Being overweight shameful?

2010-02-15 18:08:12

#51

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5575|London, England

Spark wrote:
1. how the fuck is it in anyone's best interest to die of heart disease/lung cancer...

It may not be in their best interest but what's it to you?
It's their life to live, not yours. You want to educate them? Fine. Anything beyond that and you're fucking with peoples liberty.

2. do you realise how much of the hospital system is chewed up by guys with smoking-related or lifestyle-related diseases like heart disease? a fuckload, and especially when hospital funding/capacity is a serious issue then the principle of prevention > cure should ALWAYS apply. If there is a way to stop people becoming fat then have at it. that's how it affects me, it affects the quality of my hospital system, and it affects the quality/productivity of the businesses in my country making them less competitive because you can't fucking work if you can't climb the stairs without running out of breath.

It doesn't effect the quality of your hospital system. Hell, they bring the cost of your health care down for you because they actually use it.

3. did i ever say we should FORCE people to not become fat, to not smoke and eat fast food? did you not read my post at the top of this page when i pretty explicitly stated that taxing fast food was a stupid idea? i only took objection with your pure-ideological standpoint that government shouldn't do anything to discourage bad lifestyle choices. that does not mean, as you seem to think it means, taxing the shit out of everything and government coercion.

but of course, this all depends on the assumption that becoming morbidly obese and smoking a pack a day for two decades is not healthy...

Yes, you advocated controlling their life and banning fatty food and cigarettes. F off.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2010-02-15 18:13:29

#52

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|6891|Canberra, AUS

JohnG@lt wrote:
Spark wrote:
1. how the fuck is it in anyone's best interest to die of heart disease/lung cancer...
It may not be in their best interest but what's it to you?
It's their life to live, not yours. You want to educate them? Fine. Anything beyond that and you're fucking with peoples liberty.

then what's the problem? is not education a government initiative? does not the government have to pay for it, with taxpayer money?

2. do you realise how much of the hospital system is chewed up by guys with smoking-related or lifestyle-related diseases like heart disease? a fuckload, and especially when hospital funding/capacity is a serious issue then the principle of prevention > cure should ALWAYS apply. If there is a way to stop people becoming fat then have at it. that's how it affects me, it affects the quality of my hospital system, and it affects the quality/productivity of the businesses in my country making them less competitive because you can't fucking work if you can't climb the stairs without running out of breath.
It doesn't effect the quality of your hospital system. Hell, they bring the cost of your health care down for you because they actually use it.

Not when you have a serious chronic bed shortage in your country.

3. did i ever say we should FORCE people to not become fat, to not smoke and eat fast food? did you not read my post at the top of this page when i pretty explicitly stated that taxing fast food was a stupid idea? i only took objection with your pure-ideological standpoint that government shouldn't do anything to discourage bad lifestyle choices. that does not mean, as you seem to think it means, taxing the shit out of everything and government coercion.

but of course, this all depends on the assumption that becoming morbidly obese and smoking a pack a day for two decades is not healthy...
Yes, you advocated controlling their life and banning fatty food and cigarettes. F off.

If you can find the post in this thread where I advocated "banning fatty food and cigarettes" then I'll retract but otherwise...

Last edited by Spark (2010-02-15 18:13:48)

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2010-02-15 18:16:35

#53

LividBovine: The Year of the Cow!; +175|6597|MN

Spark wrote:
i don't care about their life so much that it impacts on mine and my country as their incompetence and inability drags down everyone else. if we can stop fat people becoming fat, well i will hold my ideological/moral cries at bay while i see the benefits of having a society that actually works.

Advocate may be a stretch, but condone, not so much.

"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation" - Barack Obama (a freshman senator from Illinios)

2010-02-15 18:18:05

#54

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5575|London, England

Spark wrote:
Not when you have a serious chronic bed shortage in your country.

So train more doctors? Move out of the country? Perhaps build more hospitals?

If you can find the post in this thread where I advocated "banning fatty food and cigarettes" then I'll retract but otherwise...

Spark wrote:
ideologically very noble, practically very crap. i shudder to think what would happen to productivity levels if we did nothing to stop fat people being fat and smokers getting cancers.

Last edited by JohnG@lt (2010-02-15 18:19:45)

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2010-02-15 18:23:36

#55

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|6891|Canberra, AUS

LividBovine wrote:
Spark wrote:
i don't care about their life so much that it impacts on mine and my country as their incompetence and inability drags down everyone else. if we can stop fat people becoming fat, well i will hold my ideological/moral cries at bay while i see the benefits of having a society that actually works.
Advocate may be a stretch, but condone, not so much.

as i said above super-taxing fatty foods etc. is a fucking idiotic idea that will just make people angry. education is the key, if people realise that if you eat lots of crap food ---> you'll become fat ---> you'll need a triple bypass at 50, then we might start to see a difference.

So train more doctors? Move out of the country? Perhaps build more hospitals?

The first and third are easy to say... not very easy to do.

The second is completely irrelevant. How will me moving out of the country do anything to help at all... there are a whole range of laughable assertions contained in this question but I'll just pick on one - I'm treating this from the point of view of what's best for my country, not myself because this is an internet debate forum and not real life.

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2010-02-15 18:29:12

#56

Hurricane2k9: Pendulous Sweaty Balls; +1,538|5918|College Park, MD

"Stop fat people from becoming fat" doesn't necessary imply that he wants the government to say "DON'T EAT THAT"

Spark could very well be supporting subsidies to make fresh, healthy food as cheap as junk food.

https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/36793/marylandsig.jpg

2010-02-15 18:33:17

#57

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5575|London, England

Hurricane2k9 wrote:
"Stop fat people from becoming fat" doesn't necessary imply that he wants the government to say "DON'T EAT THAT"

Spark could very well be supporting subsidies to make fresh, healthy food as cheap as junk food.

Coercion is as antithetical to freedom as an outright ban would be. It's just a 'nicer' way of doing things.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2010-02-15 18:36:31

#58

LividBovine: The Year of the Cow!; +175|6597|MN

Spark wrote:
LividBovine wrote:
Spark wrote:
i don't care about their life so much that it impacts on mine and my country as their incompetence and inability drags down everyone else. if we can stop fat people becoming fat, well i will hold my ideological/moral cries at bay while i see the benefits of having a society that actually works.
Advocate may be a stretch, but condone, not so much.
as i said above super-taxing fatty foods etc. is a fucking idiotic idea that will just make people angry. education is the key, if people realise that if you eat lots of crap food ---> you'll become fat ---> you'll need a triple bypass at 50, then we might start to see a difference.

The idea that most people don't know that eating fatty foods are going to undermine their longterm health is silly. Education is fine on this. We have been taught from a very early age what is bad for us and what is good for us. We choose to eat bad. Simple truth.

Hurricane2k9 wrote:
Stop fat people from becoming fat" doesn't necessary imply that he wants the government to say "DON'T EAT THAT"

Spark could very well be supporting subsidies to make fresh, healthy food as cheap as junk food.

Or he could be back pedaling. How is the government going to say "don't eat that"? Or are they going to raise taxes eventually? They may find another less obvious way though, maybe they will tax the makers of the fatty foods so they appear as the bad guys.

Lets just keep the government out of it all together then we don't have to worry about how they are going to control our eating habits.

"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation" - Barack Obama (a freshman senator from Illinios)

2010-02-15 19:52:08

#59

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,813|6323|eXtreme to the maX

JohnG@lt wrote:
Umm, how does a person being fat have any impact on your life at all?

My health insurance costs more than it otherwise would.

Fuck Israel

2010-02-15 19:52:58

#60

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5575|London, England

Dilbert_X wrote:
JohnG@lt wrote:
Umm, how does a person being fat have any impact on your life at all?
My health insurance costs more than it otherwise would.

So save your money and pay cash.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2010-02-15 19:54:02

#61

ATG: Banned; +5,233|6746|Global Command

Dilbert_X wrote:
JohnG@lt wrote:
Umm, how does a person being fat have any impact on your life at all?
My health insurance costs more than it otherwise would.

It's your job as an american to make sure everybody has equal access to Twinkies.
Twinkies are a right, not a privilege.

2010-02-15 19:54:06

#62

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,813|6323|eXtreme to the maX

JohnG@lt wrote:
Dilbert_X wrote:
JohnG@lt wrote:
Umm, how does a person being fat have any impact on your life at all?
My health insurance costs more than it otherwise would.
So save your money and pay cash.

Then it wouldn't be insurance would it....

Hey I know, I won't take out house insurance, I'll just pay cash if it burns down. Don't see why I should subsidise smokers with their house insurance....

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2010-02-15 19:59:04)

Fuck Israel

2010-02-15 19:55:00

#63

Hurricane2k9: Pendulous Sweaty Balls; +1,538|5918|College Park, MD

JohnG@lt wrote:
Dilbert_X wrote:
JohnG@lt wrote:
Umm, how does a person being fat have any impact on your life at all?
My health insurance costs more than it otherwise would.
So save your money and pay cash.

"Here doc, $1,000 in cash for all that hard work scraping my teeth with a piece of sharp metal"

2010-02-15 20:03:16

#64

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5575|London, England

Hurricane2k9 wrote:
JohnG@lt wrote:
Dilbert_X wrote:

My health insurance costs more than it otherwise would.
So save your money and pay cash.
"Here doc, $1,000 in cash for all that hard work scraping my teeth with a piece of sharp metal"

Insurance companies make a profit. Why? Because the vast majority of people spend far more money on insurance premiums than they would spend out of pocket themselves over the course of their lifetime.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2010-02-15 20:04:16

#65

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5575|London, England

Dilbert_X wrote:
JohnG@lt wrote:
Dilbert_X wrote:
My health insurance costs more than it otherwise would.
So save your money and pay cash.
Then it wouldn't be insurance would it....

Hey I know, I won't take out house insurance, I'll just pay cash if it burns down. Don't see why I should subsidise smokers with their house insurance....

Apples and oranges.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2010-02-15 20:18:17

#66

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,813|6323|eXtreme to the maX

JohnG@lt wrote:
Insurance companies make a profit. Why? Because the vast majority of people spend far more money on insurance premiums than they would spend out of pocket themselves over the course of their lifetime.

Same with car insurance, house insurance, every insurance, its insurance against the big hit.

Fuck Israel

2010-02-15 20:19:55

#67

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5575|London, England

Dilbert_X wrote:
JohnG@lt wrote:
Insurance companies make a profit. Why? Because the vast majority of people spend far more money on insurance premiums than they would spend out of pocket themselves over the course of their lifetime.
Same with car insurance, house insurance, every insurance, its insurance against the big hit.

Point is, no one is forcing you to buy health insurance and thereby subsidize other peoples poor lifestyle choices. Hell, find a plan that bans the fatties and the smokers. You should get lower premiums.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2010-02-15 20:35:22

#68

LividBovine: The Year of the Cow!; +175|6597|MN

JohnG@lt wrote:
Dilbert_X wrote:
JohnG@lt wrote:
Insurance companies make a profit. Why? Because the vast majority of people spend far more money on insurance premiums than they would spend out of pocket themselves over the course of their lifetime.
Same with car insurance, house insurance, every insurance, its insurance against the big hit.
Point is, no one is forcing you to buy health insurance and thereby subsidize other peoples poor lifestyle choices. Hell, find a plan that bans the fatties and the smokers. You should get lower premiums.

I got a healthy american discount a while back. They sent a nurse to our house to do measurments and take some blood. We got a decent discount through that program.

"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation" - Barack Obama (a freshman senator from Illinios)

2010-02-15 20:39:05

#69

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5575|London, England

LividBovine wrote:
JohnG@lt wrote:
Dilbert_X wrote:

Same with car insurance, house insurance, every insurance, its insurance against the big hit.
Point is, no one is forcing you to buy health insurance and thereby subsidize other peoples poor lifestyle choices. Hell, find a plan that bans the fatties and the smokers. You should get lower premiums.
I got a healthy american discount a while back. They sent a nurse to our house to do measurments and take some blood. We got a decent discount through that program.

See? Well there ya go

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2010-02-16 18:19:02

#70

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6622|North Carolina

JohnG@lt wrote:
Dilbert_X wrote:
JohnG@lt wrote:
Insurance companies make a profit. Why? Because the vast majority of people spend far more money on insurance premiums than they would spend out of pocket themselves over the course of their lifetime.
Same with car insurance, house insurance, every insurance, its insurance against the big hit.
Point is, no one is forcing you to buy health insurance and thereby subsidize other peoples poor lifestyle choices. Hell, find a plan that bans the fatties and the smokers. You should get lower premiums.

Actually, you were most correct when you said, "apples to oranges."

You can live without a car, a house, or most other things that can be insured. You can live without healthcare, but not typically for very long.

Healthcare is what I like to call a "captive market." Basically, healthcare providers have much more power over consumers than typical suppliers of a good or service, because so much of the quality of our lives is determined by modern medicine. As we get older, we become more dependent on healthcare.

Even if you live the most healthy lifestyle, genes can still hinder you. Some of us weren't particularly lucky when it comes to the gene pool, so we end up having to pay for expensive prescriptions or expensive surgeries. For those of us lucky enough to have good genes, we do end up subsidizing those who choose to live in an unhealthy way, but we also subsidize those who just got shafted by biology.

I can understand the resentment toward those who choose to be unhealthy, but you can't really blame those who have little control over their ailments.

And as for your argument about getting out ahead without paying health insurance, that logic doesn't work once you get past the age of 70 or 80. The human body, regardless of your lifestyle and genes, starts to malfunction a lot more at that point, and healthcare really does become a necessity for continued existence. Of course, if you spent the majority of your life without health insurance, signing up for a plan at 70 will often be so prohibitively expensive that it's not worth having, whereas had you been covered for the decades before that, your premiums would be much lower even at an advanced age, because providers freak out over "gaps in coverage."

Generally speaking, healthcare just can't be treated the same as other markets, because it's more a need than it is a commodity. It's almost like living on a different planet and having to pay a premium for oxygen. Sure, you could let the market clear things for that, but you're going to make life pretty miserable for a lot of society that way.

2010-02-16 19:08:07

#71

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5575|London, England

Turquoise, I looked into health insurance coverage recently for myself. I'm 29 years old and in pretty good health. I haven't been to a doctor in five years. I don't currently have health insurance but I do have the VA as a safety net if I ever really need it. I don't use it.

When I searched for coverage, the price I was quoted was around $400 a month with a $1200 deductible. Between the money I would have to save for the deductible and the premium, let's say it comes out to $6000 a year. That's just for me.

Let's take that $6000, increase it by 2% per year and instead of giving it to an insurance company, invest it at a modest profit of 7% annual.

1    $6,420.00    $6,000.00
2    $13,417.80    $6,120.00
3    $21,036.41    $6,242.40
4    $29,321.92    $6,367.25
5    $38,323.67    $6,494.59
6    $48,094.52    $6,624.48
7    $58,691.10    $6,756.97
8    $70,174.04    $6,892.11
9    $82,608.28    $7,029.96
10    $96,063.35    $7,170.56
11    $110,613.73    $7,313.97
12    $126,339.15    $7,460.25
13    $143,325.01    $7,609.45
14    $161,662.71    $7,761.64
15    $181,450.16    $7,916.87
16    $202,792.14    $8,075.21
17    $225,800.87    $8,236.71
18    $250,596.49    $8,401.45
19    $277,307.58    $8,569.48
20    $306,071.84    $8,740.87

After 20 years of putting in the money I would've spent on premiums, I have $306k dedicated for the sole purpose of preserving my health. Taking that out to 35 years when I retire, we're looking at:

30    $744,834.72    $10,655.07
31    $808,602.09    $10,868.17
32    $877,065.76    $11,085.53
33    $950,559.11    $11,307.24
34    $1,029,438.98    $11,533.39
35    $1,114,087.24    $11,764.06

I think I'll save my money. It's always better to save and invest your own money rather than giving it to someone else and letting them earn all the profits. It's how banks and insurance companies make their money. It sure as hell isn't from premiums and finance charges, it's from investing the money that you give them every month.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2010-02-16 19:21:19

#72

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6622|North Carolina

In general, you're going to get charged more for care without insurance -- a lot more. Even if we assume you don't have any major health concerns until you're 40 or 45, you're still taking quite a risk by not having insurance.

Also, many providers won't even serve you if you don't have insurance -- even if you have the money. The idea there is that they don't want to get stuck holding the bag if complications arise. You might have the money for an initial service, but not necessarily for subsequent ones.

2010-02-16 19:25:06

#73

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5575|London, England

Turquoise wrote:
In general, you're going to get charged more for care without insurance -- a lot more. Even if we assume you don't have any major health concerns until you're 40 or 45, you're still taking quite a risk by not having insurance.

Also, many providers won't even serve you if you don't have insurance -- even if you have the money. The idea there is that they don't want to get stuck holding the bag if complications arise. You might have the money for an initial service, but not necessarily for subsequent ones.

Shrug, I was just putting it out there. I'll definitely have health coverage for myself and my family once I start it but I will also ALWAYS have the highest deductible possible on every insurance account for the reasons I described above.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2010-02-16 19:27:23

#74

LividBovine: The Year of the Cow!; +175|6597|MN

Turquoise wrote:
In general, you're going to get charged more for care without insurance -- a lot more. Even if we assume you don't have any major health concerns until you're 40 or 45, you're still taking quite a risk by not having insurance.

Also, many providers won't even serve you if you don't have insurance -- even if you have the money. The idea there is that they don't want to get stuck holding the bag if complications arise. You might have the money for an initial service, but not necessarily for subsequent ones.

The money out of pocket for the service will be higher, but the total monies spent will be lower in the long term. There is additional cost built into the charges presented to the insurance company to pay for the administration of the system. The Insurance agency also charges you more in premiums to pay for its administration. By removing these added cost, it would lower the cost of health care services.

If a doctor refuses to provides services because you have no insurance, then there is a problem. There has to be a way to ensure people who want to pay out of pocket are not denied service. Of course without adding a government agency to regulate it.

"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation" - Barack Obama (a freshman senator from Illinios)

2010-02-16 19:31:44

#75

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5575|London, England

LividBovine wrote:
Turquoise wrote:
In general, you're going to get charged more for care without insurance -- a lot more. Even if we assume you don't have any major health concerns until you're 40 or 45, you're still taking quite a risk by not having insurance.

Also, many providers won't even serve you if you don't have insurance -- even if you have the money. The idea there is that they don't want to get stuck holding the bag if complications arise. You might have the money for an initial service, but not necessarily for subsequent ones.
The money out of pocket for the service will be higher, but the total monies spent will be lower in the long term. There is additional cost built into the charges presented to the insurance company to pay for the administration of the system. The Insurance agency also charges you more in premiums to pay for its administration. By removing these added cost, it would lower the cost of health care services.

If a doctor refuses to provides services because you have no insurance, then there is a problem. There has to be a way to ensure people who want to pay out of pocket are not denied service. Of course without adding a government agency to regulate it.

Yes. They aren't a charity. If health insurance companies weren't making a profit off of us they wouldn't exist. Odds are way higher than 50/50 that you will spend more in health insurance coverage throughout your lifetime than you will ever use. It's that unhealthy ten percent (guesstimate) that drive up the cost of premiums for everyone else.

So yes, you could definitely get away with no coverage as I said, it's just a gamble...

Last edited by JohnG@lt (2010-02-16 19:32:47)

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

BF2S Forums Being overweight shameful?

Spark wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Spark wrote:

Spark wrote:

Spark wrote:

Spark wrote:

LividBovine wrote:

Spark wrote:

Hurricane2k9 wrote:

Spark wrote:

LividBovine wrote:

Spark wrote:

Hurricane2k9 wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Hurricane2k9 wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

LividBovine wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

LividBovine wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Board footer