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.
Paying the healthcare costs of obesity
Replies
-
Not directly, but you seem to be in favor of it, IMO.
That's an interesting interpretation of the statements I've made. I spent most of this thread stating that it's a moral imperative for a society to provide for the health care of the young, old and sick. I can't think of a time I defended the ACA. Do you feel that because someone is asking you to expand on your stance that they're automatically supporting the exact opposite of your stance?
ETA: I've reread my statements on this thread, and the closest statement I think I came to even remotely sounding in favor of the ACA was when I asked if you felt that people who work at Art Museums deserve health care less than you or I do.0 -
Wow, those are some personal questions! But, yes, yes, and yes. And, the enactment of ACA has not done anything that it was purportedly going to do (i.e. stop rising costs due to non-payers, be free to the unemployed or underemployed, encourage healthcare reforms, etc.) All it has done is force people who already couldn't afford coverage, and in some cases didn't really need coverage (I know, many many people disagree with that), to either buy coverage or pay a penalty. The primary entities really benefitting from all this is the insurance companies and the government sector.
The insurance companies are not benefiting for the most part. That is why United Healthcare is backing out of the exchanges. The internal rumblings are that more insurance companies will be following their lead.0 -
Now there are a couple of you who are pointedly taking everything I say and trying to twist it into something that isn't there. You know what you're doing. I didn't say anything about anybody being worthless or anybody NOT WORKING HARD or denigrate anyone pursuing a passion for art. I simply stated that I work hard (50 hours per week or more) for what I get and I should keep it.
You're in the "debate" threads of MFP. Debate. Defend your position. Counter ours with logical rebuttals.
I think my position is quite logical. However, yours seem to be built on twisting logical statements into vaguely perceived insults.
My stance comes from the belief that it is most ethical to take care of the young, elderly and sick in a society. That it is the moral imperative of the "haves" to recognize that some people didn't start as close to the finish line as they did.
I believe the same. Some do not believe that. I just happen to believe this should be a personal choice (who we take care of), and not happen by force. Local communities, specifically the charitably minded, are more likely to be able to see someone's need than some bureaucrat whose best interest is served by maintaining or growing the number of "needy" in order to grow or maintain his or her own job. The force is the part I disagree with.
ETA: bureaucratic systems of forced giving lead to abuse of said giving. It becomes "government money", and the abusers don't see or don't care that the government took that money from a family that worked hard for it.
I understand where you are coming from, although I don't agree. I think of course taxes are paid by people who worked hard for their money. I like some things the gov't spends money on and not plenty of other things, but that's the nature of the system. I happen to think a basic safety net is necessary for a civilized society--I know we've all seen situations where someone raises money from the community to pay for medical care or the like, but I don't think that's a great way to handle it, at all.
Anyway wondering if you can apply this concept--your basic philosophy on this -- to the thread topic and maybe get us back on track and to a profitable line of discussion.
Also wondering (I think this is on topic) how it applies to something like employer-based insurance where there's a pool, so of course some subsidize others. (I have spent very little in health care dollars over my life, so far. Paid in way more than I've gotten out. Not bothered by this, one bit, and don't resent co-workers who spend more, because a lot of this is I've been lucky, and another bit is you never know what might happen, especially as you age.)1 -
mommarnurse wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat, you and I will just agree to disagree.
Works for me. I feel constrained in what I can argue anyway, given that we aren't supposed to be political. You just used my post about my mom's cancer as a springboard for a claim that the old system was not broken and ACA is terrible, so I felt compelled to respond so it didn't appear I was nodding along. While I have issues with ACA myself (not as major as yours), I 100% disagree that the old system (which also existed because of the gov't, not the free market) was not broken, and the fact my mom had a job with good employer-based insurance (as do I) doesn't say anything about whether it is or not. No one, absolutely no one, makes the strawman argument that you were arguing against--that pre-ACA no one could afford cancer treatment.
There are many on this thread who suggest that (or other major illness, not just cancer treatment), and they were the one's I was disagreeing with. If you feel offended that I used your post about your mom's illness, I apologize for offending you. You said she survived, didn't know it was a sensitive subject. But my point was exactly opposite of what you just said. I proposed that people could afford treatment because they acted like adults and made adult decisions (including employment decisions), taking unplanned illness into account.
To be devils advocate (and also a voice of logic) everyone can't do that. I mean, even if everyone did do that, they can't because then there would be nothing to achieve up to because everyone would already be there. There's always going to be a need for those doing jobs in the "low wage" field & someone's gotta be at the top making the big choices and the profits. How's that going to work?
I propose that not everyone needs to live in the same size/quality of home, or drive a fancy car, or do the "fulfilling career". Why do we as a society feel the need to pay the ditch digger the same as the lawyer?
Do we? Not anyone I've ever met. And they don't get paid the same. (Not all lawyers get paid the same either.)0 -
There are those who view computers at the library as a luxury, and they will never vote for a millage for expanded technology at the library. There are those who view free access to the internet as a fundamental right and obligation of a free and just society.
Public health is typically considered as falling under the core of what a people require from their government, at the consent of the governed. The original question of who "pays for obesity" begs the question first whether "obesity" is a luxury we are free as a society to consider not necessary to treat, or whether "obesity" is a public health concern that affects all of us.
No one wants to pay for free loaders. No one wants to lose their own safety or security in order to provide for the "luxuries" of others.
My stance is obesity, like literacy, is a public concern when 35% of the population meet the current definition of "obese." How we choose to pay for it defines who we are as a nation and what we value.1 -
I don't think all jobs or careers should be paid the same. I do think everyone should have access to equal healthcare regardless whether they can pay for it. The reasons why they can't pay do not matter to me.4
-
60% of people working for minimum wage are adults with families. After putting in 40-60 hours per week, they still (without the ACA in the the U.S.) could not afford regular health care insurance.
This is a privileged, elitist viewpoint.
Repeat after me... "I got mine, Jack."
Privileged, elitist? Nope. This is the viewpoint of a person who made responsible choices and changed her circumstances. I was an adult with a minimum wage job. Since that was not the greatest way to support a family, I put off having one until I changed my circumstances. Once again, that is what responsible adults do. Those adults with families earning minimum wage are victims of their own choices.
Privileged, elitist?! You have got to be kidding me. You know what is privileged and elitist? Someone using the force of law to enact moral dictates on everyone else because they think their morals and opinions are better, more important or right than others. [/quote]
^ agreed!
However,
In an ideal world someone making little enough money to not be able to support their family free of government assistance simple would not have children until they were out of that situation. Unfortunately, that is not reality.4 -
Yes. Privileged and elitist. I wonder just how lucky you have to be to believe that the majority of people choose what kind of job they want.
There are not enough jobs with benefits for everyone and to expect everyone who works their butt off to never have a family (which is hilarious because they have less access to birth control along with the rest of healthcare) or get sick is ridiculous.
Also, allowing corporations to pay non-living wages is in essence giving the welfare to companies with record profits! I bet you believe that America is a capitalist society. It's not. All the rules of the free market are broken and until they force the corporations to pay the REAL cost of business (living wages so your employees can survive) and yes, make smaller profits because of it...America will not be a capitalist economy. And therefore, because your government has allowed businesses to behave that way somebody has to pick up the slack.
You know it's how the police and firefighters get paid too right? I hope your house never catches fire. Somebody else's taxes might cover them putting it out.
2 -
eveandqsmom wrote: »Yes. Privileged and elitist. I wonder just how lucky you have to be to believe that the majority of people choose what kind of job they want.
There are not enough jobs with benefits for everyone and to expect everyone who works their butt off to never have a family (which is hilarious because they have less access to birth control along with the rest of healthcare) or get sick is ridiculous.
Also, allowing corporations to pay non-living wages is in essence giving the welfare to companies with record profits! I bet you believe that America is a capitalist society. It's not. All the rules of the free market are broken and until they force the corporations to pay the REAL cost of business (living wages so your employees can survive) and yes, make smaller profits because of it...America will not be a capitalist economy. And therefore, because your government has allowed businesses to behave that way somebody has to pick up the slack.
You know it's how the police and firefighters get paid too right? I hope your house never catches fire. Somebody else's taxes might cover them putting it out.
The county next to mine has volunteer fire. As in, you voluntarily pay for it in your taxes. If you choose to not pay for fire coverage, the fire department still comes to your house to watch it burn down if it catches fire, they're just there to make sure it doesn't catch your neighbor's house on fire (who has paid for coverage). 'Murica!0 -
Wow, those are some personal questions! But, yes, yes, and yes. And, the enactment of ACA has not done anything that it was purportedly going to do (i.e. stop rising costs due to non-payers, be free to the unemployed or underemployed, encourage healthcare reforms, etc.) All it has done is force people who already couldn't afford coverage, and in some cases didn't really need coverage (I know, many many people disagree with that), to either buy coverage or pay a penalty. The primary entities really benefitting from all this is the insurance companies and the government sector.
Luckily, they were so determined to make the ACA penalty a "fine" and not a "tax" (even if the tax part is the only reason the SC let it stand), that they wrote all kinds of ways to dodge it into the law. There's one crucial word that lets me avoid it: affordable. It's given no qualifier, and since I refuse to go to the doctor for any reason, insurance will never be affordable to me, even if it's $1 per year.
ETA: the fact that most people seem to be ignorant of this doesn't exactly help the image of "poor people are stupid" either. If they really can't afford it, there are all kinds of ways around buying it.1 -
I've always thought that an HSA would be the right solution for the healthcare issue (to include obesity). Individuals would be required to save a portion of their pay (before taxes) for broadly defined healthcare expenses. They could use these funds at their discretion for things like normal health costs, lasik, weight loss surgery, Insurance premiums, almost anything health related. These funds could also be willed or donated.
As people begin working while young, they will likely build up a surplus. This could be coupled high deductible insurance at affordable rates. It could also cause deflation in the lower healthcare market as people will be more judicious with their funds.
I LOVE my HSA. I was able to see a weight loss doctor as long as I was officially diagnosed as overweight (for tax purposes - I could use it for anything but run the risk of a penalty if not used for medical reasons). I think it's the perfect solution. My coverage costs less so I bank the difference in my HSA account. AND I have a maximum OOP which means if I have some catastrophic healthcare event (cancer, MS, major accident, etc.) the most I will pay in a calendar year is $6K. That's still a lot but I'm rewarded for taking care of myself by not spending my cash on doctors I don't need but I can use it in network, out of network - I'm in control while limiting financial risk from major healthcare events. AND physicals, mammograms and other routine care is 100% covered.0 -
eveandqsmom wrote: »Yes. Privileged and elitist. I wonder just how lucky you have to be to believe that the majority of people choose what kind of job they want.
There are not enough jobs with benefits for everyone and to expect everyone who works their butt off to never have a family (which is hilarious because they have less access to birth control along with the rest of healthcare) or get sick is ridiculous.
Also, allowing corporations to pay non-living wages is in essence giving the welfare to companies with record profits! I bet you believe that America is a capitalist society. It's not. All the rules of the free market are broken and until they force the corporations to pay the REAL cost of business (living wages so your employees can survive) and yes, make smaller profits because of it...America will not be a capitalist economy. And therefore, because your government has allowed businesses to behave that way somebody has to pick up the slack.
You know it's how the police and firefighters get paid too right? I hope your house never catches fire. Somebody else's taxes might cover them putting it out.
You are reading an awful lot into what I said, that I did not say. Things that are both insulting and inaccurate. How did you come to the conclusion that I advocated poor people should NEVER have a family? And, how did you come to the conclusion that I don't pay taxes, or that I somehow pay insufficient taxes so that someone else's taxes will be needed to cover the police and fire departments should I ever use their services? I assure you I pay plenty of taxes. And, I stand by what I said. Much of what job people get is based on their own personal choices. I really can't fathom how you can't see that. Oh wait, yes I can. I bet you are part of the instant gratification generation. So, let me explain. I didn't just decide to change from my minimum wage fast food job and do it the next day. It took time. First, I sought out a harder type of job that required some training, though still minimum wage. See, the "good" jobs often don't hire people whose only experience is food service because it doesn't demonstrate stability, trainability, etc. But, many who work there won't take another job that is more demanding for the same pay. That would be their CHOICE, you know, one of those personal life choices I mentioned before. Anyway, I worked at that next job for a few of years to demonstrate my stability and work ethic. Then I was able to get a "good" job with benefits. In fact, that job had health benefits AND a tuition reimbursement program. After a couple of years there, I decided I wanted to do even better, so I went to college. At first I was part-time while working full time. It took several years, but I did it. In fact, those last couple of years, I was working full time and taking a full time course load, while taking care of my spouse, a toddler, and an infant. So, yeah, I guess you're right, I must have just been lucky. **rolling my eyes**
And doing things by FORCE is exactly why corporations are so corrupt. Once again you insult me by suggesting that I think the U.S. is capitalist. One of us isn't very smart here, and I can tell you think it's me. Lobbyists, bought and paid for politicians, too big to fail bail-outs, etc. all contributed to special exemptions for corporations that allow them to do what they do and forces the working class people to take up the slack. How much more slack do you think the shrinking middle class can take up before they join the ranks of those dependent on the ever-growing government? As I said in a much earlier comment, how long before everybody gets in the wagon, and there is nobody left to pull it?3 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »mommarnurse wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat, you and I will just agree to disagree.
Works for me. I feel constrained in what I can argue anyway, given that we aren't supposed to be political. You just used my post about my mom's cancer as a springboard for a claim that the old system was not broken and ACA is terrible, so I felt compelled to respond so it didn't appear I was nodding along. While I have issues with ACA myself (not as major as yours), I 100% disagree that the old system (which also existed because of the gov't, not the free market) was not broken, and the fact my mom had a job with good employer-based insurance (as do I) doesn't say anything about whether it is or not. No one, absolutely no one, makes the strawman argument that you were arguing against--that pre-ACA no one could afford cancer treatment.
There are many on this thread who suggest that (or other major illness, not just cancer treatment), and they were the one's I was disagreeing with. If you feel offended that I used your post about your mom's illness, I apologize for offending you. You said she survived, didn't know it was a sensitive subject. But my point was exactly opposite of what you just said. I proposed that people could afford treatment because they acted like adults and made adult decisions (including employment decisions), taking unplanned illness into account.
To be devils advocate (and also a voice of logic) everyone can't do that. I mean, even if everyone did do that, they can't because then there would be nothing to achieve up to because everyone would already be there. There's always going to be a need for those doing jobs in the "low wage" field & someone's gotta be at the top making the big choices and the profits. How's that going to work?
I propose that not everyone needs to live in the same size/quality of home, or drive a fancy car, or do the "fulfilling career". Why do we as a society feel the need to pay the ditch digger the same as the lawyer?
Do we? Not anyone I've ever met. And they don't get paid the same. (Not all lawyers get paid the same either.)
That is where all this forced charity for the sake of "fairness" leads. That's all I was getting at.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »mommarnurse wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat, you and I will just agree to disagree.
Works for me. I feel constrained in what I can argue anyway, given that we aren't supposed to be political. You just used my post about my mom's cancer as a springboard for a claim that the old system was not broken and ACA is terrible, so I felt compelled to respond so it didn't appear I was nodding along. While I have issues with ACA myself (not as major as yours), I 100% disagree that the old system (which also existed because of the gov't, not the free market) was not broken, and the fact my mom had a job with good employer-based insurance (as do I) doesn't say anything about whether it is or not. No one, absolutely no one, makes the strawman argument that you were arguing against--that pre-ACA no one could afford cancer treatment.
There are many on this thread who suggest that (or other major illness, not just cancer treatment), and they were the one's I was disagreeing with. If you feel offended that I used your post about your mom's illness, I apologize for offending you. You said she survived, didn't know it was a sensitive subject. But my point was exactly opposite of what you just said. I proposed that people could afford treatment because they acted like adults and made adult decisions (including employment decisions), taking unplanned illness into account.
To be devils advocate (and also a voice of logic) everyone can't do that. I mean, even if everyone did do that, they can't because then there would be nothing to achieve up to because everyone would already be there. There's always going to be a need for those doing jobs in the "low wage" field & someone's gotta be at the top making the big choices and the profits. How's that going to work?
I propose that not everyone needs to live in the same size/quality of home, or drive a fancy car, or do the "fulfilling career". Why do we as a society feel the need to pay the ditch digger the same as the lawyer?
Do we? Not anyone I've ever met. And they don't get paid the same. (Not all lawyers get paid the same either.)
That is where all this forced charity for the sake of "fairness" leads. That's all I was getting at.
So your argument is the "thin edge of the wedge" argument? As in, first we'll have to pay for everyone's health care because "that's fair." Next we'll have to pay dog walkers $30k/year with holiday pay, because "that's fair." Next we'll have to pay for everyone to have a McMansion because "that's fair."?1 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »mommarnurse wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat, you and I will just agree to disagree.
Works for me. I feel constrained in what I can argue anyway, given that we aren't supposed to be political. You just used my post about my mom's cancer as a springboard for a claim that the old system was not broken and ACA is terrible, so I felt compelled to respond so it didn't appear I was nodding along. While I have issues with ACA myself (not as major as yours), I 100% disagree that the old system (which also existed because of the gov't, not the free market) was not broken, and the fact my mom had a job with good employer-based insurance (as do I) doesn't say anything about whether it is or not. No one, absolutely no one, makes the strawman argument that you were arguing against--that pre-ACA no one could afford cancer treatment.
There are many on this thread who suggest that (or other major illness, not just cancer treatment), and they were the one's I was disagreeing with. If you feel offended that I used your post about your mom's illness, I apologize for offending you. You said she survived, didn't know it was a sensitive subject. But my point was exactly opposite of what you just said. I proposed that people could afford treatment because they acted like adults and made adult decisions (including employment decisions), taking unplanned illness into account.
To be devils advocate (and also a voice of logic) everyone can't do that. I mean, even if everyone did do that, they can't because then there would be nothing to achieve up to because everyone would already be there. There's always going to be a need for those doing jobs in the "low wage" field & someone's gotta be at the top making the big choices and the profits. How's that going to work?
I propose that not everyone needs to live in the same size/quality of home, or drive a fancy car, or do the "fulfilling career". Why do we as a society feel the need to pay the ditch digger the same as the lawyer?
Do we? Not anyone I've ever met. And they don't get paid the same. (Not all lawyers get paid the same either.)
That is where all this forced charity for the sake of "fairness" leads. That's all I was getting at.
So your argument is the "thin edge of the wedge" argument? As in, first we'll have to pay for everyone's health care because "that's fair." Next we'll have to pay dog walkers $30k/year with holiday pay, because "that's fair." Next we'll have to pay for everyone to have a McMansion because "that's fair."?
Nope, you definitely left out some steps, and I promise you, nobody ends up with a McMansion. Look up the crisis in Venezuela and see how that all started and progressed, and what is happening now because of the "fairness" doctrine.2 -
eveandqsmom wrote: »Yes. Privileged and elitist. I wonder just how lucky you have to be to believe that the majority of people choose what kind of job they want.
There are not enough jobs with benefits for everyone and to expect everyone who works their butt off to never have a family (which is hilarious because they have less access to birth control along with the rest of healthcare) or get sick is ridiculous.
Also, allowing corporations to pay non-living wages is in essence giving the welfare to companies with record profits! I bet you believe that America is a capitalist society. It's not. All the rules of the free market are broken and until they force the corporations to pay the REAL cost of business (living wages so your employees can survive) and yes, make smaller profits because of it...America will not be a capitalist economy. And therefore, because your government has allowed businesses to behave that way somebody has to pick up the slack.
You know it's how the police and firefighters get paid too right? I hope your house never catches fire. Somebody else's taxes might cover them putting it out.
You are reading an awful lot into what I said, that I did not say. Things that are both insulting and inaccurate. How did you come to the conclusion that I advocated poor people should NEVER have a family? And, how did you come to the conclusion that I don't pay taxes, or that I somehow pay insufficient taxes so that someone else's taxes will be needed to cover the police and fire departments should I ever use their services? I assure you I pay plenty of taxes. And, I stand by what I said. Much of what job people get is based on their own personal choices. I really can't fathom how you can't see that. Oh wait, yes I can. I bet you are part of the instant gratification generation. So, let me explain. I didn't just decide to change from my minimum wage fast food job and do it the next day. It took time. First, I sought out a harder type of job that required some training, though still minimum wage. See, the "good" jobs often don't hire people whose only experience is food service because it doesn't demonstrate stability, trainability, etc. But, many who work there won't take another job that is more demanding for the same pay. That would be their CHOICE, you know, one of those personal life choices I mentioned before. Anyway, I worked at that next job for a few of years to demonstrate my stability and work ethic. Then I was able to get a "good" job with benefits. In fact, that job had health benefits AND a tuition reimbursement program. After a couple of years there, I decided I wanted to do even better, so I went to college. At first I was part-time while working full time. It took several years, but I did it. In fact, those last couple of years, I was working full time and taking a full time course load, while taking care of my spouse, a toddler, and an infant. So, yeah, I guess you're right, I must have just been lucky. **rolling my eyes**
And doing things by FORCE is exactly why corporations are so corrupt. Once again you insult me by suggesting that I think the U.S. is capitalist. One of us isn't very smart here, and I can tell you think it's me. Lobbyists, bought and paid for politicians, too big to fail bail-outs, etc. all contributed to special exemptions for corporations that allow them to do what they do and forces the working class people to take up the slack. How much more slack do you think the shrinking middle class can take up before they join the ranks of those dependent on the ever-growing government? As I said in a much earlier comment, how long before everybody gets in the wagon, and there is nobody left to pull it?
First, the specific quote about poor people having children came from mommanurse who said that responsible people should wait to have children until they have a job with benefits like she did. Since not everybody CAN have an "appropriate"job, the reasonable outcome would be to not have children.
Second, your taxes are nowhere close to being enough to keep a fire brigade on duty 24 hours a day...that, my friend, takes a village
Third, No. You must be white and middle class to believe that people choose their type of jobs because that's abhorrently untrue.
Fourth "One of us isn't very smart here, and I can tell you think it's me"... I never said any of us were not smart, I was simply disagreeing with you (i can do that on a debate board without thinking you're stupid but thank you for implying quite clearly that I am).
1 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »mommarnurse wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat, you and I will just agree to disagree.
Works for me. I feel constrained in what I can argue anyway, given that we aren't supposed to be political. You just used my post about my mom's cancer as a springboard for a claim that the old system was not broken and ACA is terrible, so I felt compelled to respond so it didn't appear I was nodding along. While I have issues with ACA myself (not as major as yours), I 100% disagree that the old system (which also existed because of the gov't, not the free market) was not broken, and the fact my mom had a job with good employer-based insurance (as do I) doesn't say anything about whether it is or not. No one, absolutely no one, makes the strawman argument that you were arguing against--that pre-ACA no one could afford cancer treatment.
There are many on this thread who suggest that (or other major illness, not just cancer treatment), and they were the one's I was disagreeing with. If you feel offended that I used your post about your mom's illness, I apologize for offending you. You said she survived, didn't know it was a sensitive subject. But my point was exactly opposite of what you just said. I proposed that people could afford treatment because they acted like adults and made adult decisions (including employment decisions), taking unplanned illness into account.
To be devils advocate (and also a voice of logic) everyone can't do that. I mean, even if everyone did do that, they can't because then there would be nothing to achieve up to because everyone would already be there. There's always going to be a need for those doing jobs in the "low wage" field & someone's gotta be at the top making the big choices and the profits. How's that going to work?
I propose that not everyone needs to live in the same size/quality of home, or drive a fancy car, or do the "fulfilling career". Why do we as a society feel the need to pay the ditch digger the same as the lawyer?
Do we? Not anyone I've ever met. And they don't get paid the same. (Not all lawyers get paid the same either.)
That is where all this forced charity for the sake of "fairness" leads. That's all I was getting at.
So your argument is the "thin edge of the wedge" argument? As in, first we'll have to pay for everyone's health care because "that's fair." Next we'll have to pay dog walkers $30k/year with holiday pay, because "that's fair." Next we'll have to pay for everyone to have a McMansion because "that's fair."?
Nope, you definitely left out some steps, and I promise you, nobody ends up with a McMansion. Look up the crisis in Venezuela and see how that all started and progressed, and what is happening now because of the "fairness" doctrine.
I asked if your argument was the "thin edge" argument because you said all workers getting paid the same is where forced charity and "fairness" leads to. So I was trying to find out more, as in what "forced charity" for health care leads to, in your opinion.0 -
Just wondering if you pay in to social security. Pretty sure that money is going to people who are on SS right now and not being saved for you or anyone else like it's supposed to be.
Just FYI - that's not how Social Security is or ever was "supposed to be." The way it works right now is and always has been how it's "supposed to be": The younger workers pay for the elderly.
(Also, I work in higher ed in Nevada, so I don't pay Social Security. I have one of those "private accounts" that George W. was all gung ho over. It's actually pretty awesome, but offers zero safety net in the event of an economic catastrophe (so people who retired near the last crash got seriously screwed).)
0 -
eveandqsmom wrote: »Yes. Privileged and elitist. I wonder just how lucky you have to be to believe that the majority of people choose what kind of job they want.
There are not enough jobs with benefits for everyone and to expect everyone who works their butt off to never have a family (which is hilarious because they have less access to birth control along with the rest of healthcare) or get sick is ridiculous.
Also, allowing corporations to pay non-living wages is in essence giving the welfare to companies with record profits! I bet you believe that America is a capitalist society. It's not. All the rules of the free market are broken and until they force the corporations to pay the REAL cost of business (living wages so your employees can survive) and yes, make smaller profits because of it...America will not be a capitalist economy. And therefore, because your government has allowed businesses to behave that way somebody has to pick up the slack.
You know it's how the police and firefighters get paid too right? I hope your house never catches fire. Somebody else's taxes might cover them putting it out.
You are reading an awful lot into what I said, that I did not say. Things that are both insulting and inaccurate. How did you come to the conclusion that I advocated poor people should NEVER have a family? And, how did you come to the conclusion that I don't pay taxes, or that I somehow pay insufficient taxes so that someone else's taxes will be needed to cover the police and fire departments should I ever use their services? I assure you I pay plenty of taxes. And, I stand by what I said. Much of what job people get is based on their own personal choices. I really can't fathom how you can't see that. Oh wait, yes I can. I bet you are part of the instant gratification generation. So, let me explain. I didn't just decide to change from my minimum wage fast food job and do it the next day. It took time. First, I sought out a harder type of job that required some training, though still minimum wage. See, the "good" jobs often don't hire people whose only experience is food service because it doesn't demonstrate stability, trainability, etc. But, many who work there won't take another job that is more demanding for the same pay. That would be their CHOICE, you know, one of those personal life choices I mentioned before. Anyway, I worked at that next job for a few of years to demonstrate my stability and work ethic. Then I was able to get a "good" job with benefits. In fact, that job had health benefits AND a tuition reimbursement program. After a couple of years there, I decided I wanted to do even better, so I went to college. At first I was part-time while working full time. It took several years, but I did it. In fact, those last couple of years, I was working full time and taking a full time course load, while taking care of my spouse, a toddler, and an infant. So, yeah, I guess you're right, I must have just been lucky. **rolling my eyes**
And doing things by FORCE is exactly why corporations are so corrupt. Once again you insult me by suggesting that I think the U.S. is capitalist. One of us isn't very smart here, and I can tell you think it's me. Lobbyists, bought and paid for politicians, too big to fail bail-outs, etc. all contributed to special exemptions for corporations that allow them to do what they do and forces the working class people to take up the slack. How much more slack do you think the shrinking middle class can take up before they join the ranks of those dependent on the ever-growing government? As I said in a much earlier comment, how long before everybody gets in the wagon, and there is nobody left to pull it?
Kudos to you. My last two years of college were absolutely terrible because of the bolded, the worst being the days where I left by 6am for work and didn't get home until midnight. On those days I didn't get to see my wife and newborn at all.2 -
eveandqsmom wrote: »eveandqsmom wrote: »Yes. Privileged and elitist. I wonder just how lucky you have to be to believe that the majority of people choose what kind of job they want.
There are not enough jobs with benefits for everyone and to expect everyone who works their butt off to never have a family (which is hilarious because they have less access to birth control along with the rest of healthcare) or get sick is ridiculous.
Also, allowing corporations to pay non-living wages is in essence giving the welfare to companies with record profits! I bet you believe that America is a capitalist society. It's not. All the rules of the free market are broken and until they force the corporations to pay the REAL cost of business (living wages so your employees can survive) and yes, make smaller profits because of it...America will not be a capitalist economy. And therefore, because your government has allowed businesses to behave that way somebody has to pick up the slack.
You know it's how the police and firefighters get paid too right? I hope your house never catches fire. Somebody else's taxes might cover them putting it out.
You are reading an awful lot into what I said, that I did not say. Things that are both insulting and inaccurate. How did you come to the conclusion that I advocated poor people should NEVER have a family? And, how did you come to the conclusion that I don't pay taxes, or that I somehow pay insufficient taxes so that someone else's taxes will be needed to cover the police and fire departments should I ever use their services? I assure you I pay plenty of taxes. And, I stand by what I said. Much of what job people get is based on their own personal choices. I really can't fathom how you can't see that. Oh wait, yes I can. I bet you are part of the instant gratification generation. So, let me explain. I didn't just decide to change from my minimum wage fast food job and do it the next day. It took time. First, I sought out a harder type of job that required some training, though still minimum wage. See, the "good" jobs often don't hire people whose only experience is food service because it doesn't demonstrate stability, trainability, etc. But, many who work there won't take another job that is more demanding for the same pay. That would be their CHOICE, you know, one of those personal life choices I mentioned before. Anyway, I worked at that next job for a few of years to demonstrate my stability and work ethic. Then I was able to get a "good" job with benefits. In fact, that job had health benefits AND a tuition reimbursement program. After a couple of years there, I decided I wanted to do even better, so I went to college. At first I was part-time while working full time. It took several years, but I did it. In fact, those last couple of years, I was working full time and taking a full time course load, while taking care of my spouse, a toddler, and an infant. So, yeah, I guess you're right, I must have just been lucky. **rolling my eyes**
And doing things by FORCE is exactly why corporations are so corrupt. Once again you insult me by suggesting that I think the U.S. is capitalist. One of us isn't very smart here, and I can tell you think it's me. Lobbyists, bought and paid for politicians, too big to fail bail-outs, etc. all contributed to special exemptions for corporations that allow them to do what they do and forces the working class people to take up the slack. How much more slack do you think the shrinking middle class can take up before they join the ranks of those dependent on the ever-growing government? As I said in a much earlier comment, how long before everybody gets in the wagon, and there is nobody left to pull it?
First, the specific quote about poor people having children came from mommanurse who said that responsible people should wait to have children until they have a job with benefits like she did. Since not everybody CAN have an "appropriate"job, the reasonable outcome would be to not have children.
Second, your taxes are nowhere close to being enough to keep a fire brigade on duty 24 hours a day...that, my friend, takes a village
Third, No. You must be white and middle class to believe that people choose their type of jobs because that's abhorrently untrue.
Fourth "One of us isn't very smart here, and I can tell you think it's me"... I never said any of us were not smart, I was simply disagreeing with you (i can do that on a debate board without thinking you're stupid but thank you for implying quite clearly that I am).
Yes you quite clearly did, and you're welcome.
And yes, I am fully aware that my taxes are only a portion of the total. And, I pay MORE THAN ENOUGH, to cover my own use of those services. And, I also don't know why you want to make it about race. There were an equal number of people of other colors at all of my jobs. And, if I'm middle class, it's only because I worked my *kitten* off to get there, and only lower middle class at that. But, go ahead and tell me again how I just got lucky. You have no idea what I have been through. I have shared here some of my successes. There are some bits of my personal life, the failures and follies, that I will not air on this site. I am so sick of the "I can't" or "They can't" mentality. Most of the ones claiming they "can't" just WON'T. Suffice it to say I saw and still see this first hand on a regular basis, and I'm still living *kitten* proof that it *kitten* well can be done.1 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »mommarnurse wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat, you and I will just agree to disagree.
Works for me. I feel constrained in what I can argue anyway, given that we aren't supposed to be political. You just used my post about my mom's cancer as a springboard for a claim that the old system was not broken and ACA is terrible, so I felt compelled to respond so it didn't appear I was nodding along. While I have issues with ACA myself (not as major as yours), I 100% disagree that the old system (which also existed because of the gov't, not the free market) was not broken, and the fact my mom had a job with good employer-based insurance (as do I) doesn't say anything about whether it is or not. No one, absolutely no one, makes the strawman argument that you were arguing against--that pre-ACA no one could afford cancer treatment.
There are many on this thread who suggest that (or other major illness, not just cancer treatment), and they were the one's I was disagreeing with. If you feel offended that I used your post about your mom's illness, I apologize for offending you. You said she survived, didn't know it was a sensitive subject. But my point was exactly opposite of what you just said. I proposed that people could afford treatment because they acted like adults and made adult decisions (including employment decisions), taking unplanned illness into account.
To be devils advocate (and also a voice of logic) everyone can't do that. I mean, even if everyone did do that, they can't because then there would be nothing to achieve up to because everyone would already be there. There's always going to be a need for those doing jobs in the "low wage" field & someone's gotta be at the top making the big choices and the profits. How's that going to work?
I propose that not everyone needs to live in the same size/quality of home, or drive a fancy car, or do the "fulfilling career". Why do we as a society feel the need to pay the ditch digger the same as the lawyer?
Do we? Not anyone I've ever met. And they don't get paid the same. (Not all lawyers get paid the same either.)
That is where all this forced charity for the sake of "fairness" leads. That's all I was getting at.
So your argument is the "thin edge of the wedge" argument? As in, first we'll have to pay for everyone's health care because "that's fair." Next we'll have to pay dog walkers $30k/year with holiday pay, because "that's fair." Next we'll have to pay for everyone to have a McMansion because "that's fair."?
Nope, you definitely left out some steps, and I promise you, nobody ends up with a McMansion. Look up the crisis in Venezuela and see how that all started and progressed, and what is happening now because of the "fairness" doctrine.
I asked if your argument was the "thin edge" argument because you said all workers getting paid the same is where forced charity and "fairness" leads to. So I was trying to find out more, as in what "forced charity" for health care leads to, in your opinion.
Venezuela. That's where it leads to.1 -
Well...I come here to discuss different ideas, not to be called stupid. You are plain wrong and I think the 'I got mine, screw you' mentality is disgusting. Have a nice life.0
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »mommarnurse wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat, you and I will just agree to disagree.
Works for me. I feel constrained in what I can argue anyway, given that we aren't supposed to be political. You just used my post about my mom's cancer as a springboard for a claim that the old system was not broken and ACA is terrible, so I felt compelled to respond so it didn't appear I was nodding along. While I have issues with ACA myself (not as major as yours), I 100% disagree that the old system (which also existed because of the gov't, not the free market) was not broken, and the fact my mom had a job with good employer-based insurance (as do I) doesn't say anything about whether it is or not. No one, absolutely no one, makes the strawman argument that you were arguing against--that pre-ACA no one could afford cancer treatment.
There are many on this thread who suggest that (or other major illness, not just cancer treatment), and they were the one's I was disagreeing with. If you feel offended that I used your post about your mom's illness, I apologize for offending you. You said she survived, didn't know it was a sensitive subject. But my point was exactly opposite of what you just said. I proposed that people could afford treatment because they acted like adults and made adult decisions (including employment decisions), taking unplanned illness into account.
To be devils advocate (and also a voice of logic) everyone can't do that. I mean, even if everyone did do that, they can't because then there would be nothing to achieve up to because everyone would already be there. There's always going to be a need for those doing jobs in the "low wage" field & someone's gotta be at the top making the big choices and the profits. How's that going to work?
I propose that not everyone needs to live in the same size/quality of home, or drive a fancy car, or do the "fulfilling career". Why do we as a society feel the need to pay the ditch digger the same as the lawyer?
Do we? Not anyone I've ever met. And they don't get paid the same. (Not all lawyers get paid the same either.)
That is where all this forced charity for the sake of "fairness" leads. That's all I was getting at.
So your argument is the "thin edge of the wedge" argument? As in, first we'll have to pay for everyone's health care because "that's fair." Next we'll have to pay dog walkers $30k/year with holiday pay, because "that's fair." Next we'll have to pay for everyone to have a McMansion because "that's fair."?
Nope, you definitely left out some steps, and I promise you, nobody ends up with a McMansion. Look up the crisis in Venezuela and see how that all started and progressed, and what is happening now because of the "fairness" doctrine.
I asked if your argument was the "thin edge" argument because you said all workers getting paid the same is where forced charity and "fairness" leads to. So I was trying to find out more, as in what "forced charity" for health care leads to, in your opinion.
Venezuela. That's where it leads to.
I simply don't see the connection between the ACA, obesity and Venezuela. Are you able to elaborate? Are Australia and Germany on a path to Venezuela?
Let me make sure I say this, so you don't overreact. I'm in NO WAY saying you're dumb or haven't worked hard for your money. I'm only asking you to explain how paying for public health leads to Venezuela, in your opinion. I may not be the smartest person in the room, so please explain it to me, if you have a moment to summarize.0 -
eveandqsmom wrote: »Well...I come here to discuss different ideas, not to be called stupid. You are plain wrong and I think the 'I got mine, screw you' mentality is disgusting. Have a nice life.
Wrong, my mentality is "I worked for mine. I might help you if I think you really need it. And, then it's time for you to work for yours." That's my mentality. Now you have a nice life forcing others to do your charitable bidding because you think you've got the moral high ground.5 -
eveandqsmom wrote: »Well...I come here to discuss different ideas, not to be called stupid. You are plain wrong and I think the 'I got mine, screw you' mentality is disgusting. Have a nice life.
Wrong, my mentality is "I worked for mine. I might help you if I think you really need it. And, then it's time for you to work for yours." That's my mentality. Now you have a nice life forcing others to do your charitable bidding because you think you've got the moral high ground.
I live in Canada, so I will enjoy it, thank you 5 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »mommarnurse wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat, you and I will just agree to disagree.
Works for me. I feel constrained in what I can argue anyway, given that we aren't supposed to be political. You just used my post about my mom's cancer as a springboard for a claim that the old system was not broken and ACA is terrible, so I felt compelled to respond so it didn't appear I was nodding along. While I have issues with ACA myself (not as major as yours), I 100% disagree that the old system (which also existed because of the gov't, not the free market) was not broken, and the fact my mom had a job with good employer-based insurance (as do I) doesn't say anything about whether it is or not. No one, absolutely no one, makes the strawman argument that you were arguing against--that pre-ACA no one could afford cancer treatment.
There are many on this thread who suggest that (or other major illness, not just cancer treatment), and they were the one's I was disagreeing with. If you feel offended that I used your post about your mom's illness, I apologize for offending you. You said she survived, didn't know it was a sensitive subject. But my point was exactly opposite of what you just said. I proposed that people could afford treatment because they acted like adults and made adult decisions (including employment decisions), taking unplanned illness into account.
To be devils advocate (and also a voice of logic) everyone can't do that. I mean, even if everyone did do that, they can't because then there would be nothing to achieve up to because everyone would already be there. There's always going to be a need for those doing jobs in the "low wage" field & someone's gotta be at the top making the big choices and the profits. How's that going to work?
I propose that not everyone needs to live in the same size/quality of home, or drive a fancy car, or do the "fulfilling career". Why do we as a society feel the need to pay the ditch digger the same as the lawyer?
Do we? Not anyone I've ever met. And they don't get paid the same. (Not all lawyers get paid the same either.)
That is where all this forced charity for the sake of "fairness" leads. That's all I was getting at.
So your argument is the "thin edge of the wedge" argument? As in, first we'll have to pay for everyone's health care because "that's fair." Next we'll have to pay dog walkers $30k/year with holiday pay, because "that's fair." Next we'll have to pay for everyone to have a McMansion because "that's fair."?
Nope, you definitely left out some steps, and I promise you, nobody ends up with a McMansion. Look up the crisis in Venezuela and see how that all started and progressed, and what is happening now because of the "fairness" doctrine.
I asked if your argument was the "thin edge" argument because you said all workers getting paid the same is where forced charity and "fairness" leads to. So I was trying to find out more, as in what "forced charity" for health care leads to, in your opinion.
Venezuela. That's where it leads to.
I simply don't see the connection between the ACA, obesity and Venezuela. Are you able to elaborate? Are Australia and Germany on a path to Venezuela?
Let me make sure I say this, so you don't overreact. I'm in NO WAY saying you're dumb or haven't worked hard for your money. I'm only asking you to explain how paying for public health leads to Venezuela, in your opinion. I may not be the smartest person in the room, so please explain it to me, if you have a moment to summarize.
I'm done discussing this with you as well. I realize this post started about obesity. But it has devolved or evolved, depending on your perspective, into something else. Venezuela has nothing to do with obesity. Absolutely nothing. Have a nice day.0 -
eveandqsmom wrote: »eveandqsmom wrote: »Well...I come here to discuss different ideas, not to be called stupid. You are plain wrong and I think the 'I got mine, screw you' mentality is disgusting. Have a nice life.
Wrong, my mentality is "I worked for mine. I might help you if I think you really need it. And, then it's time for you to work for yours." That's my mentality. Now you have a nice life forcing others to do your charitable bidding because you think you've got the moral high ground.
I live in Canada, so I will enjoy it, thank you
Once again, since you apparently think I'm stupid, I was well aware that you did not live in the U.S. vis a vis your comment about "your government". Now *kitten off.
-3 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »mommarnurse wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat, you and I will just agree to disagree.
Works for me. I feel constrained in what I can argue anyway, given that we aren't supposed to be political. You just used my post about my mom's cancer as a springboard for a claim that the old system was not broken and ACA is terrible, so I felt compelled to respond so it didn't appear I was nodding along. While I have issues with ACA myself (not as major as yours), I 100% disagree that the old system (which also existed because of the gov't, not the free market) was not broken, and the fact my mom had a job with good employer-based insurance (as do I) doesn't say anything about whether it is or not. No one, absolutely no one, makes the strawman argument that you were arguing against--that pre-ACA no one could afford cancer treatment.
There are many on this thread who suggest that (or other major illness, not just cancer treatment), and they were the one's I was disagreeing with. If you feel offended that I used your post about your mom's illness, I apologize for offending you. You said she survived, didn't know it was a sensitive subject. But my point was exactly opposite of what you just said. I proposed that people could afford treatment because they acted like adults and made adult decisions (including employment decisions), taking unplanned illness into account.
To be devils advocate (and also a voice of logic) everyone can't do that. I mean, even if everyone did do that, they can't because then there would be nothing to achieve up to because everyone would already be there. There's always going to be a need for those doing jobs in the "low wage" field & someone's gotta be at the top making the big choices and the profits. How's that going to work?
I propose that not everyone needs to live in the same size/quality of home, or drive a fancy car, or do the "fulfilling career". Why do we as a society feel the need to pay the ditch digger the same as the lawyer?
Do we? Not anyone I've ever met. And they don't get paid the same. (Not all lawyers get paid the same either.)
That is where all this forced charity for the sake of "fairness" leads. That's all I was getting at.
So your argument is the "thin edge of the wedge" argument? As in, first we'll have to pay for everyone's health care because "that's fair." Next we'll have to pay dog walkers $30k/year with holiday pay, because "that's fair." Next we'll have to pay for everyone to have a McMansion because "that's fair."?
Nope, you definitely left out some steps, and I promise you, nobody ends up with a McMansion. Look up the crisis in Venezuela and see how that all started and progressed, and what is happening now because of the "fairness" doctrine.
I asked if your argument was the "thin edge" argument because you said all workers getting paid the same is where forced charity and "fairness" leads to. So I was trying to find out more, as in what "forced charity" for health care leads to, in your opinion.
Venezuela. That's where it leads to.
I simply don't see the connection between the ACA, obesity and Venezuela. Are you able to elaborate? Are Australia and Germany on a path to Venezuela?
Let me make sure I say this, so you don't overreact. I'm in NO WAY saying you're dumb or haven't worked hard for your money. I'm only asking you to explain how paying for public health leads to Venezuela, in your opinion. I may not be the smartest person in the room, so please explain it to me, if you have a moment to summarize.
I'm done discussing this with you as well. I realize this post started about obesity. But it has devolved or evolved, depending on your perspective, into something else. Venezuela has nothing to do with obesity. Absolutely nothing. Have a nice day.
There truly is no need to get so defensive. I have never once attacked your beliefs, I've only asked for more information because I believe a healthy discussion where everyone hears all sides is beneficial to a free state. I wish you well.1 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »mommarnurse wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat, you and I will just agree to disagree.
Works for me. I feel constrained in what I can argue anyway, given that we aren't supposed to be political. You just used my post about my mom's cancer as a springboard for a claim that the old system was not broken and ACA is terrible, so I felt compelled to respond so it didn't appear I was nodding along. While I have issues with ACA myself (not as major as yours), I 100% disagree that the old system (which also existed because of the gov't, not the free market) was not broken, and the fact my mom had a job with good employer-based insurance (as do I) doesn't say anything about whether it is or not. No one, absolutely no one, makes the strawman argument that you were arguing against--that pre-ACA no one could afford cancer treatment.
There are many on this thread who suggest that (or other major illness, not just cancer treatment), and they were the one's I was disagreeing with. If you feel offended that I used your post about your mom's illness, I apologize for offending you. You said she survived, didn't know it was a sensitive subject. But my point was exactly opposite of what you just said. I proposed that people could afford treatment because they acted like adults and made adult decisions (including employment decisions), taking unplanned illness into account.
To be devils advocate (and also a voice of logic) everyone can't do that. I mean, even if everyone did do that, they can't because then there would be nothing to achieve up to because everyone would already be there. There's always going to be a need for those doing jobs in the "low wage" field & someone's gotta be at the top making the big choices and the profits. How's that going to work?
I propose that not everyone needs to live in the same size/quality of home, or drive a fancy car, or do the "fulfilling career". Why do we as a society feel the need to pay the ditch digger the same as the lawyer?
Do we? Not anyone I've ever met. And they don't get paid the same. (Not all lawyers get paid the same either.)
That is where all this forced charity for the sake of "fairness" leads. That's all I was getting at.
No, most people are perfectly able to make distinctions and believe in a safety net (even one that includes health care) without thinking that we should impose equally in all things. In fact, we've done it for ages, and there's yet to be any threat that we will by mandate wipe out all income inequality.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »mommarnurse wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat, you and I will just agree to disagree.
Works for me. I feel constrained in what I can argue anyway, given that we aren't supposed to be political. You just used my post about my mom's cancer as a springboard for a claim that the old system was not broken and ACA is terrible, so I felt compelled to respond so it didn't appear I was nodding along. While I have issues with ACA myself (not as major as yours), I 100% disagree that the old system (which also existed because of the gov't, not the free market) was not broken, and the fact my mom had a job with good employer-based insurance (as do I) doesn't say anything about whether it is or not. No one, absolutely no one, makes the strawman argument that you were arguing against--that pre-ACA no one could afford cancer treatment.
There are many on this thread who suggest that (or other major illness, not just cancer treatment), and they were the one's I was disagreeing with. If you feel offended that I used your post about your mom's illness, I apologize for offending you. You said she survived, didn't know it was a sensitive subject. But my point was exactly opposite of what you just said. I proposed that people could afford treatment because they acted like adults and made adult decisions (including employment decisions), taking unplanned illness into account.
To be devils advocate (and also a voice of logic) everyone can't do that. I mean, even if everyone did do that, they can't because then there would be nothing to achieve up to because everyone would already be there. There's always going to be a need for those doing jobs in the "low wage" field & someone's gotta be at the top making the big choices and the profits. How's that going to work?
I propose that not everyone needs to live in the same size/quality of home, or drive a fancy car, or do the "fulfilling career". Why do we as a society feel the need to pay the ditch digger the same as the lawyer?
Do we? Not anyone I've ever met. And they don't get paid the same. (Not all lawyers get paid the same either.)
That is where all this forced charity for the sake of "fairness" leads. That's all I was getting at.
So your argument is the "thin edge of the wedge" argument? As in, first we'll have to pay for everyone's health care because "that's fair." Next we'll have to pay dog walkers $30k/year with holiday pay, because "that's fair." Next we'll have to pay for everyone to have a McMansion because "that's fair."?
Nope, you definitely left out some steps, and I promise you, nobody ends up with a McMansion. Look up the crisis in Venezuela and see how that all started and progressed, and what is happening now because of the "fairness" doctrine.
I asked if your argument was the "thin edge" argument because you said all workers getting paid the same is where forced charity and "fairness" leads to. So I was trying to find out more, as in what "forced charity" for health care leads to, in your opinion.
Venezuela. That's where it leads to.
Health care leads to Venezuela. Better tell the many other countries that have much more truly universal coverage than we do.
Also, since you didn't answer when I asked this before -- if you hate government benefits so, shouldn't we get rid of the inequity that McCain was pointing out in his health care plan? Employer-based health care is by NO means the product of the free market.1
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