Author Topic: "But I don't need health insurance"  (Read 55821 times)

CDP45

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 509
Re: "But I don't need health insurance"
« Reply #100 on: October 29, 2013, 08:13:36 AM »

Obongo... yup, you lost me there. As for the health insurance, might I remind you that A: The individual mandate is a Republican idea, liberals would prefer single payer and B: 80% of insurance premiums have to be spent on care, I'm looking forward to seeing what the actual effect of that is at the end of the year.

But I can see that I probably have little interest in carrying on any conversation on this subject with you. Good day good sir.

Hmm interesting it was "their" idea even though not 1 republican voted for it. a massive expansion of federal power yet also completely partisan. I'm sure that doesn't disturb anyone pimping it that only democrats voted for this and implemented it. Is this the only federal law ever to not receive any minority party votes???

B: is a total statement of insanity, one could replace doing anything and say let's see what happens. How about doubling property taxes or expropriating 50% of bank accounts, or shifting all 401k and IRAs to government pensions? Let's look forward to the actual effect!

footenote

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 801
  • MMMing in MN
Re: "But I don't need health insurance"
« Reply #101 on: October 29, 2013, 09:05:17 AM »
B. Except... I don't think you could get a majority of citizens and their elected representatives to "try" doubling property taxes or taking half their savings!

The truth is Romney ran hard on repealing ACA. He lost. Most Americans wanted to try this. Let's see how it works. If it stinks, persuade a majority of Americans to repeal it.

That's how democracy works, regardless of the topic.

Mr.Macinstache

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 922
Re: "But I don't need health insurance"
« Reply #102 on: October 29, 2013, 11:14:59 AM »
B. Except... I don't think you could get a majority of citizens and their elected representatives to "try" doubling property taxes or taking half their savings!

The truth is Romney ran hard on repealing ACA. He lost. Most Americans wanted to try this. Let's see how it works. If it stinks, persuade a majority of Americans to repeal it.

That's how democracy works, regardless of the topic.

The truth is, most Americans did NOT vote for either Romney or Obama or anyone at all. So, no, the true majority did not want this.

And we are not a democracy. Why do people keep saying this? Despite what the TV and public school says, we are a Constitutional Republic, supposed to be anyway.

Look, my biggest problem with you is this: Dogmatic adherence to -ANY- principle is a path to failure as surely as anything else. Dogmatic libertarianism would most likely bring about a new sweatshop-walmart underclass. One in which due to the "freedoms" the ruling class is given, they are able to throw away workers broken by the system. If your ideology believes that they're there because of their "own damn fault for being lazy", and should "bootstrap themselves out of the gutter", I believe you have a hilariously misdrawn view of the world from your own little middle class bubble, so comfortably middle class that you can even contemplate not working in the future.

Dogmatic libertarianism. LOL, there's a oxymoron if there ever was one.

If there's anything dogmatic, is the worship of the state, the collective, intervention, force and authoritarianism. That is the real religion here. You are the one worshiping a ruling class. And it has created a permanent underclass, political voting blocks, race and gender division. You're so concerned with the needy, we have a 1000 times more resources and wealth in the new world, the state is larger than ever and............ for some reason, the underclass is still there, larger and growing. So you're solution is, more of the same? I mean, at some point, you have to step out of this class warfare matrix constructed for you and start to question things.

randymarsh

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1369
  • Location: Denver
Re: "But I don't need health insurance"
« Reply #103 on: October 29, 2013, 11:17:31 AM »
Hmm interesting it was "their" idea even though not 1 republican voted for it. a massive expansion of federal power yet also completely partisan. I'm sure that doesn't disturb anyone pimping it that only democrats voted for this and implemented it. Is this the only federal law ever to not receive any minority party votes???

Let's not even pretend that Republicans/Tea Partiers have supported anything this President proposed. They were calling his presidency a failure after a couple weeks.

In Ohio, our Republican governor is on board with Medicaid expansion and has been fighting the legislature over it. So it's also false to claim that there isn't any minority support. Maybe not at the federal level, but there are pockets of support from the other party.

It's not a secret that Republicans openly supported the individual mandate and private insurance system in the mid 90s. They loved the idea back then when it might prevent Clinton from implemented his health plan (well really Hillary's). Individual responsibility they said! Everyone should pay something they said!

Years later Obama says "cool". Suddenly their tuned changed.
« Last Edit: October 29, 2013, 11:19:54 AM by thefinancialstudent »

hybrid

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1688
  • Age: 57
  • Location: Richmond, Virginia
  • A hybrid of MMM and thoughtful consumer.
Re: "But I don't need health insurance"
« Reply #104 on: October 29, 2013, 12:52:50 PM »
Yep CDP, that's the history behind it.  Obamacare started as a conservative idea in the 90s and a kissing cousin of it was rolled out by Romney in Massachusetts years ago.  The GOP has done a superb job of pointing out everything they don't like in their original idea.  What is missing now from them are realistic alternatives.

bacchi

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7056
Re: "But I don't need health insurance"
« Reply #105 on: October 29, 2013, 01:02:16 PM »
"Developed in detail in n [sic] new monograph, A National Health System for America, the Heritage plan aims at achieving four related objectives: All citizens should be guaranteed universal access to affordable health care. "

The four objectives:

1) Change the tax treatment of health care. The plan would treat all health care benefits provided by employers as taxable income to the employee.
2) Mandate all households to obtain adequate insurance.
3) Provide help to those who cannot afford protection.
4) Reform programs for the elderly.

http://www.heritage.org/research/lecture/assuring-affordable-health-care-for-all-americans


It's amazing how far the left-right spectrum has tilted. What were once "conservative" ideas to control health care costs are now "socialist" ideas promoted by "statists."

Jamesqf

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4038
Re: "But I don't need health insurance"
« Reply #106 on: October 29, 2013, 01:19:44 PM »
The truth is Romney ran hard on repealing ACA. He lost.

Non sequitur.  Romney ran on, or was judged on, many things - eliminating reproductive choice, low taxes for the wealthy, establishing a Mormon/Christian theocracy, etc.  It does not follow that the reason he was not elected was one point which many people might have found attractive, while being repulsed by much of the rest of his program. 

As it happens, I was one of those who held their noses and voted for Obama, simply because Romney and the religious right were so much worse.  Does that mean that I must now approve of every stupid thing that Obama & the Democrats do, as for instance NSA snooping?

Quote
Let's see how it works. If it stinks, persuade a majority of Americans to repeal it.

Well, aren't we seeing just that?  We're detecting the first whiffs of something rotten, and trying to persuade a majority of Congress to repeal it.  Per many polls, a majority of Americans have never supported it.

Quote
A Washington Post/ABC News poll released on Oct. 7 found that 70 percent of Americans disapprove of Republicans, 61 percent disapprove of congressional Democrats, and 51 percent disapprove of President Obama.
...
A CBS News poll released on Oct. 3 found that 51 percent of Americans disapprove of Obamacare, 43 percent approve, and 6 percent are unsure. A Fox News poll released the same day found that 51 percent disapprove of Obamacare, 45 percent approve of the law, and 4 percent are unsure. A CNN poll released on Sept. 30 found 57 percent of Americans oppose Obamacare, 38 percent of Americans favor it, and 4 percent have no opinion.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/10/09/Polling-data-shows-Ted-Cruz-conservatives-are-winning-shutdown-battle-against-Obamacare

Mr.Macinstache

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 922
Re: "But I don't need health insurance"
« Reply #107 on: October 29, 2013, 01:21:01 PM »
Yes, this is a further illustration of the duopoly that is our 2 party system. Neither one represent any significant change. It's a false left/right paradigm. The 2 parties both for an expanding, omnipresent form of government/corporatist intervention and rule over us human resources.

sandiahiker

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 36
  • Age: 48
  • Location: New Mexico
Re: "But I don't need health insurance"
« Reply #108 on: October 29, 2013, 01:40:15 PM »
Quote
A Washington Post/ABC News poll released on Oct. 7 found that 70 percent of Americans disapprove of Republicans, 61 percent disapprove of congressional Democrats, and 51 percent disapprove of President Obama.
...
A CBS News poll released on Oct. 3 found that 51 percent of Americans disapprove of Obamacare, 43 percent approve, and 6 percent are unsure. A Fox News poll released the same day found that 51 percent disapprove of Obamacare, 45 percent approve of the law, and 4 percent are unsure. A CNN poll released on Sept. 30 found 57 percent of Americans oppose Obamacare, 38 percent of Americans favor it, and 4 percent have no opinion.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/10/09/Polling-data-shows-Ted-Cruz-conservatives-are-winning-shutdown-battle-against-Obamacare



Like most of life, the truth is in the details.  When asked about "Obamacare" in general, you get the poll results above.

When polled about specific provisions of the law you find that Americans actually are in favor of its major components.

http://articles.latimes.com/2013/oct/01/business/la-fi-mh-obamacare-20131001

This goes along with similar polls, where people are against "big government" but then asked if they are in favor of specific programs, and most of the programs come out favorable.

Purple Economist

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 96
Re: "But I don't need health insurance"
« Reply #109 on: October 29, 2013, 01:49:09 PM »
Quote
A Washington Post/ABC News poll released on Oct. 7 found that 70 percent of Americans disapprove of Republicans, 61 percent disapprove of congressional Democrats, and 51 percent disapprove of President Obama.
...
A CBS News poll released on Oct. 3 found that 51 percent of Americans disapprove of Obamacare, 43 percent approve, and 6 percent are unsure. A Fox News poll released the same day found that 51 percent disapprove of Obamacare, 45 percent approve of the law, and 4 percent are unsure. A CNN poll released on Sept. 30 found 57 percent of Americans oppose Obamacare, 38 percent of Americans favor it, and 4 percent have no opinion.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/10/09/Polling-data-shows-Ted-Cruz-conservatives-are-winning-shutdown-battle-against-Obamacare



Like most of life, the truth is in the details.  When asked about "Obamacare" in general, you get the poll results above.

When polled about specific provisions of the law you find that Americans actually are in favor of its major components.

http://articles.latimes.com/2013/oct/01/business/la-fi-mh-obamacare-20131001

This goes along with similar polls, where people are against "big government" but then asked if they are in favor of specific programs, and most of the programs come out favorable.

Show me one poll where people are in favor of the individual mandate.  That is THE major component of the ACA.

sandiahiker

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 36
  • Age: 48
  • Location: New Mexico
Re: "But I don't need health insurance"
« Reply #110 on: October 29, 2013, 02:26:00 PM »

Show me one poll where people are in favor of the individual mandate.  That is THE major component of the ACA.

It is true that people do not favor the individual mandate, but as the article above points out, people favor the whole pre-existing conditions thing going away, and that doesn't work without the individual mandate. Otherwise a person could just wait until they got sick, buy insurance, and be covered.  Insurance companies would be going bankrupt left and right.

I'd be curious to see if people favor the auto insurance mandate, or what the polling data over time has shown for the auto insurance mandate.  It is not surprising that the health insurance mandate is unpopular.  People generally don't like to be forced to do anything.  Taxes are unpopular too, but most realize that taxes are in our best interest and society as a whole's best interest.

As more people become familiar what Obamacare actually is and how it works, people will realize that the individual mandate is a "necessary evil."

Mr.Macinstache

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 922
Re: "But I don't need health insurance"
« Reply #111 on: October 29, 2013, 05:39:14 PM »

Show me one poll where people are in favor of the individual mandate.  That is THE major component of the ACA.

It is true that people do not favor the individual mandate, but as the article above points out, people favor the whole pre-existing conditions thing going away, and that doesn't work without the individual mandate. Otherwise a person could just wait until they got sick, buy insurance, and be covered.  Insurance companies would be going bankrupt left and right.

I'd be curious to see if people favor the auto insurance mandate, or what the polling data over time has shown for the auto insurance mandate.  It is not surprising that the health insurance mandate is unpopular.  People generally don't like to be forced to do anything.  Taxes are unpopular too, but most realize that taxes are in our best interest and society as a whole's best interest.

As more people become familiar what Obamacare actually is and how it works, people will realize that the individual mandate is a "necessary evil."

Again, no one is forced to buy auto insurance, or even own a car. They are free to take the bus, even operate a bike (without insurance even!). Owning a car is voluntary. Owning a body is not. Apples to orange comparison when the authoritarians try to force someone to have health insurance.

Being able to travel freely is a right, operating a motor vehicle on the public roads is not, thus the requirement for insurance that most everyone accepts.

sandiahiker

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 36
  • Age: 48
  • Location: New Mexico
Re: "But I don't need health insurance"
« Reply #112 on: October 29, 2013, 06:02:29 PM »

Again, no one is forced to buy auto insurance, or even own a car. They are free to take the bus, even operate a bike (without insurance even!). Owning a car is voluntary. Owning a body is not. Apples to orange comparison when the authoritarians try to force someone to have health insurance.

Being able to travel freely is a right, operating a motor vehicle on the public roads is not, thus the requirement for insurance that most everyone accepts.

Of course you are not required to own a car.  But that is not the comparison.

The comparison is: participating in two different realms, and how your participation affects others in that realm.

One realm is that of operating a motor vehicle.  If you want to participate in that realm, you must carry insurance to offset the risk that you will harm others.

The other is the realm of being a citizen of the United States.  (Yes, you can opt of being a citizen of the US.  Plenty of other countries will take you.) The supreme court has ruled under our current law you must carry health insurance to offset the the risk that you will harm others. 

Both cases are the same.  It is easy to imagine how you can harm yourself or others while driving a car, and it less easy to imagine it if you are simply participating as a US citizen.  But the way our health care system is set up, most notably the fact that you will receive free emergency room care regardless of your ability to pay, and also that starting Jan 1, insurance companies must cover you with all of your pre-existing conditions, you can see that you can harm others (financially) with your health.

For both insurance systems to work, all participants must carry insurance, otherwise the pool of participants is too small to spread the risk throughout all participants, then the insurance system collapses on itself.

My question earlier was that when auto insurance became mandatory, I wonder if there was an outcry like there is now about the health insurance mandate.  Obviously everyone sees the necessity of carrying auto insurance, and I think over time, every one will see the necessity of carry health insurance (unless we get to single-payer first).


Mr.Macinstache

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 922
Re: "But I don't need health insurance"
« Reply #113 on: October 29, 2013, 07:01:41 PM »
So all of the sudden, a citizens mere existence is so dangerous that everyone must be insured? Then slavery was just introduced again. Because if a govt can tax your for merely existing, you are nothing more than cattle. Who owns your body? It certainly isn't you. This country has turned into a corporatist human resource tax farm to serve governments, banks and corporations.

And no, the supreme beings ruled it is Constitutional because Congress has the power to tax. And states have the power to nullify too. There have been a lot of states that have already outlawed the individual mandate.

CDP45

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 509
Re: "But I don't need health insurance"
« Reply #114 on: October 29, 2013, 07:15:20 PM »

Again, no one is forced to buy auto insurance, or even own a car. They are free to take the bus, even operate a bike (without insurance even!). Owning a car is voluntary. Owning a body is not. Apples to orange comparison when the authoritarians try to force someone to have health insurance.

Being able to travel freely is a right, operating a motor vehicle on the public roads is not, thus the requirement for insurance that most everyone accepts.

Of course you are not required to own a car.  But that is not the comparison.

The comparison is: participating in two different realms, and how your participation affects others in that realm.

One realm is that of operating a motor vehicle.  If you want to participate in that realm, you must carry insurance to offset the risk that you will harm others.

The other is the realm of being a citizen of the United States.  (Yes, you can opt of being a citizen of the US.  Plenty of other countries will take you.) The supreme court has ruled under our current law you must carry health insurance to offset the the risk that you will harm others. 

Both cases are the same.  It is easy to imagine how you can harm yourself or others while driving a car, and it less easy to imagine it if you are simply participating as a US citizen.  But the way our health care system is set up, most notably the fact that you will receive free emergency room care regardless of your ability to pay, and also that starting Jan 1, insurance companies must cover you with all of your pre-existing conditions, you can see that you can harm others (financially) with your health.

For both insurance systems to work, all participants must carry insurance, otherwise the pool of participants is too small to spread the risk throughout all participants, then the insurance system collapses on itself.

My question earlier was that when auto insurance became mandatory, I wonder if there was an outcry like there is now about the health insurance mandate.  Obviously everyone sees the necessity of carrying auto insurance, and I think over time, every one will see the necessity of carry health insurance (unless we get to single-payer first).

Haha, please explain to me how me getting sick hurts others?? That's quite a leap that I don't think makes it over the canyon of fallacies. Especially when the government is mandating the financial "harm."

I love your argument of "love it or leave it." Is that how you defended the bush admins actions against correct progressive criticism? Because that's the right people have to not participate, to freely associate with whom they wish.

sandiahiker

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 36
  • Age: 48
  • Location: New Mexico
Re: "But I don't need health insurance"
« Reply #115 on: October 29, 2013, 07:32:19 PM »
Haha, please explain to me how me getting sick hurts others??

I did in the post above, but I will reiterate.

If you don't have insurance, show up to a hospital with colon cancer, they are going to treat you in the emergency room regardless of your ability to pay. If you can't pay (and most people can't afford hundreds of thousands of dollars of cancer treatment), that financially harms the hospital, and in turn, the rest of the populace because the government reimburses the hospitals for unpaid bills.

So all of the sudden, a citizens mere existence is so dangerous that everyone must be insured? Then slavery was just introduced again. Because if a govt can tax your for merely existing, you are nothing more than cattle.

Yes.  Ever hear of the phrase, the only sure things in life are death and taxes?  You get taxed for being in this country.  If you don't want to get taxed, buy your own island out in the ocean.  Unless you have the means to pay for any health ailment that may befall you, you cannot opt out of the system.

I love your argument of "love it or leave it." Is that how you defended the bush admins actions against correct progressive criticism? Because that's the right people have to not participate, to freely associate with whom they wish.

I hate the "love it or leave it" argument.  I fully support all discussion of all sides of every issue.  If ultimately voters want Obamacare repealed, it will be. Note that I never said "love it or leave it."  I was saying "play by the current rules, or leave it. Or try to change the rules."

If you really want the mandate to go away, you have to acknowledge that our system of providing emergency care regardless of the ability to pay, has to stop.  And that is not going to happen in the richest country in the world.

Mr.Macinstache

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 922
Re: "But I don't need health insurance"
« Reply #116 on: October 29, 2013, 08:35:46 PM »
Oh no, we can't have a private business spreading the cost of doing business... that would be... unfair! We must have bureaucrats and politicians spreading the cost. That makes it so much better. Sounds efficient to me. Ha, and we are "mustachians". It's okay for a monopoly of power to waste on a scale of epic proportions, but not that evil private business. And how dare those hospitals claim to offer charitable service without being... REGULATED.

Yes.  Ever hear of the phrase, the only sure things in life are death and taxes?  You get taxed for being in this country.  If you don't want to get taxed, buy your own island out in the ocean.  Unless you have the means to pay for any health ailment that may befall you, you cannot opt out of the system.

Ah yes, the minions of authoritarianism speak with authority.

"You're either with us or against us." "Love it or leave it" No matter if you puffed up your chest for Bush, or raised your nose for Obama, the song remains the same. How completely sad. I don't think the Stockholm syndrome was this bad any time in history.

I'm not going to leave. You authoritarians can leave. Go find an island, cage it in, and make sure no one leaves your paradise. If they try, put them in an even smaller cage. Because when idea's are really good, they are mandatory.

Jamesqf

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4038
Re: "But I don't need health insurance"
« Reply #117 on: October 29, 2013, 09:19:00 PM »
It is true that people do not favor the individual mandate, but as the article above points out, people favor the whole pre-existing conditions thing going away, and that doesn't work without the individual mandate.

Yes, which is why this is not an insurance program, but a tax on healthy people.  The biggest problem (at least for me) is not the individual mandate, but that I would be required to pay an amount for mandated insurance that is greatly in excess of my actual actuarial risk.  If you want to liken it to car insurance, it's as though I (no accidents, no tickets in a decade or more) had to pay the same price as the guy with a sheaf of moving violations and a couple of DUIs.

Now as to whether people favor this or that provision... well, that seems to depend on whether or not they expect to be getting something for nothing.  So most people with pre-existing conditions or general poor health are in favor of that, if you ask the question alone.

Jamesqf

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4038
Re: "But I don't need health insurance"
« Reply #118 on: October 29, 2013, 09:23:43 PM »
I love your argument of "love it or leave it." Is that how you defended the bush admins actions against correct progressive criticism?

"Correct progressive criticism"?  Isn't that an oxymoron?  That is, the Bush administration was often wrong, but the "progressive" criticism was just as wrong (if not more so), but in a different direction.

randymarsh

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1369
  • Location: Denver
Re: "But I don't need health insurance"
« Reply #119 on: October 29, 2013, 09:31:44 PM »
If we don't like Obamacare because it forces us to have insurance and we don't like single payer because government is bad/inefficient/whatever then where does that leave us?

What solution do you guys have that neither our country nor the rest of the world has been able to figure out?

CDP45

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 509
Re: "But I don't need health insurance"
« Reply #120 on: October 29, 2013, 09:42:49 PM »
Quote
"Correct progressive criticism"?  Isn't that an oxymoron?  That is, the Bush administration was often wrong, but the "progressive" criticism was just as wrong (if not more so), but in a different direction.

Even a broken clock is right twice a day ;) They were correct about warrantless wiretapping, Guantanamo, antiwar protests, but the silence is now deafening under the Nobel Peace Prize-recipient comrade. I don't want to get off topic..

If we don't like Obamacare because it forces us to have insurance and we don't like single payer because government is bad/inefficient/whatever then where does that leave us?

What solution do you guys have that neither our country nor the rest of the world has been able to figure out?

Freedom. Reduce government intervention and protectionism in the medical field. Eliminate government bans on underwriting, let the smart and hard working people figure this one out, like all the previous seemingly insurmountable hurdles. You know who really profits from all this? Big pharma and med devices, eliminate IP protectionism and let there be more competition, more cost sharing. Some pockets of the world are lucky, others not, we are still the best for the most people.

beltim

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2957
Re: "But I don't need health insurance"
« Reply #121 on: October 29, 2013, 09:49:50 PM »

Freedom. Reduce government intervention and protectionism in the medical field. Eliminate government bans on underwriting, let the smart and hard working people figure this one out, like all the previous seemingly insurmountable hurdles. You know who really profits from all this? Big pharma and med devices, eliminate IP protectionism and let there be more competition, more cost sharing. Some pockets of the world are lucky, others not, we are still the best for the most people.

This sounds like you're advocating for either an end to patents, the FDA, or both. What do you mean by eliminating IP protectionism and letting there be more competition?

netskyblue

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 637
  • Location: Midwest USA
Re: "But I don't need health insurance"
« Reply #122 on: October 29, 2013, 10:17:21 PM »
What I want to know is, why does a case of pneumonia cost $400k?!  To pay for insurance against sue-happy patients?  To pay for big drug companies' advertising?  I'm all for paying doctors a high salary.  They've got really important skills.  But for example, I took my ex husband to the hospital when he was vomiting uncontrollably with the flu (I was seriously worried about dehydration, it had been hours and hours nonstop).  He was there an hour, spent 5 minutes with a doc, got an anti-nausea medicine and a banana bag IV.  Oh and a cup of orange juice.  It was several thousand dollars.  What part of that visit was worth thousands?

I want to see the actual COSTS of treatment massively reduced, not just transferred around so that healthy people have to pay for sick ones, AND make the insurance companies a profit.

CDP45

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 509
Re: "But I don't need health insurance"
« Reply #123 on: October 29, 2013, 11:07:30 PM »

Freedom. Reduce government intervention and protectionism in the medical field. Eliminate government bans on underwriting, let the smart and hard working people figure this one out, like all the previous seemingly insurmountable hurdles. You know who really profits from all this? Big pharma and med devices, eliminate IP protectionism and let there be more competition, more cost sharing. Some pockets of the world are lucky, others not, we are still the best for the most people.

This sounds like you're advocating for either an end to patents, the FDA, or both. What do you mean by eliminating IP protectionism and letting there be more competition?

Correct, a large part of the reason why drugs are cheaper overseas is due to less IP protectionism by those governments. They say if you don't sell the drugs cheaper we will further erode the protections against generic drugs. Let big pharma find that balance for themselves, and yes this will reduce the amount of research dollars but maybe it's a sign that there is overinvestment in drugs, sort of like there was a bubble In housing only sustained by government subsidies.

Drugs were invented before IP just like music and other inventions, they will continue to be with less subsidies. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-10-14/u-s-consumers-foot-the-bill-for-cheap-drugs-in-europe-and-canada.html

CDP45

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 509
Re: "But I don't need health insurance"
« Reply #124 on: October 29, 2013, 11:15:16 PM »
What I want to know is, why does a case of pneumonia cost $400k?!  To pay for insurance against sue-happy patients?  To pay for big drug companies' advertising?  I'm all for paying doctors a high salary.  They've got really important skills.  But for example, I took my ex husband to the hospital when he was vomiting uncontrollably with the flu (I was seriously worried about dehydration, it had been hours and hours nonstop).  He was there an hour, spent 5 minutes with a doc, got an anti-nausea medicine and a banana bag IV.  Oh and a cup of orange juice.  It was several thousand dollars.  What part of that visit was worth thousands?

I want to see the actual COSTS of treatment massively reduced, not just transferred around so that healthy people have to pay for sick ones, AND make the insurance companies a profit.

The cost was that much because you probably paid less than 1% of the bill. If you were presented with the possibility of paying just 10% you would have made far different choices I imagine. There is minimal cost sharing currently and with OOP max at $5k or less there will be little going forward, so we will all pay a lot every month and the waste and greed will continue unabated. The costs won't be reduced until individuals start facing the consequences of their healthcare choices and we stop fighting economic reality that people make the best decisions for themselves, not govt.

beltim

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2957
Re: "But I don't need health insurance"
« Reply #125 on: October 30, 2013, 12:24:29 AM »

Freedom. Reduce government intervention and protectionism in the medical field. Eliminate government bans on underwriting, let the smart and hard working people figure this one out, like all the previous seemingly insurmountable hurdles. You know who really profits from all this? Big pharma and med devices, eliminate IP protectionism and let there be more competition, more cost sharing. Some pockets of the world are lucky, others not, we are still the best for the most people.

This sounds like you're advocating for either an end to patents, the FDA, or both. What do you mean by eliminating IP protectionism and letting there be more competition?

Correct, a large part of the reason why drugs are cheaper overseas is due to less IP protectionism by those governments. They say if you don't sell the drugs cheaper we will further erode the protections against generic drugs. Let big pharma find that balance for themselves, and yes this will reduce the amount of research dollars but maybe it's a sign that there is overinvestment in drugs, sort of like there was a bubble In housing only sustained by government subsidies.

Drugs were invented before IP just like music and other inventions, they will continue to be with less subsidies. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-10-14/u-s-consumers-foot-the-bill-for-cheap-drugs-in-europe-and-canada.html

Well, if you're willing to sacrifice medical research for short term cost savings, that is an option. I think that is remarkably shortsighted.

Mr.Macinstache

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 922
Re: "But I don't need health insurance"
« Reply #126 on: October 30, 2013, 07:38:32 AM »
If we don't like Obamacare because it forces us to have insurance and we don't like single payer because government is bad/inefficient/whatever then where does that leave us?

What solution do you guys have that neither our country nor the rest of the world has been able to figure out?

We had it figured out. Would you agree that we have the best actual health care in the world? And it wasn't because of socialized medicine, it's because there's some semblance of a free market taking place.

What do politicians and bureaucrats know about the medical field? Nothing. What is happening now that they are coming between you, your insurance and your doctor? Nothing good. The problems arise when govt opens the doors to big pharma and the medical industrial complex leading to corporatism. If the govt kept its doors completely shut, they would be left to face the economic realities like everyone in the market, striving to keep prices low while competing to offer the best service to earn your business. That is why we have the best healthcare in the world, but with the direction it's going now, we can't be so sure anymore.

hybrid

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1688
  • Age: 57
  • Location: Richmond, Virginia
  • A hybrid of MMM and thoughtful consumer.
Re: "But I don't need health insurance"
« Reply #127 on: October 30, 2013, 07:59:07 AM »
So all of the sudden, a citizens mere existence is so dangerous that everyone must be insured? Then slavery was just introduced again. Because if a govt can tax your for merely existing, you are nothing more than cattle. Who owns your body? It certainly isn't you. This country has turned into a corporatist human resource tax farm to serve governments, banks and corporations.

And no, the supreme beings ruled it is Constitutional because Congress has the power to tax. And states have the power to nullify too. There have been a lot of states that have already outlawed the individual mandate.

Yep, this is a perfect example of why Libertarians don't gain more traction in my eyes, which is a shame.  I'm about to vote for the Libertarian candidate next week in our gubernatorial election, so this isn't a slam on Libertarian concepts or a dislike of Libertarians in general, it's a gripe about when Libertarians take their arguments to their all-too-often ridiculous extremes.  Mac, you have just swerved from rational discussion to ridicuolus.  Slavery?  Puh-lease. 

You cannot have a functioning government without taxes, so yes, by merely existing as a citizen in a country you will get taxed.  That does not make you cattle, not by any stretch of the imagination.

The individual mandate is rooted in the concept that no one who is financially able for their well being can opt out and suck on the teat of caregivers and the state should something go dramatically south.  There is nothing particularly Libertarian about fiscal and personal irresponsibility, so arguing that the state is burdening you by mandating what responsible people do anyway is some burden indeed.  To those who find that incomprehensible I ask this one simple question.  Do you have catastrophic health insurance?  Yeah, thought so....   

CDP45

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 509
Re: "But I don't need health insurance"
« Reply #128 on: October 30, 2013, 07:59:47 AM »
Quote

Well, if you're willing to sacrifice medical research for short term cost savings, that is an option. I think that is remarkably shortsighted.

The majority of incurred costs are due to lifestyle decisions, ignorance, and lack of cost sharing today, not exotic and complicated diseases. There are barely any resources being spent on obesity prevention vs the research of drugs to treat that due to government helping pervert those incentive that brings us to this mess today. Obesity is 100% preventable, yet comes with high costs and health ins companies were already banned from taking that risk factor into account in pricing.

We are so far biased towards research and price being no option at the expense of actual affordable health care. For all the money and time spent on 80+ year olds at the expense of preventative care, I think we might have a better balance. Look the average lifespan for people in this country is rapidly pushing past 80, should we be focusing on prolonging that even more? I think if there was a sliding deductible that grew with age people would really question their end if life costs against their legacy wishes. But the point still remains we don't want government picking the winners and losers.
« Last Edit: October 30, 2013, 08:08:15 AM by CDP45 »

footenote

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 801
  • MMMing in MN
Re: "But I don't need health insurance"
« Reply #129 on: October 30, 2013, 08:09:43 AM »
So all of the sudden, a citizens mere existence is so dangerous that everyone must be insured? Then slavery was just introduced again. Because if a govt can tax your for merely existing, you are nothing more than cattle. Who owns your body? It certainly isn't you. This country has turned into a corporatist human resource tax farm to serve governments, banks and corporations.

And no, the supreme beings ruled it is Constitutional because Congress has the power to tax. And states have the power to nullify too. There have been a lot of states that have already outlawed the individual mandate.

Yep, this is a perfect example of why Libertarians don't gain more traction in my eyes, which is a shame.  I'm about to vote for the Libertarian candidate next week in our gubernatorial election, so this isn't a slam on Libertarian concepts or a dislike of Libertarians in general, it's a gripe about when Libertarians take their arguments to their all-too-often ridiculous extremes.  Mac, you have just swerved from rational discussion to ridicuolus.  Slavery?  Puh-lease. 

You cannot have a functioning government without taxes, so yes, by merely existing as a citizen in a country you will get taxed.  That does not make you cattle, not by any stretch of the imagination.

The individual mandate is rooted in the concept that no one who is financially able for their well being can opt out and suck on the teat of caregivers and the state should something go dramatically south.  There is nothing particularly Libertarian about fiscal and personal irresponsibility, so arguing that the state is burdening you by mandating what responsible people do anyway is some burden indeed.  To those who find that incomprehensible I ask this one simple question.  Do you have catastrophic health insurance?  Yeah, thought so....   
+1
Fact Check ...

- No, states do not have the power to nullify federal laws.

- Not one state has overturned (or could overturn) the current federal individual healthcare insurance mandate. (Macinstache may be thinking of the 15 states declining to expand Medicaid eligibility. Deets here: http://www.advisory.com/Daily-Briefing/Resources/Primers/MedicaidMap)

beltim

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2957
Re: "But I don't need health insurance"
« Reply #130 on: October 30, 2013, 11:28:37 AM »
Quote

Well, if you're willing to sacrifice medical research for short term cost savings, that is an option. I think that is remarkably shortsighted.

The majority of incurred costs are due to lifestyle decisions, ignorance, and lack of cost sharing today, not exotic and complicated diseases.
False. 
Quote
There are barely any resources being spent on obesity prevention vs the research of drugs to treat that due to government helping pervert those incentive that brings us to this mess today.
This is a market response - drug companies invest in drugs to treat those with diseases because that's where the market is.
Quote
Obesity is 100% preventable.
False

Quote
We are so far biased towards research and price being no option at the expense of actual affordable health care. For all the money and time spent on 80+ year olds at the expense of preventative care, I think we might have a better balance. Look the average lifespan for people in this country is rapidly pushing past 80, should we be focusing on prolonging that even more? I think if there was a sliding deductible that grew with age people would really question their end if life costs against their legacy wishes.
Now, this is an interesting point.  Yes, the United States more than any other country in the world has a system where current health care costs are higher in order to fund future research.  This is a good thing.  The United States is also the most successful country in the world at developing new treatments, new drugs, and new medical devices to improve patients' quality of life.  If you'd rather have Cuban-style medical care (their doctors are some of the best trained in the world, but they have little money for drugs or any treatments that even sniff of new), that is perfectly obtainable in the US, through generic drugs are affordable care clinics.
End of life care and the associated costs (financial, emotional, and psychological) I think are important issues, but I don't see what that has to do with IP or medical research.

Quote
But the point still remains we don't want government picking the winners and losers.
Wait, intellectual property law (i.e. patents that restrict who can sell a drug for 20 years after its invention) is the "government picking winner and losers?"  How on earth do you get there?  The first person to invent something has the exclusive rights to make it for a period of time.  That seems unarguably market-based, not the government picking winners and losers.

Mr.Macinstache

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 922
Re: "But I don't need health insurance"
« Reply #131 on: October 30, 2013, 11:50:05 AM »
So all of the sudden, a citizens mere existence is so dangerous that everyone must be insured? Then slavery was just introduced again. Because if a govt can tax your for merely existing, you are nothing more than cattle. Who owns your body? It certainly isn't you. This country has turned into a corporatist human resource tax farm to serve governments, banks and corporations.

And no, the supreme beings ruled it is Constitutional because Congress has the power to tax. And states have the power to nullify too. There have been a lot of states that have already outlawed the individual mandate.

Yep, this is a perfect example of why Libertarians don't gain more traction in my eyes, which is a shame.  I'm about to vote for the Libertarian candidate next week in our gubernatorial election, so this isn't a slam on Libertarian concepts or a dislike of Libertarians in general, it's a gripe about when Libertarians take their arguments to their all-too-often ridiculous extremes.  Mac, you have just swerved from rational discussion to ridicuolus.  Slavery?  Puh-lease. 

You cannot have a functioning government without taxes, so yes, by merely existing as a citizen in a country you will get taxed.  That does not make you cattle, not by any stretch of the imagination.

The individual mandate is rooted in the concept that no one who is financially able for their well being can opt out and suck on the teat of caregivers and the state should something go dramatically south.  There is nothing particularly Libertarian about fiscal and personal irresponsibility, so arguing that the state is burdening you by mandating what responsible people do anyway is some burden indeed.  To those who find that incomprehensible I ask this one simple question.  Do you have catastrophic health insurance?  Yeah, thought so....   

Thought so what? I pay out of pocket for full coverage health insurance from BCBS. But way to ASSume and try to profile me.

There are a lot of reasons why the libertarians don't gain traction, but the principle and logical conclusion of the message is not one of them.

The individual mandate is rooted in the concept that you yourself do not own your body, that a nanny state has the authority to tax your existence for any potential liability you might incur. Forcing you to tithe to the state, for your health, is a form of implied ownership and servitude. How much does the state need to take care of you... 10%, 28, 65%? How much is enough?

Libertarians ARE pro-personal responsibility. (No one here is arguing that going without health insurance is a good idea). We are saying, let the market operate so that people can voluntary interact with it. The hallmark of a free society is voluntary interaction, not force or coercion.

Libertarians are not anti-tax. They are pro minimal government. They (generally) favor consumption or excise taxes over income and property taxes. Hope that helps your understanding.


Mr.Macinstache

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 922
Re: "But I don't need health insurance"
« Reply #132 on: October 30, 2013, 11:58:38 AM »
- No, states do not have the power to nullify federal laws.


Yes they do. Oregon and Colorado legalized pot. It's called the 10th amendment.

beltim

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2957
Re: "But I don't need health insurance"
« Reply #133 on: October 30, 2013, 12:01:30 PM »
- No, states do not have the power to nullify federal laws.


Yes they do. Oregon and Colorado legalized pot. It's called the 10th amendment.

So no one has been arrested, tried, and convicted for possessing pot in those states since it was "legalized"?

Jamesqf

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4038
Re: "But I don't need health insurance"
« Reply #134 on: October 30, 2013, 12:17:30 PM »
The individual mandate is rooted in the concept that no one who is financially able for their well being can opt out and suck on the teat of caregivers and the state should something go dramatically south. 

First off, you're missing a point: I (and other employed taxpayers) are currently paying a 2.9% tax on our income precisely to provide care (Medicare/Medicaid) to people for whom things have gone dramatically south.

Second, Obamacare isn't catastrophic health insurance.  I might not object to a requirement for that, which only kicks in after an amount ($20K-$50K or so) that I could readily pay out of pocket.  (But AFAIK I can't buy that now, and sure can't post-Obamacare.)  It forces me to have a low deductible, and to have coverage for all sorts of things which I will never need, and a lot which in the current state of medical knowledge, is nothing better than faith healing (that is, about 95% of mental health coverage).

tooqk4u22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2833
Re: "But I don't need health insurance"
« Reply #135 on: October 30, 2013, 01:15:03 PM »
- No, states do not have the power to nullify federal laws.


Yes they do. Oregon and Colorado legalized pot. It's called the 10th amendment.

So no one has been arrested, tried, and convicted for possessing pot in those states since it was "legalized"?

No they don't.  While Oregon and Colorado have legalized pot it still remains illegal under federal law and if the feds so desired could enforce those laws regardless of the state laws - obviously such enforcement would be unlikely but it is not impossible.

However, if pot is illegal at the federal leveal and in each of the surrounding states how then does one get the seeds necessary to grow pot for distribution in those states as it would be a federal crime (drug traffic) to import pot/seeds into those states that approved it.  Hmmmmm....could it be possible that people were already growing, distributing and smoking pot in those states. 

CDP45

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 509
Re: "But I don't need health insurance"
« Reply #136 on: October 30, 2013, 01:55:09 PM »

Quote
Obesity is 100% preventable.
False

Are you serious? This is a fact of physics, calories in-calories out. If any human being reduces their intake of calories they will lose weight.

There are barely any resources being spent on obesity prevention vs the research of drugs to treat that due to government helping pervert those incentive that brings us to this mess today.
This is a market response - drug companies invest in drugs to treat those with diseases because that's where the market is.
Quote

Yes the government has perverted the market incentives for this to be the case:
1. Patients pay little of the cost of their healthcare due to the health ins system today and going forward (since we're talking about "insurance," don't you think underwriting is involved in other lines of coverage?? Govt has now totally banned that). There's my new slogan, it's not insurance if there isn't underwriting.
2. Because there isn't any cost sharing, patients always want the best and most expensive option, and hospitals, ins cos, doctors are happy because they all get a little slice of that cost
3. The majority of the profits are funneled to big pharma and med devices where the government has created massive barriers to entry with IP, FDA, and other laws that prevent additional competition.


We are so far biased towards research and price being no option at the expense of actual affordable health care. For all the money and time spent on 80+ year olds at the expense of preventative care, I think we might have a better balance. Look the average lifespan for people in this country is rapidly pushing past 80, should we be focusing on prolonging that even more? I think if there was a sliding deductible that grew with age people would really question their end if life costs against their legacy wishes.
Now, this is an interesting point.  Yes, the United States more than any other country in the world has a system where current health care costs are higher in order to fund future research.  This is a good thing.  The United States is also the most successful country in the world at developing new treatments, new drugs, and new medical devices to improve patients' quality of life.  If you'd rather have Cuban-style medical care (their doctors are some of the best trained in the world, but they have little money for drugs or any treatments that even sniff of new), that is perfectly obtainable in the US, through generic drugs are affordable care clinics.
End of life care and the associated costs (financial, emotional, and psychological) I think are important issues, but I don't see what that has to do with IP or medical research.

Quote
But the point still remains we don't want government picking the winners and losers.
Wait, intellectual property law (i.e. patents that restrict who can sell a drug for 20 years after its invention) is the "government picking winner and losers?"  How on earth do you get there?  The first person to invent something has the exclusive rights to make it for a period of time.  That seems unarguably market-based, not the government picking winners and losers.
[/quote]

The winners are the current participants who cut fat checks to reelection campaigns. Our IP laws are one of the farthest things from "market based" (see patent trolls). 

beltim

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2957
Re: "But I don't need health insurance"
« Reply #137 on: October 30, 2013, 02:25:15 PM »
Quote

Quote
Obesity is 100% preventable.
False

Are you serious? This is a fact of physics, calories in-calories out. If any human being reduces their intake of calories they will lose weight.
I am serious.  It's not physics, it's biology. 
Here's a reference that shows that heretability (i.e. genetics) accounts for 50-70% of the total variability in BMI.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8782724?dopt=Abstract
Here's one genetic cause of obesity:
http://www.cam.ac.uk/news/genetic-mutation-causes-obesity
Others include Prader-Willi syndrome and Bardet–Biedl syndrome, genetic disorders which have as one symptom obesity.  There are many other disorders for which obesity is a symptom, and there is no way to prevent them.  So, yes I am serious that obesity is not 100% preventable, because it is a scientific fact.



beltim

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2957
Re: "But I don't need health insurance"
« Reply #138 on: October 30, 2013, 02:29:37 PM »

The winners are the current participants who cut fat checks to reelection campaigns. Our IP laws are one of the farthest things from "market based" (see patent trolls). 

I haven't seen any cases of patent trolls in pharmaceuticals or medical devices.  Do you know of any cases?

CDP45

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 509
Re: "But I don't need health insurance"
« Reply #139 on: October 30, 2013, 02:40:47 PM »
Quote

Quote
Obesity is 100% preventable.
False

Are you serious? This is a fact of physics, calories in-calories out. If any human being reduces their intake of calories they will lose weight.
I am serious.  It's not physics, it's biology. 
Here's a reference that shows that heretability (i.e. genetics) accounts for 50-70% of the total variability in BMI.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8782724?dopt=Abstract
Here's one genetic cause of obesity:
http://www.cam.ac.uk/news/genetic-mutation-causes-obesity
Others include Prader-Willi syndrome and Bardet–Biedl syndrome, genetic disorders which have as one symptom obesity.  There are many other disorders for which obesity is a symptom, and there is no way to prevent them.  So, yes I am serious that obesity is not 100% preventable, because it is a scientific fact.

My apologies, I shouldn't assume that everyone has passed a secondary level physics course. This professor provides a good explanation about the first law of thermodynamics:
http://muller.lbl.gov/TRessays/22-ThePhysicsDiet.htm

beltim

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2957
Re: "But I don't need health insurance"
« Reply #140 on: October 30, 2013, 02:44:05 PM »
Quote

Quote
Obesity is 100% preventable.
False

Are you serious? This is a fact of physics, calories in-calories out. If any human being reduces their intake of calories they will lose weight.
I am serious.  It's not physics, it's biology. 
Here's a reference that shows that heretability (i.e. genetics) accounts for 50-70% of the total variability in BMI.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8782724?dopt=Abstract
Here's one genetic cause of obesity:
http://www.cam.ac.uk/news/genetic-mutation-causes-obesity
Others include Prader-Willi syndrome and Bardet–Biedl syndrome, genetic disorders which have as one symptom obesity.  There are many other disorders for which obesity is a symptom, and there is no way to prevent them.  So, yes I am serious that obesity is not 100% preventable, because it is a scientific fact.

My apologies, I shouldn't assume that everyone has passed a secondary level physics course. This professor provides a good explanation about the first law of thermodynamics:
http://muller.lbl.gov/TRessays/22-ThePhysicsDiet.htm

Very well, physics pedant.  There are genetic conditions people have whereby consumption of an amount of food needed to maximize health results in obesity.  Yes, they could technically reduce their caloric intake to reduce that obesity, at the cost of much larger health problems.  I've listed several of those conditions above.

Now, would you like to respond to my actual point?

frugaldrummer

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 846
Re: "But I don't need health insurance"
« Reply #141 on: October 30, 2013, 03:12:45 PM »
Quote
Insurers are cancelling people's existing plans under ACA and only offering less coverage at a higher rate.


No - insurers are cancelling plans that don't meet the base requirements for adequate coverage under the ACA, and are offering plans that meet the requirements.

Those base requirements are in place to protect people from the shoddy plans that have been out there.

CDP45

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 509
Re: "But I don't need health insurance"
« Reply #142 on: October 30, 2013, 03:23:48 PM »
Quote

Quote
Obesity is 100% preventable.
False

Are you serious? This is a fact of physics, calories in-calories out. If any human being reduces their intake of calories they will lose weight.
I am serious.  It's not physics, it's biology. 
Here's a reference that shows that heretability (i.e. genetics) accounts for 50-70% of the total variability in BMI.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8782724?dopt=Abstract
Here's one genetic cause of obesity:
http://www.cam.ac.uk/news/genetic-mutation-causes-obesity
Others include Prader-Willi syndrome and Bardet–Biedl syndrome, genetic disorders which have as one symptom obesity.  There are many other disorders for which obesity is a symptom, and there is no way to prevent them.  So, yes I am serious that obesity is not 100% preventable, because it is a scientific fact.

My apologies, I shouldn't assume that everyone has passed a secondary level physics course. This professor provides a good explanation about the first law of thermodynamics:
http://muller.lbl.gov/TRessays/22-ThePhysicsDiet.htm

Very well, physics pedant.  There are genetic conditions people have whereby consumption of an amount of food needed to maximize health results in obesity.  Yes, they could technically reduce their caloric intake to reduce that obesity, at the cost of much larger health problems.  I've listed several of those conditions above.

Now, would you like to respond to my actual point?

Again, my apologies as you referenced scientific journals I assumed a laymans explanation would be acceptable to you. 

So now you’re backpedalling. And you are offended because you believe the lies and excuses that so many tell themselves about obesity, that it’s not their fault, it’s out of their control. Your studies only identify that yes every individual's caloric burn rate is different, but that doesn’t negate the fact that by consuming just and infinitesimally net calorie less will stop weight gain and cause weight loss. The amount of food people choose to put in their mouths is entirely within their control. Feeling hungry is not a disease, or an injury, or an emergency. The opposite, the obesity epidemic surely is an emergency.


Quote
they could technically reduce their caloric intake to reduce that obesity, at the cost of much larger health problems.
What?? Your two sources say nothing about this, I doubt there is any evidence that says obese people eating less cause larger health problems! Hahaha. I wish you best of luck with your reality-denying thoughts- have I addressed your actual point?

beltim

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2957
Re: "But I don't need health insurance"
« Reply #143 on: October 30, 2013, 03:31:26 PM »
My point:

Well, if you're willing to sacrifice medical research for short term cost savings, that is an option. I think that is remarkably shortsighted.

Your response:
Quote

Quote
Obesity is 100% preventable.
False

Are you serious? This is a fact of physics, calories in-calories out. If any human being reduces their intake of calories they will lose weight.
I am serious.  It's not physics, it's biology. 
Here's a reference that shows that heretability (i.e. genetics) accounts for 50-70% of the total variability in BMI.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8782724?dopt=Abstract
Here's one genetic cause of obesity:
http://www.cam.ac.uk/news/genetic-mutation-causes-obesity
Others include Prader-Willi syndrome and Bardet–Biedl syndrome, genetic disorders which have as one symptom obesity.  There are many other disorders for which obesity is a symptom, and there is no way to prevent them.  So, yes I am serious that obesity is not 100% preventable, because it is a scientific fact.

My apologies, I shouldn't assume that everyone has passed a secondary level physics course. This professor provides a good explanation about the first law of thermodynamics:
http://muller.lbl.gov/TRessays/22-ThePhysicsDiet.htm

Very well, physics pedant.  There are genetic conditions people have whereby consumption of an amount of food needed to maximize health results in obesity.  Yes, they could technically reduce their caloric intake to reduce that obesity, at the cost of much larger health problems.  I've listed several of those conditions above.

Now, would you like to respond to my actual point?

Again, my apologies as you referenced scientific journals I assumed a laymans explanation would be acceptable to you. 

So now you’re backpedalling. And you are offended because you believe the lies and excuses that so many tell themselves about obesity, that it’s not their fault, it’s out of their control. Your studies only identify that yes every individual's caloric burn rate is different, but that doesn’t negate the fact that by consuming just and infinitesimally net calorie less will stop weight gain and cause weight loss. The amount of food people choose to put in their mouths is entirely within their control. Feeling hungry is not a disease, or an injury, or an emergency. The opposite, the obesity epidemic surely is an emergency.


Quote
they could technically reduce their caloric intake to reduce that obesity, at the cost of much larger health problems.
What?? Your two sources say nothing about this, I doubt there is any evidence that says obese people eating less cause larger health problems! Hahaha. I wish you best of luck with your reality-denying thoughts- have I addressed your actual point?


I don't think you've addressed my point, no.

Jamesqf

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4038
Re: "But I don't need health insurance"
« Reply #144 on: October 30, 2013, 03:32:23 PM »
Very well, physics pedant.  There are genetic conditions people have whereby consumption of an amount of food needed to maximize health results in obesity.  Yes, they could technically reduce their caloric intake to reduce that obesity, at the cost of much larger health problems.  I've listed several of those conditions above.

So how common are those conditions?  Very rare, no?  So amend the comment to "Somewhere around 99% of obesity is preventable", OK?  As for the point that some people have genetics that make it harder (but not impossible) to maintain a healthy weight & physical condition, so what?  There are countless examples which prove that it can be done.  We've already established the fact that life isn't fair :-)

Thanks to a combination of genetic, environment, and personal choice, I don't find it all that hard to stay in shape.  On the other hand, genetics and/or environment have ensured that I find it very difficult to do other things that the majority can do easily.  Should I get a subsidy from the government to make up for this?  Why not?

grantmeaname

  • CM*MW 2023 Attendees
  • Walrus Stache
  • *
  • Posts: 5961
  • Age: 31
  • Location: Middle West
  • Cast me away from yesterday's things
Re: "But I don't need health insurance"
« Reply #145 on: October 30, 2013, 03:36:24 PM »
The Supreme Court says that the government does, indeed, have that right.

Yes, and for many years it said that slavery was legal, women were inferior, it was ok to ban alcoholic beverages, and so on.  The Supreme Court decides what is and is not legal: it's a happy accident when that coincides with what is right.
Rights are a legal concept even though they are spelled the same way as moral right. Tricky, I know.

beltim

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2957
Re: "But I don't need health insurance"
« Reply #146 on: October 30, 2013, 03:44:29 PM »
So how common are those conditions?  Very rare, no?  So amend the comment to "Somewhere around 99% of obesity is preventable", OK?  As for the point that some people have genetics that make it harder (but not impossible) to maintain a healthy weight & physical condition, so what?  There are countless examples which prove that it can be done.  We've already established the fact that life isn't fair :-)

Thanks to a combination of genetic, environment, and personal choice, I don't find it all that hard to stay in shape.  On the other hand, genetics and/or environment have ensured that I find it very difficult to do other things that the majority can do easily.  Should I get a subsidy from the government to make up for this?  Why not?

Good questions!  Yes, the ones I cited are rare, and my objection was mostly from dealing in absolutes.  And, as much as I'd enjoy engaging you on your other questions, doing so would only distract me from my original point, which was that the higher costs of medical care in the US go in part towards funding research into health care.  I think that is an investment into future health care treatments, and a good thing.  Others disagree with me, and I think that is an interesting discussion to have.

CDP45

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 509
Re: "But I don't need health insurance"
« Reply #147 on: October 30, 2013, 03:47:18 PM »
Quote
There are many other disorders for which obesity is a symptom, and there is no way to prevent them.  So, yes I am serious that obesity is not 100% preventable, because it is a scientific fact.]There are many other disorders for which obesity is a symptom, and there is no way to prevent them.  So, yes I am serious that obesity is not 100% preventable, because it is a scientific fact.

Is this your point? Because while the variability of caloric burn in humans is caused by different factors, when relating to weight it's merely a fixed (endogenous) factor. The variable is how many calories consumed. All mass is created by energy, the human body's mass can be changed due to the amount of energy (calories/food) consumed. Obesity is defined as too great of mass, and therefore a reduction in net energy will reduce mass, and that reduction is a choice of simply eating less.

CDP45

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 509
Re: "But I don't need health insurance"
« Reply #148 on: October 30, 2013, 04:00:14 PM »

which was that the higher costs of medical care in the US go in part towards funding research into health care.  I think that is an investment into future health care treatments, and a good thing.  Others disagree with me, and I think that is an interesting discussion to have.

You are wrong: http://www.fightchronicdisease.org/facing-issues/about-crisis

Truth #1    
Chronic diseases are the No. 1 cause of death and disability in the U.S.

Truth #4    The doubling of obesity between 1987 and today accounts for 20 to 30 percent of the rise in health care spending.

Truth #5    The vast majority of cases of chronic disease could be better prevented or managed.

Magic pills aren't going to reduce healthcare spending, well unless those pills result in death. A large factor of the situation in health spending is due to behavioral factors.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/04/30/obesity-now-costs-americans-more-in-healthcare-costs-than-smoking/
Quote
"annual medical spending for an obese person was $3,271 compared with $512 for the non-obese.”
  Gee, just a 638% increase in costs.

beltim

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2957
Re: "But I don't need health insurance"
« Reply #149 on: October 30, 2013, 04:00:51 PM »
Quote
There are many other disorders for which obesity is a symptom, and there is no way to prevent them.  So, yes I am serious that obesity is not 100% preventable, because it is a scientific fact.]There are many other disorders for which obesity is a symptom, and there is no way to prevent them.  So, yes I am serious that obesity is not 100% preventable, because it is a scientific fact.

Is this your point? Because while the variability of caloric burn in humans is caused by different factors, when relating to weight it's merely a fixed (endogenous) factor. The variable is how many calories consumed. All mass is created by energy, the human body's mass can be changed due to the amount of energy (calories/food) consumed. Obesity is defined as too great of mass, and therefore a reduction in net energy will reduce mass, and that reduction is a choice of simply eating less.

Yes, that was a response to a subpoint that I'll stand by.  There are, in fact, many medical causes of obesity that cannot be cured by eating less.  I may have overreached in saying that eating less would be more dangerous to those people's health (such evidence is not quickly obtained).  But you'll note that medical treatment of these diseases do not include eating less.

Anyway, I'd like to hear your thoughts on IP and medicine.  Have you found any patent trolls in the medical field?