Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Do you think obese/overweight people should pay more for health insurance?
Options
Replies
-
we should have a single payer system3
-
Nope. I'm obese and I never go to the doctor. Why should I pay for a service I never use? Have you seen those heII holes? Nasty sick people spewing their diseases all over the place.. Vampires draining their victims of blood.. Mad scientist injecting unknown substances into bewitched volunteers.. No thank you. I'll take my chances.10
-
GlassAngyl wrote: »Nope. I'm obese and I never go to the doctor. Why should I pay for a service I never use? Have you seen those heII holes? Nasty sick people spewing their diseases all over the place.. Vampires draining their victims of blood.. Mad scientist injecting unknown substances into bewitched volunteers.. No thank you. I'll take my chances.
I go to the doctor at least once a year and have never seen an office with "nasty sick people spewing their diseases all over the place." And I've never been drained of blood (at the most, it's a tube or two) or been injected with an unknown substance.
If you never go to the doctor, why are you so confident that you know what is happening there?5 -
Angel49kitty wrote: »This is definitely a difficult topic, for sure.
There are a lot of factors: thyroid, medications, genetics, illness, diet, exercise, etc.
How do you draw the line between "this person is only overweight because of their thyroid which they have no choice about" and "this person is overweight because they decide to eat at McDonald's every day"? It's finicky, because how do you determine what is enough 'proof' of pre-existing medical illness? Especially if someone couldn't previously get treatment/diagnosis without health insurance.
I think it's kind of sad when people want to condemn others who may only be overweight because they don't have insurance to get medical help (example: thyroid medication is expensive). It makes me glad that I live in Canada, where everyone is treated as an equal in regards to medical care.
Thyroid impacts Resting Energy Expenditure (REE) by ~5%. That's 80 kcals/day out of a 1600 kcal/day budget. ...and that's the impact with no thyroid supplementation.
Synthroid or generics cost between .5-1.5 USD/day (variations on potency & brand).
You can say thyroid has little effect, but when I started getting thyroid meds I went from a little less than .2 lbs weight loss per day to half a pound a day, on the exact same meticulously tracked diet and exercise level. I had to start eating more in order to slow my weight loss. My non-exercise activity level was theoretically the same - sedentary - but probably accounts for most of the difference, since feeling better meant I did everything differently, from how often I went shopping to whether I stood while chopping vegetables or sat at the kitchen table to do it.
While it is possible for anyone to lose weight if calories are sufficiently restricted, the number of calories two different people need to eat can be very different. I don't think it's kind or fair to judge the willpower of a petite, menopausal, hypothyroid woman who has to limit her daily eating to three tiny meals in order to maintain her weight by the same standard as the willpower of a healthy, young, tall man who may be able to eat 3500 calories with the same effect. Sure, the second person might have willpower - but how would anyone know, since his willpower has never been tested?5 -
richardgavel wrote: »Angel49kitty wrote: »This is definitely a difficult topic, for sure.
There are a lot of factors: thyroid, medications, genetics, illness, diet, exercise, etc.
How do you draw the line between "this person is only overweight because of their thyroid which they have no choice about" and "this person is overweight because they decide to eat at McDonald's every day"? It's finicky, because how do you determine what is enough 'proof' of pre-existing medical illness? Especially if someone couldn't previously get treatment/diagnosis without health insurance.
I think it's kind of sad when people want to condemn others who may only be overweight because they don't have insurance to get medical help (example: thyroid medication is expensive). It makes me glad that I live in Canada, where everyone is treated as an equal in regards to medical care.
Does it matter why they're overweight? To my knowledge the correlation between weight and higher need of medical usage doesn't change based on why. Either costs the insurance company more to service.
The whole point of health insurance is to spread the costs of care across people, some of whom are well and some sick, since no one but the most wealthy can afford the cost of serious illness. If sick people could just pay for their own care, no one would need health insurance.1 -
Wouldn't it be better to make the "bad food" go away than have all of these outrageous prices for the "good food"?
What is the "bad food" that should go away? Fat (demonized in the past)? Processed meats? Refined carbs (current devil)? Protein? (Some blame it for much bad in the US diet.)
But to answer the question, no, I don't think it's good to have "bad food" go away, and I also don't think it's realistic. Lots and lots of foods fall into the category of things I think I should only have somewhat rarely compared to other things I eat, or if I happen to have lots of extra calories, or fit carefully within an overall healthful diet: Chicago style pizza, bacon, apple pie, cannoli, pasta carbonara are just a few such. I would not think it would be "better" to make those foods go away, no.
For that matter, alcohol fits firmly in that category (I don't drink anymore myself), and yet I don't think it would be a good idea to make that go away either? In fact, I think we tried that, and it didn't go that well.Wouldn't it be better to give the little guy a break instead of letting big business get off without any of the burden?
This assumes that healthful foods are not affordable (the "outrageous prices" concept). The fact is that food prices are about as low, as a percentage of income, as they have ever been, and a healthy diet is cheap if you are able to forego the convenience foods, the fancy mark up stuff (organic and the like) and focus on in-season and frozen produce, the less expensive/fashionable cuts of meat, eggs, and things like dried beans, oats, potatoes.
My bigger question, and I've yet to get an answer to this, is how increasing prices for "bad foods" would make good foods cheaper? More likely it would remove some price pressure, if anything, as well as make a particular convenience (not cooking) more expensive. Also -- again, depending on how you are defining these terms -- if "good foods" are sold by the came companies who sell "bad foods" (and in many cases they likely are), then they would likely spread around the effect of the taxes.1 -
rheddmobile wrote: »Angel49kitty wrote: »This is definitely a difficult topic, for sure.
There are a lot of factors: thyroid, medications, genetics, illness, diet, exercise, etc.
How do you draw the line between "this person is only overweight because of their thyroid which they have no choice about" and "this person is overweight because they decide to eat at McDonald's every day"? It's finicky, because how do you determine what is enough 'proof' of pre-existing medical illness? Especially if someone couldn't previously get treatment/diagnosis without health insurance.
I think it's kind of sad when people want to condemn others who may only be overweight because they don't have insurance to get medical help (example: thyroid medication is expensive). It makes me glad that I live in Canada, where everyone is treated as an equal in regards to medical care.
Thyroid impacts Resting Energy Expenditure (REE) by ~5%. That's 80 kcals/day out of a 1600 kcal/day budget. ...and that's the impact with no thyroid supplementation.
Synthroid or generics cost between .5-1.5 USD/day (variations on potency & brand).
You can say thyroid has little effect, but when I started getting thyroid meds I went from a little less than .2 lbs weight loss per day to half a pound a day, on the exact same meticulously tracked diet and exercise level. I had to start eating more in order to slow my weight loss. My non-exercise activity level was theoretically the same - sedentary - but probably accounts for most of the difference, since feeling better meant I did everything differently, from how often I went shopping to whether I stood while chopping vegetables or sat at the kitchen table to do it.
While it is possible for anyone to lose weight if calories are sufficiently restricted, the number of calories two different people need to eat can be very different. I don't think it's kind or fair to judge the willpower of a petite, menopausal, hypothyroid woman who has to limit her daily eating to three tiny meals in order to maintain her weight by the same standard as the willpower of a healthy, young, tall man who may be able to eat 3500 calories with the same effect. Sure, the second person might have willpower - but how would anyone know, since his willpower has never been tested?
I'm not saying it. I'm reporting results from clinical observation.
Your report is precisely why trained professionals rely on other trained professionals to study and eliminate variables. We all suffer from confirmation bias.
I don't understand why judgement needs to come into play. Studies on willpower are highly dubious. Limit the impact of willpower by focusing on routine and discipline.0 -
rheddmobile wrote: »richardgavel wrote: »Angel49kitty wrote: »This is definitely a difficult topic, for sure.
There are a lot of factors: thyroid, medications, genetics, illness, diet, exercise, etc.
How do you draw the line between "this person is only overweight because of their thyroid which they have no choice about" and "this person is overweight because they decide to eat at McDonald's every day"? It's finicky, because how do you determine what is enough 'proof' of pre-existing medical illness? Especially if someone couldn't previously get treatment/diagnosis without health insurance.
I think it's kind of sad when people want to condemn others who may only be overweight because they don't have insurance to get medical help (example: thyroid medication is expensive). It makes me glad that I live in Canada, where everyone is treated as an equal in regards to medical care.
Does it matter why they're overweight? To my knowledge the correlation between weight and higher need of medical usage doesn't change based on why. Either costs the insurance company more to service.
The whole point of health insurance is to spread the costs of care across people, some of whom are well and some sick, since no one but the most wealthy can afford the cost of serious illness. If sick people could just pay for their own care, no one would need health insurance.
The whole point of any insurance is to generate wealth through fear of the unknown. Insurance is a scam and an unnecessary middleman.
Study the history of the cost of medical care. This was directly in line with every consumer product until two things happened - medical insurance and government involvement.
1 -
GlassAngyl wrote: »Nope. I'm obese and I never go to the doctor. Why should I pay for a service I never use? Have you seen those heII holes? Nasty sick people spewing their diseases all over the place.. Vampires draining their victims of blood.. Mad scientist injecting unknown substances into bewitched volunteers.. No thank you. I'll take my chances.
So you get sick do you just plan to go out in a field to die and let the buzzards take care of the corpse?
PS, I'm with @janejellyroll never seen what you describe at a doctor's office.4 -
Packerjohn wrote: »GlassAngyl wrote: »Nope. I'm obese and I never go to the doctor. Why should I pay for a service I never use? Have you seen those heII holes? Nasty sick people spewing their diseases all over the place.. Vampires draining their victims of blood.. Mad scientist injecting unknown substances into bewitched volunteers.. No thank you. I'll take my chances.
So you get sick do you just plan to go out in a field to die and let the buzzards take care of the corpse?
PS, I'm with @janejellyroll never seen what you describe at a doctor's office.
probably sooner rather than later with an attitude like that1 -
xmichaelyx wrote: »
Here's a lovely story highlighting the ultimate outcome of socialized medicine:
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-40454177
In summary the bureaucrats decide who lives and who dies. When taken to higher authority the judges at the European Court of Human Rights concluded that further treatment would "continue to cause Charlie significant harm". Regardless of a US physician who has offered an alternative treatment the hospital will not release the child to the parent's custody.
If that kid had been a poor American, he'd have died a long time ago thanks to our idiotic, expensive system.
But by all means, keep parroting dumb talking points based on .000001% of cases while ignoring the other 99.999999% of outcomes.
I consider myself a conservative, and looking at the data from literally every Western country that's not the US, it's clear that single-payer is the fiscally conservative option.
And no, single-payer does nothing to keep wealthy people from using doctors outside of the system, or keep doctors from working outside of the system. It's the cheapest, most humane option available while retaining our beloved capitalist system for those who can afford it.
Our idiotic expensive system is idiotic and expensive based on two dominant factors: Insurance and Government.
Your solution is more insurance and government?
What data are you looking at?
Single payer is atrociously expensive, but the charges are largely hidden by the mazework of bureaucracy. For example the drug I manufacture cost less than 0.01 USD to manufacture and we sell this to wholesalers for 0.29 USD. Medicare pricing is 200 USD for this product. Explain how this happens and how single payer will "fix" this.
Are you aware of the negotiation process that occurs between buying groups, the Congressional committee, insurance groups, and pharmaceutical groups?
I'm fascinated by this disparity. I recently had an issue with my insurance where they would only cover up to 2 refills at a Rite Aid (the third was going to cost $150, when I normally pay around $3), but they would cover refills at CVS at the normal insurance rate. How do companies, or institutions like Medicare, get such leeway when pricing drugs? Where is all that profit going to? I wouldn't expect the end user to get the wholesale price, for sure - obviously there are costs associated with distribution, sale, etc. but that markup seems insane.
The idealist in me wonders why we can't have a system that fairly compensates drug manufacturers and distributors/sales points at a set rate, i.e. distributers get to mark up no more than 20% from the wholesale price, and retail gets to markup another 25% at most. In the example above, that drug would end up costing the end user ~.43. Assuming that the $200 that Medicare is charging is for a 30 day supply, the price difference per unit over $6. I'm going to go ahead and make another assumption that this particular drug is outside of the patent period, where the pharmaceutical company has recouped the R&D costs.
Generic drug prices vary wildly between different drugstores. The traditional drugstores use Rx medications as a main profit source and normally price much higher than supermarkets/department stores that use Rx's to get people in the door more often and make money selling you other stuff.0 -
rheddmobile wrote: »Angel49kitty wrote: »This is definitely a difficult topic, for sure.
There are a lot of factors: thyroid, medications, genetics, illness, diet, exercise, etc.
How do you draw the line between "this person is only overweight because of their thyroid which they have no choice about" and "this person is overweight because they decide to eat at McDonald's every day"? It's finicky, because how do you determine what is enough 'proof' of pre-existing medical illness? Especially if someone couldn't previously get treatment/diagnosis without health insurance.
I think it's kind of sad when people want to condemn others who may only be overweight because they don't have insurance to get medical help (example: thyroid medication is expensive). It makes me glad that I live in Canada, where everyone is treated as an equal in regards to medical care.
Thyroid impacts Resting Energy Expenditure (REE) by ~5%. That's 80 kcals/day out of a 1600 kcal/day budget. ...and that's the impact with no thyroid supplementation.
Synthroid or generics cost between .5-1.5 USD/day (variations on potency & brand).
You can say thyroid has little effect, but when I started getting thyroid meds I went from a little less than .2 lbs weight loss per day to half a pound a day, on the exact same meticulously tracked diet and exercise level. I had to start eating more in order to slow my weight loss. My non-exercise activity level was theoretically the same - sedentary - but probably accounts for most of the difference, since feeling better meant I did everything differently, from how often I went shopping to whether I stood while chopping vegetables or sat at the kitchen table to do it.
While it is possible for anyone to lose weight if calories are sufficiently restricted, the number of calories two different people need to eat can be very different. I don't think it's kind or fair to judge the willpower of a petite, menopausal, hypothyroid woman who has to limit her daily eating to three tiny meals in order to maintain her weight by the same standard as the willpower of a healthy, young, tall man who may be able to eat 3500 calories with the same effect. Sure, the second person might have willpower - but how would anyone know, since his willpower has never been tested?
I'm not saying it. I'm reporting results from clinical observation.
Your report is precisely why trained professionals rely on other trained professionals to study and eliminate variables. We all suffer from confirmation bias.
I don't understand why judgement needs to come into play. Studies on willpower are highly dubious. Limit the impact of willpower by focusing on routine and discipline.
You're reporting a single cherry picked and misleading fact, not the results of anything.
How exactly are you differentiating willpower and discipline? Is there some method for being disciplined which doesn't require willpower? If so, why haven't you patented this?0 -
ciscoperator wrote: »I'd say no. Once you start down the path of limiting healthcare on being overweight, it can follow on to DNA testing for genetic disorders and being charged more for e.g. a great-aunt that developed glaucoma or had sickle-cell anaemia.
We're better off keeping the simple system of universal healthcare where we pay the ~€100 per month with a deductible of €385 (though that keeps going up by around 15 euro each year), where the services of the healthcare provider are provided as part of the insurance (doctor, nurse, surgeon etc.) but the fees paid are for medicines and appliances. But I guess most answering your question aren't in The Netherlands.
Is that deducible a yearly one? That would come out to nearly $450 US which would be very tough for some people living near or below the poverty line - and tough for others if it's a per procedure kind of thing. In the Netherlands universal system, what happens if people cannot afford the monthly fee or deductible?
At least some of the Scandinavian countries have a much narrower income distribution than we have in the US. So possibly that is less of a problem (especially if other communal-use-type services are government subsidized - resulting in lower cost public transportation/child care/etc for the poor).
1 -
rheddmobile wrote: »richardgavel wrote: »Angel49kitty wrote: »This is definitely a difficult topic, for sure.
There are a lot of factors: thyroid, medications, genetics, illness, diet, exercise, etc.
How do you draw the line between "this person is only overweight because of their thyroid which they have no choice about" and "this person is overweight because they decide to eat at McDonald's every day"? It's finicky, because how do you determine what is enough 'proof' of pre-existing medical illness? Especially if someone couldn't previously get treatment/diagnosis without health insurance.
I think it's kind of sad when people want to condemn others who may only be overweight because they don't have insurance to get medical help (example: thyroid medication is expensive). It makes me glad that I live in Canada, where everyone is treated as an equal in regards to medical care.
Does it matter why they're overweight? To my knowledge the correlation between weight and higher need of medical usage doesn't change based on why. Either costs the insurance company more to service.
The whole point of health insurance is to spread the costs of care across people, some of whom are well and some sick, since no one but the most wealthy can afford the cost of serious illness. If sick people could just pay for their own care, no one would need health insurance.
By that token, we shouldn't charge extra for auto insurance to people with frequent accidents or offer discounts to home owners who install home security systems, for example.4 -
rheddmobile wrote: »rheddmobile wrote: »Angel49kitty wrote: »This is definitely a difficult topic, for sure.
There are a lot of factors: thyroid, medications, genetics, illness, diet, exercise, etc.
How do you draw the line between "this person is only overweight because of their thyroid which they have no choice about" and "this person is overweight because they decide to eat at McDonald's every day"? It's finicky, because how do you determine what is enough 'proof' of pre-existing medical illness? Especially if someone couldn't previously get treatment/diagnosis without health insurance.
I think it's kind of sad when people want to condemn others who may only be overweight because they don't have insurance to get medical help (example: thyroid medication is expensive). It makes me glad that I live in Canada, where everyone is treated as an equal in regards to medical care.
Thyroid impacts Resting Energy Expenditure (REE) by ~5%. That's 80 kcals/day out of a 1600 kcal/day budget. ...and that's the impact with no thyroid supplementation.
Synthroid or generics cost between .5-1.5 USD/day (variations on potency & brand).
You can say thyroid has little effect, but when I started getting thyroid meds I went from a little less than .2 lbs weight loss per day to half a pound a day, on the exact same meticulously tracked diet and exercise level. I had to start eating more in order to slow my weight loss. My non-exercise activity level was theoretically the same - sedentary - but probably accounts for most of the difference, since feeling better meant I did everything differently, from how often I went shopping to whether I stood while chopping vegetables or sat at the kitchen table to do it.
While it is possible for anyone to lose weight if calories are sufficiently restricted, the number of calories two different people need to eat can be very different. I don't think it's kind or fair to judge the willpower of a petite, menopausal, hypothyroid woman who has to limit her daily eating to three tiny meals in order to maintain her weight by the same standard as the willpower of a healthy, young, tall man who may be able to eat 3500 calories with the same effect. Sure, the second person might have willpower - but how would anyone know, since his willpower has never been tested?
I'm not saying it. I'm reporting results from clinical observation.
Your report is precisely why trained professionals rely on other trained professionals to study and eliminate variables. We all suffer from confirmation bias.
I don't understand why judgement needs to come into play. Studies on willpower are highly dubious. Limit the impact of willpower by focusing on routine and discipline.
You're reporting a single cherry picked and misleading fact, not the results of anything.
How exactly are you differentiating willpower and discipline? Is there some method for being disciplined which doesn't require willpower? If so, why haven't you patented this?
Misleading? Do you have clinical evidence to the contrary? Please state if so. Multiple regulatory bodies would be very interested in this information and I'll have to amend the safety profiles of products.
Do you lack access to a dictionary?
Per OED:
Willpower: Control exerted to do something or restrain impulses.
Discipline: The practice of training people to obey rules or a code of behaviour, using punishment to correct disobedience.1 -
No. Everyone should be entitled to the same level of healthcare. I feel it's a basic human right. It's similar to charging people more who have a pre existing condition. What else, are we going to charge people more who have a genetic predisposition to certain Illnesses?
Basic human rights would be life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.
You have no right to demand services provided by another individual.
Are you saying there is no relationship between healthcare and life?
Life - as in you have the unalienable right to live your life as you see fit - enjoy the rewards as well as suffer the consequences for your behavior. You have no right to demand services provided by another individual. That would be a clear infringement upon their unalienable rights.
And yet csar is fine with everyone being entitled to the same level of fire or police services.....that's an exception to his 'you cannot demand services' mantra.
Depends on the nation. In the US there is a clear distinction - one of the responsibilities of government is to provide security to the citizens. So in this case this supports and ensures that life, liberty and pursuit of happiness is achievable.
Law enforcement is an inherent role of government. Healthcare is not.
It's true it depends on the nation as different nations have different opinions on human rights and governmental roles. I for one think healthcare is necessary for both life and the pursuit of happiness and by providing the same level to all citizens, it is not unduly impeding the rights of other citizens.
Euro/UK socialized health care (sick care) also provides tax payer funded medical services to non-citizens. Given the current situation in UK/Western Europe, how much longer do you think that will be sustainable?
I can't speak for other countries, but I know in the UK that healthcare is provided to all legal residents. Non British but EU citizens pay the same NI taxes as British citizens to fund the healthcare system. Non British and non EU citizens also pay the same NI taxes PLUS an NHS surcharge of £500/per visa. The usual visa lasts 30months. So every 30months the fee is paid again and it actually goes up a bit every few years. British expats/EU nationals are not legally allowed to just catch a flight to the UK and use the NHS, they have to formally relocate and re-establish their residency in the UK by staying there a year. So anyone who is not a legal resident, pays their own way. There is a problem with people defrauding the NHS which costs around 280M/yr but this is being cracked down on currently. In Europe we have the EHIC system where say you are Spanish and on holiday in the UK, you can use the NHS free to you and the NHS bills the costs to the Spanish government. And vice versa.
So, I think it is sustainable so long as Parliament continue to fund it. The biggest danger to the NHS right now is Parliament starving it of funds to boost pension payments. A sort of generational theft is going on here now.3 -
janejellyroll wrote: »GlassAngyl wrote: »Nope. I'm obese and I never go to the doctor. Why should I pay for a service I never use? Have you seen those heII holes? Nasty sick people spewing their diseases all over the place.. Vampires draining their victims of blood.. Mad scientist injecting unknown substances into bewitched volunteers.. No thank you. I'll take my chances.
I go to the doctor at least once a year and have never seen an office with "nasty sick people spewing their diseases all over the place." And I've never been drained of blood (at the most, it's a tube or two) or been injected with an unknown substance.
If you never go to the doctor, why are you so confident that you know what is happening there?
So you go to a doctor that only sees healthy people? I just went with my sister in law to take her son to get his 4 month shots. There were kids wheezing and coughing and boogering all over the waiting room. Some were there for well check ups and others were there because their moms feel the need to have them checked every time they get a runny nose. Guess who caught a cold two days later?
As for the vampire references and mad scientist, apparently you have never encountered sarcastic exaggerations before. I take a more literary approach when describing my surroundings. Curse of writers and avid readers I suppose, having a flair for the dramatic.
I don't go to the doctor for every tummy ache or discomfort. I'm not a hypochondriac that monitors every symptom through webMD. Sorry if my not following the lemmings offends you.
8 -
https://fee.org/articles/health-insurance-is-illegal/
This whole thread is based on a faulty premise, anyways, at least as far as the USA is concerned.2 -
https://fee.org/articles/health-insurance-is-illegal/
This whole thread is based on a faulty premise, anyways, at least as far as the USA is concerned.
Excellent article. Much of what we term insurance today is actually nothing more than a pre-paid medical plan. With atrocious fiduciary abuses.3 -
GlassAngyl wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »GlassAngyl wrote: »Nope. I'm obese and I never go to the doctor. Why should I pay for a service I never use? Have you seen those heII holes? Nasty sick people spewing their diseases all over the place.. Vampires draining their victims of blood.. Mad scientist injecting unknown substances into bewitched volunteers.. No thank you. I'll take my chances.
I go to the doctor at least once a year and have never seen an office with "nasty sick people spewing their diseases all over the place." And I've never been drained of blood (at the most, it's a tube or two) or been injected with an unknown substance.
If you never go to the doctor, why are you so confident that you know what is happening there?
So you go to a doctor that only sees healthy people? I just went with my sister in law to take her son to get his 4 month shots. There were kids wheezing and coughing and boogering all over the waiting room. Some were there for well check ups and others were there because their moms feel the need to have them checked every time they get a runny nose. Guess who caught a cold two days later?
As for the vampire references and mad scientist, apparently you have never encountered sarcastic exaggerations before. I take a more literary approach when describing my surroundings. Curse of writers and avid readers I suppose, having a flair for the dramatic.
I don't go to the doctor for every tummy ache or discomfort. I'm not a hypochondriac that monitors every symptom through webMD. Sorry if my not following the lemmings offends you.
When I visit the doctor, people with active symptoms are checked in right away. There is nobody "boogering" in the waiting room. I don't think I've ever become ill due to visiting the doctor.
I appreciate you clarifying that you were exaggerating. I am also an avid reader, although I prefer to read less fantastical approaches to reality (at least when the writer is attempting non-fiction).
I'm not at all offended by your preference to avoid medical treatment. I'm not even sure why you mind would go there. I can disagree with your position without being offended that you hold it.1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 389 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 919 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions