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
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »How about we try the free market? When in comes to information technology, which comparatively has been subject to far less regulation in the USA, consumers have for the past several decades reaped the benefits of a blistering pace of innovation combined with steadily decreasing costs.
I don't think free market works because it doesn't solve problems like pre-existing conditions and people being unemployable and I do want to share risk across society in some way (we do this to a significant extent with Medicare, but that doesn't help younger people). Also, unfortunately, the area in which health care is probably most price responsive to market pressures is routine care, and that's what we probably want people to take advanage of, as it saves costs in the long run (and in theory is one avenue for addressing obesity).
I did post above about McCain's proposal which I think can serve as a springboard for an interesting policy discussion.
I don't think any of us should be seriously viewed as offering approaches that "solve" anything, just approaches that address problems better than other approaches.
"Solve" may not be the right work, but an approach that does nothing to address the issues I mentioned is a non starter, IMO.
You talked about dealing with pre-existing conditions and the unemployable, and then assumed that any and all approaches that aren't borne of government intervention will categorically fail to address these issues. If I have that right, and that's what you're saying, I don't think that's correct, at all.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »How about we try the free market? When in comes to information technology, which comparatively has been subject to far less regulation in the USA, consumers have for the past several decades reaped the benefits of a blistering pace of innovation combined with steadily decreasing costs.
I don't think free market works because it doesn't solve problems like pre-existing conditions and people being unemployable and I do want to share risk across society in some way (we do this to a significant extent with Medicare, but that doesn't help younger people). Also, unfortunately, the area in which health care is probably most price responsive to market pressures is routine care, and that's what we probably want people to take advanage of, as it saves costs in the long run (and in theory is one avenue for addressing obesity).
I did post above about McCain's proposal which I think can serve as a springboard for an interesting policy discussion.
I don't think any of us should be seriously viewed as offering approaches that "solve" anything, just approaches that address problems better than other approaches.
"Solve" may not be the right work, but an approach that does nothing to address the issues I mentioned is a non starter, IMO.
You talked about sharing costs, dealing with pre-existing conditions, and dealing with the unemployable, then assume that free market approaches don't address these issues. I don't think that's correct, at all.
I don't think they do, no. Left to the free market, insurance companies aren't going to cover pre existence conditions, period. I suppose it depends how broad your definition of "free market solution" is, though.1 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »How about we try the free market? When in comes to information technology, which comparatively has been subject to far less regulation in the USA, consumers have for the past several decades reaped the benefits of a blistering pace of innovation combined with steadily decreasing costs.
I don't think free market works because it doesn't solve problems like pre-existing conditions and people being unemployable and I do want to share risk across society in some way (we do this to a significant extent with Medicare, but that doesn't help younger people). Also, unfortunately, the area in which health care is probably most price responsive to market pressures is routine care, and that's what we probably want people to take advanage of, as it saves costs in the long run (and in theory is one avenue for addressing obesity).
I did post above about McCain's proposal which I think can serve as a springboard for an interesting policy discussion.
I don't think any of us should be seriously viewed as offering approaches that "solve" anything, just approaches that address problems better than other approaches.
"Solve" may not be the right work, but an approach that does nothing to address the issues I mentioned is a non starter, IMO.
You talked about sharing costs, dealing with pre-existing conditions, and dealing with the unemployable, then assume that free market approaches don't address these issues. I don't think that's correct, at all.
I don't think they do, no. Left to the free market, insurance companies aren't going to cover pre existence conditions, period.
Insurance companies don't insure buildings for fire damage after they've caught fire. Imagine the premiums on insuring fire damage if that was the case?
I'm not sure at what point our collective thinking got so warped as to think health insurance should function the same way. But yet we do - no wonder costs have spiraled out of control.I suppose it depends how broad your definition of "free market solution" is, though.
It just means free. Allow people to voluntarily cooperate to find solutions that suit them the best, free of force or coercion. That includes charity, mutual aid societies, creative crowdsourcing, technological solutions, a whole universe of approaches that haven't even been attempted or imagined yet.
1 -
eveandqsmom wrote: »terricherry2 wrote: »terricherry2 wrote: »Soooo happy to live in the UK with socialised healthcare, paid for through taxes and which has better clinical outcomes and is cheaper per capita than private models. And I say that as a high rate tax payer who likely pays for the healthcare of others that are less well off than me. I get why so many Americans are so wedded to the insurance system, given that huge corporations have told people for years that anything else is filthy communism or giving away their hard earned money to the lazy, but I just can't get my head around it.
I guess I just prefer paying 28% in taxes rather than 38-40%, but that's just me.....
The implicit assumption seems to be that the USA's healthcare system is free market while the UK's is not. Not the case even a teeny tiny bit. USA's healthcare market is largely cartelized and corporatized. The UK's healthcare market is largely socialized. I'm certainly willing to believe the UK system's outcomes are better than those in the US (although I'm guessing it's probably arguable and the picture is far more complex than is being suggested here), but given the above, that really isn't saying much.
I don't remember exactly where it was, but there was an independent study done last year of the top 10 economies and their health systems. USA was top for cost and bottom for outcomes. UK was top for outcomes and somewhere near the bottom for cost. Sorry I don't have the link.
I'm personally a fan of Singapore.
http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=7923
I could be wrong but I feel like France came out as all around winner
I recall a quote from Mark Twain about statistics....
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »How about we try the free market? When in comes to information technology, which comparatively has been subject to far less regulation in the USA, consumers have for the past several decades reaped the benefits of a blistering pace of innovation combined with steadily decreasing costs.
I don't think free market works because it doesn't solve problems like pre-existing conditions and people being unemployable and I do want to share risk across society in some way (we do this to a significant extent with Medicare, but that doesn't help younger people). Also, unfortunately, the area in which health care is probably most price responsive to market pressures is routine care, and that's what we probably want people to take advanage of, as it saves costs in the long run (and in theory is one avenue for addressing obesity).
I did post above about McCain's proposal which I think can serve as a springboard for an interesting policy discussion.
I don't think any of us should be seriously viewed as offering approaches that "solve" anything, just approaches that address problems better than other approaches.
"Solve" may not be the right work, but an approach that does nothing to address the issues I mentioned is a non starter, IMO.
You talked about sharing costs, dealing with pre-existing conditions, and dealing with the unemployable, then assume that free market approaches don't address these issues. I don't think that's correct, at all.
I don't think they do, no. Left to the free market, insurance companies aren't going to cover pre existence conditions, period.
Insurance companies don't insure buildings for fire damage after they've caught fire. Imagine the premiums on insuring fire damage if that was the case?
I'm not sure at what point our collective thinking got so warped as to think health insurance should function the same way. But yet we do - no wonder costs have spiraled out of control.I suppose it depends how broad your definition of "free market solution" is, though.
It just means free. Allow people to voluntarily cooperate to find solutions that suit them the best, free of force or coercion. That includes charity, mutual aid societies, creative crowdsourcing, technological solutions, a whole universe of approaches that haven't even been attempted or imagined yet.
Human beings aren't property.1 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »How about we try the free market? When in comes to information technology, which comparatively has been subject to far less regulation in the USA, consumers have for the past several decades reaped the benefits of a blistering pace of innovation combined with steadily decreasing costs.
I don't think free market works because it doesn't solve problems like pre-existing conditions and people being unemployable and I do want to share risk across society in some way (we do this to a significant extent with Medicare, but that doesn't help younger people). Also, unfortunately, the area in which health care is probably most price responsive to market pressures is routine care, and that's what we probably want people to take advanage of, as it saves costs in the long run (and in theory is one avenue for addressing obesity).
I did post above about McCain's proposal which I think can serve as a springboard for an interesting policy discussion.
I don't think any of us should be seriously viewed as offering approaches that "solve" anything, just approaches that address problems better than other approaches.
"Solve" may not be the right work, but an approach that does nothing to address the issues I mentioned is a non starter, IMO.
You talked about sharing costs, dealing with pre-existing conditions, and dealing with the unemployable, then assume that free market approaches don't address these issues. I don't think that's correct, at all.
I don't think they do, no. Left to the free market, insurance companies aren't going to cover pre existence conditions, period.
Insurance companies don't insure buildings for fire damage after they've caught fire. Imagine the premiums on insuring fire damage if that was the case?
I'm not sure at what point our collective thinking got so warped as to think health insurance should function the same way. But yet we do - no wonder costs have spiraled out of control.I suppose it depends how broad your definition of "free market solution" is, though.
It just means free. Allow people to voluntarily cooperate to find solutions that suit them the best, free of force or coercion. That includes charity, mutual aid societies, creative crowdsourcing, technological solutions, a whole universe of approaches that haven't even been attempted or imagined yet.
Human beings aren't property.
So? What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?
0 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »eveandqsmom wrote: »eveandqsmom wrote: »eveandqsmom wrote: »I'm trying to stay away but I just keep trying to wrap my head around the way some people think...you do know that living in a strong, healthy, educated society is better for YOU in a selfish way right?
Yep. And health, strength, and education aren't automatic giveaways. First, individuals must really WANT these things. And to value them when they aren't automatically provided, individuals must WORK for them, which not every individual is willing to do.
You really believe you are on an even playing field, don't you?
What? Re-read my posts. I've had to work harder and suffer more for every morsel of comfort and security I now enjoy at the age of 49. Which is quite minimal compared to the average American.
I've experienced homelessness and have spent many years without health insurance. I had to put off surgery on a benign tumor for years for lack of insurance. Until the thing got so big in my abdomen I looked 9 months pregnant and it weighed 10 pounds after it was excised.
I sent myself to vocational schools in my late 20s and again when I was 39 in order to get skilled in fields I knew had work available and would pay me a living wage. I worked the crappiest jobs, sometimes two at a time, for years to pay the tuition at those vocational schools.
And I have never taken a penny of welfare in my life, in any form. Even when I was uninsured. Even when I was homeless. Even when I would have to go a week eating only beans, rice and apples.
So, please, tell me all about the level playing field I spent my life larking on.
Oh, I see. I suffered so everyone should. That's a different thing.
Personally, through my struggles, I realized that it's better to turn around and help the next person up rather than just turn my back...but that's me.
You're right, it is, and I do what I can. I've let homeless guys shower and crash in my apartment. I've moved jobless friends in with me until they got on their feet. I will buy food for amy hungry person who asks.
That doesn't mean that I am okay with government using force to make everyone be "charitable".
I really think it comes back to my question of whether someone feels treating obesity is a public health concern or a luxury. I don't think everyone agrees that taxes going towards low income subsidies for the health care exchange is "charity."
In the earlier attempt to appeal to greed, one thing got forgotten. If the person receiving said subsidies is giving nothing useful back to society, then it is charity, a donation, a giveaway, whatever. I don't care if it's medical care, food, dance lessons, or a car. It's only a public health concern because we pay for it. If not for that, their being morbidly obese would be of no consequence to anyone else.
As I previously asked (but maybe it wasn't you), what do you do with the morbidly obese who can't pay for care? Even if they die in the street, you still have to pay for disposal teams and facilities.
Correct me if I'm wrong, though, with the following. In most states if you have no income, you wouldn't be on the exchange. You'd either be on medicaid/medicare or SOL. So would you agree that the VAST majority of people getting health care subsidies on the exchange are in fact working and are in fact "useful" to society?0 -
Equality doctrine is already in effect. Let's say I earn $5 per year, and I pay $2 in taxes. And Joe Blow earns $3 per year and pays $0 in taxes because he's exempt. Big Gov will take my $2, of which I will be refunded $0 when I file taxes, and use $1 for deficit interest payments, and they will give the other $1 to Joe Blow who paid in nothing. He pays in nothing, but receives a tax 'refund'.
ETA: Sorry, this was in response to lemurcat.
I'll go with this. But I think it's more like you earn $4 plus $1 in health care benefits from your job you work hard at. Joe earns $1 at the job he works hard at. The feds tax you $2. You still have $2 plus your $1 in benefits. The feds give $0.50 to Joe and keep $0.50. Joe now has $1.50. You still have $3.
In my mind, though, you're mad at Joe when who you should be mad at is the person who earns 10x what you make working hard at their job, but still only pays the $2 in taxes. In my opinion Joe and his $0.50 isn't the problem.
I am not mad at Joe Blow. You are wrong about that. And, yes, my numbers might be a little skewed. My point was, there is already a mechanism in place that takes money from me and gives it to someone who earns less. If I'm Joe Blow, what am I going to do, not take the tax 'refund' when my family needs all the help it can get? Not a chance. If anything, I am mad at the system, and mad at people who think they can legislate and tax us into a utopian society (obesity tax being the trigger that drew me into this discussion).
Who thinks this?0 -
A local organization that provides some paid services to the community and some not for profit services as well asked the community to raise sales tax to cover a huge expansion they wanted to do. Does it add value to the community. Sure. But, the voters decided to say no. That organization raised money in the community for 5 years. People who felt strongly about supporting that organization obviously decided to donate money or help with the fundraisers. This is one example of what I think DrEnalg was getting at. There are other ways and other options . . . . unless you don't need to find creative options because the community is forced to pay for it whether they wanted to or not.0
-
First, just becuase the federal goverment is exceeding their authority to do something that they do not have the authority to do does not make it OK.Packerjohn wrote: »Sonce a tax on junk food isn't popular, what are suggestions how the US can pay the increased health care costs of obesity and related conditions?
For purposes of.this qiestion, raising taxes on"the rich" or corporations isn't an acceptable answer.
how about taking some personal responsibility for ones choices and paying for it on their own? Not sure why I have to subsidize someone else's horrible decisions. If someone wants to be fat that is fine, just don't expect me to pick up the burden to bail them out.
Your tax dollars are already subsiding people's bad choices.
We pay for everyone who doesn't have health insurance. We have been for years. Hospitals are not allowed to deny treatment because pepole can't pay. We pay through higher insurance premiums and taxes.
I don't want to pay for people's bad choices either. However, I would rather pay than let them suffer and/or die.
second, that is fine if you want to pay more to subsidize someones taxes then feel free to send a check to health and human services department. I however, should not be forced, via the tax code, to subsidize someone elses bad decisions. I can donate to local charities that can help sick people far better than the federal government can.
1 -
Equality doctrine is already in effect. Let's say I earn $5 per year, and I pay $2 in taxes. And Joe Blow earns $3 per year and pays $0 in taxes because he's exempt. Big Gov will take my $2, of which I will be refunded $0 when I file taxes, and use $1 for deficit interest payments, and they will give the other $1 to Joe Blow who paid in nothing. He pays in nothing, but receives a tax 'refund'.
ETA: Sorry, this was in response to lemurcat.
I'll go with this. But I think it's more like you earn $4 plus $1 in health care benefits from your job you work hard at. Joe earns $1 at the job he works hard at. The feds tax you $2. You still have $2 plus your $1 in benefits. The feds give $0.50 to Joe and keep $0.50. Joe now has $1.50. You still have $3.
In my mind, though, you're mad at Joe when who you should be mad at is the person who earns 10x what you make working hard at their job, but still only pays the $2 in taxes. In my opinion Joe and his $0.50 isn't the problem.
I am not mad at Joe Blow. You are wrong about that. And, yes, my numbers might be a little skewed. My point was, there is already a mechanism in place that takes money from me and gives it to someone who earns less. If I'm Joe Blow, what am I going to do, not take the tax 'refund' when my family needs all the help it can get? Not a chance. If anything, I am mad at the system, and mad at people who think they can legislate and tax us into a utopian society (obesity tax being the trigger that drew me into this discussion).
Who thinks this?
You want names or what?1 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »eveandqsmom wrote: »eveandqsmom wrote: »eveandqsmom wrote: »I'm trying to stay away but I just keep trying to wrap my head around the way some people think...you do know that living in a strong, healthy, educated society is better for YOU in a selfish way right?
Yep. And health, strength, and education aren't automatic giveaways. First, individuals must really WANT these things. And to value them when they aren't automatically provided, individuals must WORK for them, which not every individual is willing to do.
You really believe you are on an even playing field, don't you?
What? Re-read my posts. I've had to work harder and suffer more for every morsel of comfort and security I now enjoy at the age of 49. Which is quite minimal compared to the average American.
I've experienced homelessness and have spent many years without health insurance. I had to put off surgery on a benign tumor for years for lack of insurance. Until the thing got so big in my abdomen I looked 9 months pregnant and it weighed 10 pounds after it was excised.
I sent myself to vocational schools in my late 20s and again when I was 39 in order to get skilled in fields I knew had work available and would pay me a living wage. I worked the crappiest jobs, sometimes two at a time, for years to pay the tuition at those vocational schools.
And I have never taken a penny of welfare in my life, in any form. Even when I was uninsured. Even when I was homeless. Even when I would have to go a week eating only beans, rice and apples.
So, please, tell me all about the level playing field I spent my life larking on.
Oh, I see. I suffered so everyone should. That's a different thing.
Personally, through my struggles, I realized that it's better to turn around and help the next person up rather than just turn my back...but that's me.
You're right, it is, and I do what I can. I've let homeless guys shower and crash in my apartment. I've moved jobless friends in with me until they got on their feet. I will buy food for amy hungry person who asks.
That doesn't mean that I am okay with government using force to make everyone be "charitable".
I really think it comes back to my question of whether someone feels treating obesity is a public health concern or a luxury. I don't think everyone agrees that taxes going towards low income subsidies for the health care exchange is "charity."
In the earlier attempt to appeal to greed, one thing got forgotten. If the person receiving said subsidies is giving nothing useful back to society, then it is charity, a donation, a giveaway, whatever. I don't care if it's medical care, food, dance lessons, or a car. It's only a public health concern because we pay for it. If not for that, their being morbidly obese would be of no consequence to anyone else.
As I previously asked (but maybe it wasn't you), what do you do with the morbidly obese who can't pay for care? Even if they die in the street, you still have to pay for disposal teams and facilities.
Correct me if I'm wrong, though, with the following. In most states if you have no income, you wouldn't be on the exchange. You'd either be on medicaid/medicare or SOL. So would you agree that the VAST majority of people getting health care subsidies on the exchange are in fact working and are in fact "useful" to society?
if someone is morbidly obese they more than likely made a choice to become that way, so not sure why the rest of us have to subsidize thirty years of horrible decisions by an individual. What that person should do is cut their intake by 15% and they will lose weight , which will increase their health....
decisions have consequences...0 -
Equality doctrine is already in effect. Let's say I earn $5 per year, and I pay $2 in taxes. And Joe Blow earns $3 per year and pays $0 in taxes because he's exempt. Big Gov will take my $2, of which I will be refunded $0 when I file taxes, and use $1 for deficit interest payments, and they will give the other $1 to Joe Blow who paid in nothing. He pays in nothing, but receives a tax 'refund'.
ETA: Sorry, this was in response to lemurcat.
I'll go with this. But I think it's more like you earn $4 plus $1 in health care benefits from your job you work hard at. Joe earns $1 at the job he works hard at. The feds tax you $2. You still have $2 plus your $1 in benefits. The feds give $0.50 to Joe and keep $0.50. Joe now has $1.50. You still have $3.
In my mind, though, you're mad at Joe when who you should be mad at is the person who earns 10x what you make working hard at their job, but still only pays the $2 in taxes. In my opinion Joe and his $0.50 isn't the problem.
I am not mad at Joe Blow. You are wrong about that. And, yes, my numbers might be a little skewed. My point was, there is already a mechanism in place that takes money from me and gives it to someone who earns less. If I'm Joe Blow, what am I going to do, not take the tax 'refund' when my family needs all the help it can get? Not a chance. If anything, I am mad at the system, and mad at people who think they can legislate and tax us into a utopian society (obesity tax being the trigger that drew me into this discussion).
Who thinks this?
You want names or what?
Sure. You claimed "the system" was trying to tax us into a utopian society. So I just wondered who you thought was backing this initiative. Lobbyists? PETA?0 -
Equality doctrine is already in effect. Let's say I earn $5 per year, and I pay $2 in taxes. And Joe Blow earns $3 per year and pays $0 in taxes because he's exempt. Big Gov will take my $2, of which I will be refunded $0 when I file taxes, and use $1 for deficit interest payments, and they will give the other $1 to Joe Blow who paid in nothing. He pays in nothing, but receives a tax 'refund'.
ETA: Sorry, this was in response to lemurcat.
I'll go with this. But I think it's more like you earn $4 plus $1 in health care benefits from your job you work hard at. Joe earns $1 at the job he works hard at. The feds tax you $2. You still have $2 plus your $1 in benefits. The feds give $0.50 to Joe and keep $0.50. Joe now has $1.50. You still have $3.
In my mind, though, you're mad at Joe when who you should be mad at is the person who earns 10x what you make working hard at their job, but still only pays the $2 in taxes. In my opinion Joe and his $0.50 isn't the problem.
I am not mad at Joe Blow. You are wrong about that. And, yes, my numbers might be a little skewed. My point was, there is already a mechanism in place that takes money from me and gives it to someone who earns less. If I'm Joe Blow, what am I going to do, not take the tax 'refund' when my family needs all the help it can get? Not a chance. If anything, I am mad at the system, and mad at people who think they can legislate and tax us into a utopian society (obesity tax being the trigger that drew me into this discussion).
Who thinks this?
You want names or what?
Sure. You claimed "the system" was trying to tax us into a utopian society. So I just wondered who you thought was backing this initiative. Lobbyists? PETA?
how about starting with the president...5 -
Equality doctrine is already in effect. Let's say I earn $5 per year, and I pay $2 in taxes. And Joe Blow earns $3 per year and pays $0 in taxes because he's exempt. Big Gov will take my $2, of which I will be refunded $0 when I file taxes, and use $1 for deficit interest payments, and they will give the other $1 to Joe Blow who paid in nothing. He pays in nothing, but receives a tax 'refund'.
ETA: Sorry, this was in response to lemurcat.
I'll go with this. But I think it's more like you earn $4 plus $1 in health care benefits from your job you work hard at. Joe earns $1 at the job he works hard at. The feds tax you $2. You still have $2 plus your $1 in benefits. The feds give $0.50 to Joe and keep $0.50. Joe now has $1.50. You still have $3.
In my mind, though, you're mad at Joe when who you should be mad at is the person who earns 10x what you make working hard at their job, but still only pays the $2 in taxes. In my opinion Joe and his $0.50 isn't the problem.
I am not mad at Joe Blow. You are wrong about that. And, yes, my numbers might be a little skewed. My point was, there is already a mechanism in place that takes money from me and gives it to someone who earns less. If I'm Joe Blow, what am I going to do, not take the tax 'refund' when my family needs all the help it can get? Not a chance. If anything, I am mad at the system, and mad at people who think they can legislate and tax us into a utopian society (obesity tax being the trigger that drew me into this discussion).
Who thinks this?
You want names or what?
Sure. You claimed "the system" was trying to tax us into a utopian society. So I just wondered who you thought was backing this initiative. Lobbyists? PETA?
how about starting with the president...
So you're mad at the President for passing the ACA?0 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »eveandqsmom wrote: »eveandqsmom wrote: »eveandqsmom wrote: »I'm trying to stay away but I just keep trying to wrap my head around the way some people think...you do know that living in a strong, healthy, educated society is better for YOU in a selfish way right?
Yep. And health, strength, and education aren't automatic giveaways. First, individuals must really WANT these things. And to value them when they aren't automatically provided, individuals must WORK for them, which not every individual is willing to do.
You really believe you are on an even playing field, don't you?
What? Re-read my posts. I've had to work harder and suffer more for every morsel of comfort and security I now enjoy at the age of 49. Which is quite minimal compared to the average American.
I've experienced homelessness and have spent many years without health insurance. I had to put off surgery on a benign tumor for years for lack of insurance. Until the thing got so big in my abdomen I looked 9 months pregnant and it weighed 10 pounds after it was excised.
I sent myself to vocational schools in my late 20s and again when I was 39 in order to get skilled in fields I knew had work available and would pay me a living wage. I worked the crappiest jobs, sometimes two at a time, for years to pay the tuition at those vocational schools.
And I have never taken a penny of welfare in my life, in any form. Even when I was uninsured. Even when I was homeless. Even when I would have to go a week eating only beans, rice and apples.
So, please, tell me all about the level playing field I spent my life larking on.
Oh, I see. I suffered so everyone should. That's a different thing.
Personally, through my struggles, I realized that it's better to turn around and help the next person up rather than just turn my back...but that's me.
You're right, it is, and I do what I can. I've let homeless guys shower and crash in my apartment. I've moved jobless friends in with me until they got on their feet. I will buy food for amy hungry person who asks.
That doesn't mean that I am okay with government using force to make everyone be "charitable".
I really think it comes back to my question of whether someone feels treating obesity is a public health concern or a luxury. I don't think everyone agrees that taxes going towards low income subsidies for the health care exchange is "charity."
In the earlier attempt to appeal to greed, one thing got forgotten. If the person receiving said subsidies is giving nothing useful back to society, then it is charity, a donation, a giveaway, whatever. I don't care if it's medical care, food, dance lessons, or a car. It's only a public health concern because we pay for it. If not for that, their being morbidly obese would be of no consequence to anyone else.
As I previously asked (but maybe it wasn't you), what do you do with the morbidly obese who can't pay for care? Even if they die in the street, you still have to pay for disposal teams and facilities.
Correct me if I'm wrong, though, with the following. In most states if you have no income, you wouldn't be on the exchange. You'd either be on medicaid/medicare or SOL. So would you agree that the VAST majority of people getting health care subsidies on the exchange are in fact working and are in fact "useful" to society?
if someone is morbidly obese they more than likely made a choice to become that way, so not sure why the rest of us have to subsidize thirty years of horrible decisions by an individual. What that person should do is cut their intake by 15% and they will lose weight , which will increase their health....
decisions have consequences...
Totally understand the thought. But keep going with it. Who forces them to cut their intake? What incentivises them to do so? Policy? Taxes? Shame billboards? "Mr. Jones at 1213 Main St. Is OBESE" with his drivers license picture?0 -
tlflag1620 wrote: »tlflag1620 wrote: »
To bring this back to the topic at hand, do you then logically believe birth control and abortions and adoptions should be free to all women who are not married or independently financially secure?...The reasonable choice for anyone who is not part of a two parent married unit and who is unable to independently support offspring would be to not make babies until they are married and financially able to support who they bring into the world....
No. Let them keep their legs closed. It's not that hard. And if they have a lapse in judgment and want to put a baby up for adoption, I'm pretty sure they don't have to pay to do that.
What if they have a "lapse in judgment" and don't want to give their child away? You would want them to be forced to do so?
What if their legs are forced open, against their will? You would also take away their choice as to what to do in the even they became pregnant?
I'm not free to opine on that here because I'm already walking the line with the MFP's rules about political conversation being discouraged. Needless to say, there seem to be millions and millions of "judgment lapses" happening in the U.S. every year and, obviously, the children aren't given away. I'll leave it at that.
This is true - IIRC something like 51% of pregnancies are reported to be "unitentional". Now, I'm fairly certain that "unintentional" includes consensual sex, where no protection was used, and I would debate that those pregnancies are far from "unintentional". However, even in clinical settings (think perfect use) the various birth control methods have failure rates, and in real world use, the failure rates are much higher.
You seem to be proposing that poor women should not be allowed to have sex. What about poor men? Should poor people simply not be allowed to get married? Who should enforce those rules?
Unintended pregnancy (whether it is due to failure to use birth control, actual birth control failure, or the result of rape) does happen. You stated "..if they have a lapse in judgment and want to put a baby up for adoption, I'm pretty sure they don't have to pay to do that." It begs the question - what if they don't want to put the baby up for adoption? What if they want to abort? What if they want to keep their child? Should poor women not have the same bodily autonomy as wealthier women? Who pays for the prenatal care prior to any adoption arrangement, assuming that is the woman's choice? Who pays for the care and maintenance of the child, if adoption cannot be secured prior to birth and the baby ends up in a "group home" (what we used to call orphanages)? Who pays for babies who aren't likely to be adopted (not every baby is born healthy, white, and male)?
You offhandedly refused to consider providing reproductive services (free or low cost birth control, abortion, and adoption services) to unmarried and/or poor women. So what of the children that will ultimately be produced (and yes, they WILL be produced, as they always have been)? Women who receive adequate prenatal care (whether they choose to keep the baby or place him/her up for adoption) have healthier babies, statistically, than those who receive no/inadequate care. You say it's up to the woman and the man who created the child to foot the bill for the prenatal care, up to and including labor and delivery (should they choose to carry the pregnancy to term). What if they cannot afford it? Screw the damn kid for being too stupid to pick wealthier parents?
OMG. The drama. Whatever happened to pulling out? Ask the fellas. It's not 100% but it's like 90+. It would solve so many of these dirty little problems, LOL!
Citation needed. The pill is "like 90% effective". Pulling out? Much less effective.
But yeah, I can totally see where you wanted to avoid "drama" by telling women to "just keep their legs closed. It's not that hard." Riiiight....
4 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »eveandqsmom wrote: »eveandqsmom wrote: »eveandqsmom wrote: »I'm trying to stay away but I just keep trying to wrap my head around the way some people think...you do know that living in a strong, healthy, educated society is better for YOU in a selfish way right?
Yep. And health, strength, and education aren't automatic giveaways. First, individuals must really WANT these things. And to value them when they aren't automatically provided, individuals must WORK for them, which not every individual is willing to do.
You really believe you are on an even playing field, don't you?
What? Re-read my posts. I've had to work harder and suffer more for every morsel of comfort and security I now enjoy at the age of 49. Which is quite minimal compared to the average American.
I've experienced homelessness and have spent many years without health insurance. I had to put off surgery on a benign tumor for years for lack of insurance. Until the thing got so big in my abdomen I looked 9 months pregnant and it weighed 10 pounds after it was excised.
I sent myself to vocational schools in my late 20s and again when I was 39 in order to get skilled in fields I knew had work available and would pay me a living wage. I worked the crappiest jobs, sometimes two at a time, for years to pay the tuition at those vocational schools.
And I have never taken a penny of welfare in my life, in any form. Even when I was uninsured. Even when I was homeless. Even when I would have to go a week eating only beans, rice and apples.
So, please, tell me all about the level playing field I spent my life larking on.
Oh, I see. I suffered so everyone should. That's a different thing.
Personally, through my struggles, I realized that it's better to turn around and help the next person up rather than just turn my back...but that's me.
You're right, it is, and I do what I can. I've let homeless guys shower and crash in my apartment. I've moved jobless friends in with me until they got on their feet. I will buy food for amy hungry person who asks.
That doesn't mean that I am okay with government using force to make everyone be "charitable".
I really think it comes back to my question of whether someone feels treating obesity is a public health concern or a luxury. I don't think everyone agrees that taxes going towards low income subsidies for the health care exchange is "charity."
In the earlier attempt to appeal to greed, one thing got forgotten. If the person receiving said subsidies is giving nothing useful back to society, then it is charity, a donation, a giveaway, whatever. I don't care if it's medical care, food, dance lessons, or a car. It's only a public health concern because we pay for it. If not for that, their being morbidly obese would be of no consequence to anyone else.
As I previously asked (but maybe it wasn't you), what do you do with the morbidly obese who can't pay for care? Even if they die in the street, you still have to pay for disposal teams and facilities.
Correct me if I'm wrong, though, with the following. In most states if you have no income, you wouldn't be on the exchange. You'd either be on medicaid/medicare or SOL. So would you agree that the VAST majority of people getting health care subsidies on the exchange are in fact working and are in fact "useful" to society?
if someone is morbidly obese they more than likely made a choice to become that way, so not sure why the rest of us have to subsidize thirty years of horrible decisions by an individual. What that person should do is cut their intake by 15% and they will lose weight , which will increase their health....
decisions have consequences...
Totally understand the thought. But keep going with it. Who forces them to cut their intake? What incentivises them to do so? Policy? Taxes? Shame billboards? "Mr. Jones at 1213 Main St. Is OBESE" with his drivers license picture?
you obviously don't understand personal responsibility. They should do it so that they do not die or become consistently sick. It is called doing it for oneself. I lost 50 pounds because I wanted to, not because some bureaucrat gave me an incentive me to do it.0 -
Equality doctrine is already in effect. Let's say I earn $5 per year, and I pay $2 in taxes. And Joe Blow earns $3 per year and pays $0 in taxes because he's exempt. Big Gov will take my $2, of which I will be refunded $0 when I file taxes, and use $1 for deficit interest payments, and they will give the other $1 to Joe Blow who paid in nothing. He pays in nothing, but receives a tax 'refund'.
ETA: Sorry, this was in response to lemurcat.
I'll go with this. But I think it's more like you earn $4 plus $1 in health care benefits from your job you work hard at. Joe earns $1 at the job he works hard at. The feds tax you $2. You still have $2 plus your $1 in benefits. The feds give $0.50 to Joe and keep $0.50. Joe now has $1.50. You still have $3.
In my mind, though, you're mad at Joe when who you should be mad at is the person who earns 10x what you make working hard at their job, but still only pays the $2 in taxes. In my opinion Joe and his $0.50 isn't the problem.
I am not mad at Joe Blow. You are wrong about that. And, yes, my numbers might be a little skewed. My point was, there is already a mechanism in place that takes money from me and gives it to someone who earns less. If I'm Joe Blow, what am I going to do, not take the tax 'refund' when my family needs all the help it can get? Not a chance. If anything, I am mad at the system, and mad at people who think they can legislate and tax us into a utopian society (obesity tax being the trigger that drew me into this discussion).
Who thinks this?
You want names or what?
Sure. You claimed "the system" was trying to tax us into a utopian society. So I just wondered who you thought was backing this initiative. Lobbyists? PETA?
how about starting with the president...
So you're mad at the President for passing the ACA?
you asked for names, I gave you one.
0 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »eveandqsmom wrote: »eveandqsmom wrote: »eveandqsmom wrote: »I'm trying to stay away but I just keep trying to wrap my head around the way some people think...you do know that living in a strong, healthy, educated society is better for YOU in a selfish way right?
Yep. And health, strength, and education aren't automatic giveaways. First, individuals must really WANT these things. And to value them when they aren't automatically provided, individuals must WORK for them, which not every individual is willing to do.
You really believe you are on an even playing field, don't you?
What? Re-read my posts. I've had to work harder and suffer more for every morsel of comfort and security I now enjoy at the age of 49. Which is quite minimal compared to the average American.
I've experienced homelessness and have spent many years without health insurance. I had to put off surgery on a benign tumor for years for lack of insurance. Until the thing got so big in my abdomen I looked 9 months pregnant and it weighed 10 pounds after it was excised.
I sent myself to vocational schools in my late 20s and again when I was 39 in order to get skilled in fields I knew had work available and would pay me a living wage. I worked the crappiest jobs, sometimes two at a time, for years to pay the tuition at those vocational schools.
And I have never taken a penny of welfare in my life, in any form. Even when I was uninsured. Even when I was homeless. Even when I would have to go a week eating only beans, rice and apples.
So, please, tell me all about the level playing field I spent my life larking on.
Oh, I see. I suffered so everyone should. That's a different thing.
Personally, through my struggles, I realized that it's better to turn around and help the next person up rather than just turn my back...but that's me.
You're right, it is, and I do what I can. I've let homeless guys shower and crash in my apartment. I've moved jobless friends in with me until they got on their feet. I will buy food for amy hungry person who asks.
That doesn't mean that I am okay with government using force to make everyone be "charitable".
I really think it comes back to my question of whether someone feels treating obesity is a public health concern or a luxury. I don't think everyone agrees that taxes going towards low income subsidies for the health care exchange is "charity."
In the earlier attempt to appeal to greed, one thing got forgotten. If the person receiving said subsidies is giving nothing useful back to society, then it is charity, a donation, a giveaway, whatever. I don't care if it's medical care, food, dance lessons, or a car. It's only a public health concern because we pay for it. If not for that, their being morbidly obese would be of no consequence to anyone else.
As I previously asked (but maybe it wasn't you), what do you do with the morbidly obese who can't pay for care? Even if they die in the street, you still have to pay for disposal teams and facilities.
Correct me if I'm wrong, though, with the following. In most states if you have no income, you wouldn't be on the exchange. You'd either be on medicaid/medicare or SOL. So would you agree that the VAST majority of people getting health care subsidies on the exchange are in fact working and are in fact "useful" to society?
if someone is morbidly obese they more than likely made a choice to become that way, so not sure why the rest of us have to subsidize thirty years of horrible decisions by an individual. What that person should do is cut their intake by 15% and they will lose weight , which will increase their health....
decisions have consequences...
Totally understand the thought. But keep going with it. Who forces them to cut their intake? What incentivises them to do so? Policy? Taxes? Shame billboards? "Mr. Jones at 1213 Main St. Is OBESE" with his drivers license picture?
you obviously don't understand personal responsibility. They should do it so that they do not die or become consistently sick. It is called doing it for oneself. I lost 50 pounds because I wanted to, not because some bureaucrat gave me an incentive me to do it.
You're proposing to base a system of government on "personal responsibility"?1 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »eveandqsmom wrote: »eveandqsmom wrote: »eveandqsmom wrote: »I'm trying to stay away but I just keep trying to wrap my head around the way some people think...you do know that living in a strong, healthy, educated society is better for YOU in a selfish way right?
Yep. And health, strength, and education aren't automatic giveaways. First, individuals must really WANT these things. And to value them when they aren't automatically provided, individuals must WORK for them, which not every individual is willing to do.
You really believe you are on an even playing field, don't you?
What? Re-read my posts. I've had to work harder and suffer more for every morsel of comfort and security I now enjoy at the age of 49. Which is quite minimal compared to the average American.
I've experienced homelessness and have spent many years without health insurance. I had to put off surgery on a benign tumor for years for lack of insurance. Until the thing got so big in my abdomen I looked 9 months pregnant and it weighed 10 pounds after it was excised.
I sent myself to vocational schools in my late 20s and again when I was 39 in order to get skilled in fields I knew had work available and would pay me a living wage. I worked the crappiest jobs, sometimes two at a time, for years to pay the tuition at those vocational schools.
And I have never taken a penny of welfare in my life, in any form. Even when I was uninsured. Even when I was homeless. Even when I would have to go a week eating only beans, rice and apples.
So, please, tell me all about the level playing field I spent my life larking on.
Oh, I see. I suffered so everyone should. That's a different thing.
Personally, through my struggles, I realized that it's better to turn around and help the next person up rather than just turn my back...but that's me.
You're right, it is, and I do what I can. I've let homeless guys shower and crash in my apartment. I've moved jobless friends in with me until they got on their feet. I will buy food for amy hungry person who asks.
That doesn't mean that I am okay with government using force to make everyone be "charitable".
I really think it comes back to my question of whether someone feels treating obesity is a public health concern or a luxury. I don't think everyone agrees that taxes going towards low income subsidies for the health care exchange is "charity."
In the earlier attempt to appeal to greed, one thing got forgotten. If the person receiving said subsidies is giving nothing useful back to society, then it is charity, a donation, a giveaway, whatever. I don't care if it's medical care, food, dance lessons, or a car. It's only a public health concern because we pay for it. If not for that, their being morbidly obese would be of no consequence to anyone else.
As I previously asked (but maybe it wasn't you), what do you do with the morbidly obese who can't pay for care? Even if they die in the street, you still have to pay for disposal teams and facilities.
Correct me if I'm wrong, though, with the following. In most states if you have no income, you wouldn't be on the exchange. You'd either be on medicaid/medicare or SOL. So would you agree that the VAST majority of people getting health care subsidies on the exchange are in fact working and are in fact "useful" to society?
if someone is morbidly obese they more than likely made a choice to become that way, so not sure why the rest of us have to subsidize thirty years of horrible decisions by an individual. What that person should do is cut their intake by 15% and they will lose weight , which will increase their health....
decisions have consequences...
Totally understand the thought. But keep going with it. Who forces them to cut their intake? What incentivises them to do so? Policy? Taxes? Shame billboards? "Mr. Jones at 1213 Main St. Is OBESE" with his drivers license picture?
you obviously don't understand personal responsibility. They should do it so that they do not die or become consistently sick. It is called doing it for oneself. I lost 50 pounds because I wanted to, not because some bureaucrat gave me an incentive me to do it.
You're proposing to base a system of government on "personal responsibility"?
that is what the original intent of the constitution and a federalist form of government was..
I am proposing that the person in your example would want to become less obese for themselves...5 -
Equality doctrine is already in effect. Let's say I earn $5 per year, and I pay $2 in taxes. And Joe Blow earns $3 per year and pays $0 in taxes because he's exempt. Big Gov will take my $2, of which I will be refunded $0 when I file taxes, and use $1 for deficit interest payments, and they will give the other $1 to Joe Blow who paid in nothing. He pays in nothing, but receives a tax 'refund'.
ETA: Sorry, this was in response to lemurcat.
I'll go with this. But I think it's more like you earn $4 plus $1 in health care benefits from your job you work hard at. Joe earns $1 at the job he works hard at. The feds tax you $2. You still have $2 plus your $1 in benefits. The feds give $0.50 to Joe and keep $0.50. Joe now has $1.50. You still have $3.
In my mind, though, you're mad at Joe when who you should be mad at is the person who earns 10x what you make working hard at their job, but still only pays the $2 in taxes. In my opinion Joe and his $0.50 isn't the problem.
I am not mad at Joe Blow. You are wrong about that. And, yes, my numbers might be a little skewed. My point was, there is already a mechanism in place that takes money from me and gives it to someone who earns less. If I'm Joe Blow, what am I going to do, not take the tax 'refund' when my family needs all the help it can get? Not a chance. If anything, I am mad at the system, and mad at people who think they can legislate and tax us into a utopian society (obesity tax being the trigger that drew me into this discussion).
Who thinks this?
You want names or what?
Sure. You claimed "the system" was trying to tax us into a utopian society. So I just wondered who you thought was backing this initiative. Lobbyists? PETA?
how about starting with the president...
So you're mad at the President for passing the ACA?
you asked for names, I gave you one.
I guess I'm suggesting that it was Congress who put it into place.0 -
Equality doctrine is already in effect. Let's say I earn $5 per year, and I pay $2 in taxes. And Joe Blow earns $3 per year and pays $0 in taxes because he's exempt. Big Gov will take my $2, of which I will be refunded $0 when I file taxes, and use $1 for deficit interest payments, and they will give the other $1 to Joe Blow who paid in nothing. He pays in nothing, but receives a tax 'refund'.
ETA: Sorry, this was in response to lemurcat.
I'll go with this. But I think it's more like you earn $4 plus $1 in health care benefits from your job you work hard at. Joe earns $1 at the job he works hard at. The feds tax you $2. You still have $2 plus your $1 in benefits. The feds give $0.50 to Joe and keep $0.50. Joe now has $1.50. You still have $3.
In my mind, though, you're mad at Joe when who you should be mad at is the person who earns 10x what you make working hard at their job, but still only pays the $2 in taxes. In my opinion Joe and his $0.50 isn't the problem.
I am not mad at Joe Blow. You are wrong about that. And, yes, my numbers might be a little skewed. My point was, there is already a mechanism in place that takes money from me and gives it to someone who earns less. If I'm Joe Blow, what am I going to do, not take the tax 'refund' when my family needs all the help it can get? Not a chance. If anything, I am mad at the system, and mad at people who think they can legislate and tax us into a utopian society (obesity tax being the trigger that drew me into this discussion).
Who thinks this?
You want names or what?
Sure. You claimed "the system" was trying to tax us into a utopian society. So I just wondered who you thought was backing this initiative. Lobbyists? PETA?
how about starting with the president...
So you're mad at the President for passing the ACA?
you asked for names, I gave you one.
I guess I'm suggesting that it was Congress who put it into place.
who was behind ramming it through the senate....and who proposed the original law? and yes, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, et al are more names you can add to the list of idiotic representatives that think that they can ram through a one size fits all healthcare system on a population of 300 million people and it will somehow "lower cost and improve choice"2 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »eveandqsmom wrote: »eveandqsmom wrote: »eveandqsmom wrote: »I'm trying to stay away but I just keep trying to wrap my head around the way some people think...you do know that living in a strong, healthy, educated society is better for YOU in a selfish way right?
Yep. And health, strength, and education aren't automatic giveaways. First, individuals must really WANT these things. And to value them when they aren't automatically provided, individuals must WORK for them, which not every individual is willing to do.
You really believe you are on an even playing field, don't you?
What? Re-read my posts. I've had to work harder and suffer more for every morsel of comfort and security I now enjoy at the age of 49. Which is quite minimal compared to the average American.
I've experienced homelessness and have spent many years without health insurance. I had to put off surgery on a benign tumor for years for lack of insurance. Until the thing got so big in my abdomen I looked 9 months pregnant and it weighed 10 pounds after it was excised.
I sent myself to vocational schools in my late 20s and again when I was 39 in order to get skilled in fields I knew had work available and would pay me a living wage. I worked the crappiest jobs, sometimes two at a time, for years to pay the tuition at those vocational schools.
And I have never taken a penny of welfare in my life, in any form. Even when I was uninsured. Even when I was homeless. Even when I would have to go a week eating only beans, rice and apples.
So, please, tell me all about the level playing field I spent my life larking on.
Oh, I see. I suffered so everyone should. That's a different thing.
Personally, through my struggles, I realized that it's better to turn around and help the next person up rather than just turn my back...but that's me.
You're right, it is, and I do what I can. I've let homeless guys shower and crash in my apartment. I've moved jobless friends in with me until they got on their feet. I will buy food for amy hungry person who asks.
That doesn't mean that I am okay with government using force to make everyone be "charitable".
I really think it comes back to my question of whether someone feels treating obesity is a public health concern or a luxury. I don't think everyone agrees that taxes going towards low income subsidies for the health care exchange is "charity."
In the earlier attempt to appeal to greed, one thing got forgotten. If the person receiving said subsidies is giving nothing useful back to society, then it is charity, a donation, a giveaway, whatever. I don't care if it's medical care, food, dance lessons, or a car. It's only a public health concern because we pay for it. If not for that, their being morbidly obese would be of no consequence to anyone else.
As I previously asked (but maybe it wasn't you), what do you do with the morbidly obese who can't pay for care? Even if they die in the street, you still have to pay for disposal teams and facilities.
Correct me if I'm wrong, though, with the following. In most states if you have no income, you wouldn't be on the exchange. You'd either be on medicaid/medicare or SOL. So would you agree that the VAST majority of people getting health care subsidies on the exchange are in fact working and are in fact "useful" to society?
if someone is morbidly obese they more than likely made a choice to become that way, so not sure why the rest of us have to subsidize thirty years of horrible decisions by an individual. What that person should do is cut their intake by 15% and they will lose weight , which will increase their health....
decisions have consequences...
Totally understand the thought. But keep going with it. Who forces them to cut their intake? What incentivises them to do so? Policy? Taxes? Shame billboards? "Mr. Jones at 1213 Main St. Is OBESE" with his drivers license picture?
you obviously don't understand personal responsibility. They should do it so that they do not die or become consistently sick. It is called doing it for oneself. I lost 50 pounds because I wanted to, not because some bureaucrat gave me an incentive me to do it.
You're proposing to base a system of government on "personal responsibility"?
that is what the original intent of the constitution and a federalist form of government was..
I am proposing that the person in your example would want to become less obese for themselves...
In the Declaration of Independence it mentions an awful lot about the role of government being organized for the collective safety, by the consent of the governed. So your argument is the morbidly obese person has consented to be a citizen and has consented to being obese. Therefore, no one else should be involved in their health, since it is not a matter of public concern?0 -
Equality doctrine is already in effect. Let's say I earn $5 per year, and I pay $2 in taxes. And Joe Blow earns $3 per year and pays $0 in taxes because he's exempt. Big Gov will take my $2, of which I will be refunded $0 when I file taxes, and use $1 for deficit interest payments, and they will give the other $1 to Joe Blow who paid in nothing. He pays in nothing, but receives a tax 'refund'.
ETA: Sorry, this was in response to lemurcat.
I'll go with this. But I think it's more like you earn $4 plus $1 in health care benefits from your job you work hard at. Joe earns $1 at the job he works hard at. The feds tax you $2. You still have $2 plus your $1 in benefits. The feds give $0.50 to Joe and keep $0.50. Joe now has $1.50. You still have $3.
In my mind, though, you're mad at Joe when who you should be mad at is the person who earns 10x what you make working hard at their job, but still only pays the $2 in taxes. In my opinion Joe and his $0.50 isn't the problem.
I am not mad at Joe Blow. You are wrong about that. And, yes, my numbers might be a little skewed. My point was, there is already a mechanism in place that takes money from me and gives it to someone who earns less. If I'm Joe Blow, what am I going to do, not take the tax 'refund' when my family needs all the help it can get? Not a chance. If anything, I am mad at the system, and mad at people who think they can legislate and tax us into a utopian society (obesity tax being the trigger that drew me into this discussion).
Who thinks this?
You want names or what?
Sure. You claimed "the system" was trying to tax us into a utopian society. So I just wondered who you thought was backing this initiative. Lobbyists? PETA?
how about starting with the president...
So you're mad at the President for passing the ACA?
you asked for names, I gave you one.
I guess I'm suggesting that it was Congress who put it into place.
who was behind ramming it through the senate....and who proposed the original law? and yes, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, et al are more names you can add to the list of idiotic representatives that think that they can ram through a one size fits all healthcare system on a population of 300 million people and it will somehow "lower cost and improve choice"
Do you feel the legislation congress passed would more effectively have accomplished its goal if it hadn't allowed provisions for states to opt out of the medicaid expansion?0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »How about we try the free market? When in comes to information technology, which comparatively has been subject to far less regulation in the USA, consumers have for the past several decades reaped the benefits of a blistering pace of innovation combined with steadily decreasing costs.
I don't think free market works because it doesn't solve problems like pre-existing conditions and people being unemployable and I do want to share risk across society in some way (we do this to a significant extent with Medicare, but that doesn't help younger people). Also, unfortunately, the area in which health care is probably most price responsive to market pressures is routine care, and that's what we probably want people to take advanage of, as it saves costs in the long run (and in theory is one avenue for addressing obesity).
I did post above about McCain's proposal which I think can serve as a springboard for an interesting policy discussion.
I don't think any of us should be seriously viewed as offering approaches that "solve" anything, just approaches that address problems better than other approaches.
"Solve" may not be the right work, but an approach that does nothing to address the issues I mentioned is a non starter, IMO.
You talked about sharing costs, dealing with pre-existing conditions, and dealing with the unemployable, then assume that free market approaches don't address these issues. I don't think that's correct, at all.
I don't think they do, no. Left to the free market, insurance companies aren't going to cover pre existence conditions, period.
Insurance companies don't insure buildings for fire damage after they've caught fire. Imagine the premiums on insuring fire damage if that was the case?
Totally agree. That's why the insurance model for health care doesn't work well. We are trying to share risk, but also to cover/spread existing costs, as I understand it (or as I would have it).It just means free. Allow people to voluntarily cooperate to find solutions that suit them the best, free of force or coercion. That includes charity, mutual aid societies, creative crowdsourcing, technological solutions, a whole universe of approaches that haven't even been attempted or imagined yet.
So I see nothing here that suggests that it would address the problems I mentioned.
I know what free market means, but people have different levels of government involvement they will allow for in a solution called free market. For example, many (including me) would argue that the McCain plan I posted was a free market plan, and yet it involves tax credits and the like.0 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »eveandqsmom wrote: »eveandqsmom wrote: »eveandqsmom wrote: »I'm trying to stay away but I just keep trying to wrap my head around the way some people think...you do know that living in a strong, healthy, educated society is better for YOU in a selfish way right?
Yep. And health, strength, and education aren't automatic giveaways. First, individuals must really WANT these things. And to value them when they aren't automatically provided, individuals must WORK for them, which not every individual is willing to do.
You really believe you are on an even playing field, don't you?
What? Re-read my posts. I've had to work harder and suffer more for every morsel of comfort and security I now enjoy at the age of 49. Which is quite minimal compared to the average American.
I've experienced homelessness and have spent many years without health insurance. I had to put off surgery on a benign tumor for years for lack of insurance. Until the thing got so big in my abdomen I looked 9 months pregnant and it weighed 10 pounds after it was excised.
I sent myself to vocational schools in my late 20s and again when I was 39 in order to get skilled in fields I knew had work available and would pay me a living wage. I worked the crappiest jobs, sometimes two at a time, for years to pay the tuition at those vocational schools.
And I have never taken a penny of welfare in my life, in any form. Even when I was uninsured. Even when I was homeless. Even when I would have to go a week eating only beans, rice and apples.
So, please, tell me all about the level playing field I spent my life larking on.
Oh, I see. I suffered so everyone should. That's a different thing.
Personally, through my struggles, I realized that it's better to turn around and help the next person up rather than just turn my back...but that's me.
You're right, it is, and I do what I can. I've let homeless guys shower and crash in my apartment. I've moved jobless friends in with me until they got on their feet. I will buy food for amy hungry person who asks.
That doesn't mean that I am okay with government using force to make everyone be "charitable".
I really think it comes back to my question of whether someone feels treating obesity is a public health concern or a luxury. I don't think everyone agrees that taxes going towards low income subsidies for the health care exchange is "charity."
In the earlier attempt to appeal to greed, one thing got forgotten. If the person receiving said subsidies is giving nothing useful back to society, then it is charity, a donation, a giveaway, whatever. I don't care if it's medical care, food, dance lessons, or a car. It's only a public health concern because we pay for it. If not for that, their being morbidly obese would be of no consequence to anyone else.
As I previously asked (but maybe it wasn't you), what do you do with the morbidly obese who can't pay for care? Even if they die in the street, you still have to pay for disposal teams and facilities.
Correct me if I'm wrong, though, with the following. In most states if you have no income, you wouldn't be on the exchange. You'd either be on medicaid/medicare or SOL. So would you agree that the VAST majority of people getting health care subsidies on the exchange are in fact working and are in fact "useful" to society?
if someone is morbidly obese they more than likely made a choice to become that way, so not sure why the rest of us have to subsidize thirty years of horrible decisions by an individual. What that person should do is cut their intake by 15% and they will lose weight , which will increase their health....
decisions have consequences...
Totally understand the thought. But keep going with it. Who forces them to cut their intake? What incentivises them to do so? Policy? Taxes? Shame billboards? "Mr. Jones at 1213 Main St. Is OBESE" with his drivers license picture?
you obviously don't understand personal responsibility. They should do it so that they do not die or become consistently sick. It is called doing it for oneself. I lost 50 pounds because I wanted to, not because some bureaucrat gave me an incentive me to do it.
You're proposing to base a system of government on "personal responsibility"?
that is what the original intent of the constitution and a federalist form of government was..
I am proposing that the person in your example would want to become less obese for themselves...
In the Declaration of Independence it mentions an awful lot about the role of government being organized for the collective safety, by the consent of the governed. So your argument is the morbidly obese person has consented to be a citizen and has consented to being obese. Therefore, no one else should be involved in their health, since it is not a matter of public concern?
if you think that framers of the deceleration of independence and the constitution would approve of the federal government forcing someone to have health care at the threat of taxation by another government agency, you are living on the moon.
Collective safety, in their day, referred to safety from a tyrannical government and not to form some collective Utopian society that would provide for all needs and wants.
My argument is that a morbidly obese person made a conscious decision to eat a lot of food and not move, and that is their right as an individual; however, those decisions have consequences that will have to be faced one day, and that I, as an individual citizen, have no right to have my wages confiscated by the government and then given to someone else to subsidize their choice. If I want to donate to charity or volunteer to obese causes then fine; however, I should not be forced to do so, if I do not want to.5 -
My solution, to end subsidies was a free-market solution. To enact it first you would need to get lobbyists out of Washington.1
-
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »eveandqsmom wrote: »eveandqsmom wrote: »eveandqsmom wrote: »I'm trying to stay away but I just keep trying to wrap my head around the way some people think...you do know that living in a strong, healthy, educated society is better for YOU in a selfish way right?
Yep. And health, strength, and education aren't automatic giveaways. First, individuals must really WANT these things. And to value them when they aren't automatically provided, individuals must WORK for them, which not every individual is willing to do.
You really believe you are on an even playing field, don't you?
What? Re-read my posts. I've had to work harder and suffer more for every morsel of comfort and security I now enjoy at the age of 49. Which is quite minimal compared to the average American.
I've experienced homelessness and have spent many years without health insurance. I had to put off surgery on a benign tumor for years for lack of insurance. Until the thing got so big in my abdomen I looked 9 months pregnant and it weighed 10 pounds after it was excised.
I sent myself to vocational schools in my late 20s and again when I was 39 in order to get skilled in fields I knew had work available and would pay me a living wage. I worked the crappiest jobs, sometimes two at a time, for years to pay the tuition at those vocational schools.
And I have never taken a penny of welfare in my life, in any form. Even when I was uninsured. Even when I was homeless. Even when I would have to go a week eating only beans, rice and apples.
So, please, tell me all about the level playing field I spent my life larking on.
Oh, I see. I suffered so everyone should. That's a different thing.
Personally, through my struggles, I realized that it's better to turn around and help the next person up rather than just turn my back...but that's me.
You're right, it is, and I do what I can. I've let homeless guys shower and crash in my apartment. I've moved jobless friends in with me until they got on their feet. I will buy food for amy hungry person who asks.
That doesn't mean that I am okay with government using force to make everyone be "charitable".
I really think it comes back to my question of whether someone feels treating obesity is a public health concern or a luxury. I don't think everyone agrees that taxes going towards low income subsidies for the health care exchange is "charity."
In the earlier attempt to appeal to greed, one thing got forgotten. If the person receiving said subsidies is giving nothing useful back to society, then it is charity, a donation, a giveaway, whatever. I don't care if it's medical care, food, dance lessons, or a car. It's only a public health concern because we pay for it. If not for that, their being morbidly obese would be of no consequence to anyone else.
As I previously asked (but maybe it wasn't you), what do you do with the morbidly obese who can't pay for care? Even if they die in the street, you still have to pay for disposal teams and facilities.
Correct me if I'm wrong, though, with the following. In most states if you have no income, you wouldn't be on the exchange. You'd either be on medicaid/medicare or SOL. So would you agree that the VAST majority of people getting health care subsidies on the exchange are in fact working and are in fact "useful" to society?
if someone is morbidly obese they more than likely made a choice to become that way, so not sure why the rest of us have to subsidize thirty years of horrible decisions by an individual. What that person should do is cut their intake by 15% and they will lose weight , which will increase their health....
decisions have consequences...
Totally understand the thought. But keep going with it. Who forces them to cut their intake? What incentivises them to do so? Policy? Taxes? Shame billboards? "Mr. Jones at 1213 Main St. Is OBESE" with his drivers license picture?
Scarlet O.5 -
tlflag1620 wrote: »tlflag1620 wrote: »tlflag1620 wrote: »
To bring this back to the topic at hand, do you then logically believe birth control and abortions and adoptions should be free to all women who are not married or independently financially secure?...The reasonable choice for anyone who is not part of a two parent married unit and who is unable to independently support offspring would be to not make babies until they are married and financially able to support who they bring into the world....
No. Let them keep their legs closed. It's not that hard. And if they have a lapse in judgment and want to put a baby up for adoption, I'm pretty sure they don't have to pay to do that.
What if they have a "lapse in judgment" and don't want to give their child away? You would want them to be forced to do so?
What if their legs are forced open, against their will? You would also take away their choice as to what to do in the even they became pregnant?
I'm not free to opine on that here because I'm already walking the line with the MFP's rules about political conversation being discouraged. Needless to say, there seem to be millions and millions of "judgment lapses" happening in the U.S. every year and, obviously, the children aren't given away. I'll leave it at that.
This is true - IIRC something like 51% of pregnancies are reported to be "unitentional". Now, I'm fairly certain that "unintentional" includes consensual sex, where no protection was used, and I would debate that those pregnancies are far from "unintentional". However, even in clinical settings (think perfect use) the various birth control methods have failure rates, and in real world use, the failure rates are much higher.
You seem to be proposing that poor women should not be allowed to have sex. What about poor men? Should poor people simply not be allowed to get married? Who should enforce those rules?
Unintended pregnancy (whether it is due to failure to use birth control, actual birth control failure, or the result of rape) does happen. You stated "..if they have a lapse in judgment and want to put a baby up for adoption, I'm pretty sure they don't have to pay to do that." It begs the question - what if they don't want to put the baby up for adoption? What if they want to abort? What if they want to keep their child? Should poor women not have the same bodily autonomy as wealthier women? Who pays for the prenatal care prior to any adoption arrangement, assuming that is the woman's choice? Who pays for the care and maintenance of the child, if adoption cannot be secured prior to birth and the baby ends up in a "group home" (what we used to call orphanages)? Who pays for babies who aren't likely to be adopted (not every baby is born healthy, white, and male)?
You offhandedly refused to consider providing reproductive services (free or low cost birth control, abortion, and adoption services) to unmarried and/or poor women. So what of the children that will ultimately be produced (and yes, they WILL be produced, as they always have been)? Women who receive adequate prenatal care (whether they choose to keep the baby or place him/her up for adoption) have healthier babies, statistically, than those who receive no/inadequate care. You say it's up to the woman and the man who created the child to foot the bill for the prenatal care, up to and including labor and delivery (should they choose to carry the pregnancy to term). What if they cannot afford it? Screw the damn kid for being too stupid to pick wealthier parents?
OMG. The drama. Whatever happened to pulling out? Ask the fellas. It's not 100% but it's like 90+. It would solve so many of these dirty little problems, LOL!
Citation needed. The pill is "like 90% effective". Pulling out? Much less effective.
But yeah, I can totally see where you wanted to avoid "drama" by telling women to "just keep their legs closed. It's not that hard." Riiiight....
A woman deciding to keep her legs closed in the absence of an engagement ring offered by a man who has the potential and the willingness to provide in case a bun starts baking in the oven really will cut down on a lot of drama. Yes, yes - politically incorrect to blurt right out, I know. But as a woman, I know this to be true from personal experience. Both from the legs open and the legs closed perspective.
Engagement ring or wedding ring? So basically you think poor people shouldn't have sex (or be allowed to get married?). You could refuse marriage licenses on the basis of verifiable income I suppose, but how do you stop poor people from having sex, exactly? And isn't it punishing the wrong person by refusing to assist children born into poverty? Withholding prenatal care because of inability to pay can have adverse consequences for women, sure, but the consequences are generally greater for the baby. You don't think it's more than a little naive to expect that only financially stable people will have sex?
And what of teen pregnancy? What if the grandparents (both sets) were responsible people who only had sex for procreation purposes one or two times in their whole marriage, having only the number of children they could financially afford, but now their kids get pregnant/get someone pregnant, and obviously as teens cannot afford to have the baby, but the grandparents can't afford the child either? What then?
Look, otoh, I agree. People should only have sex when/if they are able to deal with the consequences (mentally, physically, and financially). But now who's trying for some utopian dream world? Unplanned pregnancies happen, to the rich and poor alike. The wealthy are obviously more able to deal with the fallout. But does that mean children born into poverty shouldn't been taken care of?
So you maintained your virginity until you landed yourself a wealthy husband? How.... 1950s of you. Oh wait, scratch that, unplanned pregnancies, out of wedlock at that, happened then too.
0
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
- 424 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