Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It’s often easier to blame than take personal responsibility.
Well, in this case it's true that the government has been lying to the public for decades in a way that makes them fatter and less healthy. The high-carb diet promoted by the feds makes people fatter and less healthy than the alternatives. Do you really want to blame them for trusting the government? I don't trust the government, but I used to, and most people still do. It's not their fault.
Last edited by hbdwihdh378y9; 02-18-2019 at 09:43 PM..
Those who CHOOSE to not take personal responsibility for their waist size simply pay more, a lot more for insurance regardless if it’s public or private.
Those who can’t afford to pay more and not take personal responsibility, are SOL.
If there is "medicare for all", as a physician, I will have to quit practicing, as my practice would go bankrupt. I could simply do legal work, which I do already, and still be employed in a capacity as a physician, but not practicing clinically. Currently I can make more money working two weekends a month doing legal work than I can full time at my practice.
As I am approaching medicare age, I am conflicted about medicare. I know that physicians and hospitals put medicare patients "behind" commercial insurance; I have a few medical problems for which I want to be "first in line" and will thus never go on medicare. With better paying commercial insurance, I am assured of getting better treatment.
The problem with the commercial insurance is that I am uninsureable, due to previous conditions, such that I cannot buy a commercial policy on my own and must be employed by a larger group.
I think some form of universal healthcare would be nice for patients, but I personally would want private insurance as well to get better care.
Do you mean that when you turn 65 you will not be able to buy a commercial plan due to preexisting conditions?
Well, in this case it's true that the government has been lying to the public for decades in a way that makes them fatter and less healthy. The high-carb diet promoted by the feds makes people fatter and less healthy than the alternatives. Do you really want to blame them for trusting the government?
You tax the company that produces the unhealthy food much harder.
We know sugar is bad for you.. Tax it more, so people buy less of it.
Sugar and fat together a BIG NO NO!
So McDonalds would have to pay more.. they would have to increase prices, which would mean less people buy their products.
Just like tobacco.. Higher price, less smoking.
Alchohol.. Higher price, less drinking
In a country where the State is taking care of your health.. they should also regulate and tax items that are provenly bad for your health.
In terms of fighting obesity, new drug lorcaserin could allow the condition to be finally treated with a safe prescription drug, along wth increased exercise and a better diet. Surgery and gastric bands are also an option for the morbidly obese.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Guardian
A weight-loss pill has been hailed as a potential “holy grail” in the fight against obesity after a major study showed it did not increase the risk of serious heart problems. Researchers say lorcaserin is the first weight-loss drug to be deemed safe for heart health with long-term use.
Taken twice a day, the drug is an appetite suppressant which works by stimulating brain chemicals to induce a feeling of fullness.A US study saw 12,000 people who were either obese or overweight given the pills or a placebo – with those who took the drug shedding an average of 4kg (9lbs) in 40 months.
Further analysis showed no big differences in tests for heart valve damage.Tam Fry, of Britain’s National Obesity Forum, said the drug is potentially the “holy grail” of weight-loss medicine.“I think it is the thing everybody has been looking for,” he said.
It would not require obesity laws. No Western country with universal health care has obesity laws. In fact, it's not clear if obese people cost the taxpayer more money. We all die - the fit, the strong and the fat and weak. Unless we die suddenly (like in a massive heart attack or stroke - something obese people are more likely to die from) we will draw a out a lot of money in health care in our waning months. All that happens to obese people is they die sooner, it might even save money in the long run. I'm not sure if a proper study has ever been done.
But if this is to be done, maybe add an extra tax on junk food (sodas, starchy chips, candies) that are used to help fund the universal health care program while simultaneously discouraging the eating of junk food.
Last edited by NomadicDrifter; 02-19-2019 at 05:05 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
