Health and Taxes (was: Re: government shut down)

[Bloodied Porcelain]

I had to. >.>

[Dashenka]

I had to. >.>

Hahaha

[gaggedLouise]

:)

You'd think it would be Texas threatening to secede over Obamacare...

[mia h]

Just for the sake of an argument...

You can't make money from people being ill but the government CAN make money from people who work hard and have a lot of responsibilities and make a lot of money?

Again, just for the sake of the argument in relation to rising taxes for the higher incomes. Isn't that just as immoral?

No.
Oliver Wendell Holmes “Taxes are the price we pay for civilization.” surely it's more civilized that those who are most able to pay do so.

If governments moved purely to a sales tax based then those at the bottom get hit hardest:
Say the sales tax is 20% someone earning $20,000 has to spend every cent to survive, so is paying 20% of their income in taxes. Now someone earning $1,0000,000 lives off half of that so they end up paying only 10% of their income in taxes.

And having a flat income tax makes no sense at all; if the minimum post-tax wage needed to survive at the most basic level is $20,000 and the flat rate tax is 30% then the minimum pre-tax wage is a little over $28,500. So small firms that employ people on those minimum wages have just seen their wage costs go up by over 40% which causes all kinds of inflationary pressures.
Now the sensible approach would be to make that first $20,000 tax free but that does things, firstly it puts a large hole in government finances and secondly you've just established a progressive tax system. Now back to that hole in the finances, if it was a flat rate above the minimum wage again there are the inflationary problems also you are reducing the chances of those people at the bottom to accumulate wealth and get themselves off the bottom. So why should that earn more, pay more?  It's fairer and like John Dillenger said when he was asked why he robbed banks "That's where the money is."

[Dashenka]

No.
Oliver Wendell Holmes “Taxes are the price we pay for civilization.” surely it's more civilized that those who are most able to pay do so.

If governments moved purely to a sales tax based then those at the bottom get hit hardest:
Say the sales tax is 20% someone earning $20,000 has to spend every cent to survive, so is paying 20% of their income in taxes. Now someone earning $1,0000,000 lives off half of that so they end up paying only 10% of their income in taxes.

And having a flat income tax makes no sense at all; if the minimum post-tax wage needed to survive at the most basic level is $20,000 and the flat rate tax is 30% then the minimum pre-tax wage is a little over $28,500. So small firms that employ people on those minimum wages have just seen their wage costs go up by over 40% which causes all kinds of inflationary pressures.
Now the sensible approach would be to make that first $20,000 tax free but that does things, firstly it puts a large hole in government finances and secondly you've just established a progressive tax system. Now back to that hole in the finances, if it was a flat rate above the minimum wage again there are the inflationary problems also you are reducing the chances of those people at the bottom to accumulate wealth and get themselves off the bottom. So why should that earn more, pay more?  It's fairer and like John Dillenger said when he was asked why he robbed banks "That's where the money is."

I do agree that is logical and perhaps fair but basically you are saying people who are ill shouldn't have to pay anything and people who are rich have to pay more. Emphasis on have to. What makes 'ill' people deserve that advantage. And what if you are ill but happen to have a lot of money? You have to pay it yourself while somebody with no money (for whatever reason) doesn't?
I can understand why some people don't think that's fair.

That does

[mia h]

I do agree that is logical and perhaps fair but basically you are saying people who are ill shouldn't have to pay anything and people who are rich have to pay more. Emphasis on have to. What makes 'ill' people deserve that advantage. And what if you are ill but happen to have a lot of money? You have to pay it yourself while somebody with no money (for whatever reason) doesn't?
I can understand why some people don't think that's fair.

How the government collects taxes and what it does with those taxes are two seperate issues. Also it's really short sighted to link the two together, I don't have any children but my neighbours have 3 kids all of them go to school, why should my taxes go to helping thier kids? Using that logic people should only pay taxes to pay for things they agree with and help them. But if I don't help out and pay for the education of my neighbours kids then those kids are going to be stuck in low paid jobs which means they won't be paying any significant taxes so when I eventually retire those kids won't be paying in enough to cover my retirement benefits. Same thing applies for healthcare, two people have the same illness; one person has good healthcare and gets back to work in two weeks, the other has lousy healthcare and it takes them three months to get back to work. That's three months that person isn't paying taxes and is claiming benefits which has to be paid by the person with the better healthcare, now if the person with good healthcare had helped pay for the healthcare of the other person then it turns out it would cost them less overall

[Dashenka]

I agree but let's say, again for arguments sake, that I work hard to keep my health up. I eat properly, I live healthy etc etc and I got a health insurance just in case. Why should my tax money be spend on people who drink, smoke and lunch and dine at McDonalds without working out?

Spend my tax money on people who really need it and who 'deserve' it.


The point I'm trying to make is you either treat everybody as (roughly) equal, or you treat them as different as they are. Not a bit in between like I feel is going on now in the US.

[Oniya]

'Taxes are not levied for the benefit of the taxed.' Robert A. Heinlein 'The Notebooks of Lazarus Long.' (cited in 'Time Enough For Love.)

What this basically means is that not all of the things that an individual is taxed for are things that they make use of.  As mia pointed out, there's a local tax that goes to school districts, paid by all residents of that district - childfree or not.  Taxes are used to fix roads that I may never use, or maintain parks that I may never visit, or to pay police and firefighters that I may never (hopefully) have to call on.  Taxes are (or should be) used to maintain the infrastructure that keeps society together.  If a large proportion of your society is suffering from the lack of a certain service, that's where the money should be directed.

[gaggedLouise]

"People in this country just don't think they ought to pay taxes"

-heard this line from a British taxation officer who had been invited to Pakistan to help them establish a more efficient methods of collecting taxes.

Winks at Kythia, but actually it's getting to be a more widespread attitude than in just some -stan's.

[Dashenka]

'Taxes are not levied for the benefit of the taxed.' Robert A. Heinlein 'The Notebooks of Lazarus Long.' (cited in 'Time Enough For Love.)

What this basically means is that not all of the things that an individual is taxed for are things that they make use of.  As mia pointed out, there's a local tax that goes to school districts, paid by all residents of that district - childfree or not.  Taxes are used to fix roads that I may never use, or maintain parks that I may never visit, or to pay police and firefighters that I may never (hopefully) have to call on.  Taxes are (or should be) used to maintain the infrastructure that keeps society together.  If a large proportion of your society is suffering from the lack of a certain service, that's where the money should be directed.

Yes I understand that. But why should the rich pay more tax than the poor. In a very black and white world, the rich worked harder to get their money so they deserve it. Why punish them with higher taxes, so they can pay for healthcare for somebody who just doesn't give a fuck.

I said it before, I'm perfectly willing to pay more taxes because I can miss it. But that doesn't mean I want to spend my hard earned money on people who I feel don't deserve it. All those services you said are needed for society to run but my tax money is also being used to pay for the pro Deo attorney of a homeless rapist. It's being spend to help a drunk driver with no insurance in hospital.

I refuse to pay taxes for that, let alone more taxes than the lower incomes.

I'm convinced that everybody with an income higher than they need, is willing to help out society with more taxes but why can't they decide where to spend their taxes on?

[Bloodied Porcelain]

Yes I understand that. But why should the rich pay more tax than the poor. In a very black and white world, the rich worked harder to get their money so they deserve it. Why punish them with higher taxes, so they can pay for healthcare for somebody who just doesn't give a fuck.

I said it before, I'm perfectly willing to pay more taxes because I can miss it. But that doesn't mean I want to spend my hard earned money on people who I feel don't deserve it. All those services you said are needed for society to run but my tax money is also being used to pay for the pro Deo attorney of a homeless rapist. It's being spend to help a drunk driver with no insurance in hospital.

I refuse to pay taxes for that, let alone more taxes than the lower incomes.

I'm convinced that everybody with an income higher than they need, is willing to help out society with more taxes but why can't they decide where to spend their taxes on?

There's very very little evidence to support that every rich person making more money "worked harder". The studies have largely shown the opposite... low income workers work longer hours in more physically demanding jobs. The big difference between what makes someone a high income worker and a low income worker has very little to do with the amount of labor, but the opportunities afforded to them. (Quality of schooling, whether or not they had family that was able to help them get off the ground either by simply being a co-signer on a loan to start a business or paying their kid's way through college, etc) Most low-income workers end up having to work multiple jobs just to make ends meet, working all hours of the day and night, while you have high income workers who work 9-5, steady schedule, paid vacation and benefits, etc.

As someone who fairly recently made the jump from "low wage" to at least moderate wage, I worked FAR harder in the minimum wage job than I do now. The only difference between what I did then and what I did now in terms of how I got here is that this job requires more education and experience, which is something most people in this country who don't come from upper middle class and above income families can't afford to pay for. And heaven forbid you fall firmly in to the middle class... Parents make too much for you to get a pell grant unless you move out (which of course you can't afford because you can't get better than a minimum wage job because you haven't been to college yet), but they make too little to be able to really help with the costs of your schooling because they have to keep a roof over your head and food in your belly. Honestly, in a lot of instances, you're almost better off being low wage than middle class because at least at low wage you can get help. Admittedly not much, but some is better than none.

I personally don't agree with sales taxes at all. I think there should be a luxury tax... if you pay more than X for an item (IE 100 bucks for tennis shoes), then you can obviously afford to pay more so you should have to pay a tax on it. And that's an across the board rule. If you make 20k a year but still want to go dump 100 bucks in to a pair of Adidas tennis shoes? Then you should have to pay a tax on it, the same as a professional athelete would.

[ofDelusions]

Yes I understand that. But why should the rich pay more tax than the poor. In a very black and white world, the rich worked harder to get their money so they deserve it. Why punish them with higher taxes, so they can pay for healthcare for somebody who just doesn't give a fuck.

I said it before, I'm perfectly willing to pay more taxes because I can miss it. But that doesn't mean I want to spend my hard earned money on people who I feel don't deserve it. All those services you said are needed for society to run but my tax money is also being used to pay for the pro Deo attorney of a homeless rapist. It's being spend to help a drunk driver with no insurance in hospital.

I refuse to pay taxes for that, let alone more taxes than the lower incomes.

I'm convinced that everybody with an income higher than they need, is willing to help out society with more taxes but why can't they decide where to spend their taxes on?

Why should this fantasy world have any effect on how taxation works?

Besides even though they pay higher taxes, rich are generally less affected by those taxes. 1000$ is not a same amount of money to someone who makes that in an hour as it is to a person who makes that in two or more weeks.

Also people get to decide how their taxes are spent on by voting.

[mia h]

Yes I understand that. But why should the rich pay more tax than the poor. In a very black and white world, the rich worked harder to get their money so they deserve it. Why punish them with higher taxes, so they can pay for healthcare for somebody who just doesn't give a fuck.

I said it before, I'm perfectly willing to pay more taxes because I can miss it. But that doesn't mean I want to spend my hard earned money on people who I feel don't deserve it. All those services you said are needed for society to run but my tax money is also being used to pay for the pro Deo attorney of a homeless rapist. It's being spend to help a drunk driver with no insurance in hospital.

I refuse to pay taxes for that, let alone more taxes than the lower incomes.

I'm convinced that everybody with an income higher than they need, is willing to help out society with more taxes but why can't they decide where to spend their taxes on?

I suggest you go read a little bit of John Rawl's work especially about the veil of ignorance.

Put simply you are going to 'choose' how your life is going to turn out by picking a random stone from a bag, that stone decides if you are born into a rich family or a poor family, if you have good health or poor health, how smart you are, how good looking you are etc.
Now before you draw that stone you have to decide on a system of Government and general tax and spending policies.

As for

I refuse to pay taxes for that, let alone more taxes than the lower incomes.

so if someone doesn't like you or something about your lifestyle why should they pay taxes to help fund that?

[Dashenka]

Also people get to decide how their taxes are spent on by voting.

Now THAT'S a dreamworld :D


BloodPorcelain,

I think I should have explained the working harder part. I didn't necessarily meant working harder as in physical labour or working hours. It's also the responsibility that gets paid a lot.

For example... a pilot's job, when the airplane is autopilot and everything is well, is the easiest in the world. He sits at the computer and watches the plane fly itself. Yet still, he has the responsibility for everybody and everything aboard that plane. So he 'deserves' more money than let's say, a shop clerk or a city worker. The CEO of a big company 'deserves' more because he has the responsibility (if not shared) over the entire business. These jobs bring a lot more stress than the other jobs I mentioned.

So saying they work harder wasn't really what I meant.

If the system is so that the low income gets help and the middle income earning just a bit more doesn't, thus making it more attractive to stay in the low income, there is something fundamentally wrong with the system AND with the mentality of the people. One law or rule won't change that.

Your tax idea is good and in a way already in place in some countries. I believe that here in the UK, you pay taxes on the products you buy, called VAT (Value Added Tax) although I haven't really dug into how that exactly works but more countries in Europe have that. I know that in the Netherlands you pay 21% tax on products. So the more expensive something is, the higher the tax will be.

As forso if someone doesn't like you or something about your lifestyle why should they pay taxes to help fund that?

Up to a point yes. What I meant is why should I try and stay healthy and still pay for somebody who doesn't give a shit about his/her health?

[Kythia]

Up to a point yes. What I meant is why should I try and stay healthy and still pay for somebody who doesn't give a shit about his/her health?

Because being healthy is better.  Sure, if I'm fat and a heavy smoker and an alcoholic then your taxes are supporting my health through the NHS (sidelining the issue of taxes on those products - in this country nicotine tax almost pays for the NHS so technically I'm supporting you.  But that's a side issue).  But I'm unhealthy.  I have a lower quality of life.  Why should you try and stay healthy when the government will pay for your care if you're not?  Because being healthy is objectively better.  There are many people on E with various health issues, some quite severe.  Ask any of them, your choice, whether they'd want to be rid of the health issue or not even if their care was free.  Of course they would.  You should stay healthy purely because of self interest.

[Dashenka]

Because being healthy is better.  Sure, if I'm fat and a heavy smoker and an alcoholic then your taxes are supporting my health through the NHS (sidelining the issue of taxes on those products - in this country nicotine tax almost pays for the NHS so technically I'm supporting you.  But that's a side issue).  But I'm unhealthy.  I have a lower quality of life.  Why should you try and stay healthy when the government will pay for your care if you're not?  Because being healthy is objectively better.  There are many people on E with various health issues, some quite severe.  Ask any of them, your choice, whether they'd want to be rid of the health issue or not even if their care was free.  Of course they would.  You should stay healthy purely because of self interest.

Oh let me get this straight then. Being unhealthy because of mother nature should be funded and I'll gladly pay taxes to everybody with a medical condition he/she can't do anything about. Hell I'll even pay 70% taxes if that helps those people get better or have a better quality of life. But I refuse to pay for the diabetes treatment if you smoke, don't excercise and eat only junkfood. Or pay for your lung cancer treatmemt if you keep smoking.

Let me ask you this. I like cars and I like driving (too) fast. One a night, bit of rain, bit of fog, I'm doing 90mph over a provincial road, lose control and wrap my 911 around a tree. Should you pay for that?

[Misterme]

Because being healthy is better.  Sure, if I'm fat and a heavy smoker and an alcoholic then your taxes are supporting my health through the NHS (sidelining the issue of taxes on those products - in this country nicotine tax almost pays for the NHS so technically I'm supporting you.  But that's a side issue).  But I'm unhealthy.  I have a lower quality of life.  Why should you try and stay healthy when the government will pay for your care if you're not?  Because being healthy is objectively better.  There are many people on E with various health issues, some quite severe.  Ask any of them, your choice, whether they'd want to be rid of the health issue or not even if their care was free.  Of course they would.  You should stay healthy purely because of self interest.

My wife has been battling an illness for the better part of 8 years that the doctors can not diagnose. I would love to see her live pain free and illness free but at what cost. If it were possible i would take it from her and put it on me. We are not financially well off and dont know if we ever will be. Health insurance isn't cheap by any means. Here is my thinking (not intended to make people upset just my opinion) take some poor hillbilly who has to make is food by farming and hunting who has no money and watch the national debt start going down. Watch the nation start to prosper. Watch the cost of insurance and doctors visit decline. I think its time to stop all the Chicago politics.

[Bloodied Porcelain]

BloodPorcelain,

I think I should have explained the working harder part. I didn't necessarily meant working harder as in physical labour or working hours. It's also the responsibility that gets paid a lot.

For example... a pilot's job, when the airplane is autopilot and everything is well, is the easiest in the world. He sits at the computer and watches the plane fly itself. Yet still, he has the responsibility for everybody and everything aboard that plane. So he 'deserves' more money than let's say, a shop clerk or a city worker. The CEO of a big company 'deserves' more because he has the responsibility (if not shared) over the entire business. These jobs bring a lot more stress than the other jobs I mentioned.

So saying they work harder wasn't really what I meant.

If the system is so that the low income gets help and the middle income earning just a bit more doesn't, thus making it more attractive to stay in the low income, there is something fundamentally wrong with the system AND with the mentality of the people. One law or rule won't change that.

Your tax idea is good and in a way already in place in some countries. I believe that here in the UK, you pay taxes on the products you buy, called VAT (Value Added Tax) although I haven't really dug into how that exactly works but more countries in Europe have that. I know that in the Netherlands you pay 21% tax on products. So the more expensive something is, the higher the tax will be.

A cook in a restaraunt that only makes 8 bucks an hour (more than minimum wage, I'm rounding up just to make it easier) is literally cooking something that will go inside people's bodies. All it takes is one slip up from him and everyone who eats his food gets ill, possibly dies depending on what exactly his fuck up (or wrong headedness if he does it on purpose) is. Statistically, you're more likely to die from some kind of food-bourne illness than you are in a plane, and more people on average will eat in a busy restaraunt in one night than people who will fly on a plane per trip. So exactly what makes the two different aside from the level of schooling involved? Garbage workers drive massive metal trucks around, usually at the ass-crack of dawn shortly after waking up, and are taking the lives of everyone they drive near in to their hands. All it takes is the guy behind the wheel nodding off (fatigued is just as dangerous as drunk driving) and he can take out joggers on the side of the road, a family of four up early to go to the kid's practice/game that's hours away, etc etc. Literally almost every single job out there requires you to take the lives of those around you in to your hands, even if it's not overt, and most lower paying jobs have far more risk associated with them than higher paying, for both the person doing the job and the people around them.

Incidentally, I totally agree that the system is flawed that it shafts the middle class. I AM middle class. I make just enough to not qualify for help anymore, and too little to be able to realistically do much for anything. I'm VERY lucky I qualify for the pell grant, but only because they lifted the cap on it. A couple years ago, I was making too much. It's getting better for the middle class, but it's a slow climb and it's only happening in small places.

Up to a point yes. What I meant is why should I try and stay healthy and still pay for somebody who doesn't give a shit about his/her health?

And who are you to make the call what someone's lifestyle quality should have to be? Why do you get to decide that your health regimine makes you more deserving than someone else's? Who are you to make the call that your money is more important than their life?

Oh let me get this straight then. Being unhealthy because of mother nature should be funded and I'll gladly pay taxes to everybody with a medical condition he/she can't do anything about. Hell I'll even pay 70% taxes if that helps those people get better or have a better quality of life. But I refuse to pay for the diabetes treatment if you smoke, don't excercise and eat only junkfood. Or pay for your lung cancer treatmemt if you keep smoking.

Let me ask you this. I like cars and I like driving (too) fast. One a night, bit of rain, bit of fog, I'm doing 90mph over a provincial road, lose control and wrap my 911 around a tree. Should you pay for that?

Yes. Why? Because it's better to pay for your care and get you back on your feet and working ASAP than to let you suffer and take longer to get better (or potentially never get better) and be a drain on the system for the rest of your life because you can't work and thus can't pay taxes. The fact that you don't understand that making sure that affordable care for everyone is the best option and for the greater good simply baffles me. It's simple economics, and you're trying to make it a matter of you having the right to pass judgement on others.

[Kythia]

Let me ask you this. I like cars and I like driving (too) fast. One a night, bit of rain, bit of fog, I'm doing 90mph over a provincial road, lose control and wrap my 911 around a tree. Should you pay for that?

The alternative, Dashenka, is people dying.  People dying.  I know you realise that but I wanted to make it explicit.  Let's be clear, the majority of cases treated by the NHS aren't caused by the conscious actions of the patients.  So the majority of what tax I pay that goes to the NHS goes to the issues you say you'll have no problem with funding. 

Without going in to my finances too deeply, I pay about three hundred per month income tax.  A fraction of which goes to the NHS, a fraction of which goes to care for the people you don't want to pay for.  According to here roughly 23% of my income tax goes to the NHS.  In my case, £69 per month.  Lets say I could drop it to £59 if I was somehow able to refuse to pay for the types of patients you don't want to pay for.

Your question is "Are you willing to pay a tenner a month for people not to die."  Yes.  Yes I am.

[Dashenka]

The drain I become when I end up in a wheelchair because of my own stupidity is why? Because the government pays for me. The government pays me for being an utter imbecile and driving too fast and because the government is paying, you are paying.

If you stop paying, the government will stop paying (or the other way around) and I will be nobody's drain because I have to work it out myself. I caused it to myself, I'll have to fix it.

Car insurances in Russia are insane because nobody bothers to take driving lessons and they don't care when they crash because the insurance company or the government will pay.

Stop paying for people who are a drain on the economy. Not just you and me, but the government as well. If you wrap your car around a tree because you are drunk YOU fucked up, YOU un-fuck it. Not the government, not the tax payer.

This is a free-pass for everybody to mess up their finances and their health because there's always a bail-out. It's kindergarten on a global level.

[Oniya]

Here is my thinking (not intended to make people upset just my opinion) take some poor hillbilly who has to make is food by farming and hunting who has no money and watch the national debt start going down. Watch the nation start to prosper. Watch the cost of insurance and doctors visit decline. I think its time to stop all the Chicago politics.

Not a new idea, but maybe one that people have lost sight of.

Car insurances in Russia are insane because nobody bothers to take driving lessons and they don't care when they crash because the insurance company or the government will pay.

In America, people who take driving lessons and maintain a clean driving record (no DUIs, accidents, speeding tickets, whatever) pay less on insurance.  Out of pure self-interest - that is, not wanting to spend insane amounts on car insurance - more people take lessons and drive more safely.  You also can't get a license at all without having taken a modicum of instruction, so 'not taking lessons at all' simply isn't an option.

[Bloodied Porcelain]

The drain I become when I end up in a wheelchair because of my own stupidity is why? Because the government pays for me. The government pays me for being an utter imbecile and driving too fast and because the government is paying, you are paying.

If you stop paying, the government will stop paying (or the other way around) and I will be nobody's drain because I have to work it out myself. I caused it to myself, I'll have to fix it.

Car insurances in Russia are insane because nobody bothers to take driving lessons and they don't care when they crash because the insurance company or the government will pay.

Stop paying for people who are a drain on the economy. Not just you and me, but the government as well. If you wrap your car around a tree because you are drunk YOU fucked up, YOU un-fuck it. Not the government, not the tax payer.

This is a free-pass for everybody to mess up their finances and their health because there's always a bail-out. It's kindergarten on a global level.

And now you're basically saying that there should be 0 morals involved in anything and that you only have a right to live if you do things completely perfectly. Survival of the fittest, basically, which is a view that completely puts humanity out the window and leaves no place for it. And it's not just you and your care after your accident that the tax payers have to pay for. We also have to pay for the people you may have hurt, the damage you did to the things you hit provided they were public property, the money the hospitals have to pay to try to make YOU pay your debt to them, etc etc etc. If someone gets in to a position where they can't pay, then they obviously won't. And the rest of us have to keep spending money to offset that problem, even if we don't ever touch the debt itself. Chances are that person goes to their grave never paying their debt. What do you think happens to that money when they die because they're starving because they couldn't work because there was no care system in place to help them get better in order to go back to work? That debt either ends up falling on their family, who had nothing to do with their fuck up, or it falls on the tax payers in the end anyway. Only now it's WAY worse because of interest, extra incurred prices we dealt with trying to make them give us money they didn't have, etc etc. It's fiscally irresponsible to leave people on their own that way.

[Kythia]

The drain I become when I end up in a wheelchair because of my own stupidity is why? Because the government pays for me. The government pays me for being an utter imbecile and driving too fast and because the government is paying, you are paying.

Woah there soldier.  Steady on.  My boss is wheelchair bound and is a productive member of society and a taxpayer.  Lets try not to equate "disabled" with "drain on society" shall we?  We have a blind MP for god's sake.

You had a good job and paid taxes - we know that from the fact you can afford a 911.  After we patch you up, you'll still have a good job and still pay taxes.  Will the taxes gained equal the cost of care in every case?  No, probably not.  I have no idea of the stats in all honesty.  But they will in some, certainly.

Are you suggesting we conduct a ruthless cost benefit analysis of how much tax a patient will pay over their working life vs. the cost of healing them?

[Bloodied Porcelain]

Woah there soldier.  Steady on.  My boss is wheelchair bound and is a productive member of society and a taxpayer.  Lets try not to equate "disabled" with "drain on society" shall we?  We have a blind MP for god's sake.

You had a good job and paid taxes - we know that from the fact you can afford a 911.  After we patch you up, you'll still have a good job and still pay taxes.  Will the taxes gained equal the cost of care in every case?  No, probably not.  I have no idea of the stats in all honesty.  But they will in some, certainly.

Are you suggesting we conduct a ruthless cost benefit analysis of how much tax a patient will pay over their working life vs. the cost of healing them?

Few people will ever completely tap out their insurance and use every penny they pay in toward it. They don't get the money back like you do in grants or things of that nature, it goes in to a fund. That's where the extra money to make up for those who DO basically use it all up comes from.

[Kythia]

Few people will ever completely tap out their insurance and use every penny they pay in toward it. They don't get the money back like you do in grants or things of that nature, it goes in to a fund. That's where the extra money to make up for those who DO basically use it all up comes from.

Well, there you have it.  Our costs of care are orders of magnitude lower than the US's and even over there healing people is normally an economic winner.

Even if "People will die" isn't enough for you (and dear god, why not?), even if you do want to be ruthlessly fiscal about it all - it still makes sense.

[Bloodied Porcelain]

Well, there you have it.  Our costs of care are orders of magnitude lower than the US's and even over there healing people is normally an economic winner.

Even if "People will die" isn't enough for you (and dear god, why not?), even if you do want to be ruthlessly fiscal about it all - it still makes sense.

What bothers me about our current system is that not only are we paying WAY more than everyone else on ALL fronts for our care (we pay 18% more in taxes toward health care... and yet pre-ACA sign ups only 23% of the populace was recieving healthcare funded by the gov't), but statistically, our medical care here in the US achieves no better results than in the UK or any other developed country with universal/national care. We're 33rd in life expectancy. =/

[Dashenka]

You're both missing my point.

In a system like that, there is little incentive to prevent. Why would I pay for my health insurance when somebody else doesn't and the result is the same. Why would I pay more taxes to help people when there is no incentive from these people to help themselves?

[Kythia]

What bothers me about our current system is that not only are we paying WAY more than everyone else on ALL fronts for our care (we pay 18% more in taxes toward health care... and yet pre-ACA sign ups only 23% of the populace was recieving healthcare funded by the gov't), but statistically, our medical care here in the US achieves no better results than in the UK or any other developed country with universal/national care. We're 33rd in life expectancy. =/

Yeah, I was just looking at this graph  We're paying less than half of what you are and living two years longer.  Sure, the figures are a couple of years old but I can't imagine that much has changed.  How that fact alone isn't proof enough...

You're both missing my point.

In a system like that, there is little incentive to prevent. Why would I pay for my health insurance when somebody else doesn't and the result is the same. Why would I pay more taxes to help people when there is no incentive from these people to help themselves?

There is an incentive, Dashenka.  Being healthy.  Misterme has spoken about his wife's health problems in this thread, Vekseid has touched on his.  Not that I'm for one second claiming either of those cases are self-inflicted.  Simply that being unwell is miserable.  The incentive to help yourself is to live a life free of agonising pain, worry, hospital appointments and all the other negative accoutrements.  That's a pretty fucking big incentive.

Edit:  Whoops.  Pasted the wrong link.  Corrected now

[Bloodied Porcelain]

You're both missing my point.

In a system like that, there is little incentive to prevent. Why would I pay for my health insurance when somebody else doesn't and the result is the same. Why would I pay more taxes to help people when there is no incentive from these people to help themselves?

We've answered this multiple times. Pure self interest. Keeping yourself healthy gives you a better quality of life. Even if your insurance would pay to handle whatever problem you might have brought upon yourself, most people would rather not have to deal with that problem in the first place. The fact that you are all about a healthy life style just proves my point.

[mia h]

Stop paying for people who are a drain on the economy. Not just you and me, but the government as well.

So the elderly, the indigent in fact anyone on any type of benefits; we should round them all up in a field and shoot them because that way they'll all stop being a drain on the economy. Unless they are funeral directors because they're about to have a really good year.

[Dashenka]

Keeping yourself healthy gives you a better quality of life.

Simply that being unwell is miserable.  The incentive to help yourself is to live a life free of agonising pain, worry, hospital appointments and all the other negative accoutrements.  That's a pretty fucking big incentive.

Is that why there are over 1 billion obese adults on the world of which 300 million are critically obese? These people (with a few exceptions) are either stupid for not knowing it's dangerous, or did it themselves.
These people obviously don't care about that as they think or feel their quality of life gets better with more butter and fat.

I agree that being healthy gives me a better quality of life but as long as 1 billion people globally don't give a fuck, why should I? For these people being healthy isn't enough incentive so why on God's green earth should it be for me to pay for them?

I see it as my duty to help those less fortunate then myself. If I could help Misterme's wife, I'd transfer the money instantly. Same for Veks and everybody else who's ill. But for people who do it willingly to themselves, like eating like a pig, or getting behind the wheel when you're totally wasted, I'm sorry I got no sympathy for that and if I could, I would refuse to pay even a penny for these people.

[TheGlyphstone]

Believing that all obese people are that way simply because they eat too much is hideously ignorant of medical realities.

[Bloodied Porcelain]

Is that why there are over 1 billion obese adults on the world of which 300 million are critically obese? These people (with a few exceptions) are either stupid for not knowing it's dangerous, or did it themselves.
These people obviously don't care about that as they think or feel their quality of life gets better with more butter and fat.

I agree that being healthy gives me a better quality of life but as long as 1 billion people globally don't give a fuck, why should I? For these people being healthy isn't enough incentive so why on God's green earth should it be for me to pay for them?

I see it as my duty to help those less fortunate then myself. If I could help Misterme's wife, I'd transfer the money instantly. Same for Veks and everybody else who's ill. But for people who do it willingly to themselves, like eating like a pig, or getting behind the wheel when you're totally wasted, I'm sorry I got no sympathy for that and if I could, I would refuse to pay even a penny for these people.

So by your logic, I should be able to deny YOU coverage (assuming you're in a country where it's national health care and not private) because I think you're heartless and I think that's unhealthy? I'm not trying to be mean, I'm just pointing it out. The way you're viewing things isn't what I see as a normal, healthy life view, so I shouldn't have to pay in to the system to make sure you get back to work if your view makes you a target for some grieving widower who just loss his wife because she went in to a diabetic coma and died because you refused to help pay for her healthcare, right?

Believing that all obese people are that way simply because they eat too much is hideously ignorant of medical realities.

+10000000000

[Torch]

Believing that all obese people are that way simply because they eat too much is hideously ignorant of medical realities.

Not all, but yes, obesity is, for most people (not all but most), a self-inflicted state (i.e. eating too much and exercising too little).

We have a 35% adult obesity rate in the US. Very few of those cases are due to medication side effects, hormonal side effects, slow metabolism and the like.

The simple fact is, if you eat too much and move too little, you will gain weight. Period.

[Dashenka]

Believing that all obese people are that way simply because they eat too much is hideously ignorant of medical realities.

That's why I bracketed a few exceptions. I know some people are clinically obese.

The others are 99% self inflicted because they eat the wrong shit and are lazy as a pig. If you drive too fast, your chances of having an accident are higher. If you jump of the 8th floor of a building, you most likely die.

Unless people are too stupid to realize that (which would technically make it clinical) obesity is something you do to yourself.

[Bloodied Porcelain]

Not all, but yes, obesity is, for most people (not all but most), a self-inflicted state (i.e. eating too much and exercising too little).

We have a 35% adult obesity rate in the US. Very few of those cases are due to medication side effects, hormonal side effects, slow metabolism and the like.

The simple fact is, if you eat too much and move too little, you will gain weight. Period.

Technically, that's not entirely true. There is plenty of evidence to support that a lot of it is genetic predisposition. Some people are naturally predisposed to having a faster metabolism, regardless of how active they are or what they eat. Some people have a slower metabolism for the same reason. There are also a TON of people running around the US right now with undiagnosed medical issues that are most likely contributing to their weight problems. Then you have to take in to account how difficult it is to get food that is honestly good for you at a price that isn't highway robery. My last trip to the grocery store was largely meet and fresh fruits and veggies, as well as all organic snacks and whatnot for our lunches. Enough for myself and my son for three to four weeks. Do you know what it cost me? Almost 200 bucks. That's a LOT for a single person to bear the brunt of paying for. People opt to eat food that isn't good for them because it's better for their wallet in the long run, not because they "just don't want to eat healthy". Then you get in to the issues where people's pallets become conditioned to get used to certain types and quality foods and when they can afford better food, they don't like the taste of it because of that. There's dozens of reasons why obesity exists, and the "eating too much, working out too little" is just the easy excuse people latch on to because it gives them a chance to feel superior.

[Kythia]

Technically, that's not entirely true. There is plenty of evidence to support that a lot of it is genetic predisposition. Some people are naturally predisposed to having a faster metabolism, regardless of how active they are or what they eat. Some people have a slower metabolism for the same reason. There are also a TON of people running around the US right now with undiagnosed medical issues that are most likely contributing to their weight problems. Then you have to take in to account how difficult it is to get food that is honestly good for you at a price that isn't highway robery. My last trip to the grocery store was largely meet and fresh fruits and veggies, as well as all organic snacks and whatnot for our lunches. Enough for myself and my son for three to four weeks. Do you know what it cost me? Almost 200 bucks. That's a LOT for a single person to bear the brunt of paying for. People opt to eat food that isn't good for them because it's better for their wallet in the long run, not because they "just don't want to eat healthy". Then you get in to the issues where people's pallets become conditioned to get used to certain types and quality foods and when they can afford better food, they don't like the taste of it because of that. There's dozens of reasons why obesity exists, and the "eating too much, working out too little" is just the easy excuse people latch on to because it gives them a chance to feel superior.

Precisely.  Add to that the fact that obesity is, at least over here, defined purely in terms of BMI which is a notoriously shitty measurement (waist/hip ratio is much better) and stats on "percentage of the population who are obese" are pretty much meaningless

[Dashenka]

If obesity is NOT self inflicted and thus has another reason, why does every continent in the world suffer from it except Africa? Is that because they have the healthiest diet? No. It's because they excercise a lot and don't eat too much fat.

But all that is not the point. It's about whether or not we should pay for people who do stupid things regarding their health.

[Kythia]

If obesity is NOT self inflicted and thus has another reason, why does every continent in the world suffer from it except Africa? Is that because they have the healthiest diet? No. It's because they excercise a lot and don't eat too much fat.

Yup.  Healthy living is what I think of when I think of sub-Saharan Africa.  Just pure, wall to wall healthiness.

I think I I'm out.  Nice talking with you, Bloodied and Dashenka.

[Torch]

Technically, that's not entirely true.

No, actually it is true.

The number one factor in the obesity epidemic, according to both the NIH and the CDC is energy imbalance, i.e. taking in more energy or calories than you expend.

NIH - What Causes Obesity?

CDC - Obesity, Causes and Consequences

I'm not denying that there are other factors involved for some folks, and the CDC and the NIH recognizes those factors. The fact remains, however, that energy imbalance is within the control of most adults.

[Bloodied Porcelain]

If obesity is NOT self inflicted and thus has another reason, why does every continent in the world suffer from it except Africa? Is that because they have the healthiest diet? No. It's because they excercise a lot and don't eat too much fat.

But all that is not the point. It's about whether or not we should pay for people who do stupid things regarding their health.

That is a gloriously ignorant view point. PLEASE go look up the statistics on the number of people living in poverty in Africa before you try to use their situation to support your argument. They don't have the cheap food substitutes we do, they don't have enough food period, that's why they don't "suffer" from it. Nevermind the fact that the dramatically lower quality of life in most of Africa means a huge portion of their population doesn't live past childhood.

Poverty Facts and Stats

Around 27-28 percent of all children in developing countries are estimated to be underweight or stunted. The two regions that account for the bulk of the deficit are South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa.

If current trends continue, the Millennium Development Goals target of halving the proportion of underweight children will be missed by 30 million children, largely because of slow progress in Southern Asia and sub-Saharan Africa.

Infectious diseases continue to blight the lives of the poor across the world. An estimated 40 million people are living with HIV/AIDS, with 3 million deaths in 2004. Every year there are 350–500 million cases of malaria, with 1 million fatalities: Africa accounts for 90 percent of malarial deaths and African children account for over 80 percent of malaria victims worldwide

Water problems affect half of humanity:

•Some 1.1 billion people in developing countries have inadequate access to water, and 2.6 billion lack basic sanitation.
•Almost two in three people lacking access to clean water survive on less than $2 a day, with one in three living on less than $1 a day.
•More than 660 million people without sanitation live on less than $2 a day, and more than 385 million on less than $1 a day.
•Access to piped water into the household averages about 85% for the wealthiest 20% of the population, compared with 25% for the poorest 20%.
•1.8 billion people who have access to a water source within 1 kilometre, but not in their house or yard, consume around 20 litres per day. In the United Kingdom the average person uses more than 50 litres of water a day flushing toilets (where average daily water usage is about 150 liters a day. The highest average water use in the world is in the US, at 600 liters day.)
•Some 1.8 million child deaths each year as a result of diarrhoea
•The loss of 443 million school days each year from water-related illness.
•Close to half of all people in developing countries suffering at any given time from a health problem caused by water and sanitation deficits.
•Millions of women spending several hours a day collecting water.
•To these human costs can be added the massive economic waste associated with the water and sanitation deficit.… The costs associated with health spending, productivity losses and labour diversions … are greatest in some of the poorest countries. Sub-Saharan Africa loses about 5% of GDP, or some $28.4 billion annually, a figure that exceeds total aid flows and debt relief to the region in 2003.

[Dashenka]

So what is the reason for obesity then?


But again, that's not the discussion, nor is it relevant to my point.

[Oniya]

If obesity is NOT self inflicted and thus has another reason, why does every continent in the world suffer from it except Africa? Is that because they have the healthiest diet? No. It's because they excercise a lot and don't eat too much fat.

But all that is not the point. It's about whether or not we should pay for people who do stupid things regarding their health.

Okay.  The average person living on welfare has to deal with having a limited food budget.  This video shows a congressman attempting to make the standard foodstamp allowance cover groceries, and the decisions of what he has to leave off the menu in order to make the amount he has to spend stretch far enough.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNkLUqAgupc

It's one thing to say that people 'do stupid things to their health', and another to realize that in some cases they might be forced into doing those 'stupid things' just to survive the week.

[gaggedLouise]

If obesity is NOT self inflicted and thus has another reason, why does every continent in the world suffer from it except Africa? Is that because they have the healthiest diet? No. It's because they excercise a lot and don't eat too much fat.

But all that is not the point. It's about whether or not we should pay for people who do stupid things regarding their health.

How about: because most Africans can't afford to eat food with a good deal of fat? Even a healthy dose of it - there's nothing intrinsically bad about fat, we need it to be able to grow our bodies and stay active. Many Africans (or people living on very low incomes elsewhere, as Oniya pointed out) can't afford to eat even healthy food, or eat enough to fill their needs of nutrition and energy, but Africa today doesn't have bear the medical coverage it would need and most people live in the countryside or in urban slums, so their health troubles (on average in large populations) are likely to go unattended anyway.

[Bloodied Porcelain]

No, actually it is true.

The number one factor in the obesity epidemic, according to both the NIH and the CDC is energy imbalance, i.e. taking in more energy or calories than you expend.

NIH - What Causes Obesity?

CDC - Obesity, Causes and Consequences

I'm not denying that there are other factors involved for some folks, and the CDC and the NIH recognizes those factors. The fact remains, however, that energy imbalance is within the control of most adults.

My point is that you're looking at the surface "fix" and not looking at the underlying cause. Healthy food is expensive and it really doesn't matter how much you exersize, if your food isn't good enough quality, all you'll do is make yourself even MORE sick because your body doesn't have the kind of nutrients and vitamins it NEEDS to offset all the physical activity you're doing and you end up with deficiencies and even more sick than when you started out.

Incidentally, the first link you gave supports everything I've said about environmental issues being a massive contributing factor:

Environment
Our environment doesn't support healthy lifestyle habits; in fact, it encourages obesity. Some reasons include:

•Lack of neighborhood sidewalks and safe places for recreation. Not having area parks, trails, sidewalks, and affordable gyms makes it hard for people to be physically active.
•Work schedules. People often say that they don't have time to be physically active because of long work hours and time spent commuting.
•Oversized food portions. Americans are exposed to huge food portions in restaurants, fast food places, gas stations, movie theaters, supermarkets, and even at home. Some of these meals and snacks can feed two or more people. Eating large portions means too much energy IN. Over time, this will cause weight gain if it isn't balanced with physical activity.
•Lack of access to healthy foods. Some people don't live in neighborhoods that have supermarkets that sell healthy foods, such as fresh fruits and vegetables. Or, for some people, these healthy foods are too costly.
•Food advertising. Americans are surrounded by ads from food companies. Often children are the targets of advertising for high-calorie, high-fat snacks and sugary drinks. The goal of these ads is to sway people to buy these high-calorie foods, and often they do.
Genes and Family History
Studies of identical twins who have been raised apart show that genes have a strong influence on a person's weight. Overweight and obesity tend to run in families. Your chances of being overweight are greater if one or both of your parents are overweight or obese.

Your genes also may affect the amount of fat you store in your body and where on your body you carry the extra fat. Because families also share food and physical activity habits, a link exists between genes and the environment.

Children adopt the habits of their parents. A child who has overweight parents who eat high-calorie foods and are inactive will likely become overweight too. However, if the family adopts healthy food and physical activity habits, the child's chance of being overweight or obese is reduced.

[Dashenka]

My point is that you're looking at the surface "fix" and not looking at the underlying cause. Healthy food is expensive and it really doesn't matter how much you exersize, if your food isn't good enough quality, all you'll do is make yourself even MORE sick because your body doesn't have the kind of nutrients and vitamins it NEEDS to offset all the physical activity you're doing and you end up with deficiencies and even more sick than when you started out.

'Healthy' food isn't expensive.

Bread and milk isn't expensive, nor is water. How about having a peanutbutter sandwich instead of doubles fries with mayonaise? Or boil your potatoes rather than fry them. Or instead of having a soda drink, have a glass of water. It's not about 'healthy' food because all that biological shit is indeed expensive (and fraudulent) but normal food isn't expensive if you know what to get and it doesn't make you fat if you at least walk 30 minutes a day which most people do.


But can we get back to the point of the health insurances rather than to get bogged down into obesity?

[Retribution]

Uh guys *raises hand* I think the fact that this thread has now somehow turned into a discussion of a supposed national vendetta against the poor and the fat who are poor and fat through no fault of their own sort of shows how groups like the Tea Party gain traction. This whole discussion just suddenly turned very strange from my PoV.

[Dashenka]

It did.

[Vekseid]

I agree but let's say, again for arguments sake, that I work hard to keep my health up. I eat properly, I live healthy etc etc and I got a health insurance just in case. Why should my tax money be spend on people who drink, smoke and lunch and dine at McDonalds without working out?

Sin taxes are supposed to cover the added costs of these things, though obviously in the US this is more true for smokers, middling for alcohol (small amounts are even beneficial) and not at all for fast food (but the actual causes of the obesity epidemic in the US are only now being worked out - and it has little to do with overeating).

Spend my tax money on people who really need it and who 'deserve' it.

I've seen libertarians seriously argue for not funding vaccinations or infectious disease containment.

And they root for defunding America's only method of actually combating bioterrorism.

The point I'm trying to make is you either treat everybody as (roughly) equal, or you treat them as different as they are. Not a bit in between like I feel is going on now in the US.

If it weren't for our military expenditures, we could probably get away with nothing more than healthy taxes on unearned income, a modest amount of sin and property taxes (in particular, intellectual property and radio spectrum), small tariffs (I support free trade in general, but I do think an e.g. flat 5% global tariff would help boost local stability and independence in general - and would consequently be a good thing), and revenue from government services and the Federal Reserve.

Right now, though, we give unearned income ridiculously preferential treatment, and a lot of benefits programs are designed as traps to keep the extremely poor 'content' and fighting against the middle class rather than outright rioting or working to escape their condition.

[Vekseid]

figure I'ma just split the topic, moment peoples >_>

[TheGlyphstone]

Uh guys *raises hand* I think the fact that this thread has now somehow turned into a discussion of a supposed national vendetta against the poor and the fat who are poor and fat through no fault of their own sort of shows how groups like the Tea Party gain traction. This whole discussion just suddenly turned very strange from my PoV.

You have a good point, actually. I'm not even sure how we got here in the first place, but returning to bickering about the shutdown is probably a better idea.

figure I'ma just split the topic, moment peoples >_>

Or we do this. Yay for admin powers.

[Dashenka]

Don't split it for me. :)

[gaggedLouise]

'Healthy' food isn't expensive.

Bread and milk isn't expensive, nor is water. How about having a peanutbutter sandwich instead of doubles fries with mayonaise? Or boil your potatoes rather than fry them. Or instead of having a soda drink, have a glass of water. It's not about 'healthy' food because all that biological shit is indeed expensive (and fraudulent) but normal food isn't expensive if you know what to get and it doesn't make you fat if you at least walk 30 minutes a day which most people do.


But can we get back to the point of the health insurances rather than to get bogged down into obesity?

Should pose several questions, but I'm in a hurry so just this one:

How long would you survive a Russian winter on milk, sandwiches, tea, locally grown veggies and some marmalade? Or even an English or German winter? When we're talking "healthy foods" I do think what's understood is good quality meat, vegetables and fruit grown without lots of biocides and handled without washing them (or injecting them) with lots of conservation chemicals to stay fresh in the shop, bread that isn't packed full of the same kind of conservation chemicals or too much sugar, and so on. The unsavoury use of food chemicals - and how to avoid them as a buyer and home chef - is an entire science these days. And it costs money to avoid, most of the time.

Uh guys *raises hand* I think the fact that this thread has now somehow turned into a discussion of a supposed national vendetta against the poor and the fat who are poor and fat through no fault of their own sort of shows how groups like the Tea Party gain traction. This whole discussion just suddenly turned very strange from my PoV.

+3

[Retribution]

Good man Vekseid the all powerful Oz lol. Oh there are many topics in there that are worth wild, hell I was biting my tongue. This does illustrate though how government by and large is so inefficient. Which the Tea Party holding the country hostage demonstrates. The discussion starts out one way, then before you know it without anyone knowing how it is off on some tangent. I wish I had a dime for every time I have sat in a meeting that took that course then I would no longer be sitting in those types meetings I would have that margarita ranch in Cancun.

[Oniya]

'Healthy' food isn't expensive.

Bread and milk isn't expensive, nor is water. How about having a peanutbutter sandwich instead of doubles fries with mayonaise? Or boil your potatoes rather than fry them. Or instead of having a soda drink, have a glass of water. It's not about 'healthy' food because all that biological shit is indeed expensive (and fraudulent) but normal food isn't expensive if you know what to get and it doesn't make you fat if you at least walk 30 minutes a day which most people do.


But can we get back to the point of the health insurances rather than to get bogged down into obesity?

Obesity is directly related to health issues.  Have you watched the video I posted?  The amount of unhealthy processed food that is cheaper than ordinary (not the 'organic' stuff) fruits and vegetables?  If people aren't able to eat healthy because they are in the financial straits that make it impossible to get health insurance, because the insurance companies are in it for profit, and the Tea Partiests are trying to block the first baby step in the right direction in generations - *deep breath* - then those people are going to suffer from health issues that people like you are saying make them undeserving of health care in the first place.

[Dashenka]

Right now, though, we give unearned income ridiculously preferential treatment, and a lot of benefits programs are designed as traps to keep the extremely poor 'content' and fighting against the middle class rather than outright rioting or working to escape their condition.

But if this is true, a simple law won't change anything, as I said before. It would require a whole mentality change from the entire country.

Because as long as this is true, that ACA is just a patch on massive open wound. Also, I'm pretty sure there are people out there in the US who are against having a health insurance when that means they have to pay the first drunk idiot who nearly kills himself and needs a surgery but can't pay it for himself.

It's the same reason why I'm not an organ donor. Unless I can decide who gets them and who not, nobody will get them and yes that might be peevish and bitter, but I'm not saving money or working hard for people who don't value their own lives.

How long would you survive a Russian winter on milk, sandwiches, tea, locally grown veggies and some marmalade? Or even an English or German winter? When we're talking "healthy foods" I do think what's understood is good quality meat, vegetables and fruit grown without lots of biocides and handled without washing them (or injecting them) with lots of conservation chemicals to stay fresh in the shop, bread that isn't packed full of the same kind of conservation chemiclas or too much sugar, and so on.

1. England doesn't have a winter. It's just a bit colder than in summer.
2. My grandparents have been living of basic foods for their entire life and before you ask, they are 92 and 94. They've never had a soda or fries in their life.
3. Conservation chemicals and biocides doesn't make you fat. The lack of excercise after you ate it, will. So just buy the cheaper, non bio meat. It's the same meat only cheaper. The thing is... it doesn't matter what you eat, it's how much you eat.

But I'm desperately trying to get this topic back on track and you're not helping :D

[Bloodied Porcelain]

Obesity is directly related to health issues.  Have you watched the video I posted?  The amount of unhealthy processed food that is cheaper than ordinary (not the 'organic' stuff) fruits and vegetables?  If people aren't able to eat healthy because they are in the financial straits that make it impossible to get health insurance, because the insurance companies are in it for profit, and the Tea Partiests are trying to block the first baby step in the right direction in generations - *deep breath* - then those people are going to suffer from health issues that people like you are saying make them undeserving of health care in the first place.

THIS. A million times THIS.

[Dashenka]

I saw your video but failed to see the point. Yes 30 dollars is a low amount of money but processed food doesn't make you fat. I'm not sure who told you that but it's not. If it was, I'd be huge cause I haven't cooked a real meal in three years. I warm food because I don't give a damn about food and I'm not fat.

[Retribution]

Okay this is where I piss you all off at me really, really, badly. Having said that it is not my intent but here is how I feel:

Taxation as I have said before I hate graduated income tax. I feel it is using the tax code to punish the haves for having for lack of a better explanation. I know the majority of you HATE that opinion. But I firmly believe that a flat tax is best we all pay the same percentage. I do not care the percentage pick a freaking number and we all pay it. Then no one is sitting in the position of judgement determining who can afford to pay what. I find that a kind of arrogant stance. I am sorry but I do it just seems arrogant to me for whoever to sit back and say "well you have X amount of money so you can pay Y in taxes."

As for the whole debate on obesity I think there is a kernel of truth in all of your arguments. But I think what is often missed in debates when "the poor" are brought up is the role of culture. Look at whatever impoverished group and the children are raised seeing their parents going through life in certain ways and they grow up emulating them and the cycle continues. This could be inner city, rural Appalachia, pick your poor people but I think the factors are the same. I think how we really need to combat these problems is to somehow break this cycle and get people to get educations, find trades what have you to better themselves. I will freely admit I have no idea how to accomplish this.

Another factor that comes up with the poor is that some people are poor because of really bad life decisions. Now I do not think they should be clapped in irons for making a bad choice. But there are people out there who consistently shoot themselves in the foot. Over and over again, I think they should face some repercussions for that, but more importantly something needs to be devised to get them to stop shooting themselves in the foot. Again what I have no idea.

[Bloodied Porcelain]

But if this is true, a simple law won't change anything, as I said before. It would require a whole mentality change from the entire country.

Because as long as this is true, that ACA is just a patch on massive open wound. Also, I'm pretty sure there are people out there in the US who are against having a health insurance when that means they have to pay the first drunk idiot who nearly kills himself and needs a surgery but can't pay it for himself.

It's the same reason why I'm not an organ donor. Unless I can decide who gets them and who not, nobody will get them and yes that might be peevish and bitter, but I'm not saving money or working hard for people who don't value their own lives.


1. England doesn't have a winter. It's just a bit colder than in summer.
2. My grandparents have been living of basic foods for their entire life and before you ask, they are 92 and 94. They've never had a soda or fries in their life.
3. Conservation chemicals and biocides doesn't make you fat. The lack of excercise after you ate it, will. So just buy the cheaper, non bio meat. It's the same meat only cheaper. The thing is... it doesn't matter what you eat, it's how much you eat.

But I'm desperately trying to get this topic back on track and you're not helping :D

The ACA is not being presented as a cure-all for every insurance issue the US has. It's a starting point, and it fixes a LOT of issues our system has. Like not denying people for pre existing conditions, ensuring that all women have access to reproductive care and ignorant religious people can't deny it to them just cause they don't like it, etc.

And I'm sticking by my point that if you think you should be able to deny someone who smokes (regardless of who they are, what they do, etc... hell, our PRESIDENT smokes) health care because of that fact, I should be allowed to deny someone health care because I think they're a dick and their heartless view points are a plague on society. And they should be able to decide that THEIR taxes don't get to help YOU if you get in to a tight spot, too, because you wanted to deny them care when they needed it. Viciousness breeds viciousness. It's not healthy and it's not good for anyone.

[Oniya]

I saw your video but failed to see the point. Yes 30 dollars is a low amount of money but processed food doesn't make you fat. I'm not sure who told you that but it's not. If it was, I'd be huge cause I haven't cooked a real meal in three years. I warm food because I don't give a damn about food and I'm not fat.

Processed food is usually high in cholesterol, sugars and/or sodium, and low in actual nutritive value.  It's got calories, and that's about it.  High cholesterol is linked to heart disease.  High sugar intake is linked to diabetes.  High sodium intake is linked to high blood pressure.  Any one of these conditions can lead to problems in maintaining physical activity.  Lack of physical activity leads to obesity.

[Dashenka]

I do agree that the ACA is a start and perhaps healthcare as a whole would/could be a lot cheaper than it apparently is now, because the insurance companies will use a bit of leverage on the manufacturers of stuff people need.

So I'm all for a health insurance.

I didn't say it quite the way you state it now. If you smoke and break your leg you should still get your leg fixed because you smoking has nothing to do with breaking your leg. You wrapping your car around a tree because you are too drunk to stand up and walk, is your own cock up and I don't see why the whole society should pay for that.

[Kythia]

Who should pay if I'm driving drunk but Bloodied Porcelain walks out in front of me without looking where she's going and, in swerving to avoid her, I hit a tree?  A tree I would have avoided if I was sober, but I would also have avoided if Bloodied Porcelain had just followed the Green Cross Code.

[Bloodied Porcelain]

Who should pay if I'm driving drunk but Bloodied Porcelain walks out in front of me without looking where she's going and, in swerving to avoid her, I hit a tree?  A tree I would have avoided if I was sober, but I would also have avoided if Bloodied Porcelain had just followed the Green Cross Code.

I'm not entirely sure how I feel about the fact that you're talking about hitting me with a car :p LOL

[Kythia]

I'm not entirely sure how I feel about the fact that you're talking about hitting me with a car :p LOL

What?  I swerved to avoid you.  I don't do that for just anyone.

What about if I worked as a coal miner and thus had an increased chance of various chest infections but also smoked.  Who pays for the care for my chest infection.

What if, Dashenka, the world can't be neatly divided into black and white.

[mia h]

It's the same reason why I'm not an organ donor. Unless I can decide who gets them and who not, nobody will get them and yes that might be peevish and bitter, but I'm not saving money or working hard for people who don't value their own lives.

Not that I'm wishing that anything bad happens to you, but imagine a situation arises where you need a donated organ through no fault of your own. How would feel about having to audtion for the family of the donor, so that can see if you are worthy of thier family members help?

3. Conservation chemicals and biocides doesn't make you fat. The lack of excercise after you ate it, will. So just buy the cheaper, non bio meat. It's the same meat only cheaper. The thing is... it doesn't matter what you eat, it's how much you eat.

Of course it makes a difference what you eat, go watch Supersize Me and see what the effects are of eating normal portions of fast food are. It's cheap, it's full of crap and it will make your life shorter

[Dashenka]

Processed food is usually high in cholesterol, sugars and/or sodium, and low in actual nutritive value.  It's got calories, and that's about it.  High cholesterol is linked to heart disease.  High sugar intake is linked to diabetes.  High sodium intake is linked to high blood pressure.  Any one of these conditions can lead to problems in maintaining physical activity.  Lack of physical activity leads to obesity.

I guess that's one way of looking at it. Personally I think everybody could easily walk for 30 minutes a day and with normal food intake, processed or not, that should be plenty. As I said, I've been living on take out and microwave meals for almost three years now. If anything, it made me thinner, because it's all so terrible. I know some chefs in the world will hate me for this but food is supposed to be fuel. Nothing more, nothing less. Fuel to keep your body going and your body doesn't give a crap whether it's processed or fresh or soda or water. A dry slice of bread has the same effect as a hamburger, they're both disgusting only it costs less.

I find that a kind of arrogant stance. I am sorry but I do it just seems arrogant to me for whoever to sit back and say "well you have X amount of money so you can pay Y in taxes."

I agree. Why should anybody pay more taxes because they have higher income?

[gaggedLouise]

Who should pay if I'm driving drunk but Bloodied Porcelain walks out in front of me without looking where she's going and, in swerving to avoid her, I hit a tree?  A tree I would have avoided if I was sober, but I would also have avoided if Bloodied Porcelain had just followed the Green Cross Code.

Nobody, pehaps? "They were both at fault"  >:( ::)

[Dashenka]

Who should pay if I'm driving drunk but Bloodied Porcelain walks out in front of me without looking where she's going and, in swerving to avoid her, I hit a tree?  A tree I would have avoided if I was sober, but I would also have avoided if Bloodied Porcelain had just followed the Green Cross Code.

You'd piss off Greenpeace. On a more serious note, BP should be paid for by the tax payers because it's not her fault. Or if you can afford it, you should.

Not that I'm wishing that anything bad happens to you, but imagine a situation arises where you need a donated organ through no fault of your own. How would feel about having to audtion for the family of the donor, so that can see if you are worthy of thier family members help?

That shouldn't have to be done by me but by screening processes. If you have been an alcoholist for your entire life and you need a new liver, tough luck. You've had your chances, you've fucked it. Those people shouldn't even apply for an organ donation.

[Bloodied Porcelain]

I guess that's one way of looking at it. Personally I think everybody could easily walk for 30 minutes a day and with normal food intake, processed or not, that should be plenty. As I said, I've been living on take out and microwave meals for almost three years now. If anything, it made me thinner, because it's all so terrible. I know some chefs in the world will hate me for this but food is supposed to be fuel. Nothing more, nothing less. Fuel to keep your body going and your body doesn't give a crap whether it's processed or fresh or soda or water. A dry slice of bread has the same effect as a hamburger, they're both disgusting only it costs less.

I agree. Why should anybody pay more taxes because they have higher income?

Three years is totally not a long enough time to base your entire knowledge of the situation on... I feel terrible thinking about the hell you're going to encounter 30-40 years from now when your heart and other organs start to go bad from all that crap. Not to mention all the deficiencies you could be suffering from now and just don't know it.

[Iniquitous]

1. England doesn't have a winter. It's just a bit colder than in summer.
2. My grandparents have been living of basic foods for their entire life and before you ask, they are 92 and 94. They've never had a soda or fries in their life.
3. Conservation chemicals and biocides doesn't make you fat. The lack of excercise after you ate it, will. So just buy the cheaper, non bio meat. It's the same meat only cheaper. The thing is... it doesn't matter what you eat, it's how much you eat.

But I'm desperately trying to get this topic back on track and you're not helping :D

1. Interesting, I have friends that live in Folkestone England and see ALL kinds of pictures of their winters.. and yes, they are winters. Snow, ice, extremely cold temps.
2. Processed foods are not good for the body - they will contribute to making a person fat. The cheap foods that people can afford right now are high in carbs (bad for the body) and full of preservatives (bad for the body). If a person wants to eat healthy they are going to pay out the nose for it. You act as if it is a simple thing but it isn't. When meat is 3 to 4 dollars a pound, milk is over 3 dollars a gallon, and fresh vegetables are near impossible to find it is no simple thing to eat healthy. And before you start crowing that it is just lack of exercise that makes you fat - you are wrong. It is *what* you eat, *how* much you eat, *when* you eat it and the lack of exercise.

[Bloodied Porcelain]

What?  I swerved to avoid you.  I don't do that for just anyone.

I... love you too? o.o I'm all conflicted now lol.

[Dashenka]

1. Interesting, I have friends that live in Folkestone England and see ALL kinds of pictures of their winters.. and yes, they are winters. Snow, ice, extremely cold temps.
2. Processed foods are not good for the body - they will contribute to making a person fat. The cheap foods that people can afford right now are high in carbs (bad for the body) and full of preservatives (bad for the body). If a person wants to eat healthy they are going to pay out the nose for it. You act as if it is a simple thing but it isn't. When meat is 3 to 4 dollars a pound, milk is over 3 dollars a gallon, and fresh vegetables are near impossible to find it is no simple thing to eat healthy. And before you start crowing that it is just lack of exercise that makes you fat - you are wrong. It is *what* you eat, *how* much you eat, *when* you eat it and the lack of exercise.

-5 Celcius is not extremely cold

Now get back on topic :D

[Dashenka]

Well hopefully my girlfriend will start cooking before that :D

My point is, it's not what you eat, it's how you eat.

[Retribution]

Well hopefully my girlfriend will start cooking before that :D

My point is, it's not what you eat, it's how you eat.

Uh not exactly  :-) I am a retired wrestler so I have a little experience with weight control. What you eat is incredibly relevant as is volume of food intake as well as exercise. I think one of Russian decent can probably appreciate the intricacies of weight control involved with wrestlers. I used to regularly loose 15 lbs a day but I also did not eat and worked out like Alexander Karelin running through Siberian snow drifts with a tree on his back. You can control weight the right way and the wrong way.

Do it wrong like I did so many times back in the day and you get older like I am now and you have some serious digestive issues. Not to mention a life long battle with anorexia and bulimia. And high fat foods like fast food pack on pounds and is cheap. So those in lower income eat a lot of it and have the health problems that go along with it. There is also a just plain genetic factor as per body fat percentage not to mention woman have a higher body fat content than men due to the fact they bear children. Now sitting on your butt eating junk food and drinking soda can and will make you gain weight and sedentary life style is a big factor in obesity but it is much more complicated than that.

[Bloodied Porcelain]

Well hopefully my girlfriend will start cooking before that :D

My point is, it's not what you eat, it's how you eat.

What and How are the same thing in this instance... What you're describing right now (eating shit and not getting enough nutrition but still losing weight) is called skinny-fat. You're thin outwardly, but you are tearing your body up below the surface and you'll end up paying for it later. It's no better than obeisity, and in a lot of instances it's worse.

In other words:

"What you eat" = fast food vs healthy food
"How you eat" = well vs bad

Yes, how much does have some effect, but not so much as to completely negate the WHAT, and especially not in the long run.

PS: Why don't YOU cook?

Uh not exactly  :-) I am a retired wrestler so I have a little experience with weight control. What you eat is incredibly relevant as is volume of food intake as well as exercise. I think one of Russian decent can probably appreciate the intricacies of weight control involved with wrestlers. I used to regularly loose 15 lbs a day but I also did not eat and worked out like Alexander Karelin running through Siberian snow drifts with a tree on his back. You can control weight the right way and the wrong way.

Do it wrong like I did so many times back in the day and you get older like I am now and you have some serious digestive issues. Not to mention a life long battle with anorexia and bulimia. And high fat foods like fast food pack on pounds and is cheap. So those in lower income eat a lot of it and have the health problems that go along with it. There is also a just plain genetic factor as per body fat percentage not to mention woman have a higher body fat content than men due to the fact they bear children. Now sitting on your butt eating junk food and drinking soda can and will make you gain weight and sedentary life style is a big factor in obesity but it is much more complicated than that.

My point exactly.

[Dashenka]

Uh not exactly  :-) I am a retired wrestler so I have a little experience with weight control. What you eat is incredibly relevant as is volume of food intake as well as exercise. I think one of Russian decent can probably appreciate the intricacies of weight control involved with wrestlers. I used to regularly loose 15 lbs a day but I also did not eat and worked out like Alexander Karelin running through Siberian snow drifts with a tree on his back. You can control weight the right way and the wrong way.

Do it wrong like I did so many times back in the day and you get older like I am now and you have some serious digestive issues. Not to mention a life long battle with anorexia and bulimia. And high fat foods like fast food pack on pounds and is cheap. So those in lower income eat a lot of it and have the health problems that go along with it. There is also a just plain genetic factor as per body fat percentage not to mention woman have a higher body fat content than men due to the fact they bear children. Now sitting on your butt eating junk food and drinking soda can and will make you gain weight and sedentary life style is a big factor in obesity but it is much more complicated than that.

I do admit that food is to blame but I'm not sure if it's the processed foods or the junkfoods that are the biggest problem.

Like here in England you've got the Roast. I love it, it's fat and everything and a lot of girls won't eat it because they are afraid it makes them fat. Eating it and having enough excercise will NOT make you fat. Having canned beans rather than fresh beans will not make you fat. Having a discount chicken over a free range chicken will not make you fat. There is so much negativity about food in general that it's ridiculous.

Junkfood can make you fat but having fries once a week with your steak and canned beans will not.

PS: Why don't YOU cook?

I hate it and I can't. I don't have the patience for it. I put on the potatoes and let it boil and then forget about it until they explode in the kitchen because there's no more water in the pan and then you have to clean the kitchen....  Meat's even more frustrating. I never got it right. It either turned out raw or it turned out like a rubber rock, so I was like.. why would I cook if somebody else can do it for me?


But worry not about me, I have been looking into cooking classes :)

[Serephino]

Water is good for you, yes, but I can't drink my tap water.  Due to the water authority being idiots, my tap water smells and tastes like swimming pool water because of unsafe chlorine levels.  The water authority avoids having to fix it by taking their testing samples in the center of town, where the levels aren't nearly so high.  Anyway...

I'm thirsty.  In my pocket is $2.50.  I go to the store for something to drink.  There is fruit juice, which is better for me in most cases.  That costs $2.38.  I can afford it, yes, but let's say pay day is a week away.  That bottle of juice will only last 3 days.  Then there is a 2 liter bottle of soda; nothing but empty calorie sugar.  It's not the healthy choice, however, the bottle is only a dollar, and will last 4 days.  So, I can get 2 bottles of soda for less than the price of juice, which is healthier, and I won't run out and be stuck with pool water until pay day.

This is not just a hypothetical situation.  This is my life.  I know soda is bad for me, I just can't afford anything better.  I know McDonald's food is bad for me, but it costs a fraction of what something healthier would cost.  It's not that I don't care.  I'm just really poor.  It would be nice to not wake up screaming from searing pain in my knee because of the extra weight put on it. 

Oh, by the way, I walk 2 miles 3 times a week.  It hurts like hell, my feet, knees, hips, and ankles are killing me by the end, but I do it.  I've lost a little weight since starting it, but I'm not thin.  And when winter comes, no way in hell am I going out in 12 degree whether and freezing my ass off.  So then what do I do?  It would be nice to have the weather nice all year round, but that is not reality.  Winters here in Pennsylvania suck.

[Bloodied Porcelain]

I do admit that food is to blame but I'm not sure if it's the processed foods or the junkfoods that are the biggest problem.

Like here in England you've got the Roast. I love it, it's fat and everything and a lot of girls won't eat it because they are afraid it makes them fat. Eating it and having enough excercise will NOT make you fat. Having canned beans rather than fresh beans will not make you fat. Having a discount chicken over a free range chicken will not make you fat. There is so much negativity about food in general that it's ridiculous.

Junkfood can make you fat but having fries once a week with your steak and canned beans will not.


I hate it and I can't. I don't have the patience for it. I put on the potatoes and let it boil and then forget about it until they explode in the kitchen because there's no more water in the pan and then you have to clean the kitchen....  Meat's even more frustrating. I never got it right. It either turned out raw or it turned out like a rubber rock, so I was like.. why would I cook if somebody else can do it for me?


But worry not about me, I have been looking into cooking classes :)

I don't think you know what processed food is, which is where most of the disagreement is coming from here...

Junk food IS processed food. Processed food = food substitutes. IE Kraft Mac n Cheese. That "sauce powder" is not real cheese, it's processed crap made to taste like cheese. Same goes with fast food. If you had any clue what is IN that stuff, you wouldn't eat it half as often as you do. Most of it isn't real food.

Real food is meat, veggies, fruits, etc. And before you try to say that there's no difference in fresh beans and canned beans, yes there is. Canned beans have almost no nutritional value by the time they're eaten because of the way they're packaged to keep them edible. Do you know what the farms and plants that grow and sell that stuff do? The truly fresh stuff gets frozen. The not quite ripe stuff gets sold as fresh (because it ripens during transport and in the store), and the stuff that's old/beat up/not really worth much of anything gets put in the can. That's WHY it's so cheap, the quality is next to nothing.

Meat is much the same principle. The good meat that has nutritional value sells for more, the meat that doesn't have much and is from animals that are given feed that isn't good for them sells for cheaper because it's not worth as much because it's not as good for you, while the stuff from free-range animals that are kept off the chemicals and medicines  and whatnot as much as possible sells for more because it's better for you and you're not taking in checmicals your body isn't meant to process.

Water is good for you, yes, but I can't drink my tap water.  Due to the water authority being idiots, my tap water smells and tastes like swimming pool water because of unsafe chlorine levels.  The water authority avoids having to fix it by taking their testing samples in the center of town, where the levels aren't nearly so high.  Anyway...

I'm thirsty.  In my pocket is $2.50.  I go to the store for something to drink.  There is fruit juice, which is better for me in most cases.  That costs $2.38.  I can afford it, yes, but let's say pay day is a week away.  That bottle of juice will only last 3 days.  Then there is a 2 liter bottle of soda; nothing but empty calorie sugar.  It's not the healthy choice, however, the bottle is only a dollar, and will last 4 days.  So, I can get 2 bottles of soda for less than the price of juice, which is healthier, and I won't run out and be stuck with pool water until pay day.

This is not just a hypothetical situation.  This is my life.  I know soda is bad for me, I just can't afford anything better.  I know McDonald's food is bad for me, but it costs a fraction of what something healthier would cost.  It's not that I don't care.  I'm just really poor.  It would be nice to not wake up screaming from searing pain in my knee because of the extra weight put on it. 

Oh, by the way, I walk 2 miles 3 times a week.  It hurts like hell, my feet, knees, hips, and ankles are killing me by the end, but I do it.  I've lost a little weight since starting it, but I'm not thin.  And when winter comes, no way in hell am I going out in 12 degree whether and freezing my ass off.  So then what do I do?  It would be nice to have the weather nice all year round, but that is not reality.  Winters here in Pennsylvania suck.

:( I want to bottle up gallons of water from the nice wells we have here and send it to you now. *hugs*

[Dashenka]

Don't complain about winters to a Russian alright? None of you have any idea about winter unless you're from freaking Alaska or perhaps the northern states of the US and Canada or gaggedLouise.

You can walk in sub zero temperatures. In fact it even burns more calories than in summer because your body needs to stay warm. So that's an invalid argument.

Okay so soda is more expensive than juice but what about bottled water? Or tea? Or coffee? Or milk?

There's more than soda and juice. But not having drinkable tap water is pretty bummed. I remember it from back in Moscow and it sucks.



Okay BP I thought processed food was stuff like canned food and all. My bad. In that case I do agree with you that processed food is probably not the best choice for your health.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Could try to buy a filtered water pitcher Serephino in order to drink more water.

[Bloodied Porcelain]

Don't complain about winters to a Russian alright? None of you have any idea about winter unless you're from freaking Alaska or perhaps the northern states of the US and Canada or gaggedLouise.

You can walk in sub zero temperatures. In fact it even burns more calories than in summer because your body needs to stay warm. So that's an invalid argument.

Okay so soda is more expensive than juice but what about bottled water? Or tea? Or coffee? Or milk?

There's more than soda and juice. But not having drinkable tap water is pretty bummed. I remember it from back in Moscow and it sucks.



Okay BP I thought processed food was stuff like canned food and all. My bad. In that case I do agree with you that processed food is probably not the best choice for your health.

Bottled water here costs as much as bottled juice, and it's the juice that's more expensive, not the soda. Milk is ridiculously overpriced (last time I looked it was close to 4 bucks a gallon and with how fast it goes bad... you have to basically overdose on the stuff to get rid of it fast enough that it doesn't go bad on you LOL). Coffee and tea both require water to make, which takes you back to square one.

[Dashenka]

Maybe an ignorant question but doesn't boiling the water get rid of the chlorides?  :-[

[Pumpkin Seeds]

I was going to say, not necessarily square one.  Boiling the water for tea would clear up the issue of contaminants. 

[Bloodied Porcelain]

Maybe an ignorant question but doesn't boiling the water get rid of the chlorides?  :-[

I was going to say, not necessarily square one.  Boiling the water for tea would clear up the issue of contaminants. 

Contaminants, yes. Taste? Not really. I've had water before that was "safe" to drink but I couldn't drink it because the taste of all the stuff they used to clean it was so bad it made me ill.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Well tea is a flavor additive essentially and there are cheap ones to put into the water in order to make them taste better.  I mean living a better lifestyle in terms of health is not easier, but is certainly doable.

[Bloodied Porcelain]

Well tea is a flavor additive essentially and there are cheap ones to put into the water in order to make them taste better.  I mean living a better lifestyle in terms of health is not easier, but is certainly doable.

Have you ever tried to drink tea made with bad water? >.> Even the cheap ridiculously strong stuff just ends up being like try to mask the smell of a dairy farm with aerosol air fresheners.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

I live in a state that draws its water from swamps and from a river that the rest of the country dumps their chemicals into so that they don't have to taste them.  So I can sympathize with tea over bad water, but you do what must be done.

[Vekseid]

Don't complain about winters to a Russian alright? None of you have any idea about winter unless you're from freaking Alaska or perhaps the northern states of the US and Canada or gaggedLouise.

You can walk in sub zero temperatures. In fact it even burns more calories than in summer because your body needs to stay warm. So that's an invalid argument.

While being from Minnesota (which gets colder than most of inhabited Alaska) I can share some incredulity about the temperatures people are calling 'cold', please remember not everyone is you. The body actually shifts it's metabolism for these situations, and this is not an immediate process. You and I are used to it. This is not exactly going to be true for everyone. Bashing is not necessary.

[Dashenka]

While being from Minnesota (which gets colder than most of inhabited Alaska) I can share some incredulity about the temperatures people are calling 'cold', please remember not everyone is you. The body actually shifts it's metabolism for these situations, and this is not an immediate process. You and I are used to it. This is not exactly going to be true for everyone. Bashing is not necessary.

It being too cold to walk is never a good reason because if you dress up warm enough your body will do the rest. Philadelphia temperatures cannot be so cold that it requires special training or anything. That's all I was saying.

[Callie Del Noire]

It being too cold to walk is never a good reason because if you dress up warm enough your body will do the rest. Philadelphia temperatures cannot be so cold that it requires special training or anything. That's all I was saying.

Ever worked a flight line on a carrier off the coast of Korea? Or one in Iceland or Maine in the middle of winter during a Nor-easter? It's a shock to this southern boy's systems.

Do the math (cause I don't know it) 4 or 5 below zero BEFORE windchill with gusts up to 20 knots (or a constant 20 knots on the carrier).

I looked like Ralphie from 'The Christmas story'. There is a reason I live in Florida now.  Temp drops below 30, my knees hurt.. hell if it drops more than 35 degrees in less than a five hour span I ache.

[Dashenka]

No I haven't but I would like the experience to one day stand on the flight line of carrier.

Having a bit of troubles with the Fahrenheit stuff but all I was saying, yes for the -30 celcius in Moscow, you probably need a bit of training but if you live in a certain place which has -5 celcius regularly in winter, not going out because it's cold, isn't really a legitimate reason for me. Not to sound harsh but if you have to and if it;s for your health, a wooden jumper and a big jacket will keep anybody warm enough, even people from Florida or Arizona.

Besides.. hey...

If it gets that cold, can't you melt snow and bottle that? Doesn't get fresher than that. I'm not taking the piss, would that be an option? Regardless of how efficient it is.

[Iniquitous]

It being too cold to walk is never a good reason because if you dress up warm enough your body will do the rest. Philadelphia temperatures cannot be so cold that it requires special training or anything. That's all I was saying.

I've lived in North Dakota in the winter, Ottawa Canada in the winter, Northwest Pennsylvania in the winter, UP Michigan in the winter, upstate NY near the Canadian border in the winter and northern Maine in the winter. I know damn well what cold feels like and yes, it can be too damn cold to put on 5-6 layers of clothes and go outside to walk a mile or two. I've done it when I've had to and been in excruciating pain in my ears/jaw region thanks to TMJ problems, toes and feet so cold they are numb despite two pairs of socks and winter boots, hands and fingers red and burning despite winter gloves. I swear it seems like you will disagree with everyone no matter what. You do not take into account that each person is different - that means what they can tolerate is different. Just because you find no issue with something does not mean that everyone else should be the same.

[Dashenka]

Okay I stand corrected.

[Kythia]

Having a bit of troubles with the Fahrenheit stuff but all I was saying, yes for the -30 celcius in Moscow, you probably need a bit of training but if you live in a certain place which has -5 celcius regularly in winter, not going out because it's cold, isn't really a legitimate reason for me. Not to sound harsh but if you have to and if it;s for your health, a wooden jumper and a big jacket will keep anybody warm enough, even people from Florida or Arizona.

The lowest average monthly low in Moscow is -10 Celsius  I would suggest the people of Moscow would also need special training to deal with -30

[Callie Del Noire]

No I haven't but I would like the experience to one day stand on the flight line of carrier.

Having a bit of troubles with the Fahrenheit stuff but all I was saying, yes for the -30 celcius in Moscow, you probably need a bit of training but if you live in a certain place which has -5 celcius regularly in winter, not going out because it's cold, isn't really a legitimate reason for me. Not to sound harsh but if you have to and if it;s for your health, a wooden jumper and a big jacket will keep anybody warm enough, even people from Florida or Arizona.

Besides.. hey...

If it gets that cold, can't you melt snow and bottle that? Doesn't get fresher than that. I'm not taking the piss, would that be an option? Regardless of how efficient it is.

I'm betting you don't have joint issues (yet). :D Trust me.. I got them. I have early stage arthritis on my left hand such that I can't cross my fingers anymore. I have to use Baoding balls to help me with limberness in my hands so I can remain able to build cable assemblies.

Cold really takes it out of me.. and I have friends that can handle cold but humidity tears their joints up.

[Serephino]

*comes back from his shower*

Philadelphia temps?  Oh, no, try Appalachian Mountain temps.  Maybe it's not as bad as Russia, but it's pretty damned cold to me.  The weather varies, but last winter was bad.  Windchill was below zero most days, and there was a foot of snow on the ground, and an inch of ice on the roads.  I still walked to the post office because it's only 2 streets away, but it was pretty miserable.  I can tell you from first hand experience that slipping and falling on an icy road hurts.

But my point was that just simply walking is not the solution.  For one, there are things like weather that prevent an outdoor activity like that.  Two, when one doesn't have a fast metabolism, it isn't enough.  Losing weight is hard.  I'm trying, and not having much luck. 

We did get a filter pitcher when my boyfriend got a good paycheck a little while back, so we are drinking more water.  I do try and plan for healthier meals at least a few times a week.  I get chicken, stuff for marinades, and frozen veggies.  Things like that are why 2 weeks worth of groceries for 2 people ends up being $182.  The weight is not coming off.  It would be so nice if a healthier diet and a little exercise was some kind of magic bullet, but once the weight is on, it does not want to come off.

My health is crap.  My joints are fucked up because of my weight, and I'm only 28, and that's only going to get worse as I age.  I get kidney stones from time to time, though not as much since I started drinking more water.  I've had them get stuck twice.  You don't know pain until you've had a tiny little stone get stuck so badly it has to be surgically removed.  I had to have my gallbladder removed several years ago.  I didn't have insurance at the time, so I had to pay with credit Bank of America was dumb enough to give me.  It caused me to have to declare bankruptcy.

And I was thinking about it, and I'm 2nd generation poor as dirt.  My dad made bad health choices.  He smoked, and was an alcoholic.  He got cancer, and because he had heart disease, partly from bad genetics, and partly from lifestyle, he didn't survive treatment.  Maybe you can argue against giving him healthcare for his heart, because it wouldn't have been nearly so bad had he not smoked like a chimney, but what about my mother and I?  Because of his choices, my mother was left being a single parent, having to work hard to keep food on the table.  The only reason we didn't end up homeless was because my grandpa had the means and desire to buy out our mortgage from the bank.  We ate crappy frozen food because it's what we could afford, and because my mom didn't have the time/energy to cook.  So, should we have been punished for my dad's bad choices?  I'm glad my state didn't think so.  I grew up on free school lunches and free state health insurance.     

[Retribution]

I am very sorry about your sad state of affairs Serephino. And as I said earlier I have no clue how to help fix situations like yours. But I would be interested in knowing what you might suggest as a means for the cycle of poverty being passed from father to son being broken.

[Dashenka]

The lowest average monthly low in Moscow is -10 Celsius  I would suggest the people of Moscow would also need special training to deal with -30

I certainly don't. These are day temperatures, in the night it gets to -30 quite often.

I'm betting you don't have joint issues (yet). :D Trust me.. I got them. I have early stage arthritis on my left hand such that I can't cross my fingers anymore. I have to use Baoding balls to help me with limberness in my hands so I can remain able to build cable assemblies.

Cold really takes it out of me.. and I have friends that can handle cold but humidity tears their joints up.

Humidity and heat is something I really can't take. That's why Florida would be my idea of hell. :D

[Bloodied Porcelain]

I am very sorry about your sad state of affairs Serephino. And as I said earlier I have no clue how to help fix situations like yours. But I would be interested in knowing what you might suggest as a means for the cycle of poverty being passed from father to son being broken.

Education. There are countries where college is free, and private college is pretty much unheard of. It should be the same everywhere. Putting a dollar amount on something that literally makes all the difference in the world is ridiculous. Admittedly not everyone will take advantage of it, but education is the most proven solution to poverty stricken areas and countries. We really need to get education out of private hands. It shouldn't be something people get to profit off of to the degree that it is.

Obviously this wont get everyone out of poverty, but I firmly believe it's the first in a series of steps that should be taken.

[Serephino]

Education would be a good place to start.  Other than that I don't know of any solutions.  My mom did take advantage of the help that is available.  For a while we lived off Social Security death benefits, and she went to college full time.  Between state and federal grants it didn't cost her anything.  That did allow her to go from cleaning hospital rooms to being a book keeper for a restaurant.  It made a big difference. 

[Kythia]

The problem there, and Louise might be able to talk more about that, is inflation.  If everyone has a degree, my degree doesn't make me stand out so I need a masters.  Floors still need cleaning, fast food still needs serving.  Now the lowest education has is a degree rather than GCSE's, all it means is that people with degrees are doing those low paid jobs. 

[Dashenka]

I'd employ you all if I could :)

[Dashenka]

After all the hardships and negativity....


Oh, think twice, it's just another day for
you and me in paradise

- Phil Collins - Another Day In Paradise - 1989

[Oniya]

Probably the whole lyrics to that song are relevant.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6DFluKXQfiw

And this one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOeKidp-iWo

[Retribution]

In other threads on this forum I have touted education. Many get well angry at such a stance and I admit college is not for everyone. What I would like to see is everyone learn a trade. I do not care what it is but some sort of system where everyone learns to do something. I have a good friend who tried college and found it was not for him. But he went to enough community college in a trade school type capacity that he learned to be a machinist. While he is not wealthy his skills are always in demand and he is never out of work for long.

[Valthazar]

Education is not the answer for poverty right now in the United States.  As consumers, we need to evaluate the returns on investing in college versus the costs.  If one can afford college, there are certainly many advantages.  In solving this, federal loans are now pretty much guaranteed for anyone who wants to go to college - but this has now created a scenario where there is an unlimited demand for college, meaning that as a business, the supplier (college) will naturally elevate their costs.

Basically, the economic return on a college degree is far less today, and it is important to educate potential students on evaluating the cost/benefit, and whether it is worth it.  They might be far more productive to society doing other things like Retribution said - learning a trade (which is very much in demand) like plumbing, HVAC, welding, etc.

[Bloodied Porcelain]

Education is not the answer for poverty right now in the United States.  As consumers, we need to evaluate the returns on investing in college versus the costs.  If one can afford college, there are certainly many advantages.  In solving this, federal loans are now pretty much guaranteed for anyone who wants to go to college - but this has now created a scenario where there is an unlimited demand for college, meaning that as a business, the supplier (college) will naturally elevate their costs.

Basically, the economic return on a college degree is far less today, and it is important to educate potential students on evaluating the cost/benefit, and whether it is worth it.  They might be far more productive to society doing other things like Retribution said - learning a trade (which is very much in demand) like plumbing, HVAC, welding, etc.

Which is why I said education should be free, not something the private sector should be providing. Countries who offer higher education for free are in infinitely better shape than we are in most cases when it comes to putting people in to good paying jobs.

[Dashenka]

To lighten up the mood again

[Mithlomwen]

In other threads on this forum I have touted education. Many get well angry at such a stance and I admit college is not for everyone. What I would like to see is everyone learn a trade. I do not care what it is but some sort of system where everyone learns to do something. I have a good friend who tried college and found it was not for him. But he went to enough community college in a trade school type capacity that he learned to be a machinist. While he is not wealthy his skills are always in demand and he is never out of work for long.

I realize that this clip is a couple of years old, but I think that Mike Rowe brings up some very valid points.  It's good to see someone championing a campaign to make skilled trades more important than they have been in a long while.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cC0JPs-rcF0

[Valthazar]

Which is why I said education should be free, not something the private sector should be providing. Countries who offer higher education for free are in infinitely better shape than we are in most cases when it comes to putting people in to good paying jobs.

I work in higher education, and what you are describing is already unfortunately occurring through guaranteed loans to anyone interested in going to college (many of whom are not financially literate).  In other words, an individual from an impoverished family, who graduates from high school, or obtains a GED, can "go to college" regardless of his/her SAT scores, high school GPA, etc.

Admissions criteria no longer mean anything anymore.  Sure, there are  few select private universities, ivy league schools, and "public ivys" that still have respectable admissions, but by and large, anyone who has a GED or high school diploma can enroll in college now.

Is this a good thing?  Absolutely not.  The college-level curriculum has been dissolved to almost shameful levels nowadays, and seeing the types of writing samples the average student here produces would make you think you were proofreading a middle school English essay.  Even the types of assignments given in introductory level ENG 101 classes are to write two-page assignments, or to provide one's "opinion" on a topic.  My point is that in our effort to expand access to higher education, we have essentially made the college diploma worthless.  As Kythia described, this is the inflationary phenomenon of academic credentials.

If college became free, this problem would increase on a dramatic-scale.  My personal advice to high school students is to not bother with college unless you plan to pursue a graduate degree and/or a doctoral level education.  Many individuals are extremely skilled in a myriad of ways - though they may be weak academically.  Unless we break out of this myopic view that college is a necessity for everyone, we won't make much progress on this front.

Right now, the people who went into welding and HVAC have more job security than the people who simply got a 4-year B.A.

[Vekseid]

If I had a dime for every story from a member whose diploma turned out to be pointless...

Studies show that 15 years of education (from Kindergarten -> 2 year degree or similar tech program in the US) seems to be ideal. Outside of that there seems to be little benefit for most people - pre-school does not help, nor does just getting an advanced degree for the sake of it.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

I have little actual experience with education and teaching aside from being a student for much of my life.  To my knowledge the United States has dumbed down the education system at all levels from an academic pursuit while at the same time failed to train people for actual work.  Listening to a few programs on this topic, many employers not only seek employees outside the United States due to education but also because other countries place emphasis on work experience and training.  More internship, more real world work experience and so on.  So I do think this country should push forward trade school educations, technical colleges and really should get behind online education/certifications. 

As for loans and such, I’d actually love to see a system where the government offers payment options based on civil service.  Nurses can work in public/low income areas at clinics and hospitals to pay off their debt, teachers can do the same along with engineers/police officers/etc. etc.  I think this would give students the real world experience employers are searching for while also getting them out of debt and giving the United States a ready supply of workers in needed areas.

[Valthazar]

There's unfortunately a lot of false propaganda in K-12 education. 

One is the notion that a more educated populous (in science, history, general knowledge, etc.) results in a more economically prosperous workforce.  While we certainly do need an upper echelon of the population to become intellectuals, become entrepreneurs, and be the 'drivers' of society, there really isn't any economic gain in hyper-emphasizing purely-academic subjects in K-12 for the masses.  It's very desirable for everyone to be academically smart, of course, but we should not unilaterally focus on this at the cost of much more relevant skills for the masses.  For example, why aren't there core-educational requirements in high school on personal financial management, economics (often an elective), stock market investing, job placement initiatives in senior year, explanation of pros/cons of college, and so on.  Currently, we are told of this "competition" with India and China in math and science achievement, and then transform our national curriculum to focus on very academic fields with no real relevance to the students' future personal success.  Which brings me to my next point...

There's this myth that we need more students interested in STEM fields (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics).  Certainly, there's some truth in the importance of STEM fields - but the solution is way off the mark.  The reality is that most STEM jobs go to people with graduate degrees and PhDs, and there are far, far more graduates per year than jobs openings available.  If anything the solution to the "American STEM Crisis" is a discussion that should be had among college educators, and not K-12.  The reality is that the average person in the US would benefit far more by emphasizing more relevant, and "real-world" topics than physics, chemistry, and biology.  Here's an excellent article by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers discussing the STEM myth:

http://spectrum.ieee.org/at-work/education/the-stem-crisis-is-a-myth

The reality is that Americans have never really been very 'smart' or 'educated' - yet we were the most prosperous country for most of the 20th century.  Most K-12 teachers get very limited, if any, business education.  If more were aware about the economic realities their students will face after graduation, their approach would be very different.

[Vekseid]

I don't think you're going to find much argument against "The overemphasis on higher education in the US is BS."

At the same time, with an increasingly automated productive force, assuming we're not headed for some dystopian future (though there are certainly people who are trying) - there's not going to be much else for people to do besides where they can direct themselves, and education - even if it takes a form rather different than the indoctrination we see today - is going to have to be some part of that.

[Valthazar]

Yeah my only point was that most jobs people have today never really needed college 30-40 years ago, so hopefully there is a movement at some point to reverse this trend.  Actually, it's beneficial for employers to hire non-college workers, because they can pay them a lower full-time wage, as compared to a college grad (but still it's a steady job, so can't really complain).  So there's definitely some incentive in such a movement.

Biggest issue is to get kids graduating high school to have good writing skills.

[Vekseid]

Currently, employers are using it as a filter - fewer and fewer people are needed to produce the same goods and services, they aren't being paid more for it, and there is rampant opposition to increasing taxes to reinvest into unspent labor, as employers and investors are not doing this directly.

Eventually this cycle is going to have to stop. Either nearly everyone gets access to this automation, or we stop being a democracy, in the end. Right now the former is winning in real terms, even if the latter has the upper hand politically.

[Retribution]

The biologist blinks and smiles "I am not so sure science is irrelevant." On a serious note and having said that my degree is a BA not a BS so it was more rounded. That was with intent so as not to get boxed in so to speak. But I hate to say this probably 80% of those who start a degree in science just plain are not going to finish it. Back in the day when I was in school I saw many who just plain failed at pursuit of a hard science degree. Also you need to have some place you are going to go with this degree, a plan if you will. I ended up more or less where I meant to when I started out. I do not use my degree overly much in my work but I am indeed employed in a position that requires a science degree. I am an exception because so many go to school with the vague idea that if they get a degree a job will come. Or how many kids going to college figure it is they do not really know what they want to do but they know they need a degree or think they know that.

Now as the parent of teens I am looking at it from another angle. Both my kids are planning on science degrees. My son who heads off to a pretty high level science college next year is following in my footsteps. Guess what? He is already working in the field part time and is getting on a career track so there is a job waiting for him. He has a plan. My daughter is likely going to be bio major also when she hits college in four years, but she has planned on being a veterinarian forever so she will probably be living with me forever lol.

The point is though they both have plans. I have two other young relatives who both started college. Both partied a lot for one year and dropped out and are now working at McDonalds. Guess what they both went to school with no idea what they were going to do other than that they thought they needed a degree. So if you are going off to school for god's sake have some clue what you want to do and some prospect of employment when you are done.