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
-
stanmann571 wrote: »
The scaling makes it look like there is a huge gap between the US and the others, but it's really not.
And remember that there are other political issues in the US (not directly related to health-care) that contribute to a shorter lifespan...
What's really fascinating is that Turkey and Mexico rank so high.
An additional component factor is that each country defines birth differently(even among western countries)1 -
Bry_Lander wrote: »
There is a lot more to life expectancy than health care, lifestyle habits are far more relevant. Have you ever traveled throughout Western Europe and taken a look at the physical composition and habits of most of the people? A lot of bike riding, a lot of sensible portions, and not a lot of waddling.
and you explain Canada...how?
Also, as someone who used to live in the UK, their fitness and behavior isn't appreciably different than ours.
If I were to grant you that socialized healthcare is the sole reason for the increased longevity for the sake of argument - Canada and the UK get an additional 2 years of life. That isn’t a very compelling case for the government to completely take it over.3 -
Bry_Lander wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »
There is a lot more to life expectancy than health care, lifestyle habits are far more relevant. Have you ever traveled throughout Western Europe and taken a look at the physical composition and habits of most of the people? A lot of bike riding, a lot of sensible portions, and not a lot of waddling.
and you explain Canada...how?
Also, as someone who used to live in the UK, their fitness and behavior isn't appreciably different than ours.
If I were to grant you that socialized healthcare is the sole reason for the increased longevity for the sake of argument - Canada and the UK get an additional 2 years of life. That isn’t a very compelling case for the government to completely take it over.
It is also much cheaper... and everyone has access to healthcare. The only benefit you can point to for the U.S. system is that some people make a ton of money from it. It isn't cheaper, it isn't better, and it doesn't work at all for millions of Americans. We are fine with "the government completely taking it over" for veterans and the elderly (Medicare) and some poor/disabled people (Medicaid).
We should either decide between:
1. We're okay with poor people dying due to not having access to healthcare and stick with a for-profit model or
2. Go more towards a single payer/Medicare for all system.
What we have now is no healthcare to many poor people until they are close enough to death that they can go to an ER.6 -
mburgess458 wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »
There is a lot more to life expectancy than health care, lifestyle habits are far more relevant. Have you ever traveled throughout Western Europe and taken a look at the physical composition and habits of most of the people? A lot of bike riding, a lot of sensible portions, and not a lot of waddling.
and you explain Canada...how?
Also, as someone who used to live in the UK, their fitness and behavior isn't appreciably different than ours.
If I were to grant you that socialized healthcare is the sole reason for the increased longevity for the sake of argument - Canada and the UK get an additional 2 years of life. That isn’t a very compelling case for the government to completely take it over.
It is also much cheaper... and everyone has access to healthcare. The only benefit you can point to for the U.S. system is that some people make a ton of money from it. It isn't cheaper, it isn't better, and it doesn't work at all for millions of Americans. We are fine with "the government completely taking it over" for veterans and the elderly (Medicare) and some poor/disabled people (Medicaid).
We should either decide between:
1. We're okay with poor people dying due to not having access to healthcare and stick with a for-profit model or
2. Go more towards a single payer/Medicare for all system.
What we have now is no healthcare to many poor people until they are close enough to death that they can go to an ER.
It's certainly not cheaper. It's just that the costs are better concealed within layers of bureaucracy. It's certainly not better either.
And as someone in the US with single payer. It leaves a great deal to be desired.3 -
Bry_Lander wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »
There is a lot more to life expectancy than health care, lifestyle habits are far more relevant. Have you ever traveled throughout Western Europe and taken a look at the physical composition and habits of most of the people? A lot of bike riding, a lot of sensible portions, and not a lot of waddling.
and you explain Canada...how?
Also, as someone who used to live in the UK, their fitness and behavior isn't appreciably different than ours.
If I were to grant you that socialized healthcare is the sole reason for the increased longevity for the sake of argument - Canada and the UK get an additional 2 years of life. That isn’t a very compelling case for the government to completely take it over.
In that it seems to me to be cheaper overall in the UK (probably because the gov't has certain leverage in negotiating and because we are eliminating the middle man which together with the fact that paying with insurance already takes what market pressure would exist largely out of the equation in the US is a large part of why costs in the US are so high), then the fact that it not only does not lead to worse care, but quite possibly better care is significant.
Add to that that people have more freedom to change jobs or start their own businesses, that we don't have to constantly worry about insurance/paying for health care (for those who don't get it from their jobs), and that employers don't have to screw around with this -- it is high cost for employers and one they don't generally like having to deal with (I am a partner in a small business, so am quite familiar with this aspect, huge companies may not care and have employees specifically for that function, but most people in the US don't work for huge companies).
I'll add that one major part of the cost suck in the US will exist regardless, i.e., Medicare. And ironically, many people who deplore the idea of single payer as socialist and therefore bad (and who consider themselves hardcore Republicans) seem to love Medicare (my parents, for example).2 -
mburgess458 wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »
There is a lot more to life expectancy than health care, lifestyle habits are far more relevant. Have you ever traveled throughout Western Europe and taken a look at the physical composition and habits of most of the people? A lot of bike riding, a lot of sensible portions, and not a lot of waddling.
and you explain Canada...how?
Also, as someone who used to live in the UK, their fitness and behavior isn't appreciably different than ours.
If I were to grant you that socialized healthcare is the sole reason for the increased longevity for the sake of argument - Canada and the UK get an additional 2 years of life. That isn’t a very compelling case for the government to completely take it over.
It is also much cheaper... and everyone has access to healthcare. The only benefit you can point to for the U.S. system is that some people make a ton of money from it. It isn't cheaper, it isn't better, and it doesn't work at all for millions of Americans. We are fine with "the government completely taking it over" for veterans and the elderly (Medicare) and some poor/disabled people (Medicaid).
We should either decide between:
1. We're okay with poor people dying due to not having access to healthcare and stick with a for-profit model or
2. Go more towards a single payer/Medicare for all system.
What we have now is no healthcare to many poor people until they are close enough to death that they can go to an ER.
Not cheaper - actually far more expensive due to the continual growing layers of bureaucracy and unlike other single payer nations, the US provides the subsidies to allow single payer to exist. If the US goes single payer this will mark the collapse of healthcare.
Your choices are hyperbolic and not reflective of reality.
Are you a medical professional? Are you providing services for free?3 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »
There is a lot more to life expectancy than health care, lifestyle habits are far more relevant. Have you ever traveled throughout Western Europe and taken a look at the physical composition and habits of most of the people? A lot of bike riding, a lot of sensible portions, and not a lot of waddling.
and you explain Canada...how?
Also, as someone who used to live in the UK, their fitness and behavior isn't appreciably different than ours.
If I were to grant you that socialized healthcare is the sole reason for the increased longevity for the sake of argument - Canada and the UK get an additional 2 years of life. That isn’t a very compelling case for the government to completely take it over.
In that it seems to me to be cheaper overall in the UK (probably because the gov't has certain leverage in negotiating and because we are eliminating the middle man which together with the fact that paying with insurance already takes what market pressure would exist largely out of the equation in the US is a large part of why costs in the US are so high), then the fact that it not only does not lead to worse care, but quite possibly better care is significant.
Add to that that people have more freedom to change jobs or start their own businesses, that we don't have to constantly worry about insurance/paying for health care (for those who don't get it from their jobs), and that employers don't have to screw around with this -- it is high cost for employers and one they don't generally like having to deal with (I am a partner in a small business, so am quite familiar with this aspect, huge companies may not care and have employees specifically for that function, but most people in the US don't work for huge companies).
I'll add that one major part of the cost suck in the US will exist regardless, i.e., Medicare. And ironically, many people who deplore the idea of single payer as socialist and therefore bad (and who consider themselves hardcore Republicans) seem to love Medicare (my parents, for example).
The employer is is one that could be solved by providing individuals with the same tax advantage employers have and employers adjusting salary as a result. Insurance would be portable between jobs and be insurance companies would be forced to be more competitive.1 -
mburgess458 wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »
There is a lot more to life expectancy than health care, lifestyle habits are far more relevant. Have you ever traveled throughout Western Europe and taken a look at the physical composition and habits of most of the people? A lot of bike riding, a lot of sensible portions, and not a lot of waddling.
and you explain Canada...how?
Also, as someone who used to live in the UK, their fitness and behavior isn't appreciably different than ours.
If I were to grant you that socialized healthcare is the sole reason for the increased longevity for the sake of argument - Canada and the UK get an additional 2 years of life. That isn’t a very compelling case for the government to completely take it over.
It is also much cheaper... and everyone has access to healthcare. The only benefit you can point to for the U.S. system is that some people make a ton of money from it. It isn't cheaper, it isn't better, and it doesn't work at all for millions of Americans. We are fine with "the government completely taking it over" for veterans and the elderly (Medicare) and some poor/disabled people (Medicaid).
We should either decide between:
1. We're okay with poor people dying due to not having access to healthcare and stick with a for-profit model or
2. Go more towards a single payer/Medicare for all system.
What we have now is no healthcare to many poor people until they are close enough to death that they can go to an ER.
Veterans are absolutely not "fine" with government healthcare administered by the VA, it has been a disaster and done a disservice to millions of vets - if that is a model for single-payer healthcare, we are in deep trouble if this ever gets implemented.5 -
richardgavel wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »
There is a lot more to life expectancy than health care, lifestyle habits are far more relevant. Have you ever traveled throughout Western Europe and taken a look at the physical composition and habits of most of the people? A lot of bike riding, a lot of sensible portions, and not a lot of waddling.
and you explain Canada...how?
Also, as someone who used to live in the UK, their fitness and behavior isn't appreciably different than ours.
If I were to grant you that socialized healthcare is the sole reason for the increased longevity for the sake of argument - Canada and the UK get an additional 2 years of life. That isn’t a very compelling case for the government to completely take it over.
In that it seems to me to be cheaper overall in the UK (probably because the gov't has certain leverage in negotiating and because we are eliminating the middle man which together with the fact that paying with insurance already takes what market pressure would exist largely out of the equation in the US is a large part of why costs in the US are so high), then the fact that it not only does not lead to worse care, but quite possibly better care is significant.
Add to that that people have more freedom to change jobs or start their own businesses, that we don't have to constantly worry about insurance/paying for health care (for those who don't get it from their jobs), and that employers don't have to screw around with this -- it is high cost for employers and one they don't generally like having to deal with (I am a partner in a small business, so am quite familiar with this aspect, huge companies may not care and have employees specifically for that function, but most people in the US don't work for huge companies).
I'll add that one major part of the cost suck in the US will exist regardless, i.e., Medicare. And ironically, many people who deplore the idea of single payer as socialist and therefore bad (and who consider themselves hardcore Republicans) seem to love Medicare (my parents, for example).
The employer is is one that could be solved by providing individuals with the same tax advantage employers have and employers adjusting salary as a result. Insurance would be portable between jobs and be insurance companies would be forced to be more competitive.
Offering a tax break doesn't help the poor. They don't pay taxes anyway so a break doesn't benefit them.1 -
stanmann571 wrote: »mburgess458 wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »
There is a lot more to life expectancy than health care, lifestyle habits are far more relevant. Have you ever traveled throughout Western Europe and taken a look at the physical composition and habits of most of the people? A lot of bike riding, a lot of sensible portions, and not a lot of waddling.
and you explain Canada...how?
Also, as someone who used to live in the UK, their fitness and behavior isn't appreciably different than ours.
If I were to grant you that socialized healthcare is the sole reason for the increased longevity for the sake of argument - Canada and the UK get an additional 2 years of life. That isn’t a very compelling case for the government to completely take it over.
It is also much cheaper... and everyone has access to healthcare. The only benefit you can point to for the U.S. system is that some people make a ton of money from it. It isn't cheaper, it isn't better, and it doesn't work at all for millions of Americans. We are fine with "the government completely taking it over" for veterans and the elderly (Medicare) and some poor/disabled people (Medicaid).
We should either decide between:
1. We're okay with poor people dying due to not having access to healthcare and stick with a for-profit model or
2. Go more towards a single payer/Medicare for all system.
What we have now is no healthcare to many poor people until they are close enough to death that they can go to an ER.
It's certainly not cheaper. It's just that the costs are better concealed within layers of bureaucracy. It's certainly not better either.
And as someone in the US with single payer. It leaves a great deal to be desired.
This is old but it appears to be a good comparison from 1998. U.S. healthcare costs have to be increasing at least as quickly as those in Canada and Germany, probably faster. Sure looks to me like our costs are MUCH higher than in Canada and Germany.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3633404/
0 -
mburgess458 wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »
There is a lot more to life expectancy than health care, lifestyle habits are far more relevant. Have you ever traveled throughout Western Europe and taken a look at the physical composition and habits of most of the people? A lot of bike riding, a lot of sensible portions, and not a lot of waddling.
and you explain Canada...how?
Also, as someone who used to live in the UK, their fitness and behavior isn't appreciably different than ours.
If I were to grant you that socialized healthcare is the sole reason for the increased longevity for the sake of argument - Canada and the UK get an additional 2 years of life. That isn’t a very compelling case for the government to completely take it over.
It is also much cheaper... and everyone has access to healthcare. The only benefit you can point to for the U.S. system is that some people make a ton of money from it. It isn't cheaper, it isn't better, and it doesn't work at all for millions of Americans. We are fine with "the government completely taking it over" for veterans and the elderly (Medicare) and some poor/disabled people (Medicaid).
We should either decide between:
1. We're okay with poor people dying due to not having access to healthcare and stick with a for-profit model or
2. Go more towards a single payer/Medicare for all system.
What we have now is no healthcare to many poor people until they are close enough to death that they can go to an ER.
...
Are you a medical professional? Are you providing services for free?
Do you think medical professionals provide services for free under single payer systems? The main people/corporations who stop making money under single payer are at health insurers.1 -
mburgess458 wrote: »mburgess458 wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »
There is a lot more to life expectancy than health care, lifestyle habits are far more relevant. Have you ever traveled throughout Western Europe and taken a look at the physical composition and habits of most of the people? A lot of bike riding, a lot of sensible portions, and not a lot of waddling.
and you explain Canada...how?
Also, as someone who used to live in the UK, their fitness and behavior isn't appreciably different than ours.
If I were to grant you that socialized healthcare is the sole reason for the increased longevity for the sake of argument - Canada and the UK get an additional 2 years of life. That isn’t a very compelling case for the government to completely take it over.
It is also much cheaper... and everyone has access to healthcare. The only benefit you can point to for the U.S. system is that some people make a ton of money from it. It isn't cheaper, it isn't better, and it doesn't work at all for millions of Americans. We are fine with "the government completely taking it over" for veterans and the elderly (Medicare) and some poor/disabled people (Medicaid).
We should either decide between:
1. We're okay with poor people dying due to not having access to healthcare and stick with a for-profit model or
2. Go more towards a single payer/Medicare for all system.
What we have now is no healthcare to many poor people until they are close enough to death that they can go to an ER.
Not cheaper - actually far more expensive due to the continual growing layers of bureaucracy and unlike other single payer nations, the US provides the subsidies to allow single payer to exist. If the US goes single payer this will mark the collapse of healthcare.
Your choices are hyperbolic and not reflective of reality.
Are you a medical professional? Are you providing services for free?
Do you think medical professionals provide services for free under single payer systems? The main people/corporations who stop making money under single payer are at health insurers.
You stated the cost was cheaper, but neglected to show where the costs exist and who ends up paying for this.
I asked specifically if you were a medical professional. Well aware that medical professionals are funded by the government. Also well aware that the majority of professionals constrained by these systems do whatever they can to unshackle themselves from said systems.
Good you bring this up as the only real outcome of instituting single payer is the loss of financial incentive by all involved in the healthcare system. These systems only ensure that everyone involved gets the absolute minimum care and extremely limited and rationed advanced care.
As @Bry_Lander stated - if you want to know how single payer works? Talk to a veteran using the VA as their primary care and requiring continual care.0 -
-
mburgess458 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »mburgess458 wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »
There is a lot more to life expectancy than health care, lifestyle habits are far more relevant. Have you ever traveled throughout Western Europe and taken a look at the physical composition and habits of most of the people? A lot of bike riding, a lot of sensible portions, and not a lot of waddling.
and you explain Canada...how?
Also, as someone who used to live in the UK, their fitness and behavior isn't appreciably different than ours.
If I were to grant you that socialized healthcare is the sole reason for the increased longevity for the sake of argument - Canada and the UK get an additional 2 years of life. That isn’t a very compelling case for the government to completely take it over.
It is also much cheaper... and everyone has access to healthcare. The only benefit you can point to for the U.S. system is that some people make a ton of money from it. It isn't cheaper, it isn't better, and it doesn't work at all for millions of Americans. We are fine with "the government completely taking it over" for veterans and the elderly (Medicare) and some poor/disabled people (Medicaid).
We should either decide between:
1. We're okay with poor people dying due to not having access to healthcare and stick with a for-profit model or
2. Go more towards a single payer/Medicare for all system.
What we have now is no healthcare to many poor people until they are close enough to death that they can go to an ER.
It's certainly not cheaper. It's just that the costs are better concealed within layers of bureaucracy. It's certainly not better either.
And as someone in the US with single payer. It leaves a great deal to be desired.
This is old but it appears to be a good comparison from 1998. U.S. healthcare costs have to be increasing at least as quickly as those in Canada and Germany, probably faster. Sure looks to me like our costs are MUCH higher than in Canada and Germany.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3633404/
You realize the both Canada and Germany have the ability to negotiate prices to mitigate cost right?
The US does not.
...and this still fails to address the hidden costs to the systems. A more correct comparison would have to including the bureaucracy within the government associated with healthcare.
1 -
mburgess458 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »mburgess458 wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »
There is a lot more to life expectancy than health care, lifestyle habits are far more relevant. Have you ever traveled throughout Western Europe and taken a look at the physical composition and habits of most of the people? A lot of bike riding, a lot of sensible portions, and not a lot of waddling.
and you explain Canada...how?
Also, as someone who used to live in the UK, their fitness and behavior isn't appreciably different than ours.
If I were to grant you that socialized healthcare is the sole reason for the increased longevity for the sake of argument - Canada and the UK get an additional 2 years of life. That isn’t a very compelling case for the government to completely take it over.
It is also much cheaper... and everyone has access to healthcare. The only benefit you can point to for the U.S. system is that some people make a ton of money from it. It isn't cheaper, it isn't better, and it doesn't work at all for millions of Americans. We are fine with "the government completely taking it over" for veterans and the elderly (Medicare) and some poor/disabled people (Medicaid).
We should either decide between:
1. We're okay with poor people dying due to not having access to healthcare and stick with a for-profit model or
2. Go more towards a single payer/Medicare for all system.
What we have now is no healthcare to many poor people until they are close enough to death that they can go to an ER.
It's certainly not cheaper. It's just that the costs are better concealed within layers of bureaucracy. It's certainly not better either.
And as someone in the US with single payer. It leaves a great deal to be desired.
This is old but it appears to be a good comparison from 1998. U.S. healthcare costs have to be increasing at least as quickly as those in Canada and Germany, probably faster. Sure looks to me like our costs are MUCH higher than in Canada and Germany.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3633404/
As part of my MBA we studied healthcare economics and looked at the UK, Swedish, Japanese, and Canadian systems in comparison to what we have in the US. Certainly having the (for-profit) insurance companies as middlemen here is the US adds a lot of cost. Many of the other healthcare systems have instituted price controls, both for consumables and labor. Yay for the global economy, but there are companies who are taking advantage of the lack of price controls in the US to make their profits--think pharmaceuticals and durable medical equipment/diagnostic equipment. Healthcare workers in other countries have a very different pay structure than they do in the US--salaries tend to be much lower. I grew up near the US-Canadian border, and there were many healthcare workers who lived in Canada (and had the nationalized medical care) but crossed the border every day to work because they were paid much better in the US.
2 -
The top 5% of the country pay 50% of the taxes and the top 50% pay 95% of the taxes. If we were to completely confiscate the wealth of every billionaire in this country you would have enough to fund the US government for a little less than a year. Then what, who would we rob next, and what do we do when we run out of rich people to pay taxes?3
-
My financial analogy...should airlines move large people into a fist class seat because, even though they bought an economy seat, they cant fit into it?
Do you know the cost of a first class seat? Should the airline absorb that loss? Should people who pay the extra for that luxury seat be ok with people who don't? Or, should the people in economy, who paid for their seat space, be forced to use only half of their seat to compensate for the other person?3 -
lisawolfinger wrote: »My financial analogy...should airlines move large people into a fist class seat because, even though they bought an economy seat, they cant fit into it?
Do you know the cost of a first class seat? Should the airline absorb that loss? Should people who pay the extra for that luxury seat be ok with people who don't? Or, should the people in economy, who paid for their seat space, be forced to use only half of their seat to compensate for the other person?
This doesn't totally track for me though. I mean, I'm using as much health insurance as I am using. Nobody else's condition is making me use half my coverage. If my co-worker uses more than I do, it doesn't mean there is less coverage for me.
There comes a point where prices may increase for everyone, but it's not just obesity factored into that. I wouldn't begrudge someone who had a baby in ICU, but that also increases the overall amount my health insurance company must cover.
Health insurance coverage isn't like an airline seat. Needing more coverage isn't like being moved into a first class seat.2 -
janejellyroll wrote: »
This doesn't totally track for me though. I mean, I'm using as much health insurance as I am using. Nobody else's condition is making me use half my coverage. If my co-worker uses more than I do, it doesn't mean there is less coverage for me.
Yes and no... As your coworkers (or your risk pool) use more, costs go up for everyone. It's still a matter of economics--there simply cannot be enough health care for everybody who wants everything. Right now healthcare in the US is rationed on the ability to pay. However, in nationalized/single payer systems, it is still kind of being rationed--certainly some of the costs have been controlled and the playing field has been leveled on the ability to pay, but everybody receives a little less care. Certain procedures are limited by capacity or the number of surgery slots, etc.--you might have to wait much longer for your turn.
And I'm not saying either system is better or worse, they're just different and have different compromises.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »
This doesn't totally track for me though. I mean, I'm using as much health insurance as I am using. Nobody else's condition is making me use half my coverage. If my co-worker uses more than I do, it doesn't mean there is less coverage for me.
Yes and no... As your coworkers (or your risk pool) use more, costs go up for everyone. It's still a matter of economics--there simply cannot be enough health care for everybody who wants everything. Right now healthcare in the US is rationed on the ability to pay. However, in nationalized/single payer systems, it is still kind of being rationed--certainly some of the costs have been controlled and the playing field has been leveled on the ability to pay, but everybody receives a little less care. Certain procedures are limited by capacity or the number of surgery slots, etc.--you might have to wait much longer for your turn.
And I'm not saying either system is better or worse, they're just different and have different compromises.
I understand the economics behind it, but it doesn't operate as simply as the "airline seat" example makes it sound. I am not using less healthcare (getting half a seat) just because someone else in my company is using more.
And when healthcare costs are considered, it's all kinds of things that drive up the cost. Obesity is a major factor, but so are things like childbirth, disabilities, cancer . . . I don't think of people who are having babies or dealing with cancer as taking up my half of the seat and I don't feel like it's somehow unfair to me. I realize others may consider it differently, that's just my approach.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 398 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
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 976 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions