ThePlayDrive
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2011
- Messages
- 19,610
- Reaction score
- 7,647
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Ah, I see. You believe that "humiliation" and "exercise" are equally valid solutions to health problems. Unfortunately, humiliation isn't a solution while exercise is. So again, you're just doing what libertarians do: advocating solutions that have no benefit for society. It's such a shame that the biggest problem libertarians face is just so easy to solve with a little critical thinking.Well why can't I play along with everyone else? Y'all seem to like doing the same, so I figure it's fair game for me to join in as well. What is this Rudolph the Red Nose Reindeer **** going on here? I can't play in your reindeer games cause I'm different? No presents for you!
I think, like all things, it's the type of government involvement that matters. Just because the government makes harmful decisions doesn't mean it can't make positive ones. Subsidizing corn to the degree it is now is harmful for the problem at hand. However, requiring that schools have 30 minutes of PE per day would be positive.Perhaps too much government involvement is what got us here in the first place. The high price of sugar because of tariffs and cheap corn because of subsidies has lead to the increased consumption of HFCS (high fructose corn syrup) which has been shown to be extremely unhealthy. Now, I am not blaming the government for people choosing to eat items with HFCS, but when it is in the majority of food and drink and using real sugar is more expensive, sounds like a recipe for disaster.
The decline and fall of high-fructose corn syrup. - Slate Magazine
Ah, I see. You believe that "humiliation" and "exercise" are equally valid solutions to health problems. Unfortunately, humiliation isn't a solution while exercise is. So again, you're just doing what libertarians do: advocating solutions that have no benefit for society. It's such a shame that the biggest problems libertarians face is just so easy to solve with a little critical thinking.
Well, you tried to compare your solution to the other solutions being offered here. I was just letting you know that the comparison doesn't exist.I said nothing of the sort. I can't make anyone exercise though, their choice.
Oh, but I never argued that choices, in this case obesity, don't have consequences. I argued that your solution of humiliation was a stupid idea since it does not solve the problem.Choices have consequences and one such consequence is being mocked for certain grotesqueries.
Ah, but that's the thing. The solutions I advocated in this thread are supported by research, so I have done my reading. However, the solution you advocated is not supported by anything but your own whims and since this is a debate forum, arguments supported by evidence are the least foolish thing of all.I like your last sentence though because it is so humorously off the mark. Instead of claiming I need a little critical thinking, perchance you need a little critical reading. Then perhaps you won't look like the fool when you open your mouth.
Well, you tried to compare your solution to the other solutions being offered here. I was just letting you know that the comparison doesn't exist.
Oh, but I never argued that choices, in this case obesity, don't have consequences. I argued that your solution of humiliation was a stupid idea since it does not solve the problem.
Ah, but that's the thing. The solutions I advocated in this thread are supported by research, so I have done my reading. However, the solution you advocated is not supported by anything but your own whims and since this is a debate forum, arguments supported by evidence are the least foolish thing of all.
Some. Not enough to see significant difference. Just more people unable to pay for care.
Yeah...I wasn't comparing anything. I just said that we can mock them.
Sure you did. You said it might make them go on a diet. You did, however, admit that it was just for amusement after that was pointed out to you.I never laid claim to it being a solution. A little more of the ol' reading comprehension, yes?
Today must be opposite day.Again, humorously off the mark. Try reading.
If everyone were responsible for their own health care costs, they would be cognizant of their health status. They wouldln't seek medical care unnecessarily, they would price compare for drugs and physician office visits, and they would go to the ER for actual emergencies, rather than clinic issues, which is very common nowadays. The effect would bring costs down.
I think, like all things, it's the type of government involvement that matters. Just because the government makes harmful decisions doesn't mean it can't make positive ones. Subsidizing corn to the degree it is now is harmful for the problem at hand. However, requiring that schools have 30 minutes of PE per day would be positive.
Government involvement isn't an absolute good or an absolute bad. It's effect is relative to the type of solution it offers.
Sure you did. You said it might make them go on a diet. You did, however, admit that it was just for amusement after that was pointed out to you.
Today must be opposite day.
American Public Health Association - The effect of state cigarette tax increases on cigarette sales, 1955 to 1988. (which is basis for my tax suggestion)
http://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/physicalactivity/pdf/roleofschools_obesity.pdf
Even a Little Exercise Fights Obesity
I made my claims, provided my evidence and wasted some time with a libertarian (is there really any other way to spend time with a libertarian?), so I think I'm done here. The back and forth was fun, but it's getting a little sad.
I disagree and that's really just a matter of opinion.It only needs to be involved when necessary. This isn't one of those times.
When is it not?Mandatory PE isn't always a good thing.
That's a common opinion, but my opinion is that the government should care when people's health habits start to cost the rest of society. This is one of those times.The government should not care whether you are skinny, fat, or obese. If you have more health problems due to your obesity, than expect to have higher health care insurance.
Yeah, but obese people are going to cost you no matter what. So you either pay to solve it or you pay to sustain it. From where I'm looking, you're doing the latter.I am not saying the government should never be involved, but it is when the government engages in solutions that are necessary that lays the burden on the taxpayer, that is when I have a problem.
Well if you don't respond to research/evidence, then there isn't anything else to say.Not only did I say "perchance", I also later said it was a facetious statement. You know what facetious means don't you? Well if not, you obviously have the internet and can look it up.
Again, humorously off the mark.
That and if insurance companies charged market prices. The entire system has been colluded into some big mess that likely ends in a scam. People do use the ER a lot, but mostly because many cannot afford regular healthcare. If we had some base form of nationalized health care that was intelligently designed, people can go to the regular doctor for appropriate things and we could stop some medical conditions from reaching critical state wherein emergency care may be required; thus lowering the overall cost of healthcare. Not to say we should necessarily go that route; but to demonstrate that there are multiple ways in which we can achieve lower aggregate healthcare costs.
Well if you don't respond to research/evidence, then there isn't anything else to say.
There are several ways, but letting a free market determine prices would be the most cost-effective. If insurance was used only for true emergencies and catastrophic care (unexpected illnesses requiring hospitalization and related expenses), and people paid for their own drugs and office visits/routine care, competition would be in effect in choosing routine products and services. Insurance companies pay for entirely too much, thus have much control of the health care industry.
That is what liberal minded people tend not to understand. People would respect the health care system as well as their own bodies if they were made to be more personally responsible. Health care costs and insurance premiums would come down as the system would be more in line with actual supply and demand.If everyone were responsible for their own health care costs, they would be cognizant of their health status. They wouldln't seek medical care unnecessarily, they would price compare for drugs and physician office visits, and they would go to the ER for actual emergencies, rather than clinic issues, which is very common nowadays. The effect would bring costs down.
Oh, an actual answer.Hahah, normally yes. Here I was being facetious. There's not much we can do. Do we strip the choice of how one eats? Do we force them to exercise? While it would be good for then, for all of us, I don't see that as legitimate force of government. We can do educational campaigns, but who doesn't know that a balanced diet and exercise will lead to longevity and a lower probability of health problems? The information is out there. As such, we're just going to pay for it. We can argue method through which we do so; whether it be some stripped down insurance model or nationalized health care or to hold the road steady at paying more for and having less access to healthcare than other industrialized countries or something in between. But fat people being fat, what are you going to do? Protect themselves from themselves for their own good? Sanitized for our Protection?
Hey, if you want to attack people for something as shallow as appearance just to feel better, I'm not stopping you, but I don't know where you got the idea that not participating in such gross behavior is "stepping up to the plate" for them. Where I'm from, not being so shallow is the default.Education and proper healthcare reform would likely go much further than anything else to combat the problem. But in the end, everyone needs to be free to make their own choices. And if they choose to be fat, well so be it. I may, just may, choose to be a pretentious jerk and make fun of them. Not to solve any problems, but if the individual ain't gonna take steps to solve their problems, why should I step up to the plate and bat for them? It's a free country.
Hahah, normally yes. Here I was being facetious. There's not much we can do. Do we strip the choice of how one eats? Do we force them to exercise? While it would be good for then, for all of us, I don't see that as legitimate force of government. We can do educational campaigns, but who doesn't know that a balanced diet and exercise will lead to longevity and a lower probability of health problems? The information is out there. As such, we're just going to pay for it. We can argue method through which we do so; whether it be some stripped down insurance model or nationalized health care or to hold the road steady at paying more for and having less access to healthcare than other industrialized countries or something in between. But fat people being fat, what are you going to do? Protect themselves from themselves for their own good? Sanitized for our Protection?
Education and proper healthcare reform would likely go much further than anything else to combat the problem. But in the end, everyone needs to be free to make their own choices. And if they choose to be fat, well so be it. I may, just may, choose to be a pretentious jerk and make fun of them. Not to solve any problems, but if the individual ain't gonna take steps to solve their problems, why should I step up to the plate and bat for them? It's a free country.
Hey, if you want to attack people for something as shallow as appearance just to feel better, I'm not stopping you, but I don't know where you got the idea that not participating in such gross behavior is "stepping up to the plate" for them. Where I'm from, not being so shallow is the default.
We seem to be breaking down, wallowing in our debilitation and lack of willpower. There is a group of people in America that on one hand opines that we Americans should be allowed to slowly kill ourselves through unhealthy food, and on the other hand complain about increasing taxes for the costs of affording the results of said unhealthy living. You should not be able to have it both ways; either support unhealthy living and pay taxes because of it, or don't support unhealthy freedom and don't pay taxes for it.
We pretty much had that system before insurance. Of course then, most things were treated at home without doctors and modern medicine. And many couldn't afford or get much. Today, no one is going back to trading for fruits and vegatables, so it would mean many simply not having and going without. Hell, we hav working poor doing that today, right now.
We pretty much had that system before insurance. Of course then, most things were treated at home without doctors and modern medicine. And many couldn't afford or get much. Today, no one is going back to trading for fruits and vegatables, so it would mean many simply not having and going without. Hell, we hav working poor doing that today, right now.
Supporting healthy living and providing for the health and welfare of its citizens is part of the "police powers" that were never delegated to the federal government. My first reaction to your post is that this issue ought not even be handled at the federal level, but at the level of the individual states. I doubt the propriety, or the ability, of DC to handle personal issues such as this.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?