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
Options
Replies
-
eveandqsmom wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »eveandqsmom wrote: »I think that if the US government removed the subsidiaries on wheat, corn, and sugarcane, the price of high calorie food would correct itself. The government would have their subsidy money back to put into healthcare for those already dealing with obesity, and people would think long and hard before buying calorie dense foods, and obesity would not be anywhere as common as it is now...kind of like how when cigarettes became 10 bucks a pack everyone started quitting.
I'm in keto, have been for a while, and continuing to drop weight. What's the problem with calorie dense foods? Again, being too general.
Sorry, over-processed, low-nutrient, hyperpalatable, high sugar, simple carbed, crap that the bulk of obese people are eating way too much of because it is priced artificially low.
Would you put breakfast sausage and/or salami into this? I mean, they're both processed all to hell, calorically dense, have all kinds of fats and added salt, etc. and I eat the hell out of both. Or are we specifically talking about corn based...stuff?0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »So Newmarket--
When you said:Anyhow, as far as my answer is relevant to this thread without descending into political views, I think getting basic healthcare needs met is at the bottom of this tier. Basic. Even for fat people. A fat person may develop cancer, heart disease or high blood pressure, but proving conclusively that obesity was the sole cause isn't really possible.
What did you mean? It seems somewhat inconsistent with your more recent comments, so I'm thinking I misunderstood it.
I think healthcare should be socialized in the U.S. and available equally to all. I know it's inconsistent with my more conservative views but I work as a practical nurse and it's an issue close to my heart and experiences.
Did you mean to call me Newmarket or was that an oopsie? It's okay. Even if it was on purpose, I still like you.
Heh, oopsie, sorry. I'm not even sure what that would mean if it were intended as an insult, and my name is silly so I'm not going to be mocking anyone else's!
Thanks for clarifying. That's how I took it originally and then I was thinking I must have misunderstood.0 -
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.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).0 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »eveandqsmom wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »eveandqsmom wrote: »I think that if the US government removed the subsidiaries on wheat, corn, and sugarcane, the price of high calorie food would correct itself. The government would have their subsidy money back to put into healthcare for those already dealing with obesity, and people would think long and hard before buying calorie dense foods, and obesity would not be anywhere as common as it is now...kind of like how when cigarettes became 10 bucks a pack everyone started quitting.
I'm in keto, have been for a while, and continuing to drop weight. What's the problem with calorie dense foods? Again, being too general.
Sorry, over-processed, low-nutrient, hyperpalatable, high sugar, simple carbed, crap that the bulk of obese people are eating way too much of because it is priced artificially low.
Would you put breakfast sausage and/or salami into this? I mean, they're both processed all to hell, calorically dense, have all kinds of fats and added salt, etc. and I eat the hell out of both. Or are we specifically talking about corn based...stuff?
I am only aware of those particular subsidies but I bet the pig farmers have some too
0 -
eveandqsmom wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »eveandqsmom wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »eveandqsmom wrote: »I think that if the US government removed the subsidiaries on wheat, corn, and sugarcane, the price of high calorie food would correct itself. The government would have their subsidy money back to put into healthcare for those already dealing with obesity, and people would think long and hard before buying calorie dense foods, and obesity would not be anywhere as common as it is now...kind of like how when cigarettes became 10 bucks a pack everyone started quitting.
I'm in keto, have been for a while, and continuing to drop weight. What's the problem with calorie dense foods? Again, being too general.
Sorry, over-processed, low-nutrient, hyperpalatable, high sugar, simple carbed, crap that the bulk of obese people are eating way too much of because it is priced artificially low.
Would you put breakfast sausage and/or salami into this? I mean, they're both processed all to hell, calorically dense, have all kinds of fats and added salt, etc. and I eat the hell out of both. Or are we specifically talking about corn based...stuff?
I am only aware of those particular subsidies but I bet the pig farmers have some too
I'm actually perfectly fine with ending any and all subsidies. They do nothing but serve to distort the market, and most farmers will tell you that they are actually quite harmful to them, as well as waistlines.3 -
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
0 -
Also, I believe corn subsidies have an effect on meat prices, because it affects the cost of animal feed.0
-
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 talked to a British National at my company about the heath care in the UK. He had a knee injury, went to the doctor who confirmed he needed surgery. Since he was an IT guy and didn't need the knee for work he was told he could take pain killers and be put on the list for surgery and his turn would come up in 2-3 years.
However, if he was willing to pay $10k towards the cost, he could get it done in 2 weeks. I could pay the $10k but others might not be able to and would have to wait. Is that socialized?
Not sure if I can get my head around that scenario.4 -
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
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 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
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 402 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 998 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions