Obese Account for Greatest Jump in Healthcare Spending...Jumped 80% in 5 years!
This is a discussion on Obese Account for Greatest Jump in Healthcare Spending...Jumped 80% in 5 years! within the Off Topic & Humor Discussion forums, part of the The Back Porch category; Originally Posted by PaulG
First, let me say that I feel that the government has ABSOLUTELY no business controlling people to such an extent.
July 16th, 2009 06:20 PM
Restrictions are mostly local and in employment
As far as I can tell, most of the restrictions folks talk about are actually implemented by local governments, not The Feds, and by employers and their insurance carriers.
Originally Posted by PaulG
I don't see that Uncle has put any restriction on my right to smoke cigars. My city counsel sure has by making just about every place but my back yard a smoke free zone.
Uncle doesn't tell you to keep a healthy weight, but your employer might do so at the behest of their health insurance carrier. Similarly your employer may restrict your right to smoke; some even do urine testing for tobacco use done on your own time in your own home.
Uncle, for all its faults, isn't the worst abuser of individual rights. It is employers and insurance carriers, and local town government. The latter is where your property rights are taken; where the rules preventing you from fixing your own house are put in place.
July 16th, 2009 11:23 PM
I don't wanna sound harsh or mean, but I have experience that points in the other direction. I'm in college (and on a tight budget), and I would consider myself very fit (will be running my second marathon in Jan). I wasn't always this fit, and when I decided to make the change to healthy living, I was noticing how much I was spending on food. I did the math and found out that if one were to order off the dollar menu, they could acquire 40-50% more food than eating healthy (depending on how healthy you are eating). Eating healthy is expensive, and the healthier you eat (organic foods) the more expensive it gets. I know it seems counter intuitive, but organic crops have a higher failure rate, thus the unit price goes up.
Originally Posted by QKShooter
For $3.24 a person could eat 3 items off the dollar menu. For $3.24 I can barley get my fruit intake for the day.
Just some food for thought.
"A government is like fire, a handy servant, but a dangerous master." -- George Washington
July 17th, 2009 01:02 AM
So......I quit smoking April 1 of this year, and I've regained 20 pounds that were previously lost during the Battle of the Bulge (lost 50+ pounds then)............so........I escaped the tobacco taxes, and now I'm gonna be sin taxed on my weight.....Arrrrgggghhhhhhh!
Both are bad, and personal responsibility needs to be taken account of for both. I've taken my personal responsibility, so why should I stand for the proposition that my medical costs are higher due to others' failures thereof?
Just a rhetorical question really............
"He went on two legs, wore clothes and was a human being, but nevertheless he was in reality a wolf of the Steppes. He had learned a good deal . . . and was a fairly clever fellow. What he had not learned, however, was this: to find contentment in himself and his own life. The cause of this apparently was that at the bottom of his heart he knew all the time (or thought he knew) that he was in reality not a man, but a wolf of the Steppes."
July 17th, 2009 01:53 AM
Most of the Obesity problems in this country are genetic, passed down from our ancestors; this is a proven fact. There are some excellent books that explain this in great detail. Some people are genetically constructed to use their calories they take in more efficiently than others, storing excess calories in the form of fat. These are people whose ancestors survived severe famine and drought sometime in their ancestral past, and they passed this gene on through the generations.
Now this was not a particularly bad thing, especially 70-100 years ago when this country was mostly rural and agricultural in nature; We didn't have all of the processed sugars in our foods, and life consisted of a lot more physical work back then than it does now. An average person that lived on a farm or ranch could consume 10,000 calories of food per day and easily burn it off. But as time went on, things got easier and people stopped working on the farms, went to college and got office jobs, or moved into the cities and pursued other professions that required less physical labor. Now, we have at least 4 generations of americans that have led this type of lifestyle, and the results are coming in: we are fatter, and incidents of complications like diabetes and high blood pressure are becoming very commonplace.
The most sensitive people in these generations of americans are the ones who have the genes I described earlier, who are able to live on fewer calories, but store the excesses as body fat. Ever notice how certain people seem to eat like a horse and not gain a pound? 300 years ago they would have been the first ones to starve during a drought and famine. The key to beating this thing is understanding where you fall in the gene pool, and then adjusting your diet accordingly.
When I was younger, I discovered I had a propensity for taking jobs that involved brutal physical labor. I worked mostly in the oil field, on drilliing rigs 12-16 hours per day. I did this in all kinds of weather, 365 days per year for about 15 years. During those days, I would work in 100 degf heat and eat like a horse. I was 235 pounds of pure muscle then, and could handle the tongs and the chains as well as the pipe by myself. If you know anybody that has ever done that job, they will tell you that it takes someone with a tremendous amount of physical strength and endurance to handle that.
Fast forward to the present, and now I have cut my caloric intake in half, but I only weigh about 25 pounds heavier than I did then. I can still wear the same suit I wore in high school, and can still work in 100 degf heat with no problem. I do have diabetes now, but I developed that for other reasons. So my point is not to blame people for being fat just because they eat too much, it is genetic and this has been proven time and again.....
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined". - Patrick Henry
July 17th, 2009 11:19 AM
I look at it this way. If your body mass index is between 25 and 30, try some self control and exercise. Lost 5% or 7% of your weight the hard way, firm up, and you'll get the job done.
If your body mass index is above 32 but below 40, you are in that awkward range where medicine has only limited it stuff to offer, but you should see a doc and discuss things --if only to make sure there aren't thyroid or diabetes issues.
If you have a body mass index over 40, you might be a candidate for lap band or similar procedures as a necessary means for preserving your life.
Too little is known about why people gain weight to extreme excess and too little is known about how to treat the problem. We shouldn't be picking on folks who are obviously ill--and that includes adding extra taxes to them.
July 17th, 2009 11:22 AM
I could save hundreds a month if were to get into shape! (easier said than done)
This thread may just be the motivation I needed!
July 17th, 2009 11:25 AM
If you re-read my post, I said "government" not "Federal government". I agree that the local governments can be very heavy handed in this stuff.
Originally Posted by Hopyard
Where I am conflicted is with the insurance carriers. They are in business to make money. Obese people cost them money. They should be able to adjust costs based on risk factors.
But the governments should stay out of it.
fortiter in re, suaviter in modo (resolutely in action, gently in manner).
July 17th, 2009 06:14 PM
Two problems with this
There are two problems with this: I LIKE MY CIGARS, I DON'T LIKE TO DIET.
Originally Posted by PaulG
And, a third problem. I fully expect to croak from a disease I know I suffer from, and which will do me in long before either my weight or my cigars can possibly do much damage. So, why should I have to pay more for smoking and eating? They aren't linked in any way to my health problems. My disease is genetic. Its presence has nothing to do with my personal responsibility*. So should I pay more because I chose the wrong parents?
Just rhetorical questions for discussion, because this is a very complicated issue.
In the meantime, I've added Riesling and Bourbon to the mix; but never use them when armed.
*I have determined that when the time comes I will likely refuse treatment. No point in Uncle spending 100 K a year to keep me going with a crappy quality of life.
July 17th, 2009 07:19 PM
Get ready for the "fat" Tax Surcharge.
You pay more if you are over a certain weight. (to be determined by the "Fat Czar".)
Of course, there will never be the "Gay" tax surcharge, even though that lifestyle has a high risk also. It's politically correct.
Wake up sheep.
July 17th, 2009 07:33 PM
When I read this thread, part of me is all for sales and sin tax (at some reasonable level) as long as my property tax hits 0. When I consider how agressively fast food hires PT because the don't want to provide benefits, I wonder if a sin tax on prepared fast food might be needed. Frankly, I care less about "sin tax" (and there are plenty of categories I would be hit on) then I do about property tax (and the only taxable property I own is some equity on my house and two cars).
The problem is not the "sin tax" for me, but serious concern that the funds will never actually be used for health care.
July 17th, 2009 08:40 PM
That was my beef with the cigarette tax they put in place a few months ago. Once the government gets the money, it rarely gets spent on what they tell us when they take it.
Originally Posted by Thanis
First there were billions of dollars in settlements to the states from the tobacco companies. Anyone who says this doesn't get paid for by the customers doesn't understand business. This money was supposed to pay for smokers "increased healthcare costs". Instead the money was spent on other stuff. Then my health and life insurance rates went up to pay for my increased risk. After that there were several tax increases both state and federal to pay for the same thing.
At least the last one they didn't lie about it, they just said outright "We're taking it from you and giving it to someone else."
64,999,987 firearms owners killed no one yesterday.
July 17th, 2009 11:01 PM
Good point Thanis, the money never goes where it's supposed to . Lottery and schools is a fine example.
July 17th, 2009 11:16 PM
I'm opposed to ALL new taxes. Where is it written that all money is the property of the government and they can have as much as they want? I earned it, they can cut spending, just like me.
When I read this thread, part of me is all for sales and sin tax
There is a term for people in favor of new taxes..................suckers.
July 17th, 2009 11:30 PM
You have to read the rest of my statement. In summary, I would rather have a sales tax then a property tax.
Originally Posted by Guns and more
I disagree with your thought process, as taxes are simply reality, and I would rather moan about property taxes than sin or sales taxes (as long as those taxes don't include unprepared food).
July 17th, 2009 11:32 PM
In MI we voted to have lotto revenue go for school. Yay! Then once that passed, they halfed the MI school's funding, to focus on roads. I assure you, it did not go to the roads. Then, what happened to all those funds that went for public schools?
Originally Posted by PNUT
So when I say I might be for sin taxes, it would be interesting for once to see taxes actually go toward what they are designed to go toward. So if there is a tax on fast food, cigars, pop, etc. "because of health care costs" I really hope someone demands those funds go directly toward health care, and also demand income and property taxes not be included. I doubt it will work that way.
By usmcj in forum Law Enforcement, Military & Homeland Security Discussion
Last Post: May 12th, 2010, 09:42 AM
By xsigma40cal in forum Carry & Defensive Scenarios
Last Post: March 22nd, 2010, 12:41 PM
By Paymeister in forum Defensive Carry Holsters & Carry Options
Last Post: April 9th, 2008, 11:01 AM
By dwpa in forum Defensive Carry Holsters & Carry Options
Last Post: June 10th, 2006, 03:54 PM