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.
Simply by improving the possibilities of HC access for those who are poor or have relatively uninsurable medical issues. Gov't also helps subsidize medical education and training programs.
Let me change the question to help keep the debate on aa narrower path.
How does government subsidized healthcare reduce obesity?
I know the fact I have insurance makes my cholesterol medication cheaper.
The basic premise of libertarianism is that as long as people have to face the consequences of their actions, they will use their freedom in a way that is responsible, and that only when government artificially shields people from said consequences do they do stupid things.
Government artificially shields people from the consequences of their actions by interfering with healthcare laws. Life-Style would factor into a Free Market healthcare system.
It also means that the big majority of the population will have the great freedom to choose between food or medicine as a tiny super rich elite will rule the economy indefinitely using their monopolistic powers and total control of media to ensure it stays that way.
The OP talks about stupidity but working stiffs supporting libertarianism is really the peak of stupidity.
Libertarianism is like communism, it only works in theory. Power corrupts people. The most successful societies have a combination of private property and some guaranteed social programs.
Some people here claim to be so brave and claim this country would be better without programs like Social Security, Medicare and school lunches. Many however will change their minds when it's their time to retire.
The day this country has a bunch of children and old people begging for food on the streets I guarantee you that day you won't find many people supporting far right ideas.
Having said that not everybody that voted for the president elect is a libertarian since he sent mix signals. However I don't see mixed signals in his written agenda. It's a far right agenda written probably by the president elect and his billionaire donors: the Mercers, the Adelsons etc.
Last edited by Sugah Ray; 11-20-2016 at 09:39 PM..
How does government subsidizing healthcare promote people to be healthier?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoonose
Simply by improving the possibilities of HC access for those who are poor or have relatively uninsurable medical issues. Gov't also helps subsidize medical education and training programs.
It requires a lot more than merely increasing access or providing medical education.
Maternal Mortality Rate in U.S. Rises, Defying Global Trend, Study Finds
Quote:
Another analysis this month looked at increases by state and found particularly high rates in the District of Columbia, New Jersey, Georgia and Arkansas, especially among black women.
***
Instead, the increase in recent years has been driven by heart problems and other chronic medical conditions, like diabetes, which has increased sharply in the population. Researchers have theorized that an increase in obesity — particularly acute among poor black women, who have much higher rates of maternal mortality than whites — may be contributing to the problem.
Improved HC/access can improve health and/or prolong life. A poor person might finally be able to see the doc, and then the doc might get them to quit smoking for instance. And if they quit they may live longer.
Some uninsurable patient might finally get care, and then have some significant symptom relieved, like nausea or pain. And they may live longer through better hydration and nutrition, or not kill themselves due to the pain.
Usually what ends up happening is a pill is given to that person. The quick fix.
A friend smacking a smoker in the face, and saying smoking is going to kill you, is cheaper than going to the doctor.
Last edited by Loveshiscountry; 11-21-2016 at 05:43 AM..
I'm going to improve on this by explain why his premise is off (since really... why post if you aren't going to do the hard part?).
Libertarianism is often reduced to being socially liberal and fiscally conservative. In a word, that's bull****. I like Robert Nozick's definition best; Libertarianism is the viewpoint that a just government exists only to protect people from force or fraud. Obviously, he elaborates on this, but basically, anything you do to yourself or someone does to you that does not involve force or fraud, it entirely just. Bare in mind, that's more or less all the government can do. This certainly means establishing publicly funded courthouses and a military for a basic level of national security. Other things... goodbye. No libertarian statesman is above compromise, so they'd probably agree to some publicly funded things, like roads, but many of the things the government does, that receive support from liberals and conservative alike, would be rigidly rejected by libertarians.
One example, marriage. Libertarians technically disagree with both sides on this, if they make this decision based on principle. Under no reasonably circumstance would a libertarian's ideal government officiate marriages. They would not support legalizing same sex marriage, nor would they support bans against it. The government does not, in any way, get involved with marriage. That's a libertarian position.
Socially liberal? Libertarianism is being against the use of force in government. Nothing to do with the individual being more responsible. Everything to do with allowing the individual more freedom in running their lives and having the ability to be more responsible. Be irresponsible (fat) if you want, don't abuse the rights of an individual.
Libertarians are not on both sides of the marriage issue. They don't want government forcing others to accept that marriage. Your examples are off.
Obesity is the result of our suburban way of life every it as much as it is diet. If you want to end obesity, don't regulate what people can eat. Instead, institute policies that promote healthier living environments. Obesity is the biggest problem in the South, and a big part of that is Southern culture. People commute long distances in their cars and aren't very active.
Exercise has almost nothing to do with how fat you are. The idea that exercise burns lots of calories is a myth. The only thing that really matters if how many calories you actually eat. I am thin and yet I barely exercise at all because I control my eating.
Exercise has almost nothing to do with how fat you are. The idea that exercise burns lots of calories is a myth. The only thing that really matters if how many calories you actually eat. I am thin and yet I barely exercise at all because I control my eating.
Then you are not necessarily healthy. You are just thin. Two different things.
Exercise does burn calories. It isn't a myth. Like I said your posts, at least in this thread, are garbage.
Many libertarians are actually Republicans who are too embarrassed to identify as Republican.
They tend to disagree with the GOP on a few little social issues, however they'll sensationalise those differences to appear alternative, rebellious and unique.
Obesity the result of Libertarianism? Doesn't seem so. There's actually a very strong indicator that disproportionate obesity rates are a result of government social program freebie handouts. Take a look at the obesity rates of the poor on food stamps compared to the poor who aren't on food stamps, compared to the rest of the population:
Income-eligible children on food stamps: 24%
Income-eligible children NOT on food stamps: 20% Non-poor children who of course don't even qualify for food stamps: 13%
Income-eligible adults on food stamps: 44% obese
Income-eligible adults Not on food stamps: 33% obese Non-poor adults who of course don't even qualify for food stamps: 32% obese
It certainly does appear that the children of poor and low-income families who receive free school breakfast, lunch, etc., program meals, regardless of whether they get food stamps, are being overfed.
Additionally, the OIG (Office of the Inspector General) suggests there's a problem withpoor and low-income families stacking multiple public assistance benefitsfor the exact same meals (e.g., parents given food stamps to pay for providing breakfast and lunch for their children, but their children are eating at school - free breakfast and lunch programs and sometimes dinner, too, even in the summer and on school holidays). That enables the food stamp recipient adults to overeat.
According to the OIG, 59% of families on food stamps simultaneously get benefitsfrom 2 or more major free food programs for the exact same daily meals. That fact published by the USDA OIG.
Are we really doing the poor any favors by causing their obesity by letting them double-dip and sometimes even triple-dip government free food program benefits, thereby enabling their overeating and ruining their health?
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.
