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.
We are pleased to announce that as of March 4, 2025, an updated Rich Text Editor has been introduced in the MyFitnessPal Community. To learn more about the changes, please click here. We look forward to sharing this new feature with you!

What new or revised public policy/law would make it easier for people to maintain a healthy weight?

1111214161719

Replies

  • Posts: 6,252 Member
    edited April 2019
    ceiswyn wrote: »

    Except that people are already trying to avoid incurring costs - by avoiding getting healthcare in the hope that the problem will go away / wait until they can get to a physician that will cost them less.

    In other words, people trying to avoid incurring costs is actually the problem. You're not going to fix that by making it worse.

    I see this argument brought up when attempting to pitch for socialized structures, but there isn't much truth to this.

    By doing this you aren't addressing the root cause of unlimited demand and decreasing supply. In fact you are making the problem considerably worse.

    If you actually want to help the healthcare problem you can either address the demand problem by reducing the need for care...or increase the number of practitioners.
  • Posts: 2,256 Member
    I don't wish to bring back debtors prison.

    If hospitals can just pass along the costs of those who don't pay to others, what is their incentive to keep costs low?

    Don't allow them to pass those costs along to others.

    If they are really losing money, they will have far more incentive to find a way to lower costs than if they can just pass them along.

    Finally, nothing prevents those from believing something needs to be done to help those who cannot pay from opening their wallets and living out their values.

    It's easy to say "the rich" or "the government" or some other group should pay. That's not generosity. Spending other people's money is never generosity or caring.

    Generosity and caring is what you personally do with YOUR time, YOUR talent and YOUR treasure.

    So what happens to people who actually can't afford to pay?
  • Posts: 6,252 Member
    kimny72 wrote: »

    So are you saying the reason health care is so expensive in the US is a supply/demand issue? Honest question, I know my opinions in this area involve a lot of emotion, so I try to keep my yapper shut and soak up info :lol:

    Aren't the insurance companies a primary driver of the costs right now?

    I agree and find that emotional response usually ends up badly. There are several issues at play and what is needed is a balanced approach.

    The US system took on the worst points of both worlds. Heavily regulated on price (via insurance and government) and supply (regulations and education). The only thing keeping the system going is innovation, which is on the decline.

    Insurance is a primary driver because it has too much control over the process. To address this you simply remove the influence on the system. ...but change brings fear and few people have the stomach to change even if it means things will likely be better.

    Compare the cost of medical treatments outside of insurance coverage - eye correction and cosmetics/aesthetics medicine. These industries must evolve and adapt as they have no insurance or government safety net. The cost of goods is continually driven down via innovation and follows consumer price index. Medicine covered by insurance however exceeds this index by a monumental margin.
  • Posts: 16,011 Member
    CSARdiver wrote: »

    I agree and find that emotional response usually ends up badly. There are several issues at play and what is needed is a balanced approach.

    The US system took on the worst points of both worlds. Heavily regulated on price (via insurance and government) and supply (regulations and education). The only thing keeping the system going is innovation, which is on the decline.

    Insurance is a primary driver because it has too much control over the process. To address this you simply remove the influence on the system. ...but change brings fear and few people have the stomach to change even if it means things will likely be better.

    Compare the cost of medical treatments outside of insurance coverage - eye correction and cosmetics/aesthetics medicine. These industries must evolve and adapt as they have no insurance or government safety net. The cost of goods is continually driven down via innovation and follows consumer price index. Medicine covered by insurance however exceeds this index by a monumental margin.

    Thank you :smile: This gives me more to think about. I do think generally everyone would get a better outcome if at least for "basic" care, people were dealing directly with doctors. This becomes more confusing when you are talking about a hospital stay where several different doctors and specialists are "checking in" but I suppose it could be up to the hospital to coordinate that.


    Make the case to their family, neighbors, friends, community, church or other worship group they are affiliated with.

    If those closest to them see they've been spending what would have been an insurance premium on toys as I've described above, they may not be so willing to fund their bill.

    If their story is one that is truly one that is bad luck, such as they did have insurance until the plant closed, they were doing the right things, not being the grasshopper by living for today without regard to tomorrow, I can't imagine people would be so callous as to not help.

    Having observed how people generously respond to natural disasters it's hard for me to buy the idea that people are not compassionate towards those who are really in need.

    I'm not sure it's any more realistic to assume that most people have a pipeline of folks with money available to them, than it is to assume the government would do a good job with universal healthcare. And I don't see how a society where people are desperately putting on a show to try to go viral so they can pay for their cancer treatment is a great idea either.
  • Posts: 135 Member
    public policies regulating what food can be served in school cafeterias, and available in vending machines, plus a milk program can provide a good start out of the gate. I appreciate my school discouraging packing junk for the kiddos (I know some parents find this annoying but hey man if it gets my kid eating raw vegetables on purpose I am in).
  • Posts: 10,968 Member
    There's a law that says there must be a traffic jam on IT between Everett and Marysville at all times. And I pass through there on my way to a lot of hikes. Repealing that law would turn 2 hours of driving time into 2 more hours of hiking.
  • Posts: 8,934 Member
    CSARdiver wrote: »

    The substantially lower cost originates from subsidies provided by the US.

    We don't figure it out because there is no incentive for those in power to do so. They are making profit off of the existing system and will make more under single payer. All they have to do is promise to do something, do nothing, but hold the pretense of compassion. Verba non facta rules the day, but the same personalities and families remain in office.


    Anyone else finding the irony of a debate advocating for collective control of health on a site where success is solely achieved through personal responsibility and accountability?
    I'm unclear exactly what you mean by the bolded. Are you saying the U.S. is subsidizing the healthcare of the other top industrialized nations? And if so, please substantiate this claim.
  • Posts: 8,934 Member

    I have read too much history to be shocked by the contradiction. Too many believe they can be trusted to make the 'right' choice, but others cannot, so they better take charge and decide for them.

    All in the name of the greater good, of course.

    It's clear from your comment that you didn't read the article.
  • Posts: 6,252 Member
    mmapags wrote: »
    I'm unclear exactly what you mean by the bolded. Are you saying the U.S. is subsidizing the healthcare of the other top industrialized nations? And if so, please substantiate this claim.

    Governments other than the US set drug prices. The US does not. Through congressional action the US bargains with innovators in establishing price, so the ~2.6 B investment to bring a drug to market can be recomped, typically at a 5% industry margin.

This discussion has been closed.