Why does the government mandate health insurance but not a healthy lifestyle?

[OldSkoolball#52]

This seems kind of backward to me.

Shouldn't we be mandating that everyone live a healthy lifestyle (at least in the ways they have control over) and then either allowing them to choose whether or not they want to purchase health insurance, or mandating it if that's more sensible? I mean isn't HEALTH more important than health INSURANCE? Healthy people would drive DOWN the cost, not to mention people will be happier, and.... duh, HEALTHIER.


Instead we have a grotesquely unhealthy country, and our priority is to burden our economy providing slobs with excessive treatment for preventable illness? Basically giving a carte blanche to anyone who wishes to lay waste to their own body, knowing the cost of treatment will be provided by the "invisible hand", i.e. their neighbor's hard earned money?

I mean for god sake, if officials so much as suggested disallowing food stamps to be used at places like kfc and burger king, pretentious liberals would straight up riot. It would be pandemonium. "HOW DARE YOU TELL THEM WHERE TO EAT WITH OTHER PEOPLES MONEY! THESE PEOPLE ARE POOR! LET THEM DO WHATEVER THEY WANT GOD DAMMIT!!!!!"

Losers would be crying about civil liberties and totalitarianism and corrupt corporate evil wall street 1% blah blah blah...... and all because the government said "you can't be unhealthy with the free money/food we're giving you"

The current situation basically results in three things:

Unhealthy people
Very expensive health care
"Free" healthcare for the unhealthy people at the EXPENSE of our economy. Money that belongs to all of us, is going to pay for more EXPENSIVE care for people who are UNHEALTHY anyway.


If you mandated "healthy" instead of "health coverage" you would have the complete opposite effect.


But then poor fat minorities would cry foul, causing pretentious loser liberals with vag1nas to try to look cool in front of poor fat minorities by also crying foul, resulting in the CURRENT system we have implemented.


Now that's what I call HOPE CHANGE.












http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/55/Barack_Obama_Hope_poster.jpg/399px-Barack_Obama_Hope_poster.jpg

http://www.5forcesofchange.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Article-2-Obama-change.jpg

[DeuceWallaces]

If you don't think the government tries to mandate healthy lifestyles and keep medical costs down then you're not paying attention.

[HardwoodLegend]

Food stamps are allowed at places like KFC and Burger King because those places are cheap. Eating healthily is a bit more expensive, and I know you wouldn't approve of even more funding going to food stamps to help recipients pay for healthier options.

Health insurance being mandated is to address the problems that already exist, and the government has already started to become gradually more active in promoting a healthy lifestyle. Hopefully, over time, this will drive down the cost for health insurance.

[OldSkoolball#52]

If you don't think the government tries to mandate healthy lifestyles and keep medical costs down then you're not paying attention.


Their efforts in regulating health are miniscule compared to their efforts in regulating the health insurance. Further, their efforts are misguided. They take the "this is why we can't have nice things" approach and punish everyone, rather than simply punish the people who are at fault.

For instance they'll add a 1 cent tax to sodas. This won't discourage people from drinking it in meaningful numbers, it will simply transfer more money over to the healthcare fund through taxes. And EVERYONE who drinks soda will have to pay more for it, even if they don't drink it too excess.

They'll ban MSG from restaurants. Maybe I enjoy fried chicken once a month from whatever restaurant. But I won't be able to get my favorite recipe anymore, because some fat bozos eat it 4 times a week. Wonderful.


Instead of having a financial penalty only for those who choose not to have health insurance, why don't we make everyone go to the doctor once a year and charge the FAT PEOPLE a penalty??

How about when you see a fat person in a fast food restaurant, you point at them and laugh and say real loudly "NICE CHINS, FATSO! THEY SURE MATCH YOUR CANKLES YOU HIDDEOUS SLOB!"

I mean, you know, these are just ideas. The current attempts at "overhaul" of American health are miniscule and token. Drastic times call for drastic measures!

[DeuceWallaces]

Well you appear to have thought this through and have some good ideas.

Ever considered running for a local office?

[OldSkoolball#52]

Food stamps are allowed at places like KFC and Burger King because those places are cheap. Eating healthily is a bit more expensive, and I know you wouldn't approve of even more funding going to food stamps to help recipients pay for healthier options.




That's a myth, I thought everyone knew this by now.

I can go to the grocery store right now and get a yogurt, a tube of unslated peanuts, a peach, and a couple carrots for like $2.00 and I could have that for lunch with a big glass of water. ANYONE CAN DO THAT.



Further, I actually would support a subsidy of bottled fruit and vegetable juices (quick, refreshing, health nutrition) for people on food stamps IF the use of stamps was discontinued at fast food places. Let's face it. People simply aren't going to go buy room temperature broccoli from the grocery store and have that for lunch when their voucher works just as easiy on french fries. It's just not gonna happen. So don't let it. Take the decision out of their hands.

And you can do that with things like these:

http://drinks.seriouseats.com/images/2012/03/20120320-evolution-juice.jpg

Of course, unlike regular produce, these things actually are expensive. But they're also much more convenient and enjoyable, so if that's what it takes to encourage lower income people to switch, then fine, subsidize it to a degree. Cut them off from French fries and soda and big macs and give them a discount on juices. Everyone will be better off for it.


But again, the problem is they'll complain. Then we'll have people who want to baby, want to cave, want to give in and feel popular and special by "defending" the little guy (when you're actually enabling him to have a suckier life but you aren't man enough to stand on a big picture principle).

[OldSkoolball#52]

Well you appear to have thought this through and have some good ideas.

Ever considered running for a local office?


Actually I attempted to run for the office of President, but was chagrined to find I was prohibited due to some draconian limit on the minimum age.

Discrimination suit pending.

[Fresh Kid]

cuz tha damn government don't care, they dont care about us, never did and never will, they only care about wars and their pockets.

[Jailblazers7]

Because it would be political suicide for someone to propose a bill like that. The regulation of a person's lifestyle is the main reason (at least the most logical reason) why people are against a state-run healthcare system because it is potentially the next step once the government is in charge of paying for the healthcare of the entire population.

[Is He Ill]

Conservatives cried foul when Michelle Obama was touting her child health initiative/school lunch reform, so I'm sure this brilliantly realistic idea will go over well with them.

[longhornfan1234]

Abolish Obamacare.


Health Care should be free for children. They can't get a job, and it's not their faults their parents are mediocre. Obama needs to tackle this.

[johndeeregreen]

That's a myth, I thought everyone knew this by now.

I can go to the grocery store right now and get a yogurt, a tube of unslated peanuts, a peach, and a couple carrots for like $2.00 and I could have that for lunch with a big glass of water. ANYONE CAN DO THAT.
Some healthy foods are cheap, some aren't. Nuts (cashews, almonds, etc) aren't. Chicken breasts, fish, etc. certainly aren't. Good cuts of beef aren't. Apples and bananas are, but blueberries/strawberries/pineapple/raspberries are far from cheap considering the quantities you get for the price paid.

Peanuts/carrots/yogurt for lunch? That's a great way to set yourself up for binging for dinner. Now obviously healthy alternatives for a lunch that will actually satisfy you are out there, but not for $2.00.

I'm not saying you're entirely wrong, but you're not entirely right either.

[DukeDelonte13]

I don't get the outrage over forcing people to get health insurance.

When people go in without insurance and dip out on the bill guess who bears the burden of that cost?


Hospital --> Insurance providers --> insurance customers.




#1 reason for bankruptcy in America by far is under-insured or zero-insured people getting medical treatment and being unable to pay the bills.

[DukeDelonte13]

Abolish Obamacare.


Health Care should be free for children. They can't get a job, and it's not their faults their parents are mediocre. Obama needs to tackle this.


Can't tell if serious or trolling...

[longhornfan1234]

Can't tell if serious or trolling...
:confusedshrug:

[Derka]

Because insurance companies donate a shit ton of money to candidates and spend a ton of money lobbying. That's how you get your way in this country.

[RidonKs]

if officials so much as suggested disallowing food stamps to be used at places like kfc and burger king, pretentious liberals would straight up riot
maybe so. but more importantly, kfc and burger king would straight up riot. and which of these two groups do you suppose holds more sway over public policy? jailblazers is right about such a proposal being political suicide, but the barrier isn't so much this special american devotion to personal liberty as it is big food companies, mcdonalds or tyson or kraft, saying no fking way.

a system in which food vouchers go further buying healthy and (more importantly) local groceries is a fantastic idea. tricky to implement and it does make for more bureaucracy but in terms of impact well worth it... just not for sectors that hold the most political sway.

[Jailblazers7]

maybe so. but more importantly, kfc and burger king would straight up riot. and which of these two groups do you suppose holds more sway over public policy? jailblazers is right about such a proposal being political suicide, but the barrier isn't so much this special american devotion to personal liberty as it is big food companies, mcdonalds or tyson or kraft, saying no fking way.

a system in which food vouchers go further buying healthy and (more importantly) local groceries is a fantastic idea. tricky to implement and it does make for more bureaucracy but in terms of impact well worth it... just not for sectors that hold the most political sway.

Yeah, it would be suicide in almost every way possible. Struggles to maintain campaign funding, PACs backed by fast food electioneering against you, loss of votes, etc. The country would have to be in a very different place for a politicians to even considering it.

I always tend to see things through a more ideological lens but there is no doubt that the political machinery in this country would work against such a politician.

[falc39]

Because the government would somehow find a way to **** it up even more regardless of the good intentions behind it.

[ALBballer]

Let's take a step back. Maybe the government should stop subsidizing farmers that grow wheat, corn, soy and other things that are mainly found in processed foods. Corn alone can be found in most fast food restaurants, items ranging from the meat to the bread to the fries to the sweets that are offered (including soft drinks.)

When lower-income consumers are given a choice between fresh food that is largely unsubsidized and processed food that is lower in cost partly due to government subsidies, what choice do you think they will make?

[OldSkoolball#52]

Conservatives cried foul when Michelle Obama was touting her child health initiative/school lunch reform, so I'm sure this brilliantly realistic idea will go over well with them.



Because it would be political suicide for someone to propose a bill like that. The regulation of a person's lifestyle is the main reason (at least the most logical reason) why people are against a state-run healthcare system because it is potentially the next step once the government is in charge of paying for the healthcare of the entire population.


I understand regulating people's health is a very "un-conservative" thing to do. I'm not saying the government necessarily SHOULD do this (although there's a case to be made).

My primary point is that if you are going to have the government intervene in people's lives, this is a very backward way of doing it. So much money will be wasted paying for things after the fact instead of preventing them. Which really goes to the heart of the Democratic fallacy. That everything can be compensated for by transferring money. Money is not a cure, it is not an elixir. Attitudes, values, habits, mores etc. are what lead to, and sustain prosperity and well being.

I'm simply saying that if the government is going to intervene by making some people pay for other people, they should ALSO intervene by making the latter take certain responsibilities. Or else do neither. They have absolutely no semblance of balance between social entitlement and social responsibility. Again, the heart of the Democratic fallacy. Republicans for their part sell a lot of fire and brimstone, and maybe you believe in Jesus, the afterlife etc. maybe you don't. But the values they preach are actually practical in real life. They work, they're proven. I'm not talkin bout gay marriage and abortion and those types of ancillary issues. I'm talking about the core values of spending within your means, accepting social responsibility whether you're dirt poor or filthy rich, raising your children properly, being independent, planning for your future etc. You have to expect that of your neighbor and of your government. It necessarily will mean sacrifice sometimes. It will mean choices, discipline, and even standing up to people who try to take advantage of you or the system. Sometimes it means not helping someone, because they didn't do things the way they were supposed to and now they're suffering consequences. It certainly doesn't mean not helping anyone, but charitable decisions should be made by individuals, not by an inefficient bureaucracy scraping a rake across the country's economy.

I'll certainly not claim to be the perfect model citizen myself. I've made bad financial decisions. I've planned poorly for things. But I'll certainly take responsibility for the consequences, recognize what I need to improve, and be accountable to myself for doing it.

It irks me when I see a huge government bureaucracy full of ivy-league educated public officials refusing to do the same thing. And moreover, an ignorant and entitled public applauding them for it. And they just keep perpetuating one another. It's going to lead to dire consequences. Americas prospects are changing, and in many ways our current advantages rest on the equity of our past, rather than the prospects of our future. Unhealthy, under-educated population, job-suffocating business regulations.. We have borrowed a TON from the future to make things easy now. Instead of sacrificing and adapting to new times, we are borrowing more to continue to live the same way. It's Bad News Bears yall. It's not gonna work forever.

[OldSkoolball#52]

maybe so. but more importantly, kfc and burger king would straight up riot. and which of these two groups do you suppose holds more sway over public policy? jailblazers is right about such a proposal being political suicide, but the barrier isn't so much this special american devotion to personal liberty as it is big food companies, mcdonalds or tyson or kraft, saying no fking way.

a system in which food vouchers go further buying healthy and (more importantly) local groceries is a fantastic idea. tricky to implement and it does make for more bureaucracy but in terms of impact well worth it... just not for sectors that hold the most political sway.



This is true, I agree. However I see no reason why the grocery and even agricultural sectors wouldn't be just as willing to throw their mite behind a proposal to move more food-stamp business into their industries. If politicians knew there were enough voters to support the idea, I'm sure grocery giants and produce suppliers would supply some campaign cash to those advocating it.

[rhythmic]

For the economy...

[OldSkoolball#52]

Let's take a step back. Maybe the government should stop subsidizing farmers that grow wheat, corn, soy and other things that are mainly found in processed foods. Corn alone can be found in most fast food restaurants, items ranging from the meat to the bread to the fries to the sweets that are offered (including soft drinks.)

When lower-income consumers are given a choice between fresh food that is largely unsubsidized and processed food that is lower in cost partly due to government subsidies, what choice do you think they will make?


Yes, this would technically be the ultimate "laissez faire" application. But I don't think it's that necessary. I'm not suggesting everyone in America has to become a health freak, no matter the cost. I'm just advocating at least a moderate change to how we divvy up responsibility for public health. Some people do need access to slightly cheaper corn and potatoes, even if they're not quite as nutrient packed as farm-fresh, organic, etc. etc. whatever. I don't wanna jack food prices up for everyone. I don't have a problem with basic agricultural subsidy. Just not for junk food. That is 100% counterproductive and costly to everyone. Frankly, people should be outraged at what a person can buy with food stamps right now. It's seriously like parents feeding their 4 and 6 year old kids skittles and cupcakes and soda all day. Would you think that's a good parent? That's practically what the government IS doing, with a population that doesn't know any better, or at least claims not to. Why is that acceptable??

[boozehound]

A couple of points. only a handful (maybe 5, actually just checked its 3) states allow you to use foodstamps at fast food or other restaurants. In most states, you cannot even use them for things like the rotisserie chicken at a grocery store.

I do agree that foodstamps should be mightily reformed, limiting them to produce, bulk staple commodities (rice, flour, etc), meat and dairy. No heavily processed shit, no empty calories, no pre-packaged meals, etc. WIC is limited to very specific food groups. Of course, food companies will not let this happen.

As for healthcare cost, here is an interesting comparison. Its kind of annoying as its a slideshow, but basically we pay much more (particularly as % of GDP) with worse actual healthcare. Its a little oversimplified, but all the more complex studies show the same thing.
http://money.msn.com/health-and-life-insurance/global-medical-costs-how-the-us-stacks-up

Privatized healthcare is bad for health and good for business. Its just that simple.

[OldSkoolball#52]

A couple of points. only a handful (maybe 5, actually just checked its 3) states allow you to use foodstamps at fast food or other restaurants.

I just checked and you're right. One of the three being California, where I've been living the last 5 years, so I knew it happened there and presumed it was more widespread. Although California, Arizona, and Michigan combine for 17% of the country's population - no small token.


edit: this (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/business/2011/09/fast-food-chains-getting-into-the-food-stamp-act/) ABCnews link dated from 2011 includes Florida as well with the aforementioned three.


And the lobbying to increase these prospects has only just begun.



Fast-food corporations have set their sights on a lucrative target: America’s growing number of food stamp users. There are a record 45 million of them this year, with almost $65 billion to spend on food. Little surprise that Yum! Brands, the fast-food behemoth that owns KFC, Taco Bell, and Pizza Hut, is lobbying for a piece of this pie.

Recent federal lobbying disclosures show Yum! has been trying to persuade Congress to allow certain segments of the population, like the elderly, disabled, and homeless, to use food stamps at fast-food restaurants—a proposal similar to one the company has been pushing in its home state, Kentucky.


http://www.pcrm.org/media/commentary/





Privatized healthcare is bad for health and good for business. Its just that simple.

I am not theoretically against certain socialized public healthcare funding. I mean it works in smaller places like Switzerland, Ireland, Finland etc. because those people are all healthier, and there is less variance in how people view society, their obligations, etc.

I'm a firm believer in smaller bureaucracies. The "Kitty Genovese Effect" i.e. Diffusion of Responsibility is absolutely real. The bigger a group is, the less responsible each person within it personally feels for its outcome/direction. If you are at a small town hall meeting and you have to figure out all these healthcare costs for just your community, and juxtapose them against other things that directly affect you and your community, you're a lot more likely to be responsible about it. Because you SEE the immediacy of the budget conflicts. That's why something like state-by-state Romney-care IS more palatable than Obamacare, because at least Romney breaks it up into 50 'subcommittees'. People can see that ok, healthcare costs this much, we're committed to that but that means this money for parks, or that money for education might suffer. It's closer to home. People don't give a shit about federal budgets. They think that money is coming from the sky. They really do. And when you neglect and ignore the details, they get fudged like nobody's business. It becomes an inefficient mess. Look at the other population giants in the world besides the US: China, Russia, Brazil, India, Indonesia. Not exactly a reassuring list for the effectiveness of big, broad government.

It's not a good idea to let the federal government continue to substitute involvement, awareness, initiative, discipline for its population in exchange for votes and short-term ease. So while I think you can socialize healthcare on small, homogenous scales, it kind of loses its charm when you apply it to a ginormous melting pot like the US. That's just not the kind of thing it works on.

[bdreason]

The answer isn't to punish unhealthy lifestyles, but to subsidize healthy lifestyles. People should be financially rewarded for living a healthy lifestyle, thus making living a healthy lifestyle more affordable, and more desirable.

Politically it's also a lot easier to pass a bill that rewards people as opposed to a bill that punishes people.

[rhythmic]

The answer isn't to punish unhealthy lifestyles, but to subsidize healthy lifestyles. People should be financially rewarded for living a healthy lifestyle, thus making living a healthy lifestyle more affordable, and more desirable.

Politically it's also a lot easier to pass a bill that rewards people as opposed to a bill that punishes people.

People will be rewarded for living a healthier lifestyles but our economy won't. Think of how many fast-food joints will be out of business? How much less money hospitals, insurance companies, specialists etc. will be making as a result? In turn, less people will be attending medical school and less revenues will be flowing to our government. You seriously think they'd ever pass that bill?

It's always about the $

[OldSkoolball#52]

People will be rewarded for living a healthier lifestyles but our economy won't. Think of how many fast-food joints will be out of business? How much less money hospitals, insurance companies, specialists etc. will be making as a result? In turn, less people will be attending medical school and less revenues will be flowing to our government. You seriously think they'd ever pass that bill?

It's always about the $


Jobs becoming obsolete in the short term is always a terrible argument against anything. Again part of the Democratic philosophical fallacy.

You can't force a market onto people that there is no longer a demand for, just because you're trying to preserve jobs.

Besides, a healthy, educated population can adapt to changing demands. They can find new pursuits and income opportunities with their new-found time once they're laid off from the burger joint.

This of course assumes they've taken the time to make themselves capable, skilled people. If they haven't, well... that's how a new Democratic voter is born, and the ugly cycle begins.

[rhythmic]

Jobs becoming obsolete in the short term is always a terrible argument against anything. Again part of the Democratic philosophical fallacy.

You can't force a market onto people that there is no longer a demand for, just because you're trying to preserve jobs.

Besides, a healthy, educated population can adapt to changing demands. They can find new pursuits and income opportunities with their new-found time once they're laid off from the burger joint.

This of course assumes they've taken the time to make themselves capable, skilled people. If they haven't, well... that's how a new Democratic voter is born, and the ugly cycle begins.

The reason this bill will never pass is because politics ALWAYS serve the short-term interests first. This is a risky proposition and no president will ever oblige by it. They are all selfish and care about their reputation; they will not sacrifice a recession over your benevolent proposition buddy.

[RidonKs]

does anybody remember the long essay from Time earlier this year that attempted to explain why US health costs are so crazy? here it is, "Bitter Pill" by Steven Brill (http://livingwithmcl.com/BitterPill.pdf). the important part of his thesis from what i remember is that apparently health care prices aren't really tied to anything objective... at least upon reviewing comparisons between hospitals and directly interviewing various administers, he couldn't find any real justification. costs are substantially inflated, to the transparent satisfaction of the insurance industry, but nobody could really explain to him why. i don't understand it enough to actually get into details, or have time to re-read it right now, but i'd be interested in people's take. i remember it getting a lot of pub when it first came out, google search also brings up a sort of bones-to-pick response on forbes that might be worth a look.

[Hoodlum Science]

Food stamps are allowed at places like KFC and Burger King because those places are cheap. Eating healthily is a bit more expensive, and I know you wouldn't approve of even more funding going to food stamps to help recipients pay for healthier options.

Health insurance being mandated is to address the problems that already exist, and the government has already started to become gradually more active in promoting a healthy lifestyle. Hopefully, over time, this will drive down the cost for health insurance.

Wait, WTF? This is news to me. Since when did fast food eateries accept food stamps / EBT? Are you sure about that?

[OldSkoolball#52]

Wait, WTF? This is news to me. Since when did fast food eateries accept food stamps / EBT? Are you sure about that?


I linked that info. At least three or four states do, and theyre states with significant populations. Even more states allow them at convenience stores and delis, even pure gas stations that sell nothin but candy and chips.

I sublet a room in an apartment in California once and one of the other tenants was a food stamp recipient. She was 39 years old, but her maturity was teenage at best. She had a teenage daughter who lived somewhere else.

She was this fat white trash, and she filled the fridge and freezer with reeces cups and popcorn shrimp and the like with her gov't food stamps, and spent her own money on cigarettes and weed and random trinkets and decorations. Where did her own money come from? Craigslist escortation. She was such a beast too, it was hilarious too see the guys that were actually desperate enough to come over and see her.


True story. 5446 Newcastle Drive, Encino CA. Thats where the apartment was. Her name was Leslie Ann Sweet. I'll never forget it.




Never forget.

[highwhey]

I linked that info. At least three or four states do, and theyre states with significant populations. Even more states allow them at convenience stores and delis, even pure gas stations that sell nothin but candy and chips.

I sublet a room in an apartment in California once and one of the other tenants was a food stamp recipient. She was 39 years old, but her maturity was teenage at best. She had a teenage daughter who lived somewhere else.

She was this fat white trash, and she filled the fridge and freezer with reeces cups and popcorn shrimp and the like with her gov't food stamps, and spent her own money on cigarettes and weed and random trinkets and decorations. Where did her own money come from? Craigslist escortation. She was such a beast too, it was hilarious too see the guys that were actually desperate enough to come over and see her.


True story. 5446 Newcastle Drive, Encino CA. Thats where the apartment was. Her name was Leslie Ann Sweet. I'll never forget it.




Never forget.
You realize unhealthy food exists in supermarkets as well, right? Plus, low income families will be attracted to convenience, especially when you consider that not all of them will have a vehicle to drive to the supermarket. You run out of milk? Cool, walk down the street to the nearest convinience store and pick up a gallon. I lived in the projects as a child, the only time the parking lot had a substantial amount of vehicles parked was when cops and ambulances stopped by. A small food store was across the street, and it's where mostly everyone went to buy small items such as baby formula, milk, diapers, carton of eggs, etc. Yes, they accepted food stamps. The nearest foodstore was almost half an hour away.

I agree that many people abuse or don't use food stamps correctly but putting too many restrictions on their use cripples alot of the legitimate recipients. Keep in mind that there will be a reason why those people are receiving food stamps, not all of them are lazy, some may be disabled or injured.

[OldSkoolball#52]

You realize unhealthy food exists in supermarkets as well, right? Plus, low income families will be attracted to convenience, especially when you consider that not all of them will have a vehicle to drive to the supermarket. You run out of milk? Cool, walk down the street to the nearest convinience store and pick up a gallon. I lived in the projects as a child, the only time the parking lot had a substantial amount of vehicles parked was when cops and ambulances stopped by. A small food store was across the street, and it's where mostly everyone went to buy small items such as baby formula, milk, diapers, carton of eggs, etc. Yes, they accepted food stamps. The nearest foodstore was almost half an hour away.

I agree that many people abuse or don't use food stamps correctly but putting too many restrictions on their use cripples alot of the legitimate recipients. Keep in mind that there will be a reason why those people are receiving food stamps, not all of them are lazy, some may be disabled or injured.


Yeah, and I do understand that and empathize, but there are definitely solutions out there that can reduce the abuse without inhibiting the necessary use, (wow, i swear i didnt do that on purpose) so long as there is real support for them. Food stamps should not be used for candy, chips, soda etc in any store, grocery or otherwise. No french fries, no milkshakes. no ice cream.

Im sure youre right, you'll never completely stop people from misusing them. But my opinion is we can definitely come a lot closer than we are now.

[JtotheIzzo]

This seems kind of backward to me.

Shouldn't we be mandating that everyone live a healthy lifestyle (at least in the ways they have control over) and then either allowing them to choose whether or not they want to purchase health insurance, or mandating it if that's more sensible? I mean isn't HEALTH more important than health INSURANCE? Healthy people would drive DOWN the cost, not to mention people will be happier, and.... duh, HEALTHIER.


Instead we have a grotesquely unhealthy country, and our priority is to burden our economy providing slobs with excessive treatment for preventable illness? Basically giving a carte blanche to anyone who wishes to lay waste to their own body, knowing the cost of treatment will be provided by the "invisible hand", i.e. their neighbor's hard earned money?

I mean for god sake, if officials so much as suggested disallowing food stamps to be used at places like kfc and burger king, pretentious liberals would straight up riot. It would be pandemonium. "HOW DARE YOU TELL THEM WHERE TO EAT WITH OTHER PEOPLES MONEY! THESE PEOPLE ARE POOR! LET THEM DO WHATEVER THEY WANT GOD DAMMIT!!!!!"

Losers would be crying about civil liberties and totalitarianism and corrupt corporate evil wall street 1% blah blah blah...... and all because the government said "you can't be unhealthy with the free money/food we're giving you"

The current situation basically results in three things:

Unhealthy people
Very expensive health care
"Free" healthcare for the unhealthy people at the EXPENSE of our economy. Money that belongs to all of us, is going to pay for more EXPENSIVE care for people who are UNHEALTHY anyway.


If you mandated "healthy" instead of "health coverage" you would have the complete opposite effect.


But then poor fat minorities would cry foul, causing pretentious loser liberals with vag1nas to try to look cool in front of poor fat minorities by also crying foul, resulting in the CURRENT system we have implemented.


Now that's what I call HOPE CHANGE.












http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/55/Barack_Obama_Hope_poster.jpg/399px-Barack_Obama_Hope_poster.jpg


http://www.5forcesofchange.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Article-2-Obama-change.jpg


People are fat and lazy, especially in the white-anglo countries of the world.

There are plenty of initiatives, but people don't seem to want to bite.

I always cringe when small government people (not saying this is the OP but this is a common refrain from those 'types') bemoan the government's lack of promotion of a healthy lifestyle one day, then b*tch about the freedom to order 32 oz soft drinks the next.

[OldSkoolball#52]

I always cringe when small government people (not saying this is the OP but this is a common refrain from those 'types') bemoan the government's lack of promotion of a healthy lifestyle one day, then b*tch about the freedom to order 32 oz soft drinks the next.


I agree to only support one side is hypocritical which is why I feel IMO it should be neither or both.

If you are going to GIVE people free healthcare, then you should MAKE them be healthy. Thats conditional support and thats what there should be more of for lower income people.

Enabling them to live an unhealthy and costly lifestyle... And then writing a blank check for the consequences is flat out absurd. Its literally bad for everyone. Everyone loses. But too many peeps think nobody who "makes under $250,000" should ever have to make a sacrifice to have everything they want. Theres no actual principle involved, its just the middle and lower class voting themselves more dessert at the expense of the economy, simply because they have the numbers. Its dangerous.

[OldSkoolball#52]

Another good idea falling on deaf ears :(

[Dresta]

Food stamps are allowed at places like KFC and Burger King because those places are cheap. Eating healthily is a bit more expensive, and I know you wouldn't approve of even more funding going to food stamps to help recipients pay for healthier options.

Health insurance being mandated is to address the problems that already exist, and the government has already started to become gradually more active in promoting a healthy lifestyle. Hopefully, over time, this will drive down the cost for health insurance.
This is absolute nonsense: it is far cheaper to buy and cook your own food (with many, many options being far healthier and more economical than burger king/kfc).

[MavsSuperFan]

Forcing people to buy health insurance is similar to forcing people to buy car insurance.

Forcing people to live a particular life style has very little if any precedent.

[Balla_Status]

Forcing people to buy health insurance is similar to forcing people to buy car insurance.

Forcing people to live a particular life style has very little if any precedent.

Not really. How does someone else having health insurance protect me and my assets?

[OldSkoolball#52]

Forcing people to buy health insurance is similar to forcing people to buy car insurance.


Forcing people to live a particular life style has very little if any precedent.


What was said in the previous post, PLUS:


You have to buy car insurance......... if you choose to own a car.


You now have to buy health insurance..... if you exist.




:hammerhead:


You couldn't really have made a worse comparison if you tried.

[iamgine]

I support both. Health insurance and healthy lifestyle.

It's just like car insurance. People have to buy car insurance, at the same time there are strict road rules and law that promotes safer driving.

[KeylessEntry]

How exactly could the government mandate a healthy lifestyle? I am having a hard time imagining how any law mandating a healthy lifestyle would actually function. Would govt agents be going to peoples houses and weighing them?


Anyway, it should also be noted that even the healthiest people still need access to healthcare. While an overweight walrus with diabeetus might be more likely to rack up high health bills than a marathon runner, there are countless exceptions in the real world. Lance Armstrong was a healthy dude, yet he managed to rack up some pretty monster hospital bills. How many 5 year old kids get leukemia and other gnarly cancers without even having a chance to live an unhealthy lifestyle?

[iamgine]

How exactly could the government mandate a healthy lifestyle? I am having a hard time imagining how any law mandating a healthy lifestyle would actually function. Would govt agents be going to peoples houses and weighing them?


Anyway, it should also be noted that even the healthiest people still need access to healthcare. While an overweight walrus with diabeetus might be more likely to rack up high health bills than a marathon runner, there are countless exceptions in the real world. Lance Armstrong was a healthy dude, yet he managed to rack up some pretty monster hospital bills. How many 5 year old kids get leukemia and other gnarly cancers without even having a chance to live an unhealthy lifestyle?
Just an extreme example: Banning sodas, trans fat.

[KeylessEntry]

Just an extreme example: Banning sodas, trans fat.

I dont think that would work. Banning soda and transfat wont prevent people from eating too much shitty food and becoming fat, people will just eat different junk foods. Also, healthy people can drink soda or eat foods with transfats in moderation and be completely fine.

[DeuceWallaces]

Pretty simple, just tax the hell out of shit that is bad for you. Like what they're already doing.

[iamgine]

I dont think that would work. Banning soda and transfat wont prevent people from eating too much shitty food and becoming fat, people will just eat different junk foods. Also, healthy people can drink soda or eat foods with transfats in moderation and be completely fine.
That's the thing, regulate all those food you mentioned.

[OldSkoolball#52]

Anyway, it should also be noted that even the healthiest people still need access to healthcare. While an overweight walrus with diabeetus might be more likely to rack up high health bills than a marathon runner, there are countless exceptions in the real world. Lance Armstrong was a healthy dude, yet he managed to rack up some pretty monster hospital bills. How many 5 year old kids get leukemia and other gnarly cancers without even having a chance to live an unhealthy lifestyle?


Of course. These are the people for whom insurance is designed. They could be any one of us at any time.

If we cut out all the bullshit, and every American chipped into a fund for that stuff? It would cost much less per person.


But instead, insurance must help cover the cost of lap bands. Knee and hip replacements for the obese. Angioplasties and other treatment for heart disease. Cholesterol pills. You know how many people incur at least one of those expenses due to poor diet and exercise? A LOT.


467,321 were victims of gun violence in 2011, and typically victims of gun violence wind up in the hospital. But we don't speak on this, we don't acknowledge it, we sweep it under the rug. Why? Because most of them are black. And everyone is afraid to "go there".

More people than ever require treatment for prescription drug abuse. How much are we doing to address this? Very little, considering the kinds of donations Big Pharm make to political campaigns. People take drugs for everything now. Stomach acid, depression, back pain, allergies, erectile dysfunction (may not be covered by insurance, lulz). But most of these things ARE covered by insurance. You want to make everyone pay extra because SOME people over-medicate themselves for every little thing?



America is simply VERY unhealthy for a developed nation. The idea that the government can REQUIRE you to put YOUR money into such a convoluted system is preposterous. The founding fathers seriously are rolling over in their graves. The government is not supposed to be able to take from you involuntarily. Just because they're technically transferring your money to a third party does not make it acceptable.

Universal insurance, healthcare mandates etc. work ok in small, homogenous countries where people are much more culturally uniform. Like Japan, Ireland, Switzerland etc. That does NOT apply to the United States. You cannot chain people together by the wrist in a melting pot. The results are oppressive and disastrous.

[OldSkoolball#52]

I support both. Health insurance and healthy lifestyle.

It's just like car insurance. People have to buy car insurance, at the same time there are strict road rules and law that promotes safer driving.


Yep, and this is what I'm getting at.

In this scenario, it should be all or nothing.

You cannot tell a person he must buy insurance, but then tell him his fellow man will dictate how much he's gonna end up paying based on how responsible a bunch of others decide to be.

If you're not gonna MAKE people be responsible for themselves, don't MAKE others be responsible for them. Period.

[KeylessEntry]

Pretty simple, just tax the hell out of shit that is bad for you. Like what they're already doing.


There is more to a healthy lifestyle than just avoiding food that is bad for you. Also, you can make very unhealthy food with healthy ingredients, have dinner with a mexican family to see what I am talking about.

Anyway in regard to taxing the hell out of junk food, any law would have to get past the lobbyists representing junk food conglomerates - pepsico, coke, nestle, kraft, general mills, mcdonalds.... good luck with that

[iamgine]

There is more to a healthy lifestyle than just avoiding food that is bad for you. Also, you can make very unhealthy food with healthy ingredients, have dinner with a mexican family to see what I am talking about.

Anyway in regard to taxing the hell out of junk food, any law would have to get past the lobbyists representing junk food conglomerates - pepsico, coke, nestle, kraft, general mills, mcdonalds.... good luck with that
The idea is to reduce the bad food so there's more balance. If sodas are $15 a bottle and water is free, perhaps more people would choose water.

[OldSkoolball#52]

The idea is to reduce the bad food so there's more balance. If sodas are $15 a bottle and water is free, perhaps more people would choose water.


Yes, this is indeed one option.

But IF America collectively decides to go that route... it had better be ready to wipe the line "o'er the land of the free" from the Star Spangled Banner, "with liberty and justice for all" from the Pledge, and it may want to do a few rewrites of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution as well.


Because how can we keep saying we're about one thing, and then doing the complete opposite?