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
-
NorthCascades wrote: »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.
I didn't deny that eating too much causes obesity.
However, I have yet to find a person who has become obese from eating too many vegetables. Just saying.1 -
Insurance companies always penalize for pre-existing conditions, so yes a diagnosis of overweight or obese will bring a penalty. I definitely don't think it would be fair to a person who was of "normal" weight, who then deteriorates a few years after entering the medical insurance plan.0
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »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The legislation that was just repealed was preX friendly.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.
I think your first question could be answered with an online search.
Your key word of "moderation" is important. An obese person wouldn't be in a unhealthy state if they could moderate themselves around certain food products filled with unhealthy ingredients. That's very strait forward.
Originally I was talking about a tax and not a personal agenda to remove certain foods off the market like a food nazi. So no.0 -
NorthCascades wrote: »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.
Well said. I agree in that the details make a difference. Definition fluctuate and are hard to pin down. As we can agree that the most obvious examples are self explanatory such as frozen cheeseburgers vs. Celery. There is a muddy middle ground.
I was also thinking about product placement in stores. I have seen candy bars placed near the floor shelving. This is done on purpose. It's at a small kids height. It makes it easy for them to grab candies. Then it's the parents responsibility to say no or yes. It's things like this that irk me.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »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.
I think your first question could be answered with an online search.
Your key word of "moderation" is important. An obese person wouldn't be in a unhealthy state if they could moderate themselves around certain food products filled with unhealthy ingredients. That's very strait forward.
Originally I was talking about a tax and not a personal agenda to remove certain foods off the market like a food nazi. So no.
A tax's also, collective punishment whereas; individual risk assessment isn't!1 -
DeficitDuchess wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »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.
I think your first question could be answered with an online search.
Your key word of "moderation" is important. An obese person wouldn't be in a unhealthy state if they could moderate themselves around certain food products filled with unhealthy ingredients. That's very strait forward.
Originally I was talking about a tax and not a personal agenda to remove certain foods off the market like a food nazi. So no.
A tax's also, collective punishment whereas; individual risk assessment isn't!
That's your opinion.
Taxes help pay for many good things in modern society, and there was no mention of punishment by me.3 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I don't think anyone should have to pay for healthcare insurance.
What? Who pays the cost then, the good fairy or a unicorn?
Somehow the cost of healthcare has to be paid for. If not insurance, then taxes.4 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »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.
I think your first question could be answered with an online search.
No, it could not be. I of course know what kinds of foods you are thinking of, but showing those foods contribute to health problems is not so easy. Overeating contributes to health problems. Eating an unbalanced nutrient poor diet contributes to health problems. Having a steak or bacon or cheese (all foods that many have said contribute too much sat fat or, in the case of bacon, worse), or a fast food meal or pizza or (what you mentioned above) chips or a cookie or soda do not, in themselves, contribute health problems.
And also, as has been noted already, there are huge claims made about what causes health problems related to food. The idea that it's excessive meat is not uncommon: would you tax meat? That it's refined carbs, which is not just ultraprocessed stuff, but plain flour, and thus bread and pasta (staples for many). That it's ultraprocessed stuff, which for some who do not cook well might be their main source of vegetables (which many premade meals you can buy in the grocery do have).
There's also the serious issue that people who tend to buy more of the stuff you seem to be referring to (assuming it's not meat) are probably poorer people. So there's a regressive element to this tax (as there is with any sales tax).
I'm not someone who feels that strongly about taxes that one can avoid--my city is experimenting with a soda tax (after already having a policy that essentially amounted to a soda tax), and I am not bothered by it, although I don't think it will make a difference to obesity one bit. But try it and see, whatever. Curious what amounts you are talking about, though, as well as how you'd figure out what to tax, and how to prevent it from being spread around in a way that just increases the cost of food. You know, make a more specific proposal. (Although really there's a thread about that, and it's not really the topic of this thread. This is about allowing insurance companies to charge more for a specific preexisting condition.)Your key word of "moderation" is important. An obese person wouldn't be in a unhealthy state if they could moderate themselves around certain food products filled with unhealthy ingredients. That's very strait forward.
So you are assuming that obesity is caused by being unable to moderate yourself around specific foods only, and therefore it's the fault of the food? Pretty big claim. I don't eat most of the stuff that you blame, and yet I was fat for a while.Originally I was talking about a tax and not a personal agenda to remove certain foods off the market like a food nazi. So no.
A tax on what? Sugar? How do you draw the line? (Chips don't have sugar, at least most of them do not. So it seems to be more extensive than that.)4 -
DeficitDuchess wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »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.
I think your first question could be answered with an online search.
Your key word of "moderation" is important. An obese person wouldn't be in a unhealthy state if they could moderate themselves around certain food products filled with unhealthy ingredients. That's very strait forward.
Originally I was talking about a tax and not a personal agenda to remove certain foods off the market like a food nazi. So no.
A tax's also, collective punishment whereas; individual risk assessment isn't!
That's your opinion.
Taxes help pay for many good things in modern society, and there was no mention of punishment by me.
Taxes sometimes're also, to penalize not; just benefit!1 -
As we can agree that the most obvious examples are self explanatory such as frozen cheeseburgers vs. Celery. There is a muddy middle ground.
Are frozen cheeseburgers really a thing? (If you mean fast food you'd say that, no?)
Are they a major player in obesity?
If you make a cheeseburger at home and have it with vegetables (so it's like a normal meal, protein, starch, veg), it's not actually particularly caloric or otherwise bad. What would be the terrible ingredients in this hypthetical frozen cheeseburger? Cheese? Beef? Or is it that it's frozen (which seems weird in that a normal cheeseburger seems likely to take no longer and is tastier, but I suppose some people hate cooking).I was also thinking about product placement in stores. I have seen candy bars placed near the floor shelving. This is done on purpose.
It's not like that at my main grocery store, which makes me think stores vary on this.
What would you do about it?
(I'm not particularly against limiting marketing aimed at kids, but I am skeptical about the idea that it makes that much of a difference in this day and age. But then I'm always wondering who even watches ads any more.)1 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I don't think anyone should have to pay for healthcare insurance.
What? Who pays the cost then, the good fairy or a unicorn?
Somehow the cost of healthcare has to be paid for. If not insurance, then taxes.
Need2 did not say healthcare should not be paid for, but insurance. In a single payer model (for one example) you'd pay for healthcare through taxes, but not insurance. (You could have a system where people could still buy insurance for supplemental care, but would not have to, also.)3 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »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.
I think your first question could be answered with an online search.
No, it could not be. I of course know what kinds of foods you are thinking of, but showing those foods contribute to health problems is not so easy. Overeating contributes to health problems. Eating an unbalanced nutrient poor diet contributes to health problems. Having a steak or bacon or cheese (all foods that many have said contribute too much sat fat or, in the case of bacon, worse), or a fast food meal or pizza or (what you mentioned above) chips or a cookie or soda do not, in themselves, contribute health problems.
And also, as has been noted already, there are huge claims made about what causes health problems related to food. The idea that it's excessive meat is not uncommon: would you tax meat? That it's refined carbs, which is not just ultraprocessed stuff, but plain flour, and thus bread and pasta (staples for many). That it's ultraprocessed stuff, which for some who do not cook well might be their main source of vegetables (which many premade meals you can buy in the grocery do have).
There's also the serious issue that people who tend to buy more of the stuff you seem to be referring to (assuming it's not meat) are probably poorer people. So there's a regressive element to this tax (as there is with any sales tax).
I'm not someone who feels that strongly about taxes that one can avoid--my city is experimenting with a soda tax (after already having a policy that essentially amounted to a soda tax), and I am not bothered by it, although I don't think it will make a difference to obesity one bit. But try it and see, whatever. Curious what amounts you are talking about, though, as well as how you'd figure out what to tax, and how to prevent it from being spread around in a way that just increases the cost of food. You know, make a more specific proposal. (Although really there's a thread about that, and it's not really the topic of this thread. This is about allowing insurance companies to charge more for a specific preexisting condition.)Your key word of "moderation" is important. An obese person wouldn't be in a unhealthy state if they could moderate themselves around certain food products filled with unhealthy ingredients. That's very strait forward.
So you are assuming that obesity is caused by being unable to moderate yourself around specific foods only, and therefore it's the fault of the food? Pretty big claim. I don't eat most of the stuff that you blame, and yet I was fat for a while.Originally I was talking about a tax and not a personal agenda to remove certain foods off the market like a food nazi. So no.
A tax on what? Sugar? How do you draw the line? (Chips don't have sugar, at least most of them do not. So it seems to be more extensive than that.)
I was contemplating further discussion with your multiple winded responses (in this thread), but couldn't bother to finish reading them all, when I realized your own words contain the only info you want to hear.
It is not my intent to change your mind. Plus, no one is entitled to any further answer or explanation of mine so it's cool with me if we will have to stop and disagree.0 -
DeficitDuchess wrote: »DeficitDuchess wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »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.
I think your first question could be answered with an online search.
Your key word of "moderation" is important. An obese person wouldn't be in a unhealthy state if they could moderate themselves around certain food products filled with unhealthy ingredients. That's very strait forward.
Originally I was talking about a tax and not a personal agenda to remove certain foods off the market like a food nazi. So no.
A tax's also, collective punishment whereas; individual risk assessment isn't!
That's your opinion.
Taxes help pay for many good things in modern society, and there was no mention of punishment by me.
Taxes sometimes're also, to penalize not; just benefit!
*facepalm* Please reread my last comment and repeat when necessary. Good night. :-)0 -
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.
Actually it performs better or similar than the US for the general population (the US outperforms us when you get to the highest income brackets where people can afford to pay for it) and costs less than half per person (do you not find that incredible or worthy of merit?), it has also got measurably worse with the introduction of private profit to some services and purposeful underfunding and I support what the frontline staff are saying are the issues. I don't have blind patriotism there are many institutions that I am very critical about my country but when something is overwhelmingly brilliant for the population (both through personal experience and measurable statistics) I will fight for that. I'm just giving you my experience, also hate to tell you but you can't have free market on emergency services or natural monopolies where someone has no choice but to receive that service or potentially die. That's why fire services are socialist institutions.4 -
animatorswearbras 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.
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.
Actually it performs better or similar than the US for the general population (the US outperforms us when you get to the highest income brackets where people can afford to pay for it) and costs less than half per person (do you not find that incredible or worthy of merit?), it has also got measurably worse with the introduction of private profit to some services and purposeful underfunding and I support what the frontline staff are saying are the issues. I don't have blind patriotism there are many institutions that I am very critical about my country but when something is overwhelmingly brilliant for the population (both through personal experience and measurable statistics) I will fight for that. I'm just giving you my experience, also hate to tell you but you can't have free market on emergency services or natural monopolies where someone has no choice but to receive that service or potentially die. That's why fire services are socialist institutions.
Do you have waiting lists for elective procedures?2 -
heiliskrimsli wrote: »animatorswearbras 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.
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.
Actually it performs better or similar than the US for the general population (the US outperforms us when you get to the highest income brackets where people can afford to pay for it) and costs less than half per person (do you not find that incredible or worthy of merit?), it has also got measurably worse with the introduction of private profit to some services and purposeful underfunding and I support what the frontline staff are saying are the issues. I don't have blind patriotism there are many institutions that I am very critical about my country but when something is overwhelmingly brilliant for the population (both through personal experience and measurable statistics) I will fight for that. I'm just giving you my experience, also hate to tell you but you can't have free market on emergency services or natural monopolies where someone has no choice but to receive that service or potentially die. That's why fire services are socialist institutions.
Do you have waiting lists for elective procedures?
yes, although the waiting times have unfortunately gotten worse this parliament
"Maximum waiting times for non-urgent referrals
The maximum waiting time for non-urgent consultant-led treatments is 18 weeks from the day your appointment is booked through the NHS e-Referral Service, or when the hospital or service receives your referral letter.
However, your right to an 18-week waiting time does not apply if:
you choose to wait longer
delaying the start of your treatment is in your best clinical interests – for example, where stopping smoking or losing weight is likely to improve the outcome of the treatment
it is clinically appropriate for your condition to be actively monitored in secondary care without clinical intervention or diagnostic procedures at that stage
you fail to attend appointments that you had chosen from a set of reasonable options
the treatment is no longer necessary"
2 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »
They are.
My question is when you say frozen cheeseburgers... what do you mean.
These(frozen burgers)
http://www.costcobusinessdelivery.com/Quick-N-Eat-Cooked-Angus-Choice-Beef-Hamburger-Patty,-12-ct.product.11647990.html
Or these Frozen cheeseburgers
http://www.costcobusinessdelivery.com/Pierre-Signatures-Angus-Cheeseburger,-6.2-oz,-8-ct.product.11981498.html
I don't think so. They've been a major component in my nearly 30 lbs of weight loss.. the first, not the second
1 -
animatorswearbras wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »animatorswearbras 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.
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.
Actually it performs better or similar than the US for the general population (the US outperforms us when you get to the highest income brackets where people can afford to pay for it) and costs less than half per person (do you not find that incredible or worthy of merit?), it has also got measurably worse with the introduction of private profit to some services and purposeful underfunding and I support what the frontline staff are saying are the issues. I don't have blind patriotism there are many institutions that I am very critical about my country but when something is overwhelmingly brilliant for the population (both through personal experience and measurable statistics) I will fight for that. I'm just giving you my experience, also hate to tell you but you can't have free market on emergency services or natural monopolies where someone has no choice but to receive that service or potentially die. That's why fire services are socialist institutions.
Do you have waiting lists for elective procedures?
yes, although the waiting times have unfortunately gotten worse this parliament
"Maximum waiting times for non-urgent referrals
The maximum waiting time for non-urgent consultant-led treatments is 18 weeks from the day your appointment is booked through the NHS e-Referral Service, or when the hospital or service receives your referral letter.
However, your right to an 18-week waiting time does not apply if:
you choose to wait longer
delaying the start of your treatment is in your best clinical interests – for example, where stopping smoking or losing weight is likely to improve the outcome of the treatment
it is clinically appropriate for your condition to be actively monitored in secondary care without clinical intervention or diagnostic procedures at that stage
you fail to attend appointments that you had chosen from a set of reasonable options
the treatment is no longer necessary"
18 weeks. More than four months.
That's 17 weeks longer than I've ever had to wait to see a specialist, I don't need a referral at all, so I just call and make an appointment. In fact I can't remember it ever taking a whole week to get in to see a specialist. Then if I need an MRI or something, I get it the same day.
If, for example, I was having foot pain while running, I would call the sports medicine clinic and make an appointment. I'd be seen by them before next Monday, and they'd MRI the foot while I was at their office. I definitely would not have to request a referral from my insurance and then wait 18 weeks after the sports medicine clinic receives it to get in.
What on earth would make me want to trade what I have for 18 week waiting times?5 -
I've seen a specialist within a week, this is maximum.... Also I can go private if I wish, as I said waiting times have increased under this government and the NHS is currently underfunded, if it was funded at the same levels as the US per head it would blow the world out of the water, what more can I say.3
-
Now a question for you, how much does your insurance cost, and do you have a deductible or any out of pocket expenses if we're to compare and contrast.
1 -
Even when I was running 5 miles a day several days a week, wearing a size 2, and going to the gym and had perfect blood pressure and cholesterol, I was "overweight" by the standard chart. I weighed in at 133-136 depending on the time of day and or month I stepped on the scale. So you're saying I should have been penalized for not fitting into their "box" image of the perfect weight?0
-
heiliskrimsli wrote: »animatorswearbras wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »animatorswearbras 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.
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.
Actually it performs better or similar than the US for the general population (the US outperforms us when you get to the highest income brackets where people can afford to pay for it) and costs less than half per person (do you not find that incredible or worthy of merit?), it has also got measurably worse with the introduction of private profit to some services and purposeful underfunding and I support what the frontline staff are saying are the issues. I don't have blind patriotism there are many institutions that I am very critical about my country but when something is overwhelmingly brilliant for the population (both through personal experience and measurable statistics) I will fight for that. I'm just giving you my experience, also hate to tell you but you can't have free market on emergency services or natural monopolies where someone has no choice but to receive that service or potentially die. That's why fire services are socialist institutions.
Do you have waiting lists for elective procedures?
yes, although the waiting times have unfortunately gotten worse this parliament
"Maximum waiting times for non-urgent referrals
The maximum waiting time for non-urgent consultant-led treatments is 18 weeks from the day your appointment is booked through the NHS e-Referral Service, or when the hospital or service receives your referral letter.
However, your right to an 18-week waiting time does not apply if:
you choose to wait longer
delaying the start of your treatment is in your best clinical interests – for example, where stopping smoking or losing weight is likely to improve the outcome of the treatment
it is clinically appropriate for your condition to be actively monitored in secondary care without clinical intervention or diagnostic procedures at that stage
you fail to attend appointments that you had chosen from a set of reasonable options
the treatment is no longer necessary"
18 weeks. More than four months.
That's 17 weeks longer than I've ever had to wait to see a specialist, I don't need a referral at all, so I just call and make an appointment. In fact I can't remember it ever taking a whole week to get in to see a specialist. Then if I need an MRI or something, I get it the same day.
If, for example, I was having foot pain while running, I would call the sports medicine clinic and make an appointment. I'd be seen by them before next Monday, and they'd MRI the foot while I was at their office. I definitely would not have to request a referral from my insurance and then wait 18 weeks after the sports medicine clinic receives it to get in.
What on earth would make me want to trade what I have for 18 week waiting times?
I've never had to wait 18weeks for anything under the NHS. I went to my GP about my knee and before I'd left the parking lot, I was getting a phone call from the physiotherapist to set up an appt to go in for assessment. The referral was done electronically on the computer by the GP while I was talking to her. So my wait was ten minutes tops.
Too my daughter got iritis, we went to optician who said go to A&E, we went to A&E and their eye centre saw her immediately. No referral or preapproval needed. Then they automatically saw her for over a year to ensure she didn't lose any eyesight.4 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I don't think anyone should have to pay for healthcare insurance.
What? Who pays the cost then, the good fairy or a unicorn?
Somehow the cost of healthcare has to be paid for. If not insurance, then taxes.
Need2 did not say healthcare should not be paid for, but insurance. In a single payer model (for one example) you'd pay for healthcare through taxes, but not insurance. (You could have a system where people could still buy insurance for supplemental care, but would not have to, also.)
This is the poster's statement:
I don't think anyone should have to pay for healthcare insurance
No mention how healthcare would be paid for. My statement should have been recognized as obviously tongue in cheek. I was interested in how i.e, what kind of taxes, the poster was thinking of.0 -
animatorswearbras wrote: »Now a question for you, how much does your insurance cost, and do you have a deductible or any out of pocket expenses if we're to compare and contrast.
As I have stated, my insurance costs me less than 1% of my salary. I could meet my deductible and take the payroll deduction for the insurance and not go over 1.3% in a year comined, although prior to the so-called "Affordable Care Act" I had no deductible at all and my payroll deduction was lower than it is now. Getting the government involved actually increased my costs.
I'm not sure how to put this but I don't have to go to the GP for something like knee pain. I just go to the specialist. If my knee hurt, I'd go to the orthopedics doctor first. That doctor would order an MRI (on site, immediately) and determine what was actually wrong. I would only go to a physical therapist after that if there wasn't an injury that required other treatment, and if it required surgery that doctor would do it at the surgery center where his office is.3 -
heiliskrimsli wrote: »animatorswearbras wrote: »Now a question for you, how much does your insurance cost, and do you have a deductible or any out of pocket expenses if we're to compare and contrast.
As I have stated, my insurance costs me less than 1% of my salary. I could meet my deductible and take the payroll deduction for the insurance and not go over 1.3% in a year comined, although prior to the so-called "Affordable Care Act" I had no deductible at all and my payroll deduction was lower than it is now. Getting the government involved actually increased my costs.
I'm not sure how to put this but I don't have to go to the GP for something like knee pain. I just go to the specialist. If my knee hurt, I'd go to the orthopedics doctor first. That doctor would order an MRI (on site, immediately) and determine what was actually wrong. I would only go to a physical therapist after that if there wasn't an injury that required other treatment, and if it required surgery that doctor would do it at the surgery center where his office is.
No I get that. Do you have a PPO type of plan then? It's just in comparing wait times, you said you'd get in with a specialist within a week. With my knee pain, I also got in with a specialist within a week despite having to see a GP before the specialist. The reason mine wasn't a surgeon was because I didn't need surgery.3 -
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.
If overweight and obese people eat fruit (and they do) and it contributes to them consuming more calories than they burn, then they're contributing to obesity.
We're assuming that people today, people who are accustomed to eating more than they need, would somehow automatically slip into a calorie balance if candy bars cost a bit more. That's a pretty big assumption -- it may be true, but there is no evidence to establish that.
This is part of a whole problem with making certain foods the "bad guy" when it comes to talking about obesity. I think we need to look at the context of the whole diet. Candy bars, in and of themselves, don't make anyone fat. We have many people here who regularly eat candy (including myself) and still maintain a healthy weight.
And I think the challenge of creating a definition for foods that "deserve" to be tax should absolutely be part of the discussion. If the proposal is that certain foods are to be singled out, we need to at least consider how those foods will be identified -- if Swedish Fish are going to be considered the same thing as a muffin, if a bowl of grits is the same thing as a tortilla chip.2 -
NorthCascades wrote: »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.
I didn't deny that eating too much causes obesity.
However, I have yet to find a person who has become obese from eating too many vegetables. Just saying.
With all respect, how could you possibly determine that? Are you viewing food logs for everyone that you encounter that is obese? Or is this just one of those "common sense" things because you personally believe that one can't consume more vegetables than they burn?
1 -
heiliskrimsli wrote: »animatorswearbras wrote: »Now a question for you, how much does your insurance cost, and do you have a deductible or any out of pocket expenses if we're to compare and contrast.
As I have stated, my insurance costs me less than 1% of my salary. I could meet my deductible and take the payroll deduction for the insurance and not go over 1.3% in a year comined, although prior to the so-called "Affordable Care Act" I had no deductible at all and my payroll deduction was lower than it is now. Getting the government involved actually increased my costs.
I'm not sure how to put this but I don't have to go to the GP for something like knee pain. I just go to the specialist. If my knee hurt, I'd go to the orthopedics doctor first. That doctor would order an MRI (on site, immediately) and determine what was actually wrong. I would only go to a physical therapist after that if there wasn't an injury that required other treatment, and if it required surgery that doctor would do it at the surgery center where his office is.
No I get that. Do you have a PPO type of plan then? It's just in comparing wait times, you said you'd get in with a specialist within a week. With my knee pain, I also got in with a specialist within a week despite having to see a GP before the specialist. The reason mine wasn't a surgeon was because I didn't need surgery.
It is a PPO type plan. The really good doctors take a few days to get an appointment in some cases, but there's really no run around there. Any doctor I'd actually want to see is "in network" so the only potential for delay is if the doctor I want is booked solid.
I like that I don't have to take unnecessary extra steps. If I had to go see the GP for the sports injury, it's going to waste my time and his because all he's going to do is tell me "I don't do knees."2 -
janejellyroll wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »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.
I didn't deny that eating too much causes obesity.
However, I have yet to find a person who has become obese from eating too many vegetables. Just saying.
With all respect, how could you possibly determine that? Are you viewing food logs for everyone that you encounter that is obese? Or is this just one of those "common sense" things because you personally believe that one can't consume more vegetables than they burn?
Here are the top sources of calories in the US diet:
What Americans Eat: Top 10 sources of calories in the U.S. diet
Grain-based desserts (cakes, cookies, donuts, pies, crisps, cobblers, and granola bars)
Yeast breads
Chicken and chicken-mixed dishes
Soda, energy drinks, and sports drinks
Pizza
Alcoholic beverages
Pasta and pasta dishes
Mexican mixed dishes
Beef and beef-mixed dishes
Dairy desserts
Source: http://www.health.harvard.edu/healthy-eating/top-10-sources-of-calories-in-the-us-diet
Fruits and veggies don't make the top 10 list. Could there be some people that consume an unusually high amount of fruits and veggies that significantly contributes to a weight issue, sure. Not very likely though given the sources of calories in the US diet.3 -
This content has been removed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions