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

[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...e-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 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.