Obesity costs US health system $147 billion: study

[johnrocks]

Obesity-related diseases account for nearly 10 percent of all medical spending in the United States or an estimated $147 billion a year, U.S. researchers said Monday.

They said obese people spend 40 percent more -- or $1,429 more per year -- in healthcare costs than people of normal weight.
http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSTRE56Q36020090727
How can this be brought under control? How can a government bring this under control without force?

[LouC]

This crap needs to get nipped in the bud.

This is slope territory we are getting into with this kind of OMG reporting.

You want to address the weight issue fine, don't do it by making it another "class" bias warfare issue.

90% of medical spending involves non obese normal weight people

[DRS]

Honestly, you can tax things to make them a luxury so they are not consumed as much.

[Army Wife]

I am glad they didn't include me in that study...I spend less that $500 a year on medical costs...

[mysticbeauty_nbeast]

Obesity-related diseases account for nearly 10 percent of all medical spending in the United States or an estimated $147 billion a year, U.S. researchers said Monday.

They said obese people spend 40 percent more -- or $1,429 more per year -- in healthcare costs than people of normal weight.
http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSTRE56Q36020090727
How can this be brought under control? How can a government bring this under control without force?

From the article:

They said obese people spend 40 percent more -- or $1,429 more per year -- in healthcare costs than people of normal weight.

Ok..so here's where my brain begins to bellow smoke outta my ears. They..being the obese people in the article, are spending..(*meaning their money*)...a higher percentage in healthcare insurance......:doh: and this is an issue why? It's their life..it's their money...let um spend it the way they deem fit.

Now if the article focused solely on medicade type recipients..meaning our tax dollars paying for services to the obese...then maybe I could understand the need to reduce the unhealthy weight of our populace...

Here's the 'guess what' in all of this....they'd (the impoverished obese on medicade type programs) would still need healthcare for 'non-related' obese health issues. Then what? A ten year study would be done on how human beings need to much health care due to over doing it on the whole 'be healthy' mantra? :rolleyes: Oh yeah...people break bones, come down with pre-disposed genetic diseases, get old, and still die. Medicine still can't cure the common cold..but they sure as heck like the money that comes in on OTC and well checks for it don't they? :wall:

Look...every American could easily work on being more healthy. Eating well, excersise, watching our weight, moderate snacks, sweets and alcohol..not smoke..but none of that in any way will 'save us' from ever needing health care in some form or fashion in our lives. Example: Asthma would still be here, MS, Alzheimer, Parkinson's, Cancer, broken bones, Diverticulitis, Heart defects and issues, Kidney issues, Liver issues, bowel and colon issues, bladder issues, Female gynecology issues, Males reproductive issues, Ear Nose and Throat issues, Pediatric issues...the list could go on and on. Eradicating Obesity won't touch the health status of any of the conditions/issues listed above.

Look.. It's the great lie told to us to push a money saving tactic within healthcare. It's a way to use fear mongering to push for socialized medicine that simply won't work. It will fail us just as most governmental plots fail us. The larger question is 'why' (the government) pushing so hard for it? That question is what keeps me up at night.

~Mysty

[johnrocks]

Honestly, you can tax things to make them a luxury so they are not consumed as much.

So tax things so high that they won't be consumed,how will that effect the economy,jobs?

[MrShotShot]

Honestly, you can tax things to make them a luxury so they are not consumed as much.

well when the dollar finally gives up the ghost, we can use sugar as currency.

[mysticbeauty_nbeast]

well when the dollar finally gives up the ghost, we can use sugar as currency.

That's an interesting idea MrShot..very interesting indeed.

Let's say..for pure speculative value... that we do exactly as DRS directs..and tax everything that is deemed (no doubt by some governmental entity or agency) unhealthy and apply those taxes to the 'cure' if you will of said issue. Now this idea could go farther then our original topic of obesity...it could easily translate into the field of say, energy and the making of said energy...it could apply into the field of transportation/making of said transportative type vehicles...it could apply to buildings and homes...anything deemed harmful or anything with a possible harmful affect could easily be 'taxed' as a luxury item..and that money then applied to the supposed 'cure'. Gee..that's almost everything I can think of in our modern world!



End point..you wanna be a obese...then have at it. You want to drive a Hummer..go for it. You want to drink your liver into a sponge...hey...have fun doing it. Want to drive narcotics into your veins ..enjoy. Where on earth does the government get off telling us if we wish to live as we choose..that we must pay them a tax in order to do so? We already pay huge taxes on almost everything I already described above. Does the past history lesson of the Boston Tea Party teach us nothing? :rolleyes:

Give a mouse a cookie...and it will expect a glass a milk! ;)

~Mysty

[DRS]

So tax things so high that they won't be consumed,how will that effect the economy,jobs?

The effects could vary depending on how the company handled the situation.

Lets say a 2 litre bottle of pop had a $3 tax on it how bad would that be?

[DRS]

well when the dollar finally gives up the ghost, we can use sugar as currency.

Salt has been used in the past.

[pattyk]

computers are the main reason for obesity

<sarcasm off>

(but it can't help)

[johnrocks]

The effects could vary depending on how the company handled the situation.

Lets say a 2 litre bottle of pop had a $3 tax on it how bad would that be?

You think there is a government solution for everything don't you,lol.

[RTchoke]

You think there is a government solution for everything don't you,lol.

Yeah and that govt solution appears to be tax the **** out of everything. :confused:

[VCaddy05]

I dont really know if there is anything the govt can do for this problem. Besides advertisments of healthy eating, and overweight people paying out the ass for insurance its no business of the govts.

[RTchoke]

I dont really know if there is anything the govt can do for this problem. Besides advertisments of healthy eating, and overweight people paying out the ass for insurance its no business of the govts.

Just wait until your on the govt insurance. :twisted:

:D

[DRS]

You think there is a government solution for everything don't you,lol.

I see a solution to all things, and if people will not fix themselves but will put a burden on the government system then why should they not provide the solution?

[DRS]

Yeah and that govt solution appears to be tax the **** out of everything. :confused:

No they can also reward good behaviours through tax incentives

[RickRhetoric]

If all the fat Americans were emaciated from hunger instead, the national health care burden would cost even much, much more.

Hungry people in third world countries will quickly tell you that they want to live in America where everyone is fat.

Americans should be glad they can afford to be fat!

Eat, drink and be merry. (I think that's one of the 10 commandments?) No?

[johnrocks]

I see a solution to all things, and if people will not fix themselves but will put a burden on the government system then why should they not provide the solution?

Because with a government "solution" comes rights being taken from others.

[eviljagtech]

There is only one huge issue with this whole issue and is only you doctor can tell if you fat. Im 90 lbs over the so called BMI scale and my Doc say's i have perfect health yet the great "GOV" say's Nay Nay to that.
May they need to tell people that the great scale they use was made back in the early 1800's and had nothing to do with health. Also this is America and last I checked almost EVERYONE was from somewhere else at sometime. This means that we all have different sizes,shapes,colors,eating habits, and most important GENE'S.
I wouldn't trust the Gov. to tie my shoes let alone tell me whats good for me.

[chip]

I see a solution to all things, and if people will not fix themselves but will put a burden on the government system then why should they not provide the solution?

The solution is not have the govt involved in the system.

[Ninjacorpse]

I brought it up last night in jest, how about something like a meals on wheels program for everybody. All the fatties will have their calorie intake controlled by the government and progressives will have one less hurdle to overcome in life. Maybe we can get someone to come do our laundry too, we would all probably have to wear the same thing, but that would make us even more equal wouldn't it? :think:

[Wookinstien]

A couple of ideas

1. We should round up all the fat people into camps and feed them wheat grass until they are skinny.

2. Liposuction all the fat out of them and convert it to bio disel-thereby solving two problems at once. Then offering free donuts to start the cycle all over again.

:)

[Pudge]

I'd check and see how, exactly, they define 'obesity' before I put any kind of creedence in what that study says.

If they use the simple height to weight ratio, it's a crock.

[Pudge]

The effects could vary depending on how the company handled the situation.

Lets say a 2 litre bottle of pop had a $3 tax on it how bad would that be?

Government cannot be trusted with that revenue, that's why. They would not just put it in a lockbox fund to help offset healthcare costs, it would go into the general treasury. Then, once the people are persuaded by the tax to not buy it, the government is suddenly out a source of revenue and starts taxing other things to make up for it. No, I am tired of sin taxes and vice taxes, what we have now is enough and in some areas, too much. In the end they lead to a government heavily invested in keeping that tax coming in, and they must encourage the continued purchase of a product that they also have to demonize to justify the tax in the first place.

See: Cigarettes.

[DRS]

People could always makes this point moot by taking care of themselves and comsuming less of that which is causing the problem.

[jeepers]

I see a solution to all things, and if people will not fix themselves but will put a burden on the government system then why should they not provide the solution?

So don't have a government solution.

I don't want you to decide what I eat for dinner. IT's not your business, it's not your place, it's not your concern. Matter of fact, it's pretty intrusive of you to tell me what to do.

This is not some commune or collective where we all voluntarily decide together what the group is going to do. This is a COUNTRY where 'freedom' used to be the guiding light.

It's always the person wtih the 'good idea' that doesn't see the problem in the idea. Don't you like MY idea? MY idea is BEST!

But your idea is not good enough to get people to do it willingly.

I have no problem with teaching. I have no issue with the idea of promoting health (dur). I have issue with the coercion...the force.

One should have a cautious tone with this sort of thing. This week, it's your favortie subject. Next week, they could be forcing you to do something that you don't want to do.

Don't object, it's for the good of the order. March!

Uh, NO.

....life, LIBERTY, and the pursuit of happiness. We get to decide for ourselves what that means. Until you create laws that say 'you don't have the freedom to decide for yourself, now. Pay homage to the state.'

I don't want to put you in the driver's seat and I'm forced to sit there and go wherever YOU want to go.

[johnrocks]

So don't have a government solution.

I don't want you to decide what I eat for dinner. IT's not your business, it's not your place, it's not your concern. Matter of fact, it's pretty intrusive of you to tell me what to do.

This is not some commune or collective where we all voluntarily decide together what the group is going to do. This is a COUNTRY where 'freedom' used to be the guiding light.

It's always the person wtih the 'good idea' that doesn't see the problem in the idea. Don't you like MY idea? MY idea is BEST!

But your idea is not good enough to get people to do it willingly.

I have no problem with teaching. I have no issue with the idea of promoting health (dur). I have issue with the coercion...the force.

One should have a cautious tone with this sort of thing. This week, it's your favortie subject. Next week, they could be forcing you to do something that you don't want to do.

Don't object, it's for the good of the order. March!

Uh, NO.

....life, LIBERTY, and the pursuit of happiness. We get to decide for ourselves what that means. Until you create laws that say 'you don't have the freedom to decide for yourself, now. Pay homage to the state.'

I don't want to put you in the driver's seat and I'm forced to sit there and go wherever YOU want to go.

:clap::clap::clap: Well stated Jeepers!

[DRS]

So basically it is I will do what is best for me and ignore the consequences and costs to the common good?

[Pudge]

People could always makes this point moot by taking care of themselves and comsuming less of that which is causing the problem.

Not so. Life is a sexually-transmitted terminal illness and no matter how healthy we maintain ourselves, someday we're going to get sick and die, or get injured and die, or our bodies will just say, enough, and we're done.

Pointing a finger at fat people is just an idiotic diversion from the truth that inevitably we will all need healthcare at some point.

We also live in a society where everything someone does assumes a risk. You cannot ban risk. It's unavoidable. You can stay in your home, never leave, munch lettuce and run on your treadmill all day and you still might end up doing something that incurs a healthcare expense. There will never be life without risk.

And again- I question the definition of 'obesity' as used in this study, because according to the definition currently used, an NFL runningback would be considered 'obese'.

[Pudge]

So basically it is I will do what is best for me and ignore the consequences and costs to the common good?

No. Individuals should always try to act responsibly. The law is a poor method of enforcing that, though. Taxation is even worse, as the tax becomes something the government can't do without and thus, the government now has an interest in keeping a taxed "no-no" selling.

Again, see cigarettes. If all smokers quit tomorrow, what do you think would happen to the billions the government rakes in from tobacco taxes?

[RTchoke]

No. Individuals should always try to act responsibly. The law is a poor method of enforcing that, though. Taxation is even worse, as the tax becomes something the government can't do without and thus, the government now has an interest in keeping a taxed "no-no" selling.

Again, see cigarettes. If all smokers quit tomorrow, what do you think would happen to the billions the government rakes in from tobacco taxes?

This is why cigarettes will never be made illegal. People rant and rave about how bad they are for you, you should quit, it's for your health, blah,blah, blah but they will never get rid of them. They rake in too much graft for the govt.

[mysticbeauty_nbeast]

So basically it is I will do what is best for me and ignore the consequences and costs to the common good?

Define "Common Good" for me...please.

Allow me explain why I have asked such a question, so you understand where I'm going with it. I'm, by all appearances, healthy. I'm trim..so people automatically assume I'm healthy. I'm formally educated within the field of medicine...so people automatically assume I live a very healthy lifestyle. Those people...they would be wrong. :eh:

I'm chronically/terminally ill; disabled; fight to keep weight on; smoke; and rarely have the opportunity to excersise due to the sever chronic head to toe pain I'm in daily. Even with my educational background, I receive no better or worse care then any other human being. I do know how to keep from going to the grave early..but that doesn't mean it will keep me outta the grave early. The medications that allow me to walk and live a somewhat normal life, will eventually turn my internal organs to mush one day....

Now...having said all that...the common good for me is what exactly? Or don't I now count in that 'common good' realm due to the nature of my condition? Am I exempt then to any common good? What if I were obese due to the nature of whatever condition I had...would I then hold the same exempt status as before..or would the common good ideology now change due to weight?

I become very nervous when broad statements of 'common good' as it relates to health care and lifestyle are broached. To who's 'common good' stance do we follow? By whose standards do we then weigh against as it pertains to 'pursuit of happiness', freedom, and individual choice? When we begin to consider giving up those base choices and freedoms to live as we wish, we are enslaving ourselves to an ideology our forefathers fought hard to free us from.

Obama, Clinton and other Presidents and even governors have tried to push the whole 'health mantra' down their populaces throats. They've used the health care industry and money spent caring for that populace as the fine point of the argument. Fine..great...take away the money making industry of health care..and the housing market fall and fiasco will look like a mere hiccup in our economy in comparison to the tsunami type damage that this type of take over will do in the healthcare industry/economy. If this tired old message of 'healthy' hasn't made it's impression over the past 25+ or so years..then what makes you think it will make an impression or change us now?

Answer is..it won't. This is merely the face that those in power choose to use in order to validly pick our pockets for the express hope of huge amounts of unfettered dollars to flow in to the coffers of an out of control spending government.

Now...having said that..the question again was...define 'common good' for me..within the context to the whole 'healthy mantra'?

~Mysty

[DRS]

No. Individuals should always try to act responsibly. The law is a poor method of enforcing that, though. Taxation is even worse, as the tax becomes something the government can't do without and thus, the government now has an interest in keeping a taxed "no-no" selling.

Again, see cigarettes. If all smokers quit tomorrow, what do you think would happen to the billions the government rakes in from tobacco taxes?

How much though is spent because of the habit thought I wonder?

[johnrocks]

How much though is spent because of the habit thought I wonder?

Freedom is messy AND expensive. How much does it cost to dring alcohol,smoke cigarettes,eat fast food or literally thousands of other things in life? As a fat man, I can tell you that if you raise taxes to the point of it being cost prohibitive, I'll just switch and go to another unhealthy choice if I don't have the personal responsibility to do what needs to be done, as someone who has studied economics, I can tell you that to raise taxes to such heights would do damage to the economy and also "could" create a black market for such goods.

[RTchoke]

Freedom is messy AND expensive. How much does it cost to dring alcohol,smoke cigarettes,eat fast food or literally thousands of other things in life? As a fat man, I can tell you that if you raise taxes to the point of it being cost prohibitive, I'll just switch and go to another unhealthy choice if I don't have the personal responsibility to do what needs to be done, as someone who has studied economics, I can tell you that to raise taxes to such heights would do damage to the economy and also "could" create a black market for such goods.

I can see it now.............in a dark alley somewhere..................

"Psssssssstt..............hey you..

Yeah, you....skinny kid..............come over here

I'll give ya five bucks to run over to Angelino's Pizza and buy me a large Kitchen Sink with extra cheese........I'll throw in an extra buck if you make it snappy."

[DRS]

Define "Common Good" for me...please.

Allow me explain why I have asked such a question, so you understand where I'm going with it. I'm, by all appearances, healthy. I'm trim..so people automatically assume I'm healthy. I'm formally educated within the field of medicine...so people automatically assume I live a very healthy lifestyle. Those people...they would be wrong. :eh:

I'm chronically/terminally ill; disabled; fight to keep weight on; smoke; and rarely have the opportunity to excersise due to the sever chronic head to toe pain I'm in daily. Even with my educational background, I receive no better or worse care then any other human being. I do know how to keep from going to the grave early..but that doesn't mean it will keep me outta the grave early. The medications that allow me to walk and live a somewhat normal life, will eventually turn my internal organs to mush one day....

Now...having said all that...the common good for me is what exactly? Or don't I now count in that 'common good' realm due to the nature of my condition? Am I exempt then to any common good? What if I were obese due to the nature of whatever condition I had...would I then hold the same exempt status as before..or would the common good ideology now change due to weight?

I become very nervous when broad statements of 'common good' as it relates to health care and lifestyle are broached. To who's 'common good' stance do we follow? By whose standards do we then weigh against as it pertains to 'pursuit of happiness', freedom, and individual choice? When we begin to consider giving up those base choices and freedoms to live as we wish, we are enslaving ourselves to an ideology our forefathers fought hard to free us from.

Obama, Clinton and other Presidents and even governors have tried to push the whole 'health mantra' down their populaces throats. They've used the health care industry and money spent caring for that populace as the fine point of the argument. Fine..great...take away the money making industry of health care..and the housing market fall and fiasco will look like a mere hiccup in our economy in comparison to the tsunami type damage that this type of take over will do in the healthcare industry/economy. If this tired old message of 'healthy' hasn't made it's impression over the past 25+ or so years..then what makes you think it will make an impression or change us now?

Answer is..it won't. This is merely the face that those in power choose to use in order to validly pick our pockets for the express hope of huge amounts of unfettered dollars to flow in to the coffers of an out of control spending government.

Now...having said that..the question again was...define 'common good' for me..within the context to the whole 'healthy mantra'?

~Mysty

First off I am sorry to hear you are suffering. There is a difference between a disease you bring on yourself through poor lifestyle choices that put a strain on society and those who through no actions on their part who need the care.

See lets say I live off the all you can eat and drink buffets, now eventually I am going to start having problem, not only if I am uninsured will I create a strain on the system, but what happens when I am to big to work and start collecting a disability?

Now the guy beside he works out eats healthy enjoys stuff but not everyday, which should he not be rewarded and why should I not pay more for my lifestyle?

We can not just ernd programs because some people end needing help through no fault of their own so we have to have a solution that allows for help to those in need. Rewards good behaviours and punishes risky behaviouors.

Now if someone comes up with something else I am all ears.

[johnrocks]

I can see it now.............in a dark alley somewhere..................

"Psssssssstt..............hey you..

Yeah, you....skinny kid..............come over here

I'll give ya five bucks to run over to Angelino's Pizza and buy me a large Kitchen Sink with extra cheese........I'll through in an extra buck if you make it snappy."

:))

[DRS]

Not so. Life is a sexually-transmitted terminal illness and no matter how healthy we maintain ourselves, someday we're going to get sick and die, or get injured and die, or our bodies will just say, enough, and we're done.

Pointing a finger at fat people is just an idiotic diversion from the truth that inevitably we will all need healthcare at some point.

We also live in a society where everything someone does assumes a risk. You cannot ban risk. It's unavoidable. You can stay in your home, never leave, munch lettuce and run on your treadmill all day and you still might end up doing something that incurs a healthcare expense. There will never be life without risk.

And again- I question the definition of 'obesity' as used in this study, because according to the definition currently used, an NFL runningback would be considered 'obese'.

I am not pointing it at anyone group and saying fat people are the sole cost, yes people are getting older and they have needs to be cared for, and I do not go by the BMI because according to that I should not be more than 170 yet when I finished chemo and my and my ribs were poking out I still weighed in at 185.

[johnrocks]

First off I am sorry to hear you are suffering. There is a difference between a disease you bring on yourself through poor lifestyle choices that put a strain on society and those who through no actions on their part who need the care.

See lets say I live off the all you can eat and drink buffets, now eventually I am going to start having problem, not only if I am uninsured will I create a strain on the system, but what happens when I am to big to work and start collecting a disability?

Now the guy beside he works out eats healthy enjoys stuff but not everyday, which should he not be rewarded and why should I not pay more for my lifestyle?

We can not just ernd programs because some people end needing help through no fault of their own so we have to have a solution that allows for help to those in need. Rewards good behaviours and punishes risky behaviouors.

Now if someone comes up with something else I am all ears.

All the more reason to have individual health insurance,why should I subsidize health insurance for bringing on sickness through their own choice?
Want something else, ok, look at this.

1. Repeal the HMO Act of 1973 and ERISA.
2. Expand HSA's which premiums have been very stable as opposed to group HMO's and PPO's.
3. Give tax credits to people to purchase individual health insurance.
4. Decry that health insurance comes under interstate commerce and allow private plans to be sold nationally and be portable.

That's just off the top of my head, what about that and no 1.2 trillion dollar federal budget price tag.

[RTchoke]

All the more reason to have individual health insurance,why should I subsidize health insurance for bringing on sickness through their own choice?
Want something else, ok, look at this.

1. Repeal the HMO Act of 1973 and ERISA.
2. Expand HSA's which premiums have been very stable as opposed to group HMO's and PPO's.
3. Give tax credits to people to purchase individual health insurance.
4. Decry that health insurance comes under interstate commerce and allow private plans to be sold nationally and be portable.

That's just off the top of my head, what about that and no 1.2 trillion dollar federal budget price tag.

That's some pretty good ideas right there.

[DRS]

Freedom is messy AND expensive. How much does it cost to dring alcohol,smoke cigarettes,eat fast food or literally thousands of other things in life? As a fat man, I can tell you that if you raise taxes to the point of it being cost prohibitive, I'll just switch and go to another unhealthy choice if I don't have the personal responsibility to do what needs to be done, as someone who has studied economics, I can tell you that to raise taxes to such heights would do damage to the economy and also "could" create a black market for such goods.

You do not have to make it so cost prohibitive it goes black market, lets just through a study you figured out that soda consumption is costing you 30 billion dollars a year in assisting those who have a disability related to the over consumption of soda. You would simply add a tax of a dollar to the half gallon since about 15 billion gallons are consumed annually.

[DRS]

All the more reason to have individual health insurance,why should I subsidize health insurance for bringing on sickness through their own choice?
Want something else, ok, look at this.

1. Repeal the HMO Act of 1973 and ERISA.
2. Expand HSA's which premiums have been very stable as opposed to group HMO's and PPO's.
3. Give tax credits to people to purchase individual health insurance.
4. Decry that health insurance comes under interstate commerce and allow private plans to be sold nationally and be portable.

That's just off the top of my head, what about that and no 1.2 trillion dollar federal budget price tag.
Will you mandate everyone gets some sort of coverage?

[johnrocks]

Will you mandate everyone gets some sort of coverage?

No, why should I, I'm not their nanny.

[DRS]

No, why should I, I'm not their nanny.

So what happens to those who do get insurance and get sick?

[johnrocks]

So what happens to those who do get insurance and get sick?

You mean don't get insurance and get sick? If they choose not to act responsibly when they are healthy,they can die off for all I care. I see Mason jars on store counters because someone didn't plan ahead and purchase a life insurance policy for $15-$20 a month to cover a funeral, I've seen pleas for help from people who was in the hospital and set up a bank account for donations to pay off the hospital bills who have $700 car notes and $400 ski boat notes and usually the mason jar gets filled and the bank account does too, and the ones who didn't act responsibly still go get a bank loan for a $700 car loan instead of getting a insurance policy for $100 that would divert this misery, I've witnessed it hundreds of times over 10 years in the auto business and years in the insurance business.

[mysticbeauty_nbeast]

First off I am sorry to hear you are suffering.

:redface:Every day is a gift. That's not some horrific cliche, that's my life. There are those in this world with much more challenging positions then I find myself in. At a certain point, you discover that is simply life...and that's ok. Everything does happen for a reason..even illness.

There is a difference between a disease you bring on yourself through poor lifestyle choices that put a strain on society and those who through no actions on their part who need the care.

Exactly what lifestyle choices are those? I smoke. Have, embarrassingly enough, smoked on and off since I was 16. I don't have any pulmonary issues. None. My lungs are like new. Shocks the holy you know what outta my doctor. Smoking is my only vice..or as we've been discussing, unhealthy lifestyle choice. Yet my disease has nothing to do with my one and only vice. (In full dis-closer, I also drink coffee..but I don't think the AMA has determined a specific disease sets for drinking coffee...yet.) So the premise of setting what is and what is not a 'healthy lifestyle' choices for the entire populace is murky at best. Right?

Take your thin or trim, high stress work alcoholics. They spend 'more' in health care dollars then an obese all you can eat buffet patient. It's true. The point I'm driving at is thin does not equate to healthy...just as carrying more weight or being heavy doesn't equate to being unhealthy. Excersise and diet freaks...you know the type right? Spend just as much in health care dollars as the over weight aging housewife. :confused: I mean it's crazy right? But the government can't come out and say anything about thin work alcoholics right? or excersise and diet freaks...why? It ruins their message. :think:

See lets say I live off the all you can eat and drink buffets, now eventually I am going to start having problem, not only if I am uninsured will I create a strain on the system, but what happens when I am to big to work and start collecting a disability?

If your not working...and paying into the system..and living off whatever state welfare your state has...then yes, your talking a whole new kettle of fish. And how do those who are on state welfare afford all you can eat buffets enough to become obese from it? I know your just pulling an example up..but I want you to really think about it. More often then not it's people with jobs who eat out...and eat unhealthy..and ..here it comes..pay into a healthcare system (insurance). Now as a consumer, if I'm buying something to protect or cover myself ..then it's none of anyone's business how I live my life, how much I excersise or how much I eat. Right?

Disability is no picnic...it's very little to live on. No one grows up wanting to be on disability..believe me. Again, allot of what we hear on this topic is rhetoric pushed by this admin in order to put into place governmental run healthcare.

Now the guy beside he works out eats healthy enjoys stuff but not everyday, which should he not be rewarded and why should I not pay more for my lifestyle?

He can not just ernd programs because some people end needing help through no fault of their own so we have to have a solution that allows for help to those in need. Rewards good behaviours and punishes risky behaviouors.

Risky as in, pushing needles into your arm? or Sky diving? or being a prostitute? or Playing professional sports? Now granted, two of the activities I listed are illegal. Two of them are not and one of them (ok maybe two of them) can pay out big money. So when we label risky..exactly what kind of risk do you mean? As long as the risk is covered by the person taking the risk is the risk then ok? If the risk can't be covered by the person then it's not ok and shouldn't be covered by tax dollars? Just breaking it down bit by bit here.

Now if someone comes up with something else I am all ears.

Several Senators (on both sides of the aisle) have come up with many good plans to reform health care that reforms insurance..and keeps government outta the healthcare industry. Every time, those bills are stifled..as many powerful liberal dems want to push for socialized healthcare. Why do they want it so bad?...it's the question I keep asking..it's the one I don't have an answer for yet. It's the one that keeps me up at night.

The easiest way to approach this whole mess is to clean it up from the insurance industry center and out into the health care system itself. In that, much more could be accomplished then any reformation in socialized medicine could ever hope to achieve. It also does one more thing..it allows it populace to eat, drink and live as they deem fit. Which is all it should be about.

~Mysty

[CaptainPike]

If fat people spend more for healthcare, what's the problem?

[Pudge]

How much though is spent because of the habit thought I wonder?

I don't understand your question.

[Pudge]

I am not pointing it at anyone group and saying fat people are the sole cost, yes people are getting older and they have needs to be cared for, and I do not go by the BMI because according to that I should not be more than 170 yet when I finished chemo and my and my ribs were poking out I still weighed in at 185.

But you are using a social cost argument in saying that certain 'bad' things should be punished via taxation. The evidence has shown that this doesn't work.

[Pudge]

You do not have to make it so cost prohibitive it goes black market, lets just through a study you figured out that soda consumption is costing you 30 billion dollars a year in assisting those who have a disability related to the over consumption of soda. You would simply add a tax of a dollar to the half gallon since about 15 billion gallons are consumed annually.

If the government taxes soda, one of two things will happen:

1. People will still buy it and the problem will remain, the tax will simply be wasted by the inefficient bureaucracy of government.

2. People will switch to something else that's just as bad if the tax escalates too much, and the government that depends on this new stream of revenue will then turn and tax other things to make up for the shortfall.

[DRS]

:redface:Every day is a gift. That's not some horrific cliche, that's my life. There are those in this world with much more challenging positions then I find myself in. At a certain point, you discover that is simply life...and that's ok. Everything does happen for a reason..even illness.


~Mysty
I think when you go through certain things it also changes your perspective on life. Having almost died in my early 20's is one of the reasons I do not get stressed about taxes and money, when i was told I may only have a few months to live you realize you take nothing with you. But that time I spent in hopsital watching others suffer and their families suffer has sort of put me in a place where I feel not only should help be provided for those near the end or who are sick but also why wait why not try to make life enjoyable for all.

[gb2004]

Obesity-related diseases account for nearly 10 percent of all medical spending in the United States or an estimated $147 billion a year, U.S. researchers said Monday.

They said obese people spend 40 percent more -- or $1,429 more per year -- in healthcare costs than people of normal weight.
http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSTRE56Q36020090727
How can this be brought under control? How can a government bring this under control without force?

As long as it's their money, I don't care. Why should the government get involved?

[DRS]

Exactly what lifestyle choices are those? I smoke. Have, embarrassingly enough, smoked on and off since I was 16. I don't have any pulmonary issues. None. My lungs are like new. Shocks the holy you know what outta my doctor. Smoking is my only vice..or as we've been discussing, unhealthy lifestyle choice. Yet my disease has nothing to do with my one and only vice. (In full dis-closer, I also drink coffee..but I don't think the AMA has determined a specific disease sets for drinking coffee...yet.) So the premise of setting what is and what is not a 'healthy lifestyle' choices for the entire populace is murky at best. Right?

Take your thin or trim, high stress work alcoholics. They spend 'more' in health care dollars then an obese all you can eat buffet patient. It's true. The point I'm driving at is thin does not equate to healthy...just as carrying more weight or being heavy doesn't equate to being unhealthy. Excersise and diet freaks...you know the type right? Spend just as much in health care dollars as the over weight aging housewife. :confused: I mean it's crazy right? But the government can't come out and say anything about thin work alcoholics right? or excersise and diet freaks...why? It ruins their message. :think:



~Mysty

Maybe Europe is on to something with 3 and 4 day work weeks and long lunches. :D I am not saying should not do the things they enjoy, just moderate it. There is one thing that always hits me when I travel into the US it is portion sizes and availability. The small cup we have here does not even exist when I go to the US the meduim here is the size of a small coffee in the US.

[johnrocks]

As long as it's their money, I don't care. Why should the government get involved?

They shouldn't,that's kinda my point.:lol:

[DRS]

If your not working...and paying into the system..and living off whatever state welfare your state has...then yes, your talking a whole new kettle of fish. And how do those who are on state welfare afford all you can eat buffets enough to become obese from it? I know your just pulling an example up..but I want you to really think about it. More often then not it's people with jobs who eat out...and eat unhealthy..and ..here it comes..pay into a healthcare system (insurance). Now as a consumer, if I'm buying something to protect or cover myself ..then it's none of anyone's business how I live my life, how much I excersise or how much I eat. Right?

Disability is no picnic...it's very little to live on. No one grows up wanting to be on disability..believe me. Again, allot of what we hear on this topic is rhetoric pushed by this admin in order to put into place governmental run healthcare.



As far the buffets go I was talking about those who eat while working, and then it leading to the point they are on a disability.

If you take responsibility and have health insurance then because you have chosen to do this you should be rewarded with a tax write off for it. To offset any taxes you pay throughout the year.

One of the smarter things I think the gov did with foodstamps is not allow people to buy prepared food with it.

[DRS]

:Risky as in, pushing needles into your arm? or Sky diving? or being a prostitute? or Playing professional sports? Now granted, two of the activities I listed are illegal. Two of them are not and one of them (ok maybe two of them) can pay out big money. So when we label risky..exactly what kind of risk do you mean? As long as the risk is covered by the person taking the risk is the risk then ok? If the risk can't be covered by the person then it's not ok and shouldn't be covered by tax dollars? Just breaking it down bit by bit here.



Several Senators (on both sides of the aisle) have come up with many good plans to reform health care that reforms insurance..and keeps government outta the healthcare industry. Every time, those bills are stifled..as many powerful liberal dems want to push for socialized healthcare. Why do they want it so bad?...it's the question I keep asking..it's the one I don't have an answer for yet. It's the one that keeps me up at night.

The easiest way to approach this whole mess is to clean it up from the insurance industry center and out into the health care system itself. In that, much more could be accomplished then any reformation in socialized medicine could ever hope to achieve. It also does one more thing..it allows it populace to eat, drink and live as they deem fit. Which is all it should be about.

~Mysty

I think there are several factors at play in the US, you have lobbyist there all pushing their own agendas you have insurance lobbyists tying to keep it all private and not want to get capped. You have business looking for the government to help them lower the cost of doing business and providing healthcare for employees is very exspensive. You have the government lookin at how much money is taken out of the economy and spent in health care. And you those advocate for the poor and underprivilaged who need care.

So you have all those people at the table and well intentioned people looking around trying to figure how to make everyone happy.

[DRS]

But you are using a social cost argument in saying that certain 'bad' things should be punished via taxation. The evidence has shown that this doesn't work.

I am talking about the social cost, if done right in theory it should work.

[DRS]

If the government taxes soda, one of two things will happen:

1. People will still buy it and the problem will remain, the tax will simply be wasted by the inefficient bureaucracy of government.

2. People will switch to something else that's just as bad if the tax escalates too much, and the government that depends on this new stream of revenue will then turn and tax other things to make up for the shortfall.

Yes people will buy and in theory the cost of doing so should be taken care. And when people stop buying in such amounts that it creates a problem then the need to provide help related to that action should lower in cost.

[LouC]

People could always makes this point moot by taking care of themselves and comsuming less of that which is causing the problem.

Abstinence would obviate SCHIP.

[John2598]

How can a government bring this under control without force?

It sounds like an oxymoron because everything the government does requires some force in one way or another. But I think the least amount of "force" would be through education, education, education. Make health & nutrition a required subject from K through 12. Nothing is more important in life than your health and knowing how to make proper food choices.

It needs to be an ongoing process (every year) because it's a complex issue. It could be 45 minutes once per week. And it shouldn't be boring; it needs to be fun and interesting. Perhaps there could be lots of round-table discussions.

Teachers should not be afraid to say that certain foods are "bad". Many dietitions believe that there's no such thing as a bad food. For example, I would say that all soft drinks are bad for your health. And you could include all baked goods made with white flour, hard candy, candy bars, salty snacks etc.. That's just for starters! :)

[mysticbeauty_nbeast]

I think when you go through certain things it also changes your perspective on life. Having almost died in my early 20's is one of the reasons I do not get stressed about taxes and money, when i was told I may only have a few months to live you realize you take nothing with you. But that time I spent in hopsital watching others suffer and their families suffer has sort of put me in a place where I feel not only should help be provided for those near the end or who are sick but also why wait why not try to make life enjoyable for all.

Help is provided to those near the end of life or who are chronically ill. Having read your other responses before reply posting back to you..I realize your not American/living in America. So..here's the breakdown..the down and dirty if you will...

A: NO ONE goes without health care in the United States. I mean NO ONE. Don't buy the hype.

B: Hospice and Hospice related agencies offer FREE of CHARGE their services for those with end of life issues. It costs the family not one penny. Chronic illness; and once your private insurance dumps you for being chronically ill; you still receive health care vis a vie the Medicare program that you paid into prior to becoming ill. Not sounding as dire as they make it sound is it?

C: The example of a family loosing everything due to 1 illness...is half truth wrapped in fear mongering. That 'family', did not see the need in investing in private health insurance. (Not all jobs offer or pay for medical care here in the old US. In fact, it getting harder and harder to find a job that includes health care as part of it's pay package) Being young, and over stretched in to much home, new cars, boats, credit card debt or whathave you...living beyond their means in credit...and bam...someone gets a major illness that has to be paid outta pocket. I dont' feel sorry for them..why? They made a dumb choice...they choose things over security. that's there own damn fault for not being responsible with what they were given stewardship over.

D: The broke, the rich, the middle class...all receive medical care. Some pay more, some may none, some receive health insurance for little to no cost. It's a tired system true..but it does have it's qualities and benefits inlaid within the system.

So...I'll ask again...Why is Obama and his admin pushing so hard to make our healthcare system socialized? It doesn't benefit the medical insurance or pharmaceutical lobbies or companies...hell it near tears their arms off at the elbows. It doesn't raise quality of care for the nation, as most in the nation are able to pay for or take care of their personal medical needs. It will harm small business and take a huge profit chunk outta of large business. It benefits so few people....So why? what are they hiding behind all of these poor examples of why we need healthcare run solely by our government?

~Mysty

[Pudge]

I am talking about the social cost, if done right in theory it should work.

So should Communism, but we can see that in practice, it doesn't work.

[Pudge]

Yes people will buy and in theory the cost of doing so should be taken care. And when people stop buying in such amounts that it creates a problem then the need to provide help related to that action should lower in cost.

You're assuming that the tax revenue collected on the 'sin' product will go directly to paying for the increased cost of care for those whom excessive use of said product has caused considerable expense to the taxpayers.

That. Won't. Happen.

The government does not have that restraint, and in fact, refuses to stipulate in these sin tax laws that the monies collected go to one specific purpose. It always goes to the general fund, it always gets spent along with the rest of the money in the state budget.

It also assumes that there is a correlation or causality between drinking soda and obesity and the health problems associated with it. Nonsense. Over-consumption of soda can cause these problems, but most people can have a Coke and a Smile and not have to order their diabeetus testing supplies from Wilford Brimley. Soda does not contain an addictive drug (unless they're caffeinated, and one can get caffeine from other, more efficient sources). Cigarettes do, which is why people keep buying them despite exorbitant taxes.

The New York State law that proposed a 3% tax on soda excluded diet soda. Why? Diet soda is just as bad for you. Artificial sweeteners can trigger the same insulin response as sugar. Aspartame has been shown to cause lots of problems in laboratory animals. Regular soda is actually better for you- especially if you drink soda made with pure cane sugar as opposed to high-fructose corn syrup.

Your theory is simple and naive. It doesn't take into account the basis of the product being taxed or the way the government distributes that tax money once it's collected, or what happens when the product isn't used anymore and there's no taxes coming in, yet the government's budget depends on that tax.

[JudasGoat]

I wonder how it compares to how much illegals cost?

[uncledoom]

Taxing soda pop and McD's will not solve this.

[Voluptuosa]

here is another case of do as I say not as I do. We shouldnt eat fast food and drink soda, but its ok for b clinton to go out and eat fast food? Hmmmm...yeah ok. The whole sin tax is STUPID. this whole congress/white house is stupid. Get out and vote! Lets send a message.

[Voluptuosa]

spot on and totally true! Seriously...keep writing to your representatives. Keep the pressure on them and get out and vote in the next senate elections!

[CaptainPike]

Taxing soda pop and McD's will not solve this.

It won't solve "the" problem, but it will solve "a" problem.

If you're looking for a way to bloat up entitlement programs, soda pop and McD's would make a great red headed scapegoat.