- This topic has 5 voices and 18 replies.
-
Posts
-
I'm not against thisObesity Rating for Every AmericanIt's against my personal liberty to pay higher health care premiums because of fat, lazy slobs.While they're at it, I hope they mandate lower salt in processed foods too. The amount of sodium in some of these foods is ridiculously high.
I'm not against thisObesity Rating for Every AmericanIt's against my personal liberty to pay higher health care premiums because of fat, lazy slobs.While they're at it, I hope they mandate lower salt in processed foods too. The amount of sodium in some of these foods is ridiculously high.
Food Nazi. LOL
I'm not against thisObesity Rating for Every AmericanIt's against my personal liberty to pay higher health care premiums because of fat, lazy slobs.While they're at it, I hope they mandate lower salt in processed foods too. The amount of sodium in some of these foods is ridiculously high.
Ugh. I'm not with you here...in fact, it scares me quite a bit that we could be facing this. I don't want the government looking over my shoulder like this. You just know that down the road, people will be required to exercise X number of times per week and if they do not they'll fined by our government. And if someone wants to eat food with higher sodium, then so be it. Part of living in a free society is the ability to make choices which might not be the best. If a person wants to eat healthier food, then that person can make a conscious effort to buy healthier meals. As more people make such an effort, more companies will begin to offer healthier options. So the private sector does respond to such demands. I say we keep the government out of this.
The key is, if the government can regulate one aspect of your life, it can do so in others as well. It is a slippery slope.
It is a slippery slope, but if people are stupid enough to make wrong decisions, then how does this NOT affect my freedom if I have to pay for someone else's decisions? Should people be able to have the freedom to smoke anywhere? I think not, because it affects my health. If a business isn't going to regulate smoking or non-smoking areas, then somebody, whether that be state of Federal government, has to.I think the government or a private business should both reward and penalize. I just don't think it's fair to me or healthy people (who usually pay more for healthy food anyway) to have to pay the same for health care as someone who smokes a pack and a half a day and eats Big Macs all the time. But as of now, it is. I'm pretty sure there is a break on life insurance for non-smokers, but I am not so sure there is one for health care...ar least not where I work.My argument is this: You say if a person can makes bad decisions, that's his freedom of choice. Well, where does mine come in? If cafes and restaurants allowed smoking, then I don't have much freedom of choice other than not going.
It is a slippery slope, but if people are stupid enough to make wrong decisions, then how does this NOT affect my freedom if I have to pay for someone else's decisions? Should people be able to have the freedom to smoke anywhere? I think not, because it affects my health. If a business isn't going to regulate smoking or non-smoking areas, then somebody, whether that be state of Federal government, has to.I think the government or a private business should both reward and penalize. I just don't think it's fair to me or healthy people (who usually pay more for healthy food anyway) to have to pay the same for health care as someone who smokes a pack and a half a day and eats Big Macs all the time. But as of now, it is. I'm pretty sure there is a break on life insurance for non-smokers, but I am not so sure there is one for health care...ar least not where I work.My argument is this: You say if a person can makes bad decisions, that's his freedom of choice. Well, where does mine come in? If cafes and restaurants allowed smoking, then I don't have much freedom of choice other than not going.
Surely the art of compromise isn't lost on us all is it?
Here's where I think the conservative argument is flawed. They are only concerned with the freedom of choice for the unhealthy person, and completely or just about completely ignore the freedom of choice for the healthy person.So, Don, does the healthy person have to be the one who compromises all the time? An example of where I think (IMO) my rights are infringed: Just rode a bike for 25 miles, want to rest on a park bench for a few minutes, some smoker sits next to or upwind from me. Who has to move to get away from the smoke? But if I support banning smoking in public places...OH NO!! All of a sudden I'm a big government lliberal infringing on a person's freedom to smoke.
Here's where I think the conservative argument is flawed. They are only concerned with the freedom of choice for the unhealthy person, and completely or just about completely ignore the freedom of choice for the healthy person.So, Don, does the healthy person have to be the one who compromises all the time? An example of where I think (IMO) my rights are infringed: Just rode a bike for 25 miles, want to rest on a park bench for a few minutes, some smoker sits next to or upwind from me. Who has to move to get away from the smoke? But if I support banning smoking in public places...OH NO!! All of a sudden I'm a big government lliberal infringing on a person's freedom to smoke.
I'm not saying that. You're a Christian, you do what Christ would do. Don't look to the government to solve this problem. It might create a bigger problem than what you have now.
Ski, first it was my understanding that smokers pay higher premiums than non-smokers. Or, at least they are treated in different ways. I remember filling out a health insurance form once where it asked if I had smoked at all in the last 12 months or so.Anyway, I do agree with your premise: since risk is pooled, those with lower risk should not have to pay as much as those with higher risk. Actually, I would have a hard time believing that smokers do not pay higher premiums than non-smokers. I'm not saying this because of the fairness issue, but because of simple economics; smokers over time will cost more in payouts than non-smokers, so the former would need to contribute more in premiums.I will point out that my concern with an federal obesity ratings or mandated cuts in sodium have to do with the fact that it's the government who's doing it. If a private insurance company wants to give an obesity rating to its policy holders, then I have no problem. That is their choice and people can go elsewhere if they don't like it. But when the government does it, that's a different story. Government reach is huge, and you can't trust that your information will not be used across agencies. Could a person's credit score be negatively affected by a bad obesity rating?My problems is that I simply don't trust a government which knows too much personal information about its citizens.
My problems is that I simply don't trust a government which knows too much personal information about its citizens.
Mine too, and that is the key argument aginst government colleection or mandate to collect any personal information. What is next, travel permits?Ski, the choice not to go somewhere that allows smoking is a choice. If enough non-smokers make that choice policies will change voluntarily. Yes, smokers do pay higher health and life insurance premiums and rightfully so. Then again, I think fat people should have to pay more and so should people that don't habitually wear seatbelts. I would love to see insurance companies deny claims where the driver or any passenger in an accident were not wearing their seatbelts. I dont think we should ahve seatbelt laws, I think people should voluntarily do the smart thing and if not those that do should not have to shoulder the burden.As to your original post, yes it does go against personal liberty and we should all be outraged about it. How many people are though? I know I will write my representative about it. This is one more reason to work for the repeal of Obamacare. It is a bad law that mandates something that the government should not be involved in to begin with.
My job does have good benefits, so maybe it's different. But I know I pay the same as the guys who smoke.I'm going along wiht the assumption that universal health care is a done deal. So if that's the case, at least do it intelligently. LIke, "OK, fatso, you're health is not as good as that guy with the 8% bodyfat, therefore you get penalized until you lose some weight." Maybe not that clear cut, but you get my point.
Instead of penalties, it would be better to offer incentives. If people can save money by being healthy, maybe more will be encouraged to try harder.
My job does have good benefits, so maybe it's different. But I know I pay the same as the guys who smoke.I'm going along wiht the assumption that universal health care is a done deal. So if that's the case, at least do it intelligently. LIke, "OK, fatso, you're health is not as good as that guy with the 8% bodyfat, therefore you get penalized until you lose some weight." Maybe not that clear cut, but you get my point.
Your position is advocating further government intrusion into your life. The fly in this ointment is the notion that the government should be involved in Health care in the first place. If we accept it we might as well support those that enacted it, whether that acceptance is resigned or not. In the case of smoking, just like in the case of just about everything else that is behavior driven that is entwined with economics we should let the Adam Smith's Dead Hand of the market go unfettered. Regulation and over regulation is stifling America and indeed, the world. The answer is less not more rules and regulations.Don't believe me, I encourage to peruse the Code of Federal Regulations(CFR) someday. You would be amazed at what is in there, and more gets added all the time.
A former student of mine was down from canada because dad was a MD. that got tired of their system; the pay was good and so was the treatments but the organization was prioitized not on seriousness of situation but upon who came in the door first. Broken arm after hangnail and ahead of heart attack if that was how they arrived.Another instance: a friend was told his (needed, at least triple) bypass was elective and would be at least 6 months... Dr. opinied he shoud seek treatment in the US if he had a connection (thankfully, son in Idaho). The second opinion (USA) was 5 way and done the day after the office call in Idaho. Good thing, as the (USA) doc figured he'd have lasted two to four months. In the end he had about 10 good years out of the deal. [/rant]I agree, no more regs....
I'm going along wiht the assumption that universal health care is a done deal. So if that's the case, at least do it intelligently. LIke, "OK, fatso, you're health is not as good as that guy with the 8% bodyfat, therefore you get penalized until you lose some weight." Maybe not that clear cut, but you get my point.
Ski - I can see your point. But here's my question: say a guy goes to the gym all the time and eats healthy foods, but lives a promiscuous lifestyle. Then say there's another guy who rarely goes to the gym but leads a moderately healthy lifestyle and keeps his pants on. Shouldn't the first guy be paying more because his lifestyle is more likely to get him STDs? So if that's the case, should the government be asking people about the intricacies of their private lives? I'm sure we could think of other examples around this. I'm bringing this up not to be snarky but because I think there are many behaviors that could be considered "risky".
