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?

1568101150

Replies

  • ninerbuff
    ninerbuff Posts: 48,971 Member
    I don't need to dream of an afterlife that doesn't exist. I learned to earn the things I want here.

    How's the weight loss going?
    Lol, well then you'll be thought of as a martyr then.

    As for weight loss, I haven't really focused much on it. 170lbs was close to my competition weight when I competed and that some SERIOUS dieting that I didn't care for. I haven't changed the goal weight for years, so maybe I should.

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

    9285851.png

  • ninerbuff
    ninerbuff Posts: 48,971 Member
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    IMO, until the US healthcare system isn't a FOR PROFIT venture, people will end up spending their retirement income and savings on it. See how much it costs to get hospitalized or how much medication costs for people who need it. It's pretty astounding and outrageous.
    We could pay for ALL AMERICANS healthcare, it's just that our government chooses to spend more of taxes towards the military might instead.

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

    9285851.png

    The issue with health care in the US is spending per person (from all sources) is doube what it is for the rest of the industrialized world.

    Profit is a portion of this but nowhere near all. I believe one of our issues is the amont we spend on end of life care. Most other countries will make an 80 year with a serious illness comfortable and leto them die with no treatment. In the US we spend thousands of dollars for an extra couple of months of life with questionable quality.
    True about the cost, but that's because the health care system charges more because they know that insurance will cover the majority of it. Staying in a hospital bed overnight can cost as much as $7000. That's pretty ridiculous.

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

    9285851.png


    The bill was actually a little under $7,000 (I rounded up), but the cost covered more than just the hospital bed. It's still pending so I can't see the breakdown yet, but nothing further has come through, (the incident was several weeks ago), so I think that actually may be the total bill, (keeping fingers crossed lol). If so what the $6,696 included (this is the actual bill, before any insurance is factored in)-

    -ER triage room from 9:30pm-1am
    -private hospital room from 1am-4pm (we were able to stay in the room with her), including dd's food sensitivity friendly breakfast and lunch
    -2 ER doctors that did her initial evaluation/came in several times during the triage time and then 1 put in staples in the back of dd's head/cleaned up wound
    -nursing staff during triage time
    -CT scan (I was expecting a separate bill for this, but nothing so far and the bill for the CT tech bill has already gone through, so I think this is included in the hospital bill?)
    -Child Support assistant-we went to a children's hospital and we were assigned a person who stayed with us the whole time, who's job was to calm my dd down, play games with her/colored/did play-dough etc. She also held one of my dd's hands when the staples were going in (my dh held the other-I had to leave the room because there was so much blood and I almost hit the floor :p )
    -nursing staff for the regular hospital room time
    -the staff member (CNA?) who helped clean my dd up-it took 45 minutes to wash all the blood/debris out of her hair, plus she helped get her showered
    -speech pathologist who ran some tests because of dd's concussion
    -Child Support assistant/Music therapist both came in several times while we were in the hospital room, to keep dd company
    And then we found out the policy is that when a kid comes in with a head trauma they immediately put the on-call neurology surgery team on standby, in case there's a need for surgery. Thankfully we didn't need that (and I don't think there will be a charge for this), but knowing that they were ready to go if need be, was a huge relief when we were the midst of things (dd does have a skull fracture but it will heal on its own).

    So, I don't feel that a $7,000 charge for all of that is unreasonable?

    Sorry OT, way off track here!
    That just means you have GREAT insurance.

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

    9285851.png

  • crazyycatladyy1
    crazyycatladyy1 Posts: 156 Member
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    IMO, until the US healthcare system isn't a FOR PROFIT venture, people will end up spending their retirement income and savings on it. See how much it costs to get hospitalized or how much medication costs for people who need it. It's pretty astounding and outrageous.
    We could pay for ALL AMERICANS healthcare, it's just that our government chooses to spend more of taxes towards the military might instead.

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

    9285851.png

    The issue with health care in the US is spending per person (from all sources) is doube what it is for the rest of the industrialized world.

    Profit is a portion of this but nowhere near all. I believe one of our issues is the amont we spend on end of life care. Most other countries will make an 80 year with a serious illness comfortable and leto them die with no treatment. In the US we spend thousands of dollars for an extra couple of months of life with questionable quality.
    True about the cost, but that's because the health care system charges more because they know that insurance will cover the majority of it. Staying in a hospital bed overnight can cost as much as $7000. That's pretty ridiculous.

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

    9285851.png


    The bill was actually a little under $7,000 (I rounded up), but the cost covered more than just the hospital bed. It's still pending so I can't see the breakdown yet, but nothing further has come through, (the incident was several weeks ago), so I think that actually may be the total bill, (keeping fingers crossed lol). If so what the $6,696 included (this is the actual bill, before any insurance is factored in)-

    -ER triage room from 9:30pm-1am
    -private hospital room from 1am-4pm (we were able to stay in the room with her), including dd's food sensitivity friendly breakfast and lunch
    -2 ER doctors that did her initial evaluation/came in several times during the triage time and then 1 put in staples in the back of dd's head/cleaned up wound
    -nursing staff during triage time
    -CT scan (I was expecting a separate bill for this, but nothing so far and the bill for the CT tech bill has already gone through, so I think this is included in the hospital bill?)
    -Child Support assistant-we went to a children's hospital and we were assigned a person who stayed with us the whole time, who's job was to calm my dd down, play games with her/colored/did play-dough etc. She also held one of my dd's hands when the staples were going in (my dh held the other-I had to leave the room because there was so much blood and I almost hit the floor :p )
    -nursing staff for the regular hospital room time
    -the staff member (CNA?) who helped clean my dd up-it took 45 minutes to wash all the blood/debris out of her hair, plus she helped get her showered
    -speech pathologist who ran some tests because of dd's concussion
    -Child Support assistant/Music therapist both came in several times while we were in the hospital room, to keep dd company
    And then we found out the policy is that when a kid comes in with a head trauma they immediately put the on-call neurology surgery team on standby, in case there's a need for surgery. Thankfully we didn't need that (and I don't think there will be a charge for this), but knowing that they were ready to go if need be, was a huge relief when we were the midst of things (dd does have a skull fracture but it will heal on its own).

    So, I don't feel that a $7,000 charge for all of that is unreasonable?

    Sorry OT, way off track here!

    Being from Canada it still shocks me to even imagine having to pay that for a hospital visit.

    I believe you pay quite a bit more money for taxes and costs of living though, so while you're not used to seeing hospital bills like that you do pay in other ways. Just going off the grocery threads, what a comparable sized Canadian family spends a year on groceries vs what I pay, would almost cover the hospital bill (if not completely).

    Also, while I'm sure the horror stories Americans have heard of Canadian health care are exaggerated, we did receive immediate care and I don't know if you would have had the same experience? We have 3 hospitals in the area and we had choice where to go. When we arrived there was a tech and a police officer standing outside with a wheelchair. They immediately got my daughter inside and they were already enroute to the triage room before I could get her registered. A nurse was waiting for us in the triage room and the first ER doctor was with us in less than 10 minutes of arrival. Our whole visit was like this, as well as follow up care appointments. Very pleased with the care received and the whole experience was as good as it could be, considering the circumstances.
  • VintageFeline
    VintageFeline Posts: 6,771 Member
    edited May 2017
    jenilla1 wrote: »
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    IMO, until the US healthcare system isn't a FOR PROFIT venture, people will end up spending their retirement income and savings on it. See how much it costs to get hospitalized or how much medication costs for people who need it. It's pretty astounding and outrageous.
    We could pay for ALL AMERICANS healthcare, it's just that our government chooses to spend more of taxes towards the military might instead.

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

    9285851.png

    The issue with health care in the US is spending per person (from all sources) is doube what it is for the rest of the industrialized world.

    Profit is a portion of this but nowhere near all. I believe one of our issues is the amont we spend on end of life care. Most other countries will make an 80 year with a serious illness comfortable and leto them die with no treatment. In the US we spend thousands of dollars for an extra couple of months of life with questionable quality.
    True about the cost, but that's because the health care system charges more because they know that insurance will cover the majority of it. Staying in a hospital bed overnight can cost as much as $7000. That's pretty ridiculous.

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

    9285851.png


    The bill was actually a little under $7,000 (I rounded up), but the cost covered more than just the hospital bed. It's still pending so I can't see the breakdown yet, but nothing further has come through, (the incident was several weeks ago), so I think that actually may be the total bill, (keeping fingers crossed lol). If so what the $6,696 included (this is the actual bill, before any insurance is factored in)-

    -ER triage room from 9:30pm-1am
    -private hospital room from 1am-4pm (we were able to stay in the room with her), including dd's food sensitivity friendly breakfast and lunch
    -2 ER doctors that did her initial evaluation/came in several times during the triage time and then 1 put in staples in the back of dd's head/cleaned up wound
    -nursing staff during triage time
    -CT scan (I was expecting a separate bill for this, but nothing so far and the bill for the CT tech bill has already gone through, so I think this is included in the hospital bill?)
    -Child Support assistant-we went to a children's hospital and we were assigned a person who stayed with us the whole time, who's job was to calm my dd down, play games with her/colored/did play-dough etc. She also held one of my dd's hands when the staples were going in (my dh held the other-I had to leave the room because there was so much blood and I almost hit the floor :p )
    -nursing staff for the regular hospital room time
    -the staff member (CNA?) who helped clean my dd up-it took 45 minutes to wash all the blood/debris out of her hair, plus she helped get her showered
    -speech pathologist who ran some tests because of dd's concussion
    -Child Support assistant/Music therapist both came in several times while we were in the hospital room, to keep dd company
    And then we found out the policy is that when a kid comes in with a head trauma they immediately put the on-call neurology surgery team on standby, in case there's a need for surgery. Thankfully we didn't need that (and I don't think there will be a charge for this), but knowing that they were ready to go if need be, was a huge relief when we were the midst of things (dd does have a skull fracture but it will heal on its own).

    So, I don't feel that a $7,000 charge for all of that is unreasonable?

    Sorry OT, way off track here!

    Being from Canada it still shocks me to even imagine having to pay that for a hospital visit.

    I believe you pay quite a bit more money for taxes and costs of living though, so while you're not used to seeing hospital bills like that you do pay in other ways. Just going off the grocery threads, what a comparable sized Canadian family spends a year on groceries vs what I pay, would almost cover the hospital bill (if not completely).

    Also, while I'm sure the horror stories Americans have heard of Canadian health care are exaggerated, we did receive immediate care and I don't know if you would have had the same experience? We have 3 hospitals in the area and we had choice where to go. When we arrived there was a tech and a police officer standing outside with a wheelchair. They immediately got my daughter inside and they were already enroute to the triage room before I could get her registered. A nurse was waiting for us in the triage room and the first ER doctor was with us in less than 10 minutes of arrival. Our whole visit was like this, as well as follow up care appointments. Very pleased with the care received and the whole experience was as good as it could be, considering the circumstances.

    It's really nice that YOU personally have awesome insurance coverage, and abundant options, but that's far from the norm. Some people have crappier coverage or none at all. My husband's stitches and tetanus shot were over $2000 after negotiations to lower the costs. The $50 gauze pads were a bit much, in my opinion. :s

    I'd like to rock up places like that, invoice in hand (all moot given I have the NHS but anyway) and hand them some gauze I bought myself for a few pennies and ask to have it written off. That's ridiculous.
  • mommarnurse
    mommarnurse Posts: 515 Member
    _emma_78 wrote: »
    One of the cons is that employers could say they don't want to hire people based on weight because of health insurance costs. Many employers do this with smokers already though.

    Wouldn't matter if the increased cost is directly levied against the employee.
  • Packerjohn
    Packerjohn Posts: 4,855 Member
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    Azdak wrote: »
    Instead of wasting so much time and energy coveting our neighbor's goods, we should be working to make society work better for everyone.

    Then my neighbor needs to work, not stand around with a hand out expecting me to hand over what I've earned. I'm not asking them to fork over the fruit of their labor for free, but that's what they're calling me selfish as they demand entitlement to what I've earned.
    So your neighbor can somehow live next to you rent/mortgage free? How does that work unless you live in section 8 housing?

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

    9285851.png


    You clearly don't live in a large city. In many places, including New York...welfare people live in nice buildings right next door to people who actually pay their own rent. The welfare people, of course, don't pay rent. That is part of what is screwed up with this country. People think they deserve to be handed the same nice things as people who work hard for a living.
    Actually I live in a quite expensive area. However there are places in my area where people who don't have high incomes, can still live in the same area at a reduced cost based on their income. This gives their children a chance to go to schools in the area and do activities and possibly have opportunities that they may not have had living in places where their income only allowed them. Put kids and people in good environments and they usually take on the expectation and quality of that environment. And vice versa.
    And yes while there are people who do believe they are entitled, it's a small percentage compared to the majority of Americans who bust their *kitten* day to day.

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

    9285851.png


    I don't support policies like that. Handing people a lifestyle they can't afford on their own...and using taxpayer money to do it... is not the way to teach personal responsibility. Why should anybody go to work everyday and work hard if they can live in the same place on welfare? If they want to live in a better building, then they should do it the way everybody else does...with their own money and work.

    We have decades of experience with these handouts...they need to end.
    There is NO taxpayer money involved at all. The owners of the buildings limit who can live there based on income. My wife and I went there (condominiums) and the the places were great, clean and gated. Problem was your INCOME could not exceed $80,000 a year to live there, so we could live there even if we wanted to. When we got shown around, many of the people already living there we waving hands and smiling saying "hi" to us as they were thinking we may be moving in. So is this bad because it's PROVIDED by the owners of the properties? Again it's NOT a hand out but an opportunity.

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

    9285851.png


    You are misunderstanding. If you cannot love someplace because your uncimeincome is too high it there is some sort of subsidizing going on.
  • crazyycatladyy1
    crazyycatladyy1 Posts: 156 Member
    jenilla1 wrote: »
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    IMO, until the US healthcare system isn't a FOR PROFIT venture, people will end up spending their retirement income and savings on it. See how much it costs to get hospitalized or how much medication costs for people who need it. It's pretty astounding and outrageous.
    We could pay for ALL AMERICANS healthcare, it's just that our government chooses to spend more of taxes towards the military might instead.

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

    9285851.png

    The issue with health care in the US is spending per person (from all sources) is doube what it is for the rest of the industrialized world.

    Profit is a portion of this but nowhere near all. I believe one of our issues is the amont we spend on end of life care. Most other countries will make an 80 year with a serious illness comfortable and leto them die with no treatment. In the US we spend thousands of dollars for an extra couple of months of life with questionable quality.
    True about the cost, but that's because the health care system charges more because they know that insurance will cover the majority of it. Staying in a hospital bed overnight can cost as much as $7000. That's pretty ridiculous.

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

    9285851.png


    The bill was actually a little under $7,000 (I rounded up), but the cost covered more than just the hospital bed. It's still pending so I can't see the breakdown yet, but nothing further has come through, (the incident was several weeks ago), so I think that actually may be the total bill, (keeping fingers crossed lol). If so what the $6,696 included (this is the actual bill, before any insurance is factored in)-

    -ER triage room from 9:30pm-1am
    -private hospital room from 1am-4pm (we were able to stay in the room with her), including dd's food sensitivity friendly breakfast and lunch
    -2 ER doctors that did her initial evaluation/came in several times during the triage time and then 1 put in staples in the back of dd's head/cleaned up wound
    -nursing staff during triage time
    -CT scan (I was expecting a separate bill for this, but nothing so far and the bill for the CT tech bill has already gone through, so I think this is included in the hospital bill?)
    -Child Support assistant-we went to a children's hospital and we were assigned a person who stayed with us the whole time, who's job was to calm my dd down, play games with her/colored/did play-dough etc. She also held one of my dd's hands when the staples were going in (my dh held the other-I had to leave the room because there was so much blood and I almost hit the floor :p )
    -nursing staff for the regular hospital room time
    -the staff member (CNA?) who helped clean my dd up-it took 45 minutes to wash all the blood/debris out of her hair, plus she helped get her showered
    -speech pathologist who ran some tests because of dd's concussion
    -Child Support assistant/Music therapist both came in several times while we were in the hospital room, to keep dd company
    And then we found out the policy is that when a kid comes in with a head trauma they immediately put the on-call neurology surgery team on standby, in case there's a need for surgery. Thankfully we didn't need that (and I don't think there will be a charge for this), but knowing that they were ready to go if need be, was a huge relief when we were the midst of things (dd does have a skull fracture but it will heal on its own).

    So, I don't feel that a $7,000 charge for all of that is unreasonable?

    Sorry OT, way off track here!

    Being from Canada it still shocks me to even imagine having to pay that for a hospital visit.

    I believe you pay quite a bit more money for taxes and costs of living though, so while you're not used to seeing hospital bills like that you do pay in other ways. Just going off the grocery threads, what a comparable sized Canadian family spends a year on groceries vs what I pay, would almost cover the hospital bill (if not completely).

    Also, while I'm sure the horror stories Americans have heard of Canadian health care are exaggerated, we did receive immediate care and I don't know if you would have had the same experience? We have 3 hospitals in the area and we had choice where to go. When we arrived there was a tech and a police officer standing outside with a wheelchair. They immediately got my daughter inside and they were already enroute to the triage room before I could get her registered. A nurse was waiting for us in the triage room and the first ER doctor was with us in less than 10 minutes of arrival. Our whole visit was like this, as well as follow up care appointments. Very pleased with the care received and the whole experience was as good as it could be, considering the circumstances.

    It's really nice that YOU personally have awesome insurance coverage, and abundant options, but that's far from the norm. Some people have crappier coverage or none at all. My husband's stitches and tetanus shot were over $2000 after negotiations to lower the costs. The $50 gauze pads were a bit much, in my opinion. :s

    I wouldn't say it's awesome, but it is decent, and my husband chose to work at his current company, in part because of the insurance/benefits package. His old job changed their insurance package and since we didn't care for it, we decided to change employers. If someone has employer based insurance and isn't happy with their insurance package, then it may be time to look at other options. We've also gone the self-insured route, when dh was self-employed, and that may be an option for some as well. And if someone is stuck with the current government plan (like my parents), then hopefully that will continue to be tweaked until a solid system is formulated, (I have very low expectations of our federal government, but one can hope :p ).
  • Packerjohn
    Packerjohn Posts: 4,855 Member
    edited May 2017
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    Azdak wrote: »
    Instead of wasting so much time and energy coveting our neighbor's goods, we should be working to make society work better for everyone.

    Then my neighbor needs to work, not stand around with a hand out expecting me to hand over what I've earned. I'm not asking them to fork over the fruit of their labor for free, but that's what they're calling me selfish as they demand entitlement to what I've earned.
    So your neighbor can somehow live next to you rent/mortgage free? How does that work unless you live in section 8 housing?

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

    9285851.png


    You clearly don't live in a large city. In many places, including New York...welfare people live in nice buildings right next door to people who actually pay their own rent. The welfare people, of course, don't pay rent. That is part of what is screwed up with this country. People think they deserve to be handed the same nice things as people who work hard for a living.
    Actually I live in a quite expensive area. However there are places in my area where people who don't have high incomes, can still live in the same area at a reduced cost based on their income. This gives their children a chance to go to schools in the area and do activities and possibly have opportunities that they may not have had living in places where their income only allowed them. Put kids and people in good environments and they usually take on the expectation and quality of that environment. And vice versa.
    And yes while there are people who do believe they are entitled, it's a small percentage compared to the majority of Americans who bust their *kitten* day to day.

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

    9285851.png


    I don't support policies like that. Handing people a lifestyle they can't afford on their own...and using taxpayer money to do it... is not the way to teach personal responsibility. Why should anybody go to work everyday and work hard if they can live in the same place on welfare? If they want to live in a better building, then they should do it the way everybody else does...with their own money and work.

    We have decades of experience with these handouts...they need to end.
    There is NO taxpayer money involved at all. The owners of the buildings limit who can live there based on income. My wife and I went there (condominiums) and the the places were great, clean and gated. Problem was your INCOME could not exceed $80,000 a year to live there, so we could live there even if we wanted to. When we got shown around, many of the people already living there we waving hands and smiling saying "hi" to us as they were thinking we may be moving in. So is this bad because it's PROVIDED by the owners of the properties? Again it's NOT a hand out but an opportunity.

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

    9285851.png


    You are misunderstanding. If you cannot love someplace because your uncimeincome is too high it there is some sort of subsidizing going on.
    No not confused. It's NOT subsidized. It's offered by the owner of the condominiums to help offer opportunity hard working families. There are some restrictions. No one can live there with a felony. A maximum of 4 to a home. Must never had any late payments for rent.
    I looked into this because I thought it was interesting and note worthy.

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

    9285851.png

    If it's significantly below market rent and has the restrictions described, it is subsidized by someone or some organization.

    Would think this a very rare circumstance to be done by the owner just out of the kindness of his/her heart, without some sort of government incentive going to the the owner. May happen but again, not very widespread. If it does it's great.

    According to this measurement California one of the least charitable states:
    https://wallethub.com/edu/most-and-least-charitable-states/8555/
  • lauracups
    lauracups Posts: 533 Member
    It does present a slippery slope as before mentioned. I do like the idea of incentives for reaching certain health markers though. For example coupons and discounts to health clubs, massages, groceries if you lower your bp or blood sugar levels or lose x amount of weight.
  • ninerbuff
    ninerbuff Posts: 48,971 Member
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    Azdak wrote: »
    Instead of wasting so much time and energy coveting our neighbor's goods, we should be working to make society work better for everyone.

    Then my neighbor needs to work, not stand around with a hand out expecting me to hand over what I've earned. I'm not asking them to fork over the fruit of their labor for free, but that's what they're calling me selfish as they demand entitlement to what I've earned.
    So your neighbor can somehow live next to you rent/mortgage free? How does that work unless you live in section 8 housing?

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

    9285851.png


    You clearly don't live in a large city. In many places, including New York...welfare people live in nice buildings right next door to people who actually pay their own rent. The welfare people, of course, don't pay rent. That is part of what is screwed up with this country. People think they deserve to be handed the same nice things as people who work hard for a living.
    Actually I live in a quite expensive area. However there are places in my area where people who don't have high incomes, can still live in the same area at a reduced cost based on their income. This gives their children a chance to go to schools in the area and do activities and possibly have opportunities that they may not have had living in places where their income only allowed them. Put kids and people in good environments and they usually take on the expectation and quality of that environment. And vice versa.
    And yes while there are people who do believe they are entitled, it's a small percentage compared to the majority of Americans who bust their *kitten* day to day.

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

    9285851.png


    I don't support policies like that. Handing people a lifestyle they can't afford on their own...and using taxpayer money to do it... is not the way to teach personal responsibility. Why should anybody go to work everyday and work hard if they can live in the same place on welfare? If they want to live in a better building, then they should do it the way everybody else does...with their own money and work.

    We have decades of experience with these handouts...they need to end.
    There is NO taxpayer money involved at all. The owners of the buildings limit who can live there based on income. My wife and I went there (condominiums) and the the places were great, clean and gated. Problem was your INCOME could not exceed $80,000 a year to live there, so we could live there even if we wanted to. When we got shown around, many of the people already living there we waving hands and smiling saying "hi" to us as they were thinking we may be moving in. So is this bad because it's PROVIDED by the owners of the properties? Again it's NOT a hand out but an opportunity.

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

    9285851.png


    You are misunderstanding. If you cannot love someplace because your uncimeincome is too high it there is some sort of subsidizing going on.
    No not confused. It's NOT subsidized. It's offered by the owner of the condominiums to help offer opportunity hard working families. There are some restrictions. No one can live there with a felony. A maximum of 4 to a home. Must never had any late payments for rent.
    I looked into this because I thought it was interesting and note worthy.

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

    9285851.png

    If it's significantly below market rent and has the restrictions described, it is subsidized by someone or some organization.

    Would think this a very rare circumstance to be done by the owner just out of the kindness of his/her heart, without some sort of government incentive going to the the owner. May happen but again, not very widespread. If it does it's great.

    According to this measurement California one of the least charitable states:
    https://wallethub.com/edu/most-and-least-charitable-states/8555/
    Would make sense that California isn't a CHARITABLE state. A lot of set ups here are designed to help the less fortunate already. Is it a perfect system? Nope. Are there people who take advantage of it who don't need to? Yep. And I attribute that more to the lack of enforcement rather than the program itself.

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

    9285851.png

  • tsortsor
    tsortsor Posts: 830 Member
    I'm fat I don't want to pay more
  • Packerjohn
    Packerjohn Posts: 4,855 Member
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    Azdak wrote: »
    Instead of wasting so much time and energy coveting our neighbor's goods, we should be working to make society work better for everyone.

    Then my neighbor needs to work, not stand around with a hand out expecting me to hand over what I've earned. I'm not asking them to fork over the fruit of their labor for free, but that's what they're calling me selfish as they demand entitlement to what I've earned.
    So your neighbor can somehow live next to you rent/mortgage free? How does that work unless you live in section 8 housing?

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

    9285851.png


    You clearly don't live in a large city. In many places, including New York...welfare people live in nice buildings right next door to people who actually pay their own rent. The welfare people, of course, don't pay rent. That is part of what is screwed up with this country. People think they deserve to be handed the same nice things as people who work hard for a living.
    Actually I live in a quite expensive area. However there are places in my area where people who don't have high incomes, can still live in the same area at a reduced cost based on their income. This gives their children a chance to go to schools in the area and do activities and possibly have opportunities that they may not have had living in places where their income only allowed them. Put kids and people in good environments and they usually take on the expectation and quality of that environment. And vice versa.
    And yes while there are people who do believe they are entitled, it's a small percentage compared to the majority of Americans who bust their *kitten* day to day.

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

    9285851.png


    I don't support policies like that. Handing people a lifestyle they can't afford on their own...and using taxpayer money to do it... is not the way to teach personal responsibility. Why should anybody go to work everyday and work hard if they can live in the same place on welfare? If they want to live in a better building, then they should do it the way everybody else does...with their own money and work.

    We have decades of experience with these handouts...they need to end.
    There is NO taxpayer money involved at all. The owners of the buildings limit who can live there based on income. My wife and I went there (condominiums) and the the places were great, clean and gated. Problem was your INCOME could not exceed $80,000 a year to live there, so we could live there even if we wanted to. When we got shown around, many of the people already living there we waving hands and smiling saying "hi" to us as they were thinking we may be moving in. So is this bad because it's PROVIDED by the owners of the properties? Again it's NOT a hand out but an opportunity.

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

    9285851.png


    You are misunderstanding. If you cannot love someplace because your uncimeincome is too high it there is some sort of subsidizing going on.
    No not confused. It's NOT subsidized. It's offered by the owner of the condominiums to help offer opportunity hard working families. There are some restrictions. No one can live there with a felony. A maximum of 4 to a home. Must never had any late payments for rent.
    I looked into this because I thought it was interesting and note worthy.

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

    9285851.png

    If it's significantly below market rent and has the restrictions described, it is subsidized by someone or some organization.

    Would think this a very rare circumstance to be done by the owner just out of the kindness of his/her heart, without some sort of government incentive going to the the owner. May happen but again, not very widespread. If it does it's great.

    According to this measurement California one of the least charitable states:
    https://wallethub.com/edu/most-and-least-charitable-states/8555/
    Would make sense that California isn't a CHARITABLE state. A lot of set ups here are designed to help the less fortunate already. Is it a perfect system? Nope. Are there people who take advantage of it who don't need to? Yep. And I attribute that more to the lack of enforcement rather than the program itself.

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

    9285851.png


    Yep must be local laws. I would think in most places not renting to someone based on their income too high would be housing discrimination unless the said housing was under some government program.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    Azdak wrote: »
    Instead of wasting so much time and energy coveting our neighbor's goods, we should be working to make society work better for everyone.

    Then my neighbor needs to work, not stand around with a hand out expecting me to hand over what I've earned. I'm not asking them to fork over the fruit of their labor for free, but that's what they're calling me selfish as they demand entitlement to what I've earned.
    So your neighbor can somehow live next to you rent/mortgage free? How does that work unless you live in section 8 housing?

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

    9285851.png


    You clearly don't live in a large city. In many places, including New York...welfare people live in nice buildings right next door to people who actually pay their own rent. The welfare people, of course, don't pay rent. That is part of what is screwed up with this country. People think they deserve to be handed the same nice things as people who work hard for a living.
    Actually I live in a quite expensive area. However there are places in my area where people who don't have high incomes, can still live in the same area at a reduced cost based on their income. This gives their children a chance to go to schools in the area and do activities and possibly have opportunities that they may not have had living in places where their income only allowed them. Put kids and people in good environments and they usually take on the expectation and quality of that environment. And vice versa.
    And yes while there are people who do believe they are entitled, it's a small percentage compared to the majority of Americans who bust their *kitten* day to day.

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

    9285851.png


    I don't support policies like that. Handing people a lifestyle they can't afford on their own...and using taxpayer money to do it... is not the way to teach personal responsibility. Why should anybody go to work everyday and work hard if they can live in the same place on welfare? If they want to live in a better building, then they should do it the way everybody else does...with their own money and work.

    We have decades of experience with these handouts...they need to end.
    There is NO taxpayer money involved at all. The owners of the buildings limit who can live there based on income. My wife and I went there (condominiums) and the the places were great, clean and gated. Problem was your INCOME could not exceed $80,000 a year to live there, so we could live there even if we wanted to. When we got shown around, many of the people already living there we waving hands and smiling saying "hi" to us as they were thinking we may be moving in. So is this bad because it's PROVIDED by the owners of the properties? Again it's NOT a hand out but an opportunity.

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

    9285851.png


    You are misunderstanding. If you cannot love someplace because your uncimeincome is too high it there is some sort of subsidizing going on.
    No not confused. It's NOT subsidized. It's offered by the owner of the condominiums to help offer opportunity hard working families. There are some restrictions. No one can live there with a felony. A maximum of 4 to a home. Must never had any late payments for rent.
    I looked into this because I thought it was interesting and note worthy.

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

    9285851.png

    If it's significantly below market rent and has the restrictions described, it is subsidized by someone or some organization.

    Would think this a very rare circumstance to be done by the owner just out of the kindness of his/her heart, without some sort of government incentive going to the the owner. May happen but again, not very widespread. If it does it's great.

    According to this measurement California one of the least charitable states:
    https://wallethub.com/edu/most-and-least-charitable-states/8555/
    Would make sense that California isn't a CHARITABLE state. A lot of set ups here are designed to help the less fortunate already. Is it a perfect system? Nope. Are there people who take advantage of it who don't need to? Yep. And I attribute that more to the lack of enforcement rather than the program itself.

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

    9285851.png


    Yep must be local laws. I would think in most places not renting to someone based on their income too high would be housing discrimination unless the said housing was under some government program.

    I think it's probably LIHTC too, but income is not a suspect category, you can discriminate based on it (unless it's a really a way to discriminate in some non-permitted way, instead).