Paying the healthcare costs of obesity

mommarnurse

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.

mommarnurse

moe0303 wrote: »

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%.

Gallowmere1984

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.

seekingdaintiness

I love these wild west lone wolf people. lol

seekingdaintiness

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!

ogtmama

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

ogtmama

jgnatca wrote: »

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.

100df

ndj1979 wrote: »

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.

zyxst

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!

100df

seekingdaintiness wrote: »

I love these wild west lone wolf people. lol

Me too. They will be the first to scream "shock my heart" and "give me chemo" so they won't die. They don't understand that you can wake up feeling fine and go to bed with cancer. It happens to people every day.

Gallowmere1984

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!

We don't need to kill anyone. Evolution has a great filtration system. We just keep poking holes in it.

But yes, way to take a point entirely to the extreme. I've never advocating directly harming anyone, nor will I. However, if they are indirectly harmed by an inaction on my part (that isn't actual negligence) then that's not exactly my problem. If one were so inclined, we could make a completely ridiculous cause and effect chain that makes us all indirectly guilty of killing someone at some point.

jgnatca

When I ponder the libertarian point of view, @Gallowmere1984 , I consider a much more mundane activity. Road maintenance. The libertarian point of view, correct me if I am wrong, is that every man takes care of his own section of road. Hopefully, if enough like-minded people do so, we have a road well-travelled.

Under such a system, how could a consistent network of roads be built and maintained?

Wouldn't people have to collaborate, pool their resources, and agree on the standards of road building and maintenance? Isn't it more efficient to hire a contractor to do it, and when roads get complex enough, an engineer and a supervisor? Isn't that in essence, the beginnings of a civil service?

Some times as a society we decide to pool our resources to support a collaborative activity for the common good. Sorry you weren't consulted back when.

jgnatca

There are some diseases that don't kill; they disable if not treated. Poor intervention leads to sometimes permanent disability and a greater burden on the health care system. Diabetes, heart attacks, and poor dental hygiene are three examples.

I've read that the great concern is not the longevity of our seniors, but the quality of the health of our seniors. Can prevention help these people remain productive and vital?

It is in the group's common interest to catch early, treat early, and encourage prevention of these diseases.

Gallowmere1984

jgnatca wrote: »

When I ponder the libertarian point of view, @Gallowmere1984 , I consider a much more mundane activity. Road maintenance. The libertarian point of view, correct me if I am wrong, is that every man takes care of his own section of road. Hopefully, if enough like-minded people do so, we have a road well-travelled.

Under such a system, how could a consistent network of roads be built and maintained?

Wouldn't people have to collaborate, pool their resources, and agree on the standards of road building and maintenance? Isn't it more efficient to hire a contractor to do it, and when roads get complex enough, an engineer and a supervisor? Isn't that in essence, the beginnings of a civil service?

Some times as a society we decide to pool our resources to support a collaborative activity for the common good. Sorry you weren't consulted back when.

As a person who works in the paving industry, let me assure you, it's not the concern you believe it to be. First, state and federal transportation workers are now little more than glorified bookies and bean counters. Everything from actual construction to inspection is primarily handled by contractors now. This has occurred because it's cheaper this way, and the end product is always better. State workers often get pensions and the like, which means that they will continue to cost revenue, long after they are no longer providing a service. The end product is better, because in the private sector, the individual employees are usually pretty easy to fire, so less likely to take a "meh, whatever, not my job" approach. However, that last part doesn't apply in union states.

Now, as to who would pay for it: the same people who do now. Business owners and corporation shareholders want people to purchase their goods. Now, how will they get to a place to purchase said goods, if all infrastructure has been allowed to deteriorate? How will they even acquire their raw materials for production, if that's allowed to happen. These businesses have a vested interest in making sure that people can move freely.

Now, considering that, look at how much middleman would be cut out. Seriously, I want you to, for yourself, pull the numbers on what state employees make, see if you can pull up the estimated number of employees by state and agency, and come up with a rough guesstimate for how much money is wasted on personnel who are in no way crucial to the process. Let's just say, a whole lot of lane miles could be covered with even half of their salaries.

ETA: essentially, the state and federal job was dnoe about twenty-five years ago. That's the last time a major revision was made that didn't involve the private non-profit NAPA (and in Virginia VAA) having the bulk of the say so. Hell, starting this year, Virginia won't even be handling asphalt certifications anymore. That's being handed off to community colleges.

jgnatca

Um, the contractor is a middleman. People still have to pool their resources and agree on what needs to be done. The scenario you describe is not libertarian.

I have spent my entire career as "overhead", where I do not directly contribute to the bottom line. It's administrative, it's important, and if neglected, nasty things happen. Not right away. It takes a while for administration to fall apart. I have worked for government and in private industry, in mining, utilities, and road survey work. I've worked darned hard to make sure what I do has value to the organization. But I'd have a hard time justifying my existence to a libertarian.

One of the best papers I ever read on administrative overhead used the example of overseas charities, where every penny is accounted to the donors. These organizations naturally want to keep their overhead as low as possible. In doing so, however, you can end up with situations where nurses spend half their shift completing and filing paperwork, instead of nursing. Pretty darned expensive. Pretty poor use of resources. What I read suggested there's an ideal balance of overhead, but it's not to easy to figure out. It's a different proportion depending on industry.

Using the road example, I am pretty sure you depend on preliminary drawings, approved drawings, and as-built. These drawings, their versions and iterations, will be touched by someone in document control. Document control is "overhead", not contributing directly to building the road. I am sure roads could be built without them. You wanna try first?

Gallowmere1984

jgnatca wrote: »

Um, the contractor is a middleman. People still have to pool their resources and agree on what needs to be done. The scenario you describe is not libertarian.

I have spent my entire career as "overhead", where I do not directly contribute to the bottom line. It's administrative, it's important, and if neglected, nasty things happen. Not right away. It takes a while for administration to fall apart. I have worked for government and in private industry, in mining, utilities, and road survey work. I've worked darned hard to make sure what I do has value to the organization. But I'd have a hard time justifying my existence to a libertarian.

One of the best papers I ever read on administrative overhead used the example of overseas charities, where every penny is accounted to the donors. These organizations naturally want to keep their overhead as low as possible. In doing so, however, you can end up with situations where nurses spend half their shift completing and filing paperwork, instead of nursing. Pretty darned expensive. Pretty poor use of resources. What I read suggested there's an ideal balance of overhead, but it's not to easy to figure out. It's a different proportion depending on industry.

Using the road example, I am pretty sure you depend on preliminary drawings, approved drawings, and as-built. These drawings, their versions and iterations, will be touched by someone in document control. Document control is "overhead", not contributing directly to building the road. I am sure roads could be built without them. You wanna try first?

I didn't say overhead is the problem. In fact, you're right, it's 100% necessary. The problem lies in the typical government inefficiencies, and difficulties in getting rid of people who actually are quite useless. They generally just get shuffled to another department, to be a leech on some other beancounter's budget.

The pensions are another problem. I've already stated my point against those though, but I can understand governments needing to complete previously agreed upon contracts. Just stop making new ones, for the love of god. People are living entirely too long for that crap these days.

The fact that most infrastructure divisions are handled by appointed bureaucrats, and not elected officials just tends to make it all a bit worse.

jgnatca

So you understand the value of collaborative work, and even some necessary overhead. Your protest is with the degree.

So what's wrong with as a society, agreeing that our seniors be taken care of in their later years? When this safety net is NOT in place, parents have large families in the hopes that their children will care for them in old age. Large families come with their own problems (*cof *cof India).

moe0303

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!

How about we enslave them instead. Let's enslave everyone by monopolizing their healthcare, then we will be able to justify strong legislation to control their behavior based on the "greater good". This will be a self perpetuating system as we will be setting the standard for healthcare, and if they ever wanted to raise the standard, they would have to keep voting is in office. All we have to do is take away their carbs every now and then to keep them in line.

Any attempt to break up our monopoly will be perceived as a denial of health services rather than an increase in freedom. This is pure genius.

Gallowmere1984

jgnatca wrote: »

So you understand the value of collaborative work, and even some necessary overhead. Your protest is with the degree.

So what's wrong with as a society, agreeing that our seniors be taken care of in their later years? When this safety net is NOT in place, parents have large families in the hopes that their children will care for them in old age. Large families come with their own problems (*cof *cof India).

Anyone who believes themselves an island should go live on one and see how they do. I am a realist who understands that nothing that I have was acquired by me alone. People who believe otherwise are...well...special.

What is wrong with that, is that they have outlived their usefulness, and the further they age, the larger that burden becomes. We have developed some kind of ridiculous obsession with life extension, even into the years where people's bodies clearly want to give up. We're so terrified of our own mortality, that we feel justified in strapping those who are trying to start their life, with the burdens of those who already completed theirs. We are transient, and trying to fight that is just making things harder on everyone.

Do the best you can, and be willing to admit when your run is over, basically.