isn't the purely political standpoints on what is and isn't socialism (though, bother me, it does) or even how it will affect our quality of care. Its the idea that: We're already outlawing undesirable behavior based almost solely on how much it costs the State or States through private insurance costs. (and its done a hell of a job of making it more affordable eh')

To me it's downright unsettling to imagine what might be legislated once it becomes quite literally the business of the state what I eat, how I sleep and what my projected optimal lifespan would be. I believe it would be foolhardy to think that this mess wouldn't be on the books after a few years of lawsuits has had a chance to peck away at it.

I guess if I had a question, it would be: Why isn't this particular portion of the debate made more of a sticking point? im not sure I've heard even one program on it or any significant conversation on air or in the papers

8/31/2009 12:25:30 AM

If I understand you correctly, you're suggesting that the government will be incentivised to regulate how citizens treat their bodies in the future? This already happens in some ways if you look at the drug war and other regulations on hazardous items one may consume.

Or are you suggesting that this would increase past its current level and pervade all aspects of our lives (like what we eat and how often we exercise)? If so, is there any evidence that this has occurred in other industrialized countries with socialized medicine? Perhaps the health care crisis hasn't reached the point where governments have had to resort to such desperate measures.

8/31/2009 12:56:53 AM

Quote :

"Or are you suggesting that this would increase past its current level and pervade all aspects of our lives"

bingo

and what Im really saying is at our current rate of legislating behavior based on financial platforms is: What? You have seen NYC's behavior right? would you expect them to behave themselves from now on because honest injun they're gonna be good from now on?

How can all of the sudden the internet just swap opinions on how completely fucked Europe is by finance motivated nanny stating?

8/31/2009 1:07:21 AM

I have to be honest - I'm rather confused as to your overall argument.

Are other westernized countries' health care systems reaching insolvency? I read something about Britain's, but I haven't seen any other data on the subject.


Sorry to draw away from your overall point, but I'm not following your reference to NYC; am I unaware of a significant news story?

8/31/2009 1:28:13 AM

other health care systems around the world have problems from time to time. at which point they restructure the systems in some way to limit costs or better fund the systems (like any other government program really)

8/31/2009 8:29:44 AM

Fermat, you act like this is a bad thing.

People, by and large, are stupid.

Why do you think people still smoke cigarettes, despite the overwhelming evidence that, yes, they do cause cancer and, yes, they will kill you if you smoke enough of them?

And despite what you might believe, it does affect me when you treat yourself like shit. I don't want to have to pay higher insurance premiums because you got cancer at 50 from smoking cigarettes despite the evidence that they are bad for you. I don't want to have to pay higher insurance premiums because you need a triple bypass at 50 from eating too many thickburgers despite the evidence that they are bad for you.

And yes, I know there is evidence that it's more expensive to keep someone alive for an extra twenty years than if they died young from cancer, but I'd rather keep a healthy man alive for that long who can contribute in some way to society than some idiot dying of cancer for 6 months.

The healthier we are as a society, the more productive we'll be as a society.

Companies, by and large, are not concerned about your well being. They will continue to stuff you full of nicotine and trans-fats until their pockets are full and you are dead or dying. The government just wants to make sure you are healthy. Why are you mad at the government for knowing better than you?

[Edited on August 31, 2009 at 8:32 AM. Reason : ]

8/31/2009 8:30:55 AM

The only thing based in reality that I can see Fermat's argument leading to is the ban of trans fats going national.

And yes, I think the trans-fat ban will go national with a democratic dominated government, it's only a matter of time. And yes, I do think that getting the Obama-care stuff passed will help to open the door for that.

8/31/2009 9:09:34 AM

God

While I understand your plight and nothing pisses me off than going to Food Lion to see a McFatty buying a card of junk, I strongly oppose
the government should not get further into the pool of banning shit just b.c "its bad for you."

If you do not want to help subsidize fatties eating up at McD's than don't get health insurance or put pressure on yoru insurance company
to offer lower rates or have a "low-risk healthy persons" pool. your argument is part of the reason why i don't support Obamacare. As
a bunch of unhealthful individuals would have to be covered and would lose any financial incentive to practice healthier lifestyle choices.

Eitherway as a "Free Country" it should be my right to die of lung cancer if I so choose to smoke a pack a day for 50 years. Already,
we have had stupid laws like "seat belt" laws, "war on drugs", ban on online poker; as an effort to save people from "themselves. We do not
need more of this shit.

People smoke b.c its cool, its their way to rebel against the man, helps them relax, or just like it. As long as they are not puffing in my face or next to me at a restaurant than I do not care and you should
not either.

8/31/2009 9:22:21 AM

Quote :

"People, by and large, are stupid. Why do you think people still smoke cigarettes, despite the overwhelming evidence that, yes, they do cause cancer and, yes, they will kill you if you smoke enough of them? "

That's not necessarily stupidity, that's just people being people. we all have different reasons for doing the things we do.

But, I agree with your overall point, I think (maybe...).

At some point though, with our population at 300 million and growing, we do have to make a collective choice (which we do via government) to manage our resources, including health resources. We have a hard enough time dealing with the "self regulating" forces of 300 million people, what happens when our population grows to a billion?

8/31/2009 9:26:19 AM

Quote :

"People, by and large, are stupid."

And this sums up my problem with statists of all stripes. From this idea flows everything from mildly condescending paternalism to the most tyrannical states in the history of the world. For some reason, the left can accept the fact that life in general, through evolution, is a bottom-up self organizing system with no need for a deity (I share this belief) but cannot grasp the concept that societies will do the same thing without need for a central authority to dictate what is right and what is wrong.

I further do not understand this concept that a repository of career bureaucrats and politicians is more capable of making complex and daily decisions about highly specialized fields than the experts who have trained in those fields in conjunction with the "stupid" people they work with on a daily basis. Anyone who spent any time dealing with politicians would realize that collectively, they're no more intelligent than the rest of us, and possibly less so.

And I'll also point out that these "stupid" people are largely a product of the public education system.

Quote :

"And despite what you might believe, it does affect me when you treat yourself like shit. I don't want to have to pay higher insurance premiums because you got cancer at 50 from smoking cigarettes despite the evidence that they are bad for you."

Not yet it doesn't Insurance premiums are so much higher on smokers precisely because actuaries have calculated the extra burden they place on society.

Chronic welfare abusers, cost me more in taxes, why not end welfare. The average 65 year old will receive ~ $71k more out of Social Security and Medicare than they paid into it while the average 25 year old will pay in ~ $301 more than they receive. Baby Boomers are costing me the price of two houses over my lifetime because they remain selfish after living through the most prosperous period in human history. I can assure you, the soft paternalism of the government costs you far more than the fat guy eating a hamburger and going out to smoke a cigarette.

Quote :

"The government just wants to make sure you are healthy. Why are you mad at the government for knowing better than you?"

horseshit. The government functions as any other business and wants to perpetuate itself and increase it's market share of power. The difference is that it doesn't have to produce anything to collect money, it has a legally mandated monopoly on violence to back up it's will.

Quote :

"we do have to make a collective choice (which we do via government) to manage our resources"

Collective economies always fail. There is a reason the USSR collapsed, China liberalized, Vietnam liberalized, why much of Africa remains horribly mis-managed and why Cuba remains in a state of squalor (which is partly due to the asinine embargo which needs to end, granted).

8/31/2009 9:32:44 AM

Quote :

"<slippery slope logical fallacy>. Why is there no discussion about this????"

8/31/2009 9:33:26 AM

I understand what you're saying, and I'll address two of the points:

First, quite simply, insurance can't be provided without a sort of "pooling" affect where everyone chips in. That's how insurance works. We all pay premiums that go into a huge pool, and whoever gets sick draws out of the pool of money. If I never get sick, then I never have to draw money from the pool. The more I get sick, say if I smoke cigarettes or am obese, the more I'll be drawing out of that pool of money that other people have been contributing to. If there was a fail-safe way to fix this so that I didn't have to pay a cent for someone else's idiocy, than I would be for it.

Secondly, there is a gray area here with government restrictions. Your "free country" claim can only go so far. Should we allow people to use lead piping? What about once banned pesticides? What about decriminalizing all illegal drugs? What about child labor? I mean, if it's not your kids, why not let parents decide what they want to do? It's their freedom in this "free country," after all. That's a more Libertarian approach, I can imagine many Conservatives would be against removing those bans.

I also find it amusing, and I'm not sure if you're one of these types of people, but I also find it amusing that Conservatives rant and rave about "Liberal New York City restrictions" but are happy to campaign for restrictions on morality, like pornography and gay marriage. It seems a bit hypocritical to complain about government restrictions on things that could kill you but campaign about there being no government restrictions morality issues that have no effect on your life.

[Edited on August 31, 2009 at 9:34 AM. Reason : This was directed towards HUR]

8/31/2009 9:33:41 AM

Quote :

"If there was a fail-safe way to fix this so that I didn't have to pay a cent for someone else's idiocy, than I would be for it."

There is, self-financed health care. Unfortunately most of us cannot afford this and thus enter into insurance schemes. But this functions the same way with any other insurance. You're paying that premium for the piece of mind that you'll be covered in event of a catastrophic event with the realization that it isn't likely. In a free society, I don't see why someone shouldn't be able to form a health-care co-op which would have stringent requirements for admission that included regular exercise, a strict diet, and no smoking. People who wanted none of that could join co-ops which permitted it, albeit at a higher premium.

I don't believe you have the right to smoke and force the costs of your smoking on to others, but I do believe you have the right to do so as long as you can afford it.

Quote :

"Should we allow people to use lead piping? What about once banned pesticides? What about decriminalizing all illegal drugs? What about child labor? I mean, if it's not your kids"

You're right there are gray areas. Emotionally; of course we should prohibit lead piping and banned pesticides, but if there is truly opposition to lead piping, people could simply demand it not be used in their homes. The irony of the mandatory switch to PVC is that it appears that PVC also releases chemicals harmful to the human body.

The same goes for pesticides. DDT use was first encouraged by the government before it was prohibited. It's prohibition came not from government benevolence but from a groundswell of public opposition to it's use. As we speak, the growing organic and slow-food movements are completely self-directed and government "organic" certification only serves to blur the line between what should truly be considered organic and what is organic in name only.

There are solid arguments that the massive amounts of unhealthy processed foods available today are only available as a result of cheap corn whose production is subsidized by massive federal farm bills which encourage the over-production of corn.

And yes I believe that drugs should be legalized. Addicts are going to be addicts regardless.

8/31/2009 9:58:27 AM

I would be for a more Libertarian stance with most issues, but my main concern is being held responsible, especially financially, for other people's idiocy. That's why I usually support legislation that puts restrictions on people doing things that do nothing but hurt them.

For example, I want people to be required to wear seatbelts because I don't want my insurance premiums affected by the amount of driving fatalities among men my age. If my insurance premiums were guaranteed to not be affected, I would be fine with people being ejected all over the place.

8/31/2009 10:03:45 AM

Quote :

"but my main concern is being held responsible, especially financially, for other people's idiocy."

Understandable.

Quote :

"For example, I want people to be required to wear seatbelts because I don't want my insurance premiums affected by the amount of driving fatalities among men my age."

The insurance company simply includes a clause to the effect of: Failure to use a seatbelt will result in denial of any insurance claims.

8/31/2009 10:08:44 AM

As long as my lifestyle doesn't affect you then it is none of your goddamned business.

And the original post in this thread is based upoin a false premise.

8/31/2009 10:15:47 AM

How so?

8/31/2009 10:19:13 AM

Quote :

"# In 1998 the medical costs of obesity in the US were estimated at around 78.5 billion dollars a year, half of which was financed by Medicare and Medicaid (government health insurance for seniors and families on low incomes). # This rise in obesity prevalence added 40 billion dollars to the annual healthcare bill for obesity. # The annual healthcare costs of obesity could be as high as 147 billion dollars for 2008. # Obesity is now responsible for 9.1 per cent of annual medical costs compared with 6.5 per cent in 1998. # The medical costs for an obese person are 42 per cent higher than for a person of normal weight. # This equates to an additional 1,429 dollars per year: the costs for an obese person on Medicare are even greater. # Much of the additional Medicare cost for an obese person are the result of the added prescription drug benefit. # Medicare prescription drug payments for obese recipients are about 600 dollars a year more than for normal weight recipients. # Obesity accounts for 8.5 per cet of Medicare expenditure, 11.8 per cent of Medicaid expenditure, and 12.9 per cent of private insurance expenditure."

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/158948.php

Why shouldn't we institute programs that force these people to improve their lives and ban foods that contribute to this epidemic? It's looking like these people can't help themselves. Either they're too stupid or they don't care, and we're footing the bill. Frankly, I'm tired of doing it.

8/31/2009 10:23:00 AM

^^Because you slippery slope John Gault idiot, this: "To me it's downright unsettling to imagine what might be legislated once it becomes quite literally the business of the state what I eat, how I sleep and what my projected optimal lifespan would be. I believe it would be foolhardy to think that this mess wouldn't be on the books after a few years of lawsuits has had a chance to peck away at it," is no means remotely attached to "Obama Care."

In fact, the entire initial post of this thread is a strawman argument.

Quote :

"Why shouldn't we institute programs that force these people to improve their lives and ban foods that contribute to this epidemic? It's looking like these people can't help themselves. Either they're too stupid or they don't care, and we're footing the bill. Frankly, I'm tired of doing it."

There are plenty of things people do in this country that possible affect your life. You are merely chosing to go after those that you disagree with. If the government were talking about banning sports cars, lowering the national speed limit to 45, etc. you'd be up in arms. You cannot, nor should you ever, selectively supporty or decry government intrusion into an area where government does not need to function

[Edited on August 31, 2009 at 10:30 AM. Reason : .]

8/31/2009 10:28:14 AM

Because there is an inherent immorality in compelling someone to align with your perception of how they should live their lives.

Quote :

"# In 1998 the medical costs of obesity in the US were estimated at around 78.5 billion dollars a year, half of which was financed by Medicare and Medicaid (government health insurance for seniors and families on low incomes). # This equates to an additional 1,429 dollars per year: the costs for an obese person on Medicare are even greater. # Much of the additional Medicare cost for an obese person are the result of the added prescription drug benefit. # Medicare prescription drug payments for obese recipients are about 600 dollars a year more than for normal weight recipients."

I've got a better idea, quit subsidizing their obesity through cheap corn and government intervention. If they cannot be productive enough to afford their lifestyle they'll change or die. This sounds harsh, but none of us should be any more compelled to support their decisions than they should be compelled to change theirs.

Perhaps they derive a great deal of pleasure from the food they eat and that pleasure is greater than the extended lifespan they would have otherwise. It is neither my business to judge or subsidize them.

8/31/2009 10:35:16 AM

Quote :

"I've got a better idea, quit subsidizing their obesity through cheap corn and government intervention."

Yes, let's blame corn, a substance that has nothing to do with America's obessity problem. You remove corn from the equation and the process food manufacturers will resort to other forms of filler and artificial sweetening to the products. Corn has nothing to do with it.

8/31/2009 10:38:47 AM

A third of Americans are obese. What I just posted shows that we're paying for the health care of all of these people. What other solution would you propose? There's absolutely no way that I can affect all of these obese people other than to petition my government, the only body with that wide-reaching of influence.

And why wouldn't I support legislation on speeding? Because it isn't nearly as much of a problem. Not to mention, we have a governmental body specifically designed to fine people for breaking those laws (a.k.a. the police department).

I went searching for information on speeding related deaths, and I found a website stating there were 13,000 in 2002.

I then found a website that listed obesity related deaths, and a report by the CDC stated that in the year 2000, there were 400,000 deaths.

Maybe when speeding related deaths begin to approach obesity related deaths, we can discuss that possible legislation. Until then, it isn't a major issue.

8/31/2009 10:41:39 AM

Quote :

"It is neither my business to judge or subsidize them."

It is when you're paying higher taxes to cover the medicare costs. I was under the impression that fiscal conservatives hated higher taxes.

8/31/2009 10:43:00 AM

.1% of the population dying from obessity related problems isn't an epidemic.

Quote :

"It is when you're paying higher taxes to cover the medicare costs."

Well, with medicare you are paying higher taxes because old people receive more expensive medical treatment and obessity isn't a large problem amongst people above the age of 65.

Quote :

"Not to mention, we have a governmental body specifically designed to fine people for breaking those laws (a.k.a. the police department)."

So you support the creation of another governmental body specifically designed to assure the American people live a lifestyle in accordance to your value system?

[Edited on August 31, 2009 at 10:46 AM. Reason : .]

8/31/2009 10:43:44 AM

I never used the deaths as my example of why it is an epidemic. Over thirty percent of Americans are obese. Childhood obesity is increasing. That is the epidemic.

8/31/2009 10:46:22 AM

Quote :

"I went searching for information on speeding related deaths, and I found a website stating there were 13,000 in 2002. I then found a website that listed obesity related deaths, and a report by the CDC stated that in the year 2000, there were 400,000 deaths."

8/31/2009 10:46:52 AM

Quote :

"You cannot, nor should you ever, selectively supporty or decry government intrusion into an area where government does not need to function"

Read my posts, I'm not being selective. I'm arguing that government intervention distorts the true costs of decisions leading to the health care situation we have right now.

Besides, all sorts of conditions have been attached to federal funding in the past, I have no reason to doubt they will be in the future. There is no nationally mandated drinking age and there never was a national speed limit of 55. What did exist were federal mandates that these things be implemented or states would lose their highway funding.

While the current bill does not establish a government single payer system yet, that is the eventual goal of many who are behind this current bill. Since the nature of government power is to expand, I think it is a legitimate point. Hell people in this thread are already calling for compulsory government mandates against obesity.

Quote :

"You remove corn from the equation and the process food manufacturers will resort to other forms of filler and artificial sweetening to the products."

Perhaps. But right now the primary driver of highly processed foods is the availability of cheap corn. I don't see any harm in removing that distorting factor from the food supply chain.

Quote :

"What I just posted shows that we're paying for the health care of all of these people. What other solution would you propose?"

I already said it. Stop subsidizing them. Stop subsidizing the source of their cheap food. Stop subsidizing the health care they receive. Are you asking if I would let someone die as a direct result of the choices they've made in life? Yes. Yes I would.

You can swing your dick all you want, just don't hit me with it.

Quote :

"It is when you're paying higher taxes to cover the medicare costs. I was under the impression that fiscal conservatives hated higher taxes."

No, you're obviously not reading.

8/31/2009 10:48:53 AM

One question I have is why do people call this Obama-care? I mean obviously he is pushing for health care reform, and once things got crazy he started talking at town halls with specifics, but even before that it was being called Obama-care and relative to other presidents who have pushed for health care reform he didn't infuse a lot of direction & let the more representative branch of government come up with the specifics. Which then resulted in several bills & many ideas floating around which have been referred to as "the bill" or "Obama-care".

8/31/2009 10:50:54 AM

it's a name-brand that instantly makes it partisan so you don't have to spend time messing with the details and you know which side to fall on

8/31/2009 10:52:32 AM

I also mentioned in the same post that you quoted that "a third of Americans are obese." You seem to not dispute this fact, since you haven't addressed it. Would you agree that having a third of Americans diagnosed as obese is an epidemic?

Quote :

"Well, with medicare you are paying higher taxes because old people receive more expensive medical treatment and obessity isn't a large problem amongst people above the age of 65."

Note in the statistics I posted that 11.8% of all Medicaid expenditures are related to obesity.

Quote :

"So you support the creation of another governmental body specifically designed to assure the American people live a lifestyle in accordance to your value system?"

We already have this in the form of the DHHS. Additionally, I resent the notion that it's "my value system." It's a value system of common sense healthy living.

And as I've previously mentioned, if I did not have to pay any additional taxes to support those who voluntarily choose to consume products that lead to further health problems down the road, then I would not care if they consumed said products.

8/31/2009 10:53:00 AM

Quote :

"Read my posts, I'm not being selective. I'm arguing that government intervention distorts the true costs of decisions leading to the health care situation we have right now. "

That was to God.

Quote :

"Perhaps. But right now the primary driver of highly processed foods is the availability of cheap corn. I don't see any harm in removing that distorting factor from the food supply chain."

By driving corn out of the equation it will be replaced by some other cheap filer with a greater negative health impact. Corn is potent, not because of the corn lobby but due to the large absence of other possible negative health problems.

Quote :

"Are you even reading my posts? I'm arguing for the abolition of medicare."

medicare was created because the private sector failed. The private sector wants nothing to do with providing health coverage to the elderly.

8/31/2009 10:53:40 AM

Quote :

"Note in the statistics I posted that 11.8% of all Medicaid expenditures are related to obesity. "

Medicare or Medicaid? Learn your fucking government programs and their funding sources before you begin bitching about expenses related to them.

Quote :

"We already have this in the form of the DHHS. Additionally, I resent the notion that it's "my value system." It's a value system of common sense healthy living."

What authority do you suggest giving to DHHS to prevent people from living a sedentary lifestyle and eating too much and not eating junk food?

Quote :

"And as I've previously mentioned, if I did not have to pay any additional taxes to support those who voluntarily choose to consume products that lead to further health problems down the road, then I would not care if they consumed said products. "

In the same vein, then no one should be force to provide taxes to support your voluntary lifestyle choices. The point of government is to pool resources to provide the best utility for everyone involved.

8/31/2009 10:57:05 AM

^^

1. That makes more sense
2. Again, perhaps, but the Federal Government shouldn't be subsidizing a cheap filler which leads to obesity
3. Recognizing the fact that there is a desire for long term health insurance, and recognizing the fact that it will become progressively more expensive as people age, I support the Swiss or German model over the mandatory enrollment in Medicare at age 65. I've covered it in other threads so I don't feel like re-hashing it here.

8/31/2009 10:59:46 AM

Quote :

"What authority do you suggest giving to DHHS to prevent people from living a sedentary lifestyle and eating too much and not eating junk food?"

-Restrictions on the use of unhealthy cooking products (trans fats).

-Warning labels on foods with an extremely high caloric or saturated fat content. "Surgeon General's Warning: Eating foods high in saturated fat has been known to lead to obesity and heart disease."

-The inclusion of nutrition facts or calorie totals on restaurants (A big issue. Chain restaurant food is some of the worst, and they get away with not having any nutrition facts.)

-Mandatory physical education programs K-12

-Mandatory minimum health and dietary requirements for school lunches

-Lower health insurance costs for those that maintain a healthy lifestyle. This can be measured by seeing if patients meet minimum standards such as blood pressure, body fat percentage, resting heart rate, cholesterol level.

Quote :

"In the same vein, then no one should be force to provide taxes to support your voluntary lifestyle choices. The point of government is to pool resources to provide the best utility for everyone involved."

What voluntary lifestyle choices do I make which cause additional burden on other taxpayers?

8/31/2009 11:04:27 AM

Quote :

"2. Again, perhaps, but the Federal Government shouldn't be subsidizing a cheap filler which leads to obesity"

I have mixed feelings on this. On one hand we would be so centric on one food source, but on the other hand, removing said subsidies would wreck the agricultural sector and would price out healthy food from the vast majority of the American diet.

8/31/2009 11:05:35 AM

Quote :

"-Restrictions on the use of unhealthy cooking products (trans fats). "

So you advocate the resumption of widescale use of lard?

Quote :

"-Warning labels on foods with an extremely high caloric or saturated fat content. "Surgeon General's Warning: Eating foods high in saturated fat has been known to lead to obesity and heart disease.""

This hasn't accomplished anything with smoking so why do you think it will work with other products?

Quote :

"-The inclusion of nutrition facts or calorie totals on restaurants (A big issue. Chain restaurant food is some of the worst, and they get away with not having any nutrition facts.) "

This would largely be impossible to do.

Quote :

"-Mandatory physical education programs K-12"

already exists

Quote :

"-Mandatory minimum health and dietary requirements for school lunches"

already exists.

Quote :

"-Lower health insurance costs for those that maintain a healthy lifestyle. This can be measured by seeing if patients meet minimum standards such as blood pressure, body fat percentage, resting heart rate, cholesterol level."

Defeats the purpose behind how health insurance is structured, however, you already benefit from this by not having your health insurance rates raised. People with such problems already suffer the negative consequences.

Quote :

"What voluntary lifestyle choices do I make which cause additional burden on other taxpayers?"

Do you commute to work? You did go to a state supported college, etc. Everyone assumes they have little to no impact on the tax burden of the American people, but that is not true.

8/31/2009 11:10:19 AM

Quote :

"For some reason, the left can accept the fact that life in general, through evolution, is a bottom-up self organizing system with no need for a deity (I share this belief) but cannot grasp the concept that societies will do the same thing without need for a central authority to dictate what is right and what is wrong. "

From my observations the Right is more guilty of dictating what is "right", morality, and playing nanny to protect people from themselves.
The major difference is where each side gets its list of "activities/goods" it wants to target.

The left targets shit that is not part of its "green initiative" or is medically a hot button issue (obesity, protecting your lungs from cigarettes, etc).
The right targets shit based on bible and activities that do not support a proper "family environment. (drinking, drugs, sex outside marriage, gay rights, cuss words).
Both are equally problamatic.

Quote :

"Should we allow people to use lead piping?"

I do not think its more about you slapping on a lead pipe to your faucet, versus a contractor "cutting corners" by putting in lead pipes while the
home owner has no clue.

Quote :

"What about decriminalizing all illegal drugs? "

know you are just building a strawman....

Quote :

"I also find it amusing that Conservatives rant and rave about "Liberal New York City restrictions" but are happy to campaign for restrictions on morality, like pornography and gay marriage"

yeah i have always found Many right-wing republicans to be pretty hypocritical in this regards. When a democrat is president they spend the next
4 to 8 years crying about big gov't, increasing taxes (which much of the GOP blue-collar working base does not pay much of to begin with),
and a nanny welfare gov't. Yet when a Republican gets elected all of a sudden they forget and easily drink the kool-aid as the gov't
grossly explodes in their personnal privacy through wire-tapping campaigns, morality legislation, and various other freedom restricting activities.

8/31/2009 11:13:04 AM

Quote :

"Do you commute to work? You did go to a state supported college, etc. Everyone assumes they have little to no impact on the tax burden of the American people, but that is not true."

You're attempting to compare two activities that have a largely positive impact on society with activities that have only a negative impact.

By using public transportation, I am lowering traffic and helping the environment. By going to a state supported college, I am acquiring a degree which I will use to contribute back to society in the form of work.

Please tell me about the positive benefits of consuming large amounts of unhealthy food and becoming obese. I assume one would support the fast food and medical industry, but are you really going to make that argument?

Quote :

"This would largely be impossible to do. "

Actually, it's closer than you think: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/52905

Quote :

"Restaurant chains with 20 or more stores would be required to display nutrition information, including calorie counts and “suggested daily caloric intake” on their menus, under a mandate contained in the health-care reform bill drafted by the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. Section 325 of the bill says the listings must be placed “(i)n a nutrient disclosure statement adjacent to the name of the standard menu item, so as to be clearly associated with the standard menu item, on the menu listing the item for sale, the number of calories contained in the standard menu item, as usually prepared and offered for sale.” Restaurants must also include “a succinct statement concerning suggested daily caloric intake” that is specified by the secretary of health and human services, to “enable the public to understand, in the context of a total daily diet, the significance of the caloric information that is provided on the menu.” The legislation would also allow the HHS secretary to require disclosure of additional nutritional information if she considers it beneficial to the health of customers. The provisions apply to menu boards -- including those displayed in the drive-thru section of some retail food chains -- and self-service food outlets, where the information would have to be displayed next to every item on display. Upon request, food venues would also have to provide detailed written information of their dishes’ fat, sodium, and carbohydrate content, among others. The disclosure requirements do not apply to unlisted items on the menu, such as condiments -- nor do they apply to promotional food items. Daily specials, food selections appearing on the menu for a yearly threshold of less than 60 days, or test items that are on the menu for less than 90 days would all be exempt. Under the proposed bill, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration would set the standards for determining whether the nutrition information that restaurants publish was developed on a “reasonable basis.” “(A) restaurant or similar retail food establishment shall have a reasonable basis for its nutrient content disclosures, including nutrient databases, cookbooks, laboratory analyses, and other reasonable means,” the legislation revealed. The proposal has opponents, but surprisingly, they are not restaurant owners. Grace-Marie Turner, president of the Galen Institute, a nonprofit health policy research group, called the nutrition disclosure provision the “pointless and expensive” requirements of “a nanny state.” "The restaurant calorie-labeling provision would have an economic impact on restaurants,” Turner told CNSNews.com. “The impact will depend upon how the rules are written and which restaurants they apply to. It will mean higher prices for restaurant meals because the costs will have to be passed along to consumers, and it would certainly deter innovation in menu items." But major restaurant chains say they support a national standard for nutrition disclosure, including Darden Restaurants Inc., one of the world’s largest full-service company-owned and operated chain, with approximately $6.7 billion in annual sales and about 180,000 employees. “We support the compromise (nutrition disclosure) language,” Rich Jeffers, spokesman for Darden Restaurants, told CNSNews.com. “We support the agreement because it’s consistent with our commitment to providing nutrition information (consumers) need to make informed decisions.” The company’s Red Lobster, Olive Garden, LongHorn Steakhouse, and Bahama Breeze restaurants post nutrition information about their permanent dishes -- as opposed to promotional ones -- on their respective Web sites, he said. “We already provide nutrition information for all of our core menu items on our Web sites and in our restaurants as well,” Jeffers added. “If somebody asks for it (information), it’s available in the restaurant,” he added. The National Restaurant Association, the restaurant trade association, said the industry is united in support of the requirement. “Having one national, uniform (nutrition disclosure) standard is essential, and there is widespread industry agreement that we need a federal legislative approach to create that standard,” said Beth Johnson, NRA executive vice president of public affairs said in an e-mail statement to CNSNews.com Wednesday. Many states – and some localities – already have their own restaurant nutrition disclosure requirements and guidelines, Johnson said. “We believe that we are supporting the approach that has the most realistic chance of passage and the best success in preventing a patchwork of harmful regulation and legislation across the country,” she added. “The industry is, in fact, unified about the most critical provision in the nutrition information legislation - the need for federal preemption,” she reiterated. A few large chains, including Yum Brands Inc., owner of KFC, Taco Bell, and Pizza Hut among others, are reportedly attempting to expand the measure to companies with at least 3 restaurant locations and $1 million in sales. Jonathan Blum, a senior vice president of Yum Brands Inc., told the Los Angeles Times that the mandate’s 20-establishment or more limit only encompasses about 25 percent of the approximately 1 million restaurants in the U.S. The National Restaurant Association, however, said it opposes any move toward further expansion, its spokesman told CNSNews.com. The Senate legislation calls for the HHS secretary to craft a national disclosure standard within one year after the bill’s enactment while taking into consideration “serving size” and the “training” of restaurant workers. According to the bill, the secretary has to take into account the “standardization of recipes and methods of preparation, reasonable variation in serving size and formulation of menu items, space on menus and menu boards, inadvertent human error, training of food service workers, variations in ingredients, and other factors.” A provision also allows for allocation of grants to “a national network of community based organizations” to “highlight healthy options at restaurants and other food venues." The nutrition information disclosure requirement of the Senate panel’s bill is the outcome of bipartisan reconciliation between two similar pieces of legislation attempting to establish a uniform standard for food retailer chains -- the Labeling, Education, and Nutrition (LEAN) Act of 2009, re-introduced by Sens. Tom Carper (D-Del.) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) in March; and the Menu, Education, and Labeling (MEAL) Act of 2009, sponsored by Sen. Tom Harkin’s (D-Iowa) and Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), which was introduced in May. There is similar language in the House Energy and Commerce Committee's health-care bill, which the National Association of Restaurants also supports."

8/31/2009 11:15:08 AM

Quote :

"Should we allow people to use lead piping?""

Do you have brass fitting on your sink? If you do, you have lead in your plumbing. Also, lead pipes aren't that large of a problem as people make them out to be.

8/31/2009 11:15:39 AM

Quote :

".1% of the population dying from obessity related problems isn't an epidemic. "

I think this is kind of a watered down statistic.

Japan has one of the highest smoking rates in the world yet a life expectancy that surpasses the US. Of course you got the extreme smokers but
i would bet taht your average smoker eating fish and rice would outlive your non-smoker typical American McFatty gorging on Triple Thickburgers, milkshakes, and
whose idea of exercise is lifting the recycle bin full of coca-cola cans to put out front.

8/31/2009 11:18:24 AM

Quote :

"Please tell me about the positive benefits of consuming large amounts of unhealthy food and becoming obese. I assume one would support the fast food and medical industry, but are you really going to make that argument?"

So you are willing to judge the utility of someone to society based upon their diet and their over all health?

Quote :

"You're attempting to compare two activities that have a largely positive impact on society with activities that have only a negative impact. By using public transportation, I am lowering traffic and helping the environment. By going to a state supported college, I am acquiring a degree which I will use to contribute back to society in the form of work."

commuting isn't a positive impact on society. No matter how green you attempt to make your commute it still has a negative impact as opposed to living with in close proximity to your place of employment.

In respect to your college degree, you asked tax payers to help you pay for it, instead of taking on the full cost as you are doing with people who live an unhealthy lifestyle in your eyes.

Quote :

"Actually, it's closer than you think: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/52905"

For large chains it is possible, but as a policy it is nearly impossible and would have zero impact as is.

[Edited on August 31, 2009 at 11:20 AM. Reason : .]

8/31/2009 11:19:03 AM

Quote :

"I have mixed feelings on this. On one hand we would be so centric on one food source, but on the other hand, removing said subsidies would wreck the agricultural sector and would price out healthy food from the vast majority of the American diet."

Do you have evidence of this? I'm not trying to be critical here, I'd be interested in hearing more.


While the libertarian in me is a fan of the free market, I'm equally aware of the fact that a secure and readily available supply of food is of national security interest.

8/31/2009 11:20:20 AM

Quote :

"Do you have evidence of this? I'm not trying to be critical here, I'd be interested in hearing more."

remove the corn subsidy and protein farmers will be forced to find less cost efficient feed sources and many of those would be considered the more nutritious grains. Chicken, beef, pork, etc. are as cheap as they are largely due to cheap sillage from corn.

[Edited on August 31, 2009 at 11:23 AM. Reason : .]

8/31/2009 11:22:35 AM

Right, some would argue that the relative cheapness of fruits and vegetables would increase though. (Food policy really needs to be a separate thread. I'll start one when I have the time.)

[Edited on August 31, 2009 at 11:25 AM. Reason : .]

8/31/2009 11:24:41 AM

Quote :

"A third of Americans are obese. What I just posted shows that we're paying for the health care of all of these people. What other solution would you propose? There's absolutely no way that I can affect all of these obese people other than to petition my government, the only body with that wide-reaching of influence."

God: One of your major, thematic complaints in this this thread appears to be an objection to subsidizing the poor lifestyle choices of others. And that's understandable. Putting it logically, it seems like we have one of two choices:

-Charge higher premiums, i.e., a "risk premium" for those who make unhealthy life choices, like smoking, being obese, etc. In theory then, this offsets your objection that you are subsidizing the costs of someone living an unhealthy lifestyle, since this is still a stochastic process - i.e., eating cheeseburgers every day doesn't guarantee a heart attack, it simply makes it more likely.
-Restricting people lifestyle choices to modify their relative risks. As you have indicated above.

Of course, the problem with the first solution is that right now we can't do that in many cases (we are not allowed to charge a differential premium based upon conditions like obesity, and the current proposed plan virtually eliminates nearly all risk-based pricing in favor of "community rating", which is just dumb enough to have come from this board).

Still, however, it seems like charging people based upon the cost risks they impose upon others, rather than blanket restrictions, are a far more fair way to resolve your objection.

8/31/2009 12:20:23 PM

Quote :

"In respect to your college degree, you asked tax payers to help you pay for it, instead of taking on the full cost as you are doing with people who live an unhealthy lifestyle in your eyes. "

Your logic is a little flawed with your analogy. For one in order to have "Gov't Subsidized" in state tuition for 99% of students this
equates to having a parent working and paying NC taxes. Therefore you can argue that your average college student is mooching off the tax-payer
the same as a uninsured smoker/McFatty/illegal immigrant, as their parents are paying NC taxes and therefore indirectly paying over time
to sent their kids to a state school.

Even if their parents were bums and paid no taxes sending kids to college is still a good investment in greater state taxes paid in the future
since many of these graduates will not stray to far from home. Right now I am paying back my NC subsidized tution every week; along with
30 years of paying from my parents. This can not be said for a 65 yr old alcoholic who needs a liver transplant after destroying it by boozing.
I am not saying this man deserves to die but you can not compare students receiving "subsidized college" money the same as you can about health care.

8/31/2009 3:51:16 PM

Quote :

"This can not be said for a 65 yr old alcoholic who needs a liver transplant after destroying it by boozing."

That guy doesn't already get the liver. So what are you complaining about there?

Quote :

"Therefore you can argue that your average college student is mooching off the tax-payer the same as a uninsured smoker/McFatty/illegal immigrant, as their parents are paying NC taxes and therefore indirectly paying over time to sent their kids to a state school. "

That precisely the point. Because even the smoker/McFatty/illegal immigrant is paying taxes.

Quote :

"Right now I am paying back my NC subsidized tution every week; along with 30 years of paying from my parents. This can not be said for a 65 yr old alcoholic who needs a liver transplant after destroying it by boozing."

Even ignoring the part of the 65 year old boozer, if you subsitute say a 65 year old retiree who needs healthcare, he has his entire working life contributing to the tax base to help pay for your college education along with every other government service rendered.

8/31/2009 4:08:11 PM

What part of my post did you NOT get. By being an NC in-state tution student the assumption is your PARENTS have paid into the system a sizeable contribution and the state is gambling with your fancy smancy college degree you will provide more income than you would working at factory worker in the chicken plant.

I ASSURE you that the NC legislature did not "create" in-state tuition b.c a bunch of heart felt liberals and democrats held hands wanting to make college affordable merely as compassion.

[Edited on August 31, 2009 at 5:33 PM. Reason : a]

8/31/2009 5:33:05 PM

The point is, no one's utility can be gauged as a tax payer based upon their diet and many other lifestyle choices.

Also, you cannot begrudge one individuals usage of tax dollars when you were and currently are on the same end of the tax payers largess.

[Edited on August 31, 2009 at 5:52 PM. Reason : .]

8/31/2009 5:51:39 PM

ok did you seriously call my using past history to make an assumption a "strawman theory"

or is that what you call all worries and assumptions no matter how unlikely

ill admit im not the super sleuth of history i want to be, but you know damn well what I mean and you know damn well i'm right, word. we seem to agree except for the part where I let myself call a spade a spade

9/1/2009 12:02:07 AM