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.
Do you think obese/overweight people should pay more for health insurance?
Replies
-
heiliskrimsli wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »crazyycatladyy1 wrote: »animatorswearbras wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »richardgavel wrote: »Frankly, the biggest issue in my mind is the idea that most people get their insurance thru a group plan via their job. This provides a disincentive to come up with these variable options. I'd rather insurance was always bought individually. Then it stays with you from job to job and likely there would be more flexibility.
This is true. Tying insurance to job is problematic in a number of ways.
... and the fact that quality health insurance for most in America has been invariably tied to people's employment is a side-effect of the disastrous government policy of making the cost of group health employment benefits tax-deductible for employers.
No, the cost of group health benefits for employees is treated no differently than the wages and salaries from a corporate tax perspective.
The big thing from a tax perspective is the employee gets the company paid portion of the heath insurance premium and does not have to pay income taxes on it. Change to some government funded plan paid for by taxes, those employees lose that benefit. If the employer gives additional cash compensation, that compensation is taxed at the employee's marginal tax rate.
I thought it was... (for example: http://healthcoverageguide.org/part-one/reasons-to-purchase-group-coverage/)
Anyways, the point is the tying of health insurance to one's job is a side effect of government intervention (as is hyperinflation of medical costs). Each time government has intervened in the market for healthcare-related goods and services, regardless of how well-intentioned the intervention is, it's become more and more dysfunctional, which causes people to call for more government intervention.
End result is: we're gonna get to 100% government-run healthcare in the USA, I have no doubt. So-called "single payer healthcare" is baked in the cake at this point, and you bet they'll discriminate against fat people. After all, they're already doing it in the UK: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/02/obese-patients-and-smokers-banned-from-all-routine-operations-by/
But they love their government-run healthcare, so I suppose we should too.
This is going off topic, but I really wish more Americans understood what the drawbacks of single payer are. Soooo many people think it is wonderful...but if they are told they need to wait a year for that back surgery, they will probably riot. They think the government has an unlimited supply of money and everything should be free (healthcare, college, housing, food, etc.) but free for them just means some other taxpayers paid for it, and when their taxpayer money runs out, rationing results. The grass is always greener...
Our NHS is presently being purposefully underfunded so it can be privatised by the tories, it is an amazing institution (and has saved the lives of myself and my family on numerous occasions), on top of this if you wish you can go private (google BUPA) or get private insurance if you want a non-emergency surgery where waiting lists exist. Our healthcare cost are less than half per person of those in the US and we have better outcomes for the general population. Sure you have the best healthcare if you are wealthy and can afford the best coverage/out of pocket care but universally that is not the case. I am an above average earner and I am happy for my taxes to be spent on the NHS, it is one of the things I am most proud of about my country. Healthcare should not be a business no different than any other emergency service.
My only hope is that we can reverse the damage the Tories have done to our healthcare service, I balk at the idea that this sort of discussion might one day be our reality in the UK if we have to endure another Conservative parliament.
Do you know how much you actually pay per year for your health costs (taxes etc). Would be curious to compare your number with what my family spends per year.
Comparing one family vs another on their medical costs really doesn't matter due to different problems, insurance, etc. Looking at per capita cost or percent of gdp is a more meaningful measure
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_health_expenditure_per_capita
Here are the rates for the national insurance taxes. Keep in mind this tax covers all health care AND the UK equivalent of Social Security for disability benefits and pensioner/social security payments in old age. The example given is if you earn £1000 in a week, then £88 is what you'll pay in NI taxes.
https://www.gov.uk/national-insurance-rates-letters/contribution-rates
You can convert your pay in dollars to pounds and then compare what you'd pay in NI taxes to what you currently pay for social security, Medicare and health insurance for apples to apples comparison.
What it covers: Kids under 16 prescriptions are free all prescriptions for adults are £8.40 each but if you need more than a couple a month, you can get unlimited prescriptions for £133/yr. No co pays all medical care is free. This includes ambulances, vaccines, in patient, out patient, physical and mental health, even if you are treated elsewhere in the EU. Teeth and eyes are not free and have various co pays.
That's a bit more than I pay currently and my coverage includes dental and eyes.
Wow. With social security and Medicare alone taking 7.65% of a pay check and the example given paying in 8.8% of a pay check in NI taxes, this means you are saying you pay less than 1.2% of your pay check on health insurance?
Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. I actually pay less than 1% of my salary for health insurance, including dental and eye. If you add up all that I have spent in the past year on healthcare (doctors, prescriptions, dentist) it's still under 1%.
Thank you for sharing as I know it's somewhat personal information. I was spending close to 6% of my income on health costs alone in the US (pre existing conditions of asthma/allergies and higher cost family coverage).
Where I live, continuous health insurance meant that one could not be denied coverage or charged more for "preexisting conditions". I have maintained health insurance my entire adult life and was covered by my parents until I was an adult.
Coverage for an individual costs less than coverage for more people. Do you disagree with premiums being higher when there are more people using the policy?
Our situation is a bit more complicated as have moved back and forth across the pond four times now. Yes, have always been covered my entire life as well but it's been a mixture of NHS, TRICARE and private insurance via private sector employers. US insurance companies do not "count" the NHS as being covered so they charge you as if you were previously uninsured which means they can then do the preexisting condition higher costs. ( I never used Obamacare). The same thing, oddly enough, happens with car insurance...having U.K. Car insurance does not "count" to US companies and they charge you as if you were previously uninsured.
I think that charging every wage earner in a family from age 16 to 66 is a sufficient means of ensuring funding because each individual pays when they are economically able. I don't think there should be any charges or costs for children under 16 at all. It's a different mindset though as I view healthcare as a human right so I am fine with some money going to other people's kids or grandparents or the unemployed or the disabled. Rather have my money go to that than to some health insurance company!5 -
heiliskrimsli wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »crazyycatladyy1 wrote: »animatorswearbras wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »richardgavel wrote: »Frankly, the biggest issue in my mind is the idea that most people get their insurance thru a group plan via their job. This provides a disincentive to come up with these variable options. I'd rather insurance was always bought individually. Then it stays with you from job to job and likely there would be more flexibility.
This is true. Tying insurance to job is problematic in a number of ways.
... and the fact that quality health insurance for most in America has been invariably tied to people's employment is a side-effect of the disastrous government policy of making the cost of group health employment benefits tax-deductible for employers.
No, the cost of group health benefits for employees is treated no differently than the wages and salaries from a corporate tax perspective.
The big thing from a tax perspective is the employee gets the company paid portion of the heath insurance premium and does not have to pay income taxes on it. Change to some government funded plan paid for by taxes, those employees lose that benefit. If the employer gives additional cash compensation, that compensation is taxed at the employee's marginal tax rate.
I thought it was... (for example: http://healthcoverageguide.org/part-one/reasons-to-purchase-group-coverage/)
Anyways, the point is the tying of health insurance to one's job is a side effect of government intervention (as is hyperinflation of medical costs). Each time government has intervened in the market for healthcare-related goods and services, regardless of how well-intentioned the intervention is, it's become more and more dysfunctional, which causes people to call for more government intervention.
End result is: we're gonna get to 100% government-run healthcare in the USA, I have no doubt. So-called "single payer healthcare" is baked in the cake at this point, and you bet they'll discriminate against fat people. After all, they're already doing it in the UK: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/02/obese-patients-and-smokers-banned-from-all-routine-operations-by/
But they love their government-run healthcare, so I suppose we should too.
This is going off topic, but I really wish more Americans understood what the drawbacks of single payer are. Soooo many people think it is wonderful...but if they are told they need to wait a year for that back surgery, they will probably riot. They think the government has an unlimited supply of money and everything should be free (healthcare, college, housing, food, etc.) but free for them just means some other taxpayers paid for it, and when their taxpayer money runs out, rationing results. The grass is always greener...
Our NHS is presently being purposefully underfunded so it can be privatised by the tories, it is an amazing institution (and has saved the lives of myself and my family on numerous occasions), on top of this if you wish you can go private (google BUPA) or get private insurance if you want a non-emergency surgery where waiting lists exist. Our healthcare cost are less than half per person of those in the US and we have better outcomes for the general population. Sure you have the best healthcare if you are wealthy and can afford the best coverage/out of pocket care but universally that is not the case. I am an above average earner and I am happy for my taxes to be spent on the NHS, it is one of the things I am most proud of about my country. Healthcare should not be a business no different than any other emergency service.
My only hope is that we can reverse the damage the Tories have done to our healthcare service, I balk at the idea that this sort of discussion might one day be our reality in the UK if we have to endure another Conservative parliament.
Do you know how much you actually pay per year for your health costs (taxes etc). Would be curious to compare your number with what my family spends per year.
Comparing one family vs another on their medical costs really doesn't matter due to different problems, insurance, etc. Looking at per capita cost or percent of gdp is a more meaningful measure
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_health_expenditure_per_capita
Here are the rates for the national insurance taxes. Keep in mind this tax covers all health care AND the UK equivalent of Social Security for disability benefits and pensioner/social security payments in old age. The example given is if you earn £1000 in a week, then £88 is what you'll pay in NI taxes.
https://www.gov.uk/national-insurance-rates-letters/contribution-rates
You can convert your pay in dollars to pounds and then compare what you'd pay in NI taxes to what you currently pay for social security, Medicare and health insurance for apples to apples comparison.
What it covers: Kids under 16 prescriptions are free all prescriptions for adults are £8.40 each but if you need more than a couple a month, you can get unlimited prescriptions for £133/yr. No co pays all medical care is free. This includes ambulances, vaccines, in patient, out patient, physical and mental health, even if you are treated elsewhere in the EU. Teeth and eyes are not free and have various co pays.
That's a bit more than I pay currently and my coverage includes dental and eyes.
Wow. With social security and Medicare alone taking 7.65% of a pay check and the example given paying in 8.8% of a pay check in NI taxes, this means you are saying you pay less than 1.2% of your pay check on health insurance?
Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. I actually pay less than 1% of my salary for health insurance, including dental and eye. If you add up all that I have spent in the past year on healthcare (doctors, prescriptions, dentist) it's still under 1%.
Thank you for sharing as I know it's somewhat personal information. I was spending close to 6% of my income on health costs alone in the US (pre existing conditions of asthma/allergies and higher cost family coverage).
Where I live, continuous health insurance meant that one could not be denied coverage or charged more for "preexisting conditions". I have maintained health insurance my entire adult life and was covered by my parents until I was an adult.
Coverage for an individual costs less than coverage for more people. Do you disagree with premiums being higher when there are more people using the policy?
Our situation is a bit more complicated as have moved back and forth across the pond four times now. Yes, have always been covered my entire life as well but it's been a mixture of NHS, TRICARE and private insurance via private sector employers. US insurance companies do not "count" the NHS as being covered so they charge you as if you were previously uninsured which means they can then do the preexisting condition higher costs. ( I never used Obamacare). The same thing, oddly enough, happens with car insurance...having U.K. Car insurance does not "count" to US companies and they charge you as if you were previously uninsured.
I think that charging every wage earner in a family from age 16 to 66 is a sufficient means of ensuring funding because each individual pays when they are economically able. I don't think there should be any charges or costs for children under 16 at all. It's a different mindset though as I view healthcare as a human right so I am fine with some money going to other people's kids or grandparents or the unemployed or the disabled. Rather have my money go to that than to some health insurance company!
I don't have a problem with charging for everyone who uses the benefits, regardless of their age. When it comes to minors, it's the responsibility of their parents to pay for them, as it is with food, clothing and shelter. Then again, I do not see any of those things as rights, and that includes healthcare. I think we have the right to barter our skills and labor to obtain those things, but not to have any of those things handed to us.
Yes, it's a different mindset, but that's what I think.3 -
No. The Nazi's lost.1
-
Might as well charge more to everyone who uses the insurance more. Especially those damn cancer patients. *kitten* them. They cost too much so they should pay more.
/sarcasm
USA is THE ONLY industrialized nation without social or single payer insurance. When are we going to wake up? Let's start by making lobbying illegal. Then maybe we can have some actual conversations.7 -
Well, us cancer patients probably brought it on ourselves with all that diet soda. Or maybe it was sugar.
6 -
clicketykeys wrote: »Well, us cancer patients probably brought it on ourselves with all that diet soda. Or maybe it was sugar.
Lol, I'll put that on my tombstone "Had it coming"6 -
crazyycatladyy1 wrote: »animatorswearbras wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »richardgavel wrote: »Frankly, the biggest issue in my mind is the idea that most people get their insurance thru a group plan via their job. This provides a disincentive to come up with these variable options. I'd rather insurance was always bought individually. Then it stays with you from job to job and likely there would be more flexibility.
This is true. Tying insurance to job is problematic in a number of ways.
... and the fact that quality health insurance for most in America has been invariably tied to people's employment is a side-effect of the disastrous government policy of making the cost of group health employment benefits tax-deductible for employers.
No, the cost of group health benefits for employees is treated no differently than the wages and salaries from a corporate tax perspective.
The big thing from a tax perspective is the employee gets the company paid portion of the heath insurance premium and does not have to pay income taxes on it. Change to some government funded plan paid for by taxes, those employees lose that benefit. If the employer gives additional cash compensation, that compensation is taxed at the employee's marginal tax rate.
I thought it was... (for example: http://healthcoverageguide.org/part-one/reasons-to-purchase-group-coverage/)
Anyways, the point is the tying of health insurance to one's job is a side effect of government intervention (as is hyperinflation of medical costs). Each time government has intervened in the market for healthcare-related goods and services, regardless of how well-intentioned the intervention is, it's become more and more dysfunctional, which causes people to call for more government intervention.
End result is: we're gonna get to 100% government-run healthcare in the USA, I have no doubt. So-called "single payer healthcare" is baked in the cake at this point, and you bet they'll discriminate against fat people. After all, they're already doing it in the UK: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/02/obese-patients-and-smokers-banned-from-all-routine-operations-by/
But they love their government-run healthcare, so I suppose we should too.
This is going off topic, but I really wish more Americans understood what the drawbacks of single payer are. Soooo many people think it is wonderful...but if they are told they need to wait a year for that back surgery, they will probably riot. They think the government has an unlimited supply of money and everything should be free (healthcare, college, housing, food, etc.) but free for them just means some other taxpayers paid for it, and when their taxpayer money runs out, rationing results. The grass is always greener...
Our NHS is presently being purposefully underfunded so it can be privatised by the tories, it is an amazing institution (and has saved the lives of myself and my family on numerous occasions), on top of this if you wish you can go private (google BUPA) or get private insurance if you want a non-emergency surgery where waiting lists exist. Our healthcare cost are less than half per person of those in the US and we have better outcomes for the general population. Sure you have the best healthcare if you are wealthy and can afford the best coverage/out of pocket care but universally that is not the case. I am an above average earner and I am happy for my taxes to be spent on the NHS, it is one of the things I am most proud of about my country. Healthcare should not be a business no different than any other emergency service.
My only hope is that we can reverse the damage the Tories have done to our healthcare service, I balk at the idea that this sort of discussion might one day be our reality in the UK if we have to endure another Conservative parliament.
Do you know how much you actually pay per year for your health costs (taxes etc). Would be curious to compare your number with what my family spends per year.
Looking at my last payslip 8.25% came out in national insurance, this not only covers the NHS, but state pension which is presently £122.30 a week paid as soon as you reach 65 (increases with inflation) but there are other top ups that I haven't looked into (I am also saving for a private pension through my work pension scheme), and benefits (welfare?) such as unemployment, disability or sickness. Also our eyecare and dental is subsidised with the NI contributions but we have to pay a flat fee (an excess/deductible if you will) dependent on treatment, for example with dental (if you don't have private dental insurance) is as follows
Band 1: £20.60 covers an examination, diagnosis and advice. If necessary, it also includes X-rays, a scale and polish and planning for further treatment.
Band 2: £56.30 covers all treatment covered by Band 1, plus additional treatment, such as fillings, root canal treatment and removing teeth (extractions).
Band 3: £244.30 covers all treatment covered by Bands 1 and 2, plus more complex procedures, such as crowns, dentures and bridges.
I do not have to pay any excess/deductible for doctors visits or any medical procedure. I have once paid privately to have a dermatologist appointment as I have (did have) acne, I was being treated by the NHS for it but there was a waiting list to be referred to a specialist since my acne was moderate and mostly cosmetic so I paid to see someone privately.
If I was to ever become unemployed I am still covered, if I had any children I would not have to pay any extra, also during pregnancy dental treatment is free (no excess/deductible) for a pregnant women during pregnancy and a year after due to pregnancies calcium draining effect on the teeth and your prescription drugs are free instead of the £8.30 flat rate. children under 18 (or 19 if in F/T education) pay nothing towards dental or prescriptions (all free).
Hope that helps.
edit: typos and clarification of anglicised terminology3 -
NorthCascades wrote: »millcreekr wrote: »Isn't this a pre-existing condition? I thought with the health care system in place, and even the one the legislature is considering, people with pre-existing conditions would not be penalized.
The legislation that was just repealed was preX friendly. The new legislation replacing it is not.millcreekr wrote: »Maybe the soda companies and candy companies and potato chip companies and fast food restaurants should be penalized, how's that for an idea?
That's pretty bad as ideas go. Those companies weren't doing anything illegal. Nobody was forced to go out and buy potato chips and soda. People bought that stuff because they liked it; those companies made that stuff because people wanted it.
This reminds me of the days when companies, selling tobacco, were just beginning to be penalized with taxes. They also had to stop using advertising to target a young target audience etc.
Some people still smoke today but I don't see nearly as many smokers as I did twenty years ago.
Therefore, I wonder if the same actions were applied, with the sale of known unhealthy foods, would it have the same results? Why doesn't the same principles and/or precautions be applied also?3 -
NorthCascades wrote: »millcreekr wrote: »Isn't this a pre-existing condition? I thought with the health care system in place, and even the one the legislature is considering, people with pre-existing conditions would not be penalized.
The legislation that was just repealed was preX friendly. The new legislation replacing it is not.millcreekr wrote: »Maybe the soda companies and candy companies and potato chip companies and fast food restaurants should be penalized, how's that for an idea?
That's pretty bad as ideas go. Those companies weren't doing anything illegal. Nobody was forced to go out and buy potato chips and soda. People bought that stuff because they liked it; those companies made that stuff because people wanted it.
This reminds me of the days when companies, selling tobacco, were just beginning to be penalized with taxes. They also had to stop using advertising to target a young target audience etc.
Some people still smoke today but I don't see nearly as many smokers as I did twenty years ago.
Therefore, I wonder if the same actions were applied, with the sale of known unhealthy foods, would it have the same results? Why doesn't the same principles and/or precautions be applied also?
Because who determines what's "unhealthy food"? There was clear cut research and proof of causation about the dangers of smoking. I don't think it's quite so clear with food. It's too much of a food more than a specific food which causes problems.
A vegan's idea of 'unhealthy' will be wholly different to a paleo-adherent's idea. How do you decide who's idea of unhealthy is correct?1 -
ladyreva78 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »millcreekr wrote: »Isn't this a pre-existing condition? I thought with the health care system in place, and even the one the legislature is considering, people with pre-existing conditions would not be penalized.
The legislation that was just repealed was preX friendly. The new legislation replacing it is not.millcreekr wrote: »Maybe the soda companies and candy companies and potato chip companies and fast food restaurants should be penalized, how's that for an idea?
That's pretty bad as ideas go. Those companies weren't doing anything illegal. Nobody was forced to go out and buy potato chips and soda. People bought that stuff because they liked it; those companies made that stuff because people wanted it.
This reminds me of the days when companies, selling tobacco, were just beginning to be penalized with taxes. They also had to stop using advertising to target a young target audience etc.
Some people still smoke today but I don't see nearly as many smokers as I did twenty years ago.
Therefore, I wonder if the same actions were applied, with the sale of known unhealthy foods, would it have the same results? Why doesn't the same principles and/or precautions be applied also?
Because who determines what's "unhealthy food"? There was clear cut research and proof of causation about the dangers of smoking. I don't think it's quite so clear with food. It's too much of a food more than a specific food which causes problems.
A vegan's idea of 'unhealthy' will be wholly different to a paleo-adherent's idea. How do you decide who's idea of unhealthy is correct?
Let's not get the government involved in the 'clean eating' debate. Perish the though!2 -
ladyreva78 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »millcreekr wrote: »Isn't this a pre-existing condition? I thought with the health care system in place, and even the one the legislature is considering, people with pre-existing conditions would not be penalized.
The legislation that was just repealed was preX friendly. The new legislation replacing it is not.millcreekr wrote: »Maybe the soda companies and candy companies and potato chip companies and fast food restaurants should be penalized, how's that for an idea?
That's pretty bad as ideas go. Those companies weren't doing anything illegal. Nobody was forced to go out and buy potato chips and soda. People bought that stuff because they liked it; those companies made that stuff because people wanted it.
This reminds me of the days when companies, selling tobacco, were just beginning to be penalized with taxes. They also had to stop using advertising to target a young target audience etc.
Some people still smoke today but I don't see nearly as many smokers as I did twenty years ago.
Therefore, I wonder if the same actions were applied, with the sale of known unhealthy foods, would it have the same results? Why doesn't the same principles and/or precautions be applied also?
Because who determines what's "unhealthy food"? There was clear cut research and proof of causation about the dangers of smoking. I don't think it's quite so clear with food. It's too much of a food more than a specific food which causes problems.
A vegan's idea of 'unhealthy' will be wholly different to a paleo-adherent's idea. How do you decide who's idea of unhealthy is correct?
Let's not get the government involved in the 'clean eating' debate. Perish the though!
Agreed! But sadly there are plenty of people who think it might be a good idea. *shudders*1 -
-
ladyreva78 wrote: »ladyreva78 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »millcreekr wrote: »Isn't this a pre-existing condition? I thought with the health care system in place, and even the one the legislature is considering, people with pre-existing conditions would not be penalized.
The legislation that was just repealed was preX friendly. The new legislation replacing it is not.millcreekr wrote: »Maybe the soda companies and candy companies and potato chip companies and fast food restaurants should be penalized, how's that for an idea?
That's pretty bad as ideas go. Those companies weren't doing anything illegal. Nobody was forced to go out and buy potato chips and soda. People bought that stuff because they liked it; those companies made that stuff because people wanted it.
This reminds me of the days when companies, selling tobacco, were just beginning to be penalized with taxes. They also had to stop using advertising to target a young target audience etc.
Some people still smoke today but I don't see nearly as many smokers as I did twenty years ago.
Therefore, I wonder if the same actions were applied, with the sale of known unhealthy foods, would it have the same results? Why doesn't the same principles and/or precautions be applied also?
Because who determines what's "unhealthy food"? There was clear cut research and proof of causation about the dangers of smoking. I don't think it's quite so clear with food. It's too much of a food more than a specific food which causes problems.
A vegan's idea of 'unhealthy' will be wholly different to a paleo-adherent's idea. How do you decide who's idea of unhealthy is correct?
Let's not get the government involved in the 'clean eating' debate. Perish the though!
Agreed! But sadly there are plenty of people who think it might be a good idea. *shudders*
Ironically, I'm all for nutritional education and support to those who need it and would benefit most from it. And I mentioned earlier in this thread that I am old enough (just barely) to remember when tobacco advertising was the norm, and look how much attitudes toward smoking have changed! I'm just not sure about having the government policing food.
0 -
ladyreva78 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »millcreekr wrote: »Isn't this a pre-existing condition? I thought with the health care system in place, and even the one the legislature is considering, people with pre-existing conditions would not be penalized.
The legislation that was just repealed was preX friendly. The new legislation replacing it is not.millcreekr wrote: »Maybe the soda companies and candy companies and potato chip companies and fast food restaurants should be penalized, how's that for an idea?
That's pretty bad as ideas go. Those companies weren't doing anything illegal. Nobody was forced to go out and buy potato chips and soda. People bought that stuff because they liked it; those companies made that stuff because people wanted it.
This reminds me of the days when companies, selling tobacco, were just beginning to be penalized with taxes. They also had to stop using advertising to target a young target audience etc.
Some people still smoke today but I don't see nearly as many smokers as I did twenty years ago.
Therefore, I wonder if the same actions were applied, with the sale of known unhealthy foods, would it have the same results? Why doesn't the same principles and/or precautions be applied also?
Because who determines what's "unhealthy food"? There was clear cut research and proof of causation about the dangers of smoking. I don't think it's quite so clear with food. It's too much of a food more than a specific food which causes problems.
A vegan's idea of 'unhealthy' will be wholly different to a paleo-adherent's idea. How do you decide who's idea of unhealthy is correct?
I was thinking along the lines of products such as highly processed foods ( potato chips, soda, and candies which are known not to be nutritious) and not ideas or diets themselves.
1 -
ladyreva78 wrote: »ladyreva78 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »millcreekr wrote: »Isn't this a pre-existing condition? I thought with the health care system in place, and even the one the legislature is considering, people with pre-existing conditions would not be penalized.
The legislation that was just repealed was preX friendly. The new legislation replacing it is not.millcreekr wrote: »Maybe the soda companies and candy companies and potato chip companies and fast food restaurants should be penalized, how's that for an idea?
That's pretty bad as ideas go. Those companies weren't doing anything illegal. Nobody was forced to go out and buy potato chips and soda. People bought that stuff because they liked it; those companies made that stuff because people wanted it.
This reminds me of the days when companies, selling tobacco, were just beginning to be penalized with taxes. They also had to stop using advertising to target a young target audience etc.
Some people still smoke today but I don't see nearly as many smokers as I did twenty years ago.
Therefore, I wonder if the same actions were applied, with the sale of known unhealthy foods, would it have the same results? Why doesn't the same principles and/or precautions be applied also?
Because who determines what's "unhealthy food"? There was clear cut research and proof of causation about the dangers of smoking. I don't think it's quite so clear with food. It's too much of a food more than a specific food which causes problems.
A vegan's idea of 'unhealthy' will be wholly different to a paleo-adherent's idea. How do you decide who's idea of unhealthy is correct?
Let's not get the government involved in the 'clean eating' debate. Perish the though!
Agreed! But sadly there are plenty of people who think it might be a good idea. *shudders*
Ironically, I'm all for nutritional education and support to those who need it and would benefit most from it. And I mentioned earlier in this thread that I am old enough (just barely) to remember when tobacco advertising was the norm, and look how much attitudes toward smoking have changed! I'm just not sure about having the government policing food.
The difference is: food is essential to live. Smoking is not. I certainly don't want anyone telling me how I have to eat (especially since some of those might be rather problematic for me. I would die miserably on a Keto diet for example, my body can't deal with high fat).
I'm with you on the nutrition education. A proper and solid education in nutrition would probably go a long way with helping with the problem of obesity in general.1 -
ladyreva78 wrote: »ladyreva78 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »millcreekr wrote: »Isn't this a pre-existing condition? I thought with the health care system in place, and even the one the legislature is considering, people with pre-existing conditions would not be penalized.
The legislation that was just repealed was preX friendly. The new legislation replacing it is not.millcreekr wrote: »Maybe the soda companies and candy companies and potato chip companies and fast food restaurants should be penalized, how's that for an idea?
That's pretty bad as ideas go. Those companies weren't doing anything illegal. Nobody was forced to go out and buy potato chips and soda. People bought that stuff because they liked it; those companies made that stuff because people wanted it.
This reminds me of the days when companies, selling tobacco, were just beginning to be penalized with taxes. They also had to stop using advertising to target a young target audience etc.
Some people still smoke today but I don't see nearly as many smokers as I did twenty years ago.
Therefore, I wonder if the same actions were applied, with the sale of known unhealthy foods, would it have the same results? Why doesn't the same principles and/or precautions be applied also?
Because who determines what's "unhealthy food"? There was clear cut research and proof of causation about the dangers of smoking. I don't think it's quite so clear with food. It's too much of a food more than a specific food which causes problems.
A vegan's idea of 'unhealthy' will be wholly different to a paleo-adherent's idea. How do you decide who's idea of unhealthy is correct?
Let's not get the government involved in the 'clean eating' debate. Perish the though!
Agreed! But sadly there are plenty of people who think it might be a good idea. *shudders*
The government is already involved in "clean eating". They are called the USDA.1 -
ladyreva78 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »millcreekr wrote: »Isn't this a pre-existing condition? I thought with the health care system in place, and even the one the legislature is considering, people with pre-existing conditions would not be penalized.
The legislation that was just repealed was preX friendly. The new legislation replacing it is not.millcreekr wrote: »Maybe the soda companies and candy companies and potato chip companies and fast food restaurants should be penalized, how's that for an idea?
That's pretty bad as ideas go. Those companies weren't doing anything illegal. Nobody was forced to go out and buy potato chips and soda. People bought that stuff because they liked it; those companies made that stuff because people wanted it.
This reminds me of the days when companies, selling tobacco, were just beginning to be penalized with taxes. They also had to stop using advertising to target a young target audience etc.
Some people still smoke today but I don't see nearly as many smokers as I did twenty years ago.
Therefore, I wonder if the same actions were applied, with the sale of known unhealthy foods, would it have the same results? Why doesn't the same principles and/or precautions be applied also?
Because who determines what's "unhealthy food"? There was clear cut research and proof of causation about the dangers of smoking. I don't think it's quite so clear with food. It's too much of a food more than a specific food which causes problems.
A vegan's idea of 'unhealthy' will be wholly different to a paleo-adherent's idea. How do you decide who's idea of unhealthy is correct?
I was thinking along the lines of products such as highly processed foods ( potato chips, soda, and candies which are known not to be nutritious) and not ideas or diets themselves.
I think crafting a legal definition that included the foods you find obvious candidates for such a tax while excluding others that are less obvious candidates would be quite challenging.
For example, if there is a tax on candy would that include the Gu packs I buy for marathon training? I can't imagine what would distinguish them from the candy you would like to tax, they're pure sugar.
Or what kind of rule would include a tortilla chip while excluding the (equally processed) soft corn tortilla?3 -
ladyreva78 wrote: »ladyreva78 wrote: »ladyreva78 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »millcreekr wrote: »Isn't this a pre-existing condition? I thought with the health care system in place, and even the one the legislature is considering, people with pre-existing conditions would not be penalized.
The legislation that was just repealed was preX friendly. The new legislation replacing it is not.millcreekr wrote: »Maybe the soda companies and candy companies and potato chip companies and fast food restaurants should be penalized, how's that for an idea?
That's pretty bad as ideas go. Those companies weren't doing anything illegal. Nobody was forced to go out and buy potato chips and soda. People bought that stuff because they liked it; those companies made that stuff because people wanted it.
This reminds me of the days when companies, selling tobacco, were just beginning to be penalized with taxes. They also had to stop using advertising to target a young target audience etc.
Some people still smoke today but I don't see nearly as many smokers as I did twenty years ago.
Therefore, I wonder if the same actions were applied, with the sale of known unhealthy foods, would it have the same results? Why doesn't the same principles and/or precautions be applied also?
Because who determines what's "unhealthy food"? There was clear cut research and proof of causation about the dangers of smoking. I don't think it's quite so clear with food. It's too much of a food more than a specific food which causes problems.
A vegan's idea of 'unhealthy' will be wholly different to a paleo-adherent's idea. How do you decide who's idea of unhealthy is correct?
Let's not get the government involved in the 'clean eating' debate. Perish the though!
Agreed! But sadly there are plenty of people who think it might be a good idea. *shudders*
Ironically, I'm all for nutritional education and support to those who need it and would benefit most from it. And I mentioned earlier in this thread that I am old enough (just barely) to remember when tobacco advertising was the norm, and look how much attitudes toward smoking have changed! I'm just not sure about having the government policing food.
The difference is: food is essential to live. Smoking is not. I certainly don't want anyone telling me how I have to eat (especially since some of those might be rather problematic for me. I would die miserably on a Keto diet for example, my body can't deal with high fat).
I'm with you on the nutrition education. A proper and solid education in nutrition would probably go a long way with helping with the problem of obesity in general.
I don't think anyone wants to be told "what to eat", nor do I think that's the case. A fixed tax would pay for the education programs some of those here agree with. Maybe telling companies to stop advertising unhealthy candies and snacks to young kids would be beneficial in preventing health problems with future generations.0 -
I don't think anyone should have to pay for healthcare insurance.4
-
janejellyroll wrote: »ladyreva78 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »millcreekr wrote: »Isn't this a pre-existing condition? I thought with the health care system in place, and even the one the legislature is considering, people with pre-existing conditions would not be penalized.
The legislation that was just repealed was preX friendly. The new legislation replacing it is not.millcreekr wrote: »Maybe the soda companies and candy companies and potato chip companies and fast food restaurants should be penalized, how's that for an idea?
That's pretty bad as ideas go. Those companies weren't doing anything illegal. Nobody was forced to go out and buy potato chips and soda. People bought that stuff because they liked it; those companies made that stuff because people wanted it.
This reminds me of the days when companies, selling tobacco, were just beginning to be penalized with taxes. They also had to stop using advertising to target a young target audience etc.
Some people still smoke today but I don't see nearly as many smokers as I did twenty years ago.
Therefore, I wonder if the same actions were applied, with the sale of known unhealthy foods, would it have the same results? Why doesn't the same principles and/or precautions be applied also?
Because who determines what's "unhealthy food"? There was clear cut research and proof of causation about the dangers of smoking. I don't think it's quite so clear with food. It's too much of a food more than a specific food which causes problems.
A vegan's idea of 'unhealthy' will be wholly different to a paleo-adherent's idea. How do you decide who's idea of unhealthy is correct?
I was thinking along the lines of products such as highly processed foods ( potato chips, soda, and candies which are known not to be nutritious) and not ideas or diets themselves.
I think crafting a legal definition that included the foods you find obvious candidates for such a tax while excluding others that are less obvious candidates would be quite challenging.
For example, if there is a tax on candy would that include the Gu packs I buy for marathon training? I can't imagine what would distinguish them from the candy you would like to tax, they're pure sugar.
Or what kind of rule would include a tortilla chip while excluding the (equally processed) soft corn tortilla?
The legal details I don't know and that would be a complicated issue for sure. For opinion and discussion purposes only one could say their is a difference in how certain foods are sold and contribute to health problems. Apples and bananas have a lot of sugar in them naturally as well but do they contribute to obesity more so than candy bars? Food for thought. Sorry for the pun.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »ladyreva78 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »millcreekr wrote: »Isn't this a pre-existing condition? I thought with the health care system in place, and even the one the legislature is considering, people with pre-existing conditions would not be penalized.
The legislation that was just repealed was preX friendly. The new legislation replacing it is not.millcreekr wrote: »Maybe the soda companies and candy companies and potato chip companies and fast food restaurants should be penalized, how's that for an idea?
That's pretty bad as ideas go. Those companies weren't doing anything illegal. Nobody was forced to go out and buy potato chips and soda. People bought that stuff because they liked it; those companies made that stuff because people wanted it.
This reminds me of the days when companies, selling tobacco, were just beginning to be penalized with taxes. They also had to stop using advertising to target a young target audience etc.
Some people still smoke today but I don't see nearly as many smokers as I did twenty years ago.
Therefore, I wonder if the same actions were applied, with the sale of known unhealthy foods, would it have the same results? Why doesn't the same principles and/or precautions be applied also?
Because who determines what's "unhealthy food"? There was clear cut research and proof of causation about the dangers of smoking. I don't think it's quite so clear with food. It's too much of a food more than a specific food which causes problems.
A vegan's idea of 'unhealthy' will be wholly different to a paleo-adherent's idea. How do you decide who's idea of unhealthy is correct?
I was thinking along the lines of products such as highly processed foods ( potato chips, soda, and candies which are known not to be nutritious) and not ideas or diets themselves.
I think crafting a legal definition that included the foods you find obvious candidates for such a tax while excluding others that are less obvious candidates would be quite challenging.
Along these lines, I was just listening to an EconTalk podcast with Gary Taubes (I like the podcast, so figured why not) and he mentioned that someone had asked him why not make common cause with all the other people who think added sugar is the devil and get some kind of tax passed (or something, I was doing 5 other things while listening to the podcast). He said "because then they'd come after my pastrami."5 -
janejellyroll wrote: »ladyreva78 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »millcreekr wrote: »Isn't this a pre-existing condition? I thought with the health care system in place, and even the one the legislature is considering, people with pre-existing conditions would not be penalized.
The legislation that was just repealed was preX friendly. The new legislation replacing it is not.millcreekr wrote: »Maybe the soda companies and candy companies and potato chip companies and fast food restaurants should be penalized, how's that for an idea?
That's pretty bad as ideas go. Those companies weren't doing anything illegal. Nobody was forced to go out and buy potato chips and soda. People bought that stuff because they liked it; those companies made that stuff because people wanted it.
This reminds me of the days when companies, selling tobacco, were just beginning to be penalized with taxes. They also had to stop using advertising to target a young target audience etc.
Some people still smoke today but I don't see nearly as many smokers as I did twenty years ago.
Therefore, I wonder if the same actions were applied, with the sale of known unhealthy foods, would it have the same results? Why doesn't the same principles and/or precautions be applied also?
Because who determines what's "unhealthy food"? There was clear cut research and proof of causation about the dangers of smoking. I don't think it's quite so clear with food. It's too much of a food more than a specific food which causes problems.
A vegan's idea of 'unhealthy' will be wholly different to a paleo-adherent's idea. How do you decide who's idea of unhealthy is correct?
I was thinking along the lines of products such as highly processed foods ( potato chips, soda, and candies which are known not to be nutritious) and not ideas or diets themselves.
I think crafting a legal definition that included the foods you find obvious candidates for such a tax while excluding others that are less obvious candidates would be quite challenging.
For example, if there is a tax on candy would that include the Gu packs I buy for marathon training? I can't imagine what would distinguish them from the candy you would like to tax, they're pure sugar.
Or what kind of rule would include a tortilla chip while excluding the (equally processed) soft corn tortilla?
The legal details I don't know and that would be a complicated issue for sure. For opinion and discussion purposes only one could say their is a difference in how certain foods are sold and contribute to health problems. Apples and bananas have a lot of sugar in them naturally as well but do they contribute to obesity more so than candy bars? Food for thought. Sorry for the pun.
How do you determine what specific foods contribute to health problems.
It's not such an easy determination, especially since everyone must eat and some junk food in moderation (within the context of a healthful diet) is not harmful.2 -
The legal details I don't know and that would be a complicated issue for sure. For opinion and discussion purposes only one could say their is a difference in how certain foods are sold and contribute to health problems. Apples and bananas have a lot of sugar in them naturally as well but do they contribute to obesity more so than candy bars? Food for thought. Sorry for the pun.
Obesity comes from eating too much, it doesn't come from any specific food.1 -
animatorswearbras wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »richardgavel wrote: »Frankly, the biggest issue in my mind is the idea that most people get their insurance thru a group plan via their job. This provides a disincentive to come up with these variable options. I'd rather insurance was always bought individually. Then it stays with you from job to job and likely there would be more flexibility.
This is true. Tying insurance to job is problematic in a number of ways.
... and the fact that quality health insurance for most in America has been invariably tied to people's employment is a side-effect of the disastrous government policy of making the cost of group health employment benefits tax-deductible for employers.
No, the cost of group health benefits for employees is treated no differently than the wages and salaries from a corporate tax perspective.
The big thing from a tax perspective is the employee gets the company paid portion of the heath insurance premium and does not have to pay income taxes on it. Change to some government funded plan paid for by taxes, those employees lose that benefit. If the employer gives additional cash compensation, that compensation is taxed at the employee's marginal tax rate.
I thought it was... (for example: http://healthcoverageguide.org/part-one/reasons-to-purchase-group-coverage/)
Anyways, the point is the tying of health insurance to one's job is a side effect of government intervention (as is hyperinflation of medical costs). Each time government has intervened in the market for healthcare-related goods and services, regardless of how well-intentioned the intervention is, it's become more and more dysfunctional, which causes people to call for more government intervention.
End result is: we're gonna get to 100% government-run healthcare in the USA, I have no doubt. So-called "single payer healthcare" is baked in the cake at this point, and you bet they'll discriminate against fat people. After all, they're already doing it in the UK: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/02/obese-patients-and-smokers-banned-from-all-routine-operations-by/
But they love their government-run healthcare, so I suppose we should too.
This is going off topic, but I really wish more Americans understood what the drawbacks of single payer are. Soooo many people think it is wonderful...but if they are told they need to wait a year for that back surgery, they will probably riot. They think the government has an unlimited supply of money and everything should be free (healthcare, college, housing, food, etc.) but free for them just means some other taxpayers paid for it, and when their taxpayer money runs out, rationing results. The grass is always greener...
Our NHS is presently being purposefully underfunded so it can be privatised by the tories, it is an amazing institution (and has saved the lives of myself and my family on numerous occasions), on top of this if you wish you can go private (google BUPA) or get private insurance if you want a non-emergency surgery where waiting lists exist. Our healthcare cost are less than half per person of those in the US and we have better outcomes for the general population. Sure you have the best healthcare if you are wealthy and can afford the best coverage/out of pocket care but universally that is not the case. I am an above average earner and I am happy for my taxes to be spent on the NHS, it is one of the things I am most proud of about my country. Healthcare should not be a business no different than any other emergency service.
My only hope is that we can reverse the damage the Tories have done to our healthcare service, I balk at the idea that this sort of discussion might one day be our reality in the UK if we have to endure another Conservative parliament.
This is exactly the attitude I find so interesting about so many in the UK when it comes to the NHS and government-run healthcare. It's like a point of patriotic pride for so many of them, and in the end has very little to do with how it actually performs.
3 -
I don't think anyone wants to be told "what to eat", nor do I think that's the case. A fixed tax would pay for the education programs some of those here agree with. Maybe telling companies to stop advertising unhealthy candies and snacks to young kids would be beneficial in preventing health problems with future generations.
I think a lot of people would agree with what you're saying in principal, but sadly it's a lot more complicated to actually take care of. The devil is always in the details. We need a set of meticulously clear rules that everybody knows how to follow, if we're going to have any at all.
So, that means we have to define what's a "healthy" versus an "unhealthy" snack. For example, is a spoonful of peanut butter healthy? Some people would say yes and some would say no. Obviously peanut butter is processed food. And it's dense with calories, so if you're trying to lose weight it might not be the best thing but if you're a vegetarian and trying to get enough protein in your diet than peanut butter and some types of cheese might be very good for you.
The way it is right now, people have to figure all this out for themselves. It's not especially complicated, but it's not as easy as it should be, either. For one thing, there's a lot of contradictory information out there, so people have to figure out what to believe and what to discount. A lot of that is because of the diet industry. You've heard of detoxes and whatnot, a lot of people are fooled.
Anyway, I personally agree with you that advertising for certain kinds of foods does the public more harm than good. And you made the point up-thread that taxing cigarettes and restricting the way they're advertised has paid dividends, fewer people are starting a habit that will kill them. I won't be surprised if something similar winds up happening with food, but I think it'll be slow and complicated.2 -
DON'T TAKE MY PEANUT BUTTER! 3
-
heiliskrimsli wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »crazyycatladyy1 wrote: »animatorswearbras wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »richardgavel wrote: »Frankly, the biggest issue in my mind is the idea that most people get their insurance thru a group plan via their job. This provides a disincentive to come up with these variable options. I'd rather insurance was always bought individually. Then it stays with you from job to job and likely there would be more flexibility.
This is true. Tying insurance to job is problematic in a number of ways.
... and the fact that quality health insurance for most in America has been invariably tied to people's employment is a side-effect of the disastrous government policy of making the cost of group health employment benefits tax-deductible for employers.
No, the cost of group health benefits for employees is treated no differently than the wages and salaries from a corporate tax perspective.
The big thing from a tax perspective is the employee gets the company paid portion of the heath insurance premium and does not have to pay income taxes on it. Change to some government funded plan paid for by taxes, those employees lose that benefit. If the employer gives additional cash compensation, that compensation is taxed at the employee's marginal tax rate.
I thought it was... (for example: http://healthcoverageguide.org/part-one/reasons-to-purchase-group-coverage/)
Anyways, the point is the tying of health insurance to one's job is a side effect of government intervention (as is hyperinflation of medical costs). Each time government has intervened in the market for healthcare-related goods and services, regardless of how well-intentioned the intervention is, it's become more and more dysfunctional, which causes people to call for more government intervention.
End result is: we're gonna get to 100% government-run healthcare in the USA, I have no doubt. So-called "single payer healthcare" is baked in the cake at this point, and you bet they'll discriminate against fat people. After all, they're already doing it in the UK: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/02/obese-patients-and-smokers-banned-from-all-routine-operations-by/
But they love their government-run healthcare, so I suppose we should too.
This is going off topic, but I really wish more Americans understood what the drawbacks of single payer are. Soooo many people think it is wonderful...but if they are told they need to wait a year for that back surgery, they will probably riot. They think the government has an unlimited supply of money and everything should be free (healthcare, college, housing, food, etc.) but free for them just means some other taxpayers paid for it, and when their taxpayer money runs out, rationing results. The grass is always greener...
Our NHS is presently being purposefully underfunded so it can be privatised by the tories, it is an amazing institution (and has saved the lives of myself and my family on numerous occasions), on top of this if you wish you can go private (google BUPA) or get private insurance if you want a non-emergency surgery where waiting lists exist. Our healthcare cost are less than half per person of those in the US and we have better outcomes for the general population. Sure you have the best healthcare if you are wealthy and can afford the best coverage/out of pocket care but universally that is not the case. I am an above average earner and I am happy for my taxes to be spent on the NHS, it is one of the things I am most proud of about my country. Healthcare should not be a business no different than any other emergency service.
My only hope is that we can reverse the damage the Tories have done to our healthcare service, I balk at the idea that this sort of discussion might one day be our reality in the UK if we have to endure another Conservative parliament.
Do you know how much you actually pay per year for your health costs (taxes etc). Would be curious to compare your number with what my family spends per year.
Comparing one family vs another on their medical costs really doesn't matter due to different problems, insurance, etc. Looking at per capita cost or percent of gdp is a more meaningful measure
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_health_expenditure_per_capita
Here are the rates for the national insurance taxes. Keep in mind this tax covers all health care AND the UK equivalent of Social Security for disability benefits and pensioner/social security payments in old age. The example given is if you earn £1000 in a week, then £88 is what you'll pay in NI taxes.
https://www.gov.uk/national-insurance-rates-letters/contribution-rates
You can convert your pay in dollars to pounds and then compare what you'd pay in NI taxes to what you currently pay for social security, Medicare and health insurance for apples to apples comparison.
What it covers: Kids under 16 prescriptions are free all prescriptions for adults are £8.40 each but if you need more than a couple a month, you can get unlimited prescriptions for £133/yr. No co pays all medical care is free. This includes ambulances, vaccines, in patient, out patient, physical and mental health, even if you are treated elsewhere in the EU. Teeth and eyes are not free and have various co pays.
That's a bit more than I pay currently and my coverage includes dental and eyes.
Wow. With social security and Medicare alone taking 7.65% of a pay check and the example given paying in 8.8% of a pay check in NI taxes, this means you are saying you pay less than 1.2% of your pay check on health insurance?
Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. I actually pay less than 1% of my salary for health insurance, including dental and eye. If you add up all that I have spent in the past year on healthcare (doctors, prescriptions, dentist) it's still under 1%.
You're fortunate. That is not the typical American experience.7 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I don't think anyone should have to pay for healthcare insurance.
You do realize that whether the individual pays directly or taxation is used to pay for it, everyone will be paying for it, right?6 -
fatblatta wrote: »
No. The Nazi's lost.
are you sure about that0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K 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
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions