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

[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. 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.

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.







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.