Fat people Not responsible.

[nando]

it's both. it's a commodity because you need doctors, nurses, medicine, and hospitals, which are a finite supply.

Canada has a huge doctor and nurse shortage, because demand is essentially infinite, but supply isn't.

going back to the original topic: it would cost a hell of a lot less, overall, to prevent people from getting fat than it does to treat them after the fact..

[Kershaw]

kershaw, as i read his post, believes our healthcare system is not socialistic, .

reread my post, that is not what i said. here's what i said, in smaller words. SOCIALISM ISNT BAD.

i was pointing out all the good things that happen when we work together for the greater good of everyone. like clean drinking water, a chance for everyone to become educated, good roads to get around, etc.

i really believe healthcare is a right, not a commodity. calling it a commodity is essentially calling human life a commodity. and i just dont agree with that.

[nando]

man, you make no sense at all.

I answered your question. If you are going to die (immediately), they have to treat you, regardless of income. I don't disagree with that. It shouldn't be based on whether you have money or not - like I said, not everyone is rich or poor based on their own merits. rich people's lives are not worth more than a poor person's. Actually, that's more of an argument for universal insurance, if anything.

do I disagree with people going to the emergency room for a hangnail or a cold? sure. I don't even know WTF you're talking about with "being chosen or not". now you're arguing about Obamacare? Nobody even mentioned it but you?

debating with you is hilarious and frustrating at the same time. lol

SOCIALISM!! :p

[joshh]

what? sometimes I wonder about what kind of filter your brain uses when reading. I was asking gwb72tii that question. that has nothing to do with taxing fat people or the original discussion.

a car or home isn't a life or death item, either. basically, my point was (and it was a tangent, BTW), does a rich person deserve to live more than a poor person does? It's not a matter of better treatment or not (and yes, even in canada, people who are wealthy still get better treatment - they actually pay for secondary insurance to cover stuff the government doesn't pay for).

Say some guy shows up at the hospital with his arm ripped off, he needs treatment or he'll die. if he's poor and can't afford to pay as much, does that mean he should die? that's what you seem to think. basically, anyone who's not as well off as you, doesn't deserve to live as much as you do.

oh, I'll save you some time: SOCIALISM!! OMBGWTFBBBQ~~! :p

I figured you'd do everything you could to avoid the question. But you accidentally stuck your foot in it anyways. Healthcare is a commodity. Which means whether or not you think a rich person *deserves* (the word you used) better care or not is meaningless. The rich person will have healthcare regardless. And the best of it. As Obamacare will prove.
In the mean time the government will still pick and choose those of the working class that will not receive the life saving operations. They will effectively have been chosen to die. The difference is your master (government) tells you if you live or die.
I'd rather die a free man without the operation than wait in line waiting for a fucking politician to stamp my forehead for approval. All you need to complete the transformation is a collar.

[nando]

Your argument centers around the idea that just because a person has more money/has less they should/should not get better/worse care. So if I asked you, does that same rich person deserve a better car or home than the poor person, how would you respond?

The rich *will always* get better treatment. Rich folks around the world have enough money to go to whatever country they choose for treatment. Do you expect that every single poor person gets the life saving operation they need from a Socialistic system whenever they might need it?

what? sometimes I wonder about what kind of filter your brain uses when reading. I was asking gwb72tii that question. that has nothing to do with taxing fat people or the original discussion.

a car or home isn't a life or death item, either. basically, my point was (and it was a tangent, BTW), does a rich person deserve to live more than a poor person does? It's not a matter of better treatment or not (and yes, even in canada, people who are wealthy still get better treatment - they actually pay for secondary insurance to cover stuff the government doesn't pay for).

Say some guy shows up at the hospital with his arm ripped off, he needs treatment or he'll die. if he's poor and can't afford to pay as much, does that mean he should die? that's what you seem to think. basically, anyone who's not as well off as you, doesn't deserve to live as much as you do.

oh, I'll save you some time: SOCIALISM!! OMBGWTFBBBQ~~! :p

[joshh]

I will say this: the social care system in canada only works because it's basically subsidized by oil & gas exports, along with other commodities. America could never afford the same system. They also have a healthier population.

Interestingly, when it's "free", it switches to queing theory - people don't go to a doc for stupid crap because they have to wait so long. Oh, the service in our pay system is way better, although it should be for the cost...

There's quite the trade off there. Canada couldn't defend their homeland if they had 10 years to plan for it.

And how much more healthy would Americans be if they simply started eating better of their own accord?

Your argument centers around the idea that just because a person has more money/has less they should/should not get better/worse care. So if I asked you, does that same rich person deserve a better car or home than the poor person, how would you respond?

The rich *will always* get better treatment. Rich folks around the world have enough money to go to whatever country they choose for treatment. Do you expect that every single poor person gets the life saving operation they need from a Socialistic system whenever they might need it?

[nando]

I will say this: the social care system in canada only works because it's basically subsidized by oil & gas exports, along with other commodities. America could never afford the same system. They also have a healthier population.

Interestingly, when it's "free", it switches to queing theory - people don't go to a doc for stupid crap because they have to wait so long. Oh, the service in our pay system is way better, although it should be for the cost...

[gwb72tii]

So what you are saying is, you only believe wealthy people deserve life saving treatments? A poor person's life isn't worth as much because they are poor?

no, and this would be better discussed over a beer
but no. kershaw, as i read his post, believes our healthcare system is not socialistic, when in fact it is, ie medicare, medicaid, social security.
what i mean to say is if we actually knew the cost of what we do, such as get fat and unhealthy, or get 5 extra x-rays and 2 MRI's, we might make different choices.
there are plenty of alternatives to the healthcare system we have now, which is not working very well. how about medical savings accounts for everyone where the gov contributes $10k/yr and we spend that first with catastrophic insurance for the amount above $10k. plus you don't lose it if you don't spend it.
the poor are already covered in the USA without obamacare. its called medicaid.

[nando]

kershaw, pls tell me where anywhere in our healthcare system the patient is responsible for costs. our healthcare system IS socialism. how's that working out?

So what you are saying is, you only believe wealthy people deserve life saving treatments? A poor person's life isn't worth as much because they are poor?

[Kershaw]

really?

that's already been covered in depth in this section and the end consensus among the majority (yes i know that does not include you) is that we need more preventive healthcare, less emergency care, and less useless, expensive diagnostic procedures.

[nando]

your argument makes no sense
people don't want to pay so what, we won't make them pay?
how about trying something new, like making them pay? maybe they'd figure it out.
same goes with health care in general

Wow, you couldn't have read that more wrong. Im saying, it *should* cost more for people to be obese. Why burden our healthcare system after the fact?

[gwb72tii]

kershaw, pls tell me where anywhere in our healthcare system the patient is responsible for costs. our healthcare system IS socialism. how's that working out?

[Kershaw]

how about trying something new, like making them pay? maybe they'd figure it out.
same goes with health care in general

hows that working out for the health care system right now? (i know this might be a shock to you, but that's really not working out.)

and next time you guys complain about socialism.... think about all the benefits you guys dont complain about. like tap water, roads, or schools.

"FUCK THE GOVERNMENT PUTTING ROADS WHERE EVER THEY WANT. I WANT TO HAVE A CHOICE TO DRIVE WHERE I WANT. I DONT WANT THE GOVERNMENT TELLING ME WHERE TO DRIVE."

that's really what you sound like to me. :up:

cigarettes are a great analogy. they are bad for you. everyone used them. there was a real anti smoking campaign (like the truth) and they were taxed the hell out of. now... people rarely smoke and the nation is healthier for it.

[mrsleeve]

things are already way harder at 33 than they were at 23. I can't pull 5 hours of sleep a day anymore, I just don't recover like I used to.

Totally agree with this, I mean I can do it once in a while, but not on a daily basis anymore. Hell I used to be able to work all day then make a 30 hour drive with a 2 hour nap at about hour 22. Now fuck 15 hours is all I can do at a time anymore. That and when I crash, off my horse or just hiking, or even just trip, I dont bounce like I used too, I used to get right back up and not skip a beat. Now I just lay there a while to access if anything is broken and that all the parts are in the correct places.

[gwb72tii]

it's people not wanting to realize the true costs of things - be it pollution, overconsumption, corruption, obeseity etc. they cost the economy real dollars & productivity, but nobody wants to pay for the true costs, which end up showing up elsewhere with ugly consequences. better to stick to an ideology, than to actually solve a problem.

your argument makes no sense
people don't want to pay so what, we won't make them pay?
how about trying something new, like making them pay? maybe they'd figure it out.
same goes with health care in general