote: Force high-caliber faculty to take a 50% pay cut?
allaboutthecake answered:Depending on what their current salary is, if their salary is on par with like institutions, then No, this wouldn't be a valid answer. For those Faculty making extraordinary wages that are NOT on par with like institutions, then this salary needs a closer look.
jmbmilholland wrote: Get the rich people and corporations to pay the tuition?
allaboutthecake answered:Would a "rich person" or a "corporation" be interested in purchasing their own private physicians for their personal use?? Why not?
jmbmilholland wrote: Maybe we can make getting a medical degree a lot easier while we're at it, without all that science and stuff.
allaboutthecake answered: You are free to see whomever you wish in the medical field.
jmbmilholland wrote: ETA, this is not aimed at the post to which I am responding, I just think it's freakin' hilarious, and one of the dangers of lowering standards by cheaping out. Personally, I want the doctor or nurse from the most rigorous institutions with the best training.
0 -
allaboutthecake wrote: »jmbmilholland wrote: »jmbmilholland wrote: »I vote lowering the cost of tuitions medical school for qualified candidates to make it more affordable for students to become health care providers. Same with Nursing school, I vote lowering the cost of Graduate degrees for those students who wish to enter health care professions.
Paying higher taxes is not going to help anyone but the politicians who Lobby on the Hill.
jmbmilholland wrote: How do we create the tuition cuts? Get cheaper faculty?
allaboutthecake answered: That is a possibility. Faculty, Dean's, and Presidents of colleges. Make those in charge be held at a higher standard by having them accountable for ways to fill the seats with qualified candidates that doesn't line their own pockets at the same time.
jmbmilholland wrote: Force high-caliber faculty to take a 50% pay cut?
allaboutthecake answered:Depending on what their current salary is, if their salary is on par with like institutions, then No, this wouldn't be a valid answer. For those Faculty making extraordinary wages that are NOT on par with like institutions, then this salary needs a closer look.
jmbmilholland wrote: Get the rich people and corporations to pay the tuition?
allaboutthecake answered:Would a "rich person" or a "corporation" be interested in purchasing their own private physicians for their personal use?? Why not?
jmbmilholland wrote: Maybe we can make getting a medical degree a lot easier while we're at it, without all that science and stuff.
allaboutthecake answered: You are free to see whomever you wish in the medical field.
jmbmilholland wrote: ETA, this is not aimed at the post to which I am responding, I just think it's freakin' hilarious, and one of the dangers of lowering standards by cheaping out. Personally, I want the doctor or nurse from the most rigorous institutions with the best training.
You don't really have a working knowledge of academia, do you?1 -
I was talking to a younger man at the pub who was sitting at the rail bemoaning government handouts eating into his gross pay. After listening for a bit, I joined in their conversation. I asked the young man if he and his wife had bought their first house. Yes, he replied. Did you get a SHDA-backed loan? I asked. ... Yes... he replied. Then he kinda blinked at me, realized that the SHDA loan (subsidized interest rates for first time home buyers) was a government program. And he kinda slapped his knee and said "huh, I'm gonna have to think about that."
All government programs are "handouts to the undeserving," until it's a program you're utilizing. It really seems to be human nature to feel this way about subsidies and social benefits via government spending. I think education on the issue is going to be part of the solution.
When I rail against government intervention or government programs, a not-uncommon rejoinder is, "well, do you drive on roads"? Then it's pointed out that roads are pretty much 99% owned and maintained by government entities and supported with taxation. After that's pointed out, sometimes it's followed by "if you don't like government so much, you should stop driving on roads." Or, they say, "next time you have an emergency, don't call the police, because they're paid for by government."
Of course, the problem with arguments like this is, government is everywhere and monopolizes our roads, public safety, money, increasingly monopolizes huge swaths of the healthcare industry, and crowds out a variety of other areas of economic activity, such as the nonprofit sector.
Regarding roads, there is virtually no option to drive on private roads - so really, if I want to exist in the world I need to use private roads. If a burglar is busting into my house, I have virtually no option besides calling 911 (aside from defending myself with a private firearm, which is becoming more and more difficult as government makes private firearm ownership more and more difficult).
So, telling someone that because they interact with / benefit from a particular government program that they really can't legitimately argue against government intervention writ large seems rather spurious. It's just not a fair argument.
[Edit] Also, I just wanted to chime in on the "civilized society has X" (X being social programs, or socialized medicine, or etc.), therefore we should have it too."
That's really not much of an argument either. "Civilized societies" (which I guess refers to Europe?) do things like maintaining large, repressive police forces which spy on their citizens, participate in invading third-world countries, repress their minority citizens, provide corporate welfare, etc. Just because other countries confiscate their citizens' wealth and stage large-scale takeovers of entire sectors of the economy (like the medical / healthcare sector) doesn't mean it's something everyone should do. Just because everyone else jumped off a building doesn't mean you should, as my Mom used to say.
6 -
-
I was talking to a younger man at the pub who was sitting at the rail bemoaning government handouts eating into his gross pay. After listening for a bit, I joined in their conversation. I asked the young man if he and his wife had bought their first house. Yes, he replied. Did you get a SHDA-backed loan? I asked. ... Yes... he replied. Then he kinda blinked at me, realized that the SHDA loan (subsidized interest rates for first time home buyers) was a government program. And he kinda slapped his knee and said "huh, I'm gonna have to think about that."
All government programs are "handouts to the undeserving," until it's a program you're utilizing. It really seems to be human nature to feel this way about subsidies and social benefits via government spending. I think education on the issue is going to be part of the solution.
When I rail against government intervention or government programs, a not-uncommon rejoinder is, "well, do you drive on roads"? Then it's pointed out that roads are pretty much 99% owned and maintained by government entities and supported with taxation. After that's pointed out, sometimes it's followed by "if you don't like government so much, you should stop driving on roads." Or, they say, "next time you have an emergency, don't call the police, because they're paid for by government."
Of course, the problem with arguments like this is, government is everywhere and monopolizes our roads, public safety, money, increasingly monopolizes huge swaths of the healthcare industry, and crowds out a variety of other areas of economic activity, such as the nonprofit sector.
Regarding roads, there is virtually no option to drive on private roads - so really, if I want to exist in the world I need to use private roads. If a burglar is busting into my house, I have virtually no option besides calling 911 (aside from defending myself with a private firearm, which is becoming more and more difficult as government makes private firearm ownership more and more difficult).
So, telling someone that because they interact with / benefit from a particular government program that they really can't legitimately argue against government intervention writ large seems rather spurious. It's just not a fair argument.
[Edit] Also, I just wanted to chime in on the "civilized society has X" (X being social programs, or socialized medicine, or etc.), therefore we should have it too."
That's really not much of an argument either. "Civilized societies" (which I guess refers to Europe?) do things like maintaining large, repressive police forces which spy on their citizens, participate in invading third-world countries, repress their minority citizens, provide corporate welfare, etc. Just because other countries confiscate their citizens' wealth and stage large-scale takeovers of entire sectors of the economy (like the medical / healthcare sector) doesn't mean it's something everyone should do. Just because everyone else jumped off a building doesn't mean you should, as my Mom used to say.
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."
The US is an enlightened society. I'm not sure how you got from my post that I implied anything else. We have many social programs for the young, old, and sick. As is our duty, in my opinion. Edit to add: I don't believe I said anything about civilized. Maybe you're responding to someone else but quoting me?1 -
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.
If someone can't afford rent on their salary, better start looking for roommates or a lower cost of living area. Also start taking classes, training that would be available at little or no cost for someone making minimum wage so they can get a better job.
4 -
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.
I always find it puzzling when people who were born a couple yards from the finish line assume they got there via their own talents and then are in turn confused why everyone else acts like it's hard to run a marathon, don't you?18 -
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?0 -
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 in order for their argument against government to hold legitimacy.
(Regarding my second point, yeah, I was responding to someone else).
0 -
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.2 -
-
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, without any economic sacrifice required on their part.1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 393 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 939 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions