HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > Non-Sports > Political Discussion - "on-topic & unmoderated"
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Political Discussion - "on-topic & unmoderated" Rated PG13, unmoderated but threads must stay on topic - that means you can flame each other all you want as long as it's legal

NYC seeks to ban large soft drinks

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-05-2012, 03:17 PM
  #76
TesseracT
AMG
 
TesseracT's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Boston
Country: United States
Posts: 5,227
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Led Zappa View Post
Doesn't look like you read or comprehended his post. Shall we add a health care tax to football helmets and golf clubs? How about a life tax for those born with disease? Why should I pay for their insulin?
Looks like you didn't comprehend what he was responding to. They were talking about health premiums, not taxes on individual products. Also, people don't choose to be born with disease. They (most) do choose to become obese and all choose to drink. Raising health premiums for people who choose unhealthy lifestyles is perfectly fine. You gotta pay to play.

TesseracT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-05-2012, 03:23 PM
  #77
Led Zappa
Oy vey...
 
Led Zappa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Country: Scotland
Posts: 32,977
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TesseracT View Post
Looks like you didn't comprehend what he was responding to. They were talking about health premiums, not taxes on individual products. Also, people don't choose to be born with disease. They (most) do choose to become obese and all choose to drink. Raising health premiums for people who choose unhealthy lifestyles is perfectly fine. You gotta pay to play.
Doesn't matter whether it's taxes or premiums. You still haven't answered the question. Should athletes pay higher premiums?

Maybe those that are predicted to life a long life, but incur high end of life costs should be made to pay higher premiums. They are the biggest contributor to the recent surge in higher health care costs after all.

__________________

"This is not a nick or a scratch, this is an open wound" - Doug Wilson.
Led Zappa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-05-2012, 03:35 PM
  #78
Montag DP
Sabres fan in...
 
Montag DP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: ...Atlanta
Country: United States
Posts: 6,634
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Led Zappa View Post
Doesn't matter whether it's taxes or premiums. You still haven't answered the question. Should athletes pay higher premiums?

Maybe those that are predicted to life a long life, but incur high end of life costs should be made to pay higher premiums. They are the biggest contributor to the recent surge in higher health care costs after all.
Those people have also been paying into their insurance plans for a long time. It's not a comparable situation because they didn't make poor decisions to result in their greater need for health insurance. It's an expected cost.


Last edited by Montag DP: 06-05-2012 at 03:46 PM. Reason: typo
Montag DP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-05-2012, 03:42 PM
  #79
Led Zappa
Oy vey...
 
Led Zappa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Country: Scotland
Posts: 32,977
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Montag DP View Post
Those people have also been paying into their insurance plans for a long time.

Anyway, what's your point? Should we make a law banning people from becoming old instead?
There's no way they're paying a mil plus in that time. $330K Tops probably.

And my point is how far do you go. It's easy to pick on fat people. No I'm not one. I recall that even the most staunchest proponents of cig taxes claiming there was no way this would lead to a doughnut tax. And here we are. It won't stop here either.

The solution to our health care problems will not be found in trying legislate habits. That is why I like what Disney did today. Corporate responsibility to promote health. They probably even realize that it's in their long term interest. Something we rarely see in today's corporate boardrooms.

EDIT: And I forgot about most of it being pushed onto Medicare as Doppler pointed out.


Last edited by Led Zappa: 06-05-2012 at 04:01 PM.
Led Zappa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-05-2012, 03:44 PM
  #80
Doppler Drift
Registered User
 
Doppler Drift's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 9,782
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Montag DP View Post
Those people have also been paying into their insurance plans for a long time. It's not a comparable situations because they didn't make poor decisions to result in their greater need for health insurance. It's an expected cost.
Wrong. The insurance company makes out like bandits if the insured used little of their services during their working years. The elderly are on Medicare so the costs come from that (and yes they did pay into that as well). The private insurers laugh all the way to the bank. As usual.

Doppler Drift is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-05-2012, 03:47 PM
  #81
Montag DP
Sabres fan in...
 
Montag DP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: ...Atlanta
Country: United States
Posts: 6,634
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doppler Drift View Post
Wrong. The insurance company makes out like bandits if the insured used little of their services during their working years. The elderly are on Medicare so the costs come from that (and yes they did pay into that as well). The private insurers laugh all the way to the bank. As usual.
I'm not sure how what I said contradicts any of that, but okay. I agree with you. Medicare also needs a major overhaul.

Montag DP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-05-2012, 03:50 PM
  #82
Doppler Drift
Registered User
 
Doppler Drift's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 9,782
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Led Zappa View Post
There's no way their paying a mil plus in that time. $330K Tops probably.

And my point is how far do you go. It's easy to pick on fat people. No I'm not one. I recall that even the most staunchest proponents of cig taxes claiming there was no way this would lead to a doughnut tax. And here we are. It won't stop here either.

The solution to our health care problems will not be found in trying legislate habits. That is why I like what Disney did today. Corporate responsibility to promote health. They probably even realize that it's in their long term interest. Something we rarely see in today's corporate boardrooms.

EDIT: And I forgot about most of it being pushed onto Medicare as Doppler pointed out.
Promoting a healthy lifestyle. Promoting keeping physically active (doesn't need to be sports, even getting people to walk instead of driving is a start). PREVENTATIVE instead of reactive health care would cut costs the most. Stop illnesses and conditions before they get worse or even fully develop.

Doppler Drift is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-05-2012, 03:53 PM
  #83
Doppler Drift
Registered User
 
Doppler Drift's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 9,782
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Montag DP View Post
I'm not sure how what I said contradicts any of that, but okay. I agree with you. Medicare also needs a major overhaul.
Quite simply you stated that people receiving care when they are elderly have been paying into their insurance plan for a long time and it is an expected cost. The only thing correct about that is that the private insurers know they can foist that cost onto Medicare and keep more of their ducats (expected higher profits not cost).

And you're right Medicare does need reform. Everyone should be on it. If people want private insurance they can buy it as an option.

Doppler Drift is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-05-2012, 04:08 PM
  #84
Montag DP
Sabres fan in...
 
Montag DP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: ...Atlanta
Country: United States
Posts: 6,634
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doppler Drift View Post
Quite simply you stated that people receiving care when they are elderly have been paying into their insurance plan for a long time and it is an expected cost. The only thing correct about that is that the private insurers know they can foist that cost onto Medicare and keep more of their ducats (expected higher profits not cost).
What is incorrect about what I said? It is expected that once you get older your medical costs will go up. Check. Older people have been paying into their health insurance for a long time. Check. Those were my two statements. Which of them was false?

I was comparing that situation to obese people, who have much greater health problems than an average person of their age, due to poor health choices.


Last edited by Montag DP: 06-05-2012 at 04:15 PM.
Montag DP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-05-2012, 04:40 PM
  #85
Doppler Drift
Registered User
 
Doppler Drift's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 9,782
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Montag DP View Post
What is incorrect about what I said? It is expected that once you get older your medical costs will go up. Check. Older people have been paying into their health insurance for a long time. Check. Those were my two statements. Which of them was false?

I was comparing that situation to obese people, who have much greater health problems than an average person of their age, due to poor health choices.
That it is an expected cost to the insurance company. They know they will foist it off on Medicare. Private medical insurance is a racket.

Doppler Drift is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-05-2012, 04:45 PM
  #86
mooseOAK*
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 42,437
vCash: 500
The number of people I know that have Type 2 diabetes is growing steadily. Go Bloomberg.

mooseOAK* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-05-2012, 04:47 PM
  #87
Montag DP
Sabres fan in...
 
Montag DP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: ...Atlanta
Country: United States
Posts: 6,634
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doppler Drift View Post
That it is an expected cost to the insurance company. They know they will foist it off on Medicare. Private medical insurance is a racket.
I didn't say it was an expected cost to the insurance company, and that's not what I meant either. Here's what I was responding to:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Led Zappa
Maybe those that are predicted to life a long life, but incur high end of life costs should be made to pay higher premiums. They are the biggest contributor to the recent surge in higher health care costs after all.
Anyway, who pays for the cost is inconsequential to the point I was making.

Montag DP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-06-2012, 09:05 PM
  #88
WhiskeyYourTheDevils
Registered User
 
WhiskeyYourTheDevils's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Raleigh, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 8,305
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Led Zappa View Post
Doesn't look like you read or comprehended his post. Shall we add a health care tax to football helmets and golf clubs? How about a life tax for those born with disease? Why should I pay for their insulin?
You could, but it would be a lot more difficult to track and their isn't near the correlation.

WhiskeyYourTheDevils is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-07-2012, 01:53 AM
  #89
Ilkka Sinisalo
Amazing American
 
Ilkka Sinisalo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Perth, W.A.
Country: Australia
Posts: 10,026
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhiskeyYourTheDevils View Post
I actually have no problem with that - especially for people who smoke, drive inefficient cars, and all that jazz. That is actually a very real use of government - protecting the commons (when reasonable). I don't think food falls into that category (if we are living in a world where the individual is responsible for their own health care). In our soon to be public system, I say bring the sin taxes on. But I'd imagine most liberals would disagree, with calls of "class warfare" and all.

I hope that makes sense, not trying to be a dick.
no, i agree with this. well, i don't agree with your disdain for the public system (and i have no idea why you say "soon to be public system" considering that a government packed with democrats couldn't get it done), but i agree with the idea of sin taxes. realistically, you can't tax people based on body mass index or whatever. some people are just cursed with poor metabolism, like a girl i swam with growing up. she worked hard and didn't eat much, but still looked heavy. then i've known people who eat like slobs and rarely exercise, but don't put on an ounce.

so, since you can't tax people for being fat, and it's hard to get people to be honest with the doctor about their smoking and drinking habits, the solution is to tax the behaviors. if people want to drink or smoke a lot, eat junk food constantly, etc, that's fine, but they have to pay for these things that will likely result in them accessing more than "their share" of health care. i see this as having two positive effects - one, you shift the insurance burden more toward the people who are more likely to use the system, and two you're providing a disincentive for unhealthy behavior. i know people like to ***** about big brother, but to me this is a better system than letting everyone do whatever the hell they want, or simply banning things like big sodas or cigarettes because they're unhealthy.

Ilkka Sinisalo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-07-2012, 09:10 AM
  #90
Francesa
(╯□)╯︵ SƖ ןɥu ɐǝ
 
Francesa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Country: United Kingdom
Posts: 182,977
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mooseOAK View Post
The number of people I know that have Type 2 diabetes is growing steadily. Go Bloomberg.
What happened to personal responsibility? No one yet has given a valid reason why the government should even interfere. The Type 2 diabetes problem is an issue, but is easily fixed by education. Besides, it's not only soda that is responsible for Type 2 diabetes. Soda is simply a scapegoat; an easy "answer" which doesn't really address the problem. Type 2 Diabetes rates and obesity rates will not be affected by a soda ban, since people are still going to go out to the Olive Garden and get huge servings.

Francesa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-07-2012, 09:45 AM
  #91
Buck Aki Berg
My pockets hurt
 
Buck Aki Berg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Ottawa, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,010
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ixcuincle View Post
What happened to personal responsibility? No one yet has given a valid reason why the government should even interfere. The Type 2 diabetes problem is an issue, but is easily fixed by education. Besides, it's not only soda that is responsible for Type 2 diabetes. Soda is simply a scapegoat; an easy "answer" which doesn't really address the problem. Type 2 Diabetes rates and obesity rates will not be affected by a soda ban, since people are still going to go out to the Olive Garden and get huge servings.
I agree with this to an extent - when I was in NYC two years ago, I found it hypocritical that McDonald's is legally required to essentially advertise their calorie counts on their posters, meanwhile you have to trawl the depths of Red Lobster's website to find out how fatty and gross their food is.

I think the issue here - pardon me while I bring out my extra-broad brush - is that the people who drink soda to excess (and like my example, eat fast food to excess) are less likely to be making healthy choices elsewhere. I'm sure a regular at the 7-11 water fountain (or a regular at Red Lobster) is more likely to have a gym membership than a regular at the water fountain (or a regular at McDonald's).

Buck Aki Berg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-07-2012, 09:52 AM
  #92
IkeaMonkey*
HF Hall of Famer
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: derderderderderderde
Country: Sao Tome e Principe
Posts: 12,073
vCash: 500
I now have to buy 2 16 oz sodas instead of one 32 oz soda?! Oh god nooooooooooooooooooooo!

Bloomberg and all of the scientists are ****ing morons. "Science says, you will eat less if the portion sizes are smaller and you will eat more if they are bigger because there is more food available for you to see." I don't know about science, but I know, I eat until I feel full. Regardless of if it's 3 slices of bread full of fiber or an entire large pizza, I eat until I'm full.

Oh yea...and I'm not fat.

Who'da thunk it.

IkeaMonkey* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-07-2012, 10:06 AM
  #93
Buck Aki Berg
My pockets hurt
 
Buck Aki Berg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Ottawa, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,010
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DynamoAO View Post
I now have to buy 2 16 oz sodas instead of one 32 oz soda?! Oh god nooooooooooooooooooooo!

Bloomberg and all of the scientists are ****ing morons. "Science says, you will eat less if the portion sizes are smaller and you will eat more if they are bigger because there is more food available for you to see." I don't know about science, but I know, I eat until I feel full. Regardless of if it's 3 slices of bread full of fiber or an entire large pizza, I eat until I'm full.

Oh yea...and I'm not fat.

Who'da thunk it.
Yeah, you clearly don't know about science.

Buck Aki Berg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-07-2012, 10:16 AM
  #94
IkeaMonkey*
HF Hall of Famer
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: derderderderderderde
Country: Sao Tome e Principe
Posts: 12,073
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buck Aki Berg View Post
Yeah, you clearly don't know about science.
Exactly.

Because when you to a buffet, you never get more than one plate, right?

When you are served your entree at an eating establishment, you never get a dessert, correct? Or you never order an appetizer?

If you said "yes" to all three questions, congrats, you are the outlier. If you said, "no" you are normal and thus consume food like a normal person.

The science is ******** and anyone who believes in it is a ****ing moron.

People eat until they are full. The PROBLEM for fat people with no self control is the want to ALWAYS feel full. Snacking, eating all the nom noms they can because they think they are "empty" without the delicious nom noms. A fat person's idea of maintenence is to always eat, a normal person's idea is maintence is to "put gas in the engine" to hold them over until the next fill up.

IkeaMonkey* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-07-2012, 10:40 AM
  #95
Buck Aki Berg
My pockets hurt
 
Buck Aki Berg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Ottawa, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,010
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DynamoAO View Post
People eat until they are full. The PROBLEM for fat people with no self control is the want to ALWAYS feel full. Snacking, eating all the nom noms they can because they think they are "empty" without the delicious nom noms. A fat person's idea of maintenence is to always eat, a normal person's idea is maintence is to "put gas in the engine" to hold them over until the next fill up.
Okay, so let's see your scientific studies that contradict the numerous scientific studies that you choose not to "believe" in.

Buck Aki Berg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-07-2012, 10:43 AM
  #96
IkeaMonkey*
HF Hall of Famer
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: derderderderderderde
Country: Sao Tome e Principe
Posts: 12,073
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buck Aki Berg View Post
Okay, so let's see your scientific studies that contradict the numerous scientific studies that you choose not to "believe" in.
Common sensology v. 1.9.21. by DynamoAO.


You seemed to not answer any of my simple questions, btw.

IkeaMonkey* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-07-2012, 10:44 AM
  #97
TesseracT
AMG
 
TesseracT's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Boston
Country: United States
Posts: 5,227
vCash: 500

TesseracT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-07-2012, 10:47 AM
  #98
guest1467
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 24,824
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DynamoAO View Post
Common sensology v. 1.9.21. by DynamoAO.


You seemed to not answer any of my simple questions, btw.
That is because they are ****ing nonsense.

guest1467 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-07-2012, 10:50 AM
  #99
Buck Aki Berg
My pockets hurt
 
Buck Aki Berg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Ottawa, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,010
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DynamoAO View Post
Common sensology v. 1.9.21. by DynamoAO.
So your personal hallucination of common sense trumps decades of scientifically proven human behavior?

Buck Aki Berg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-07-2012, 10:54 AM
  #100
IkeaMonkey*
HF Hall of Famer
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: derderderderderderde
Country: Sao Tome e Principe
Posts: 12,073
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buck Aki Berg View Post
So your personal hallucination of common sense trumps decades of scientifically proven human behavior?
So you've never eat an dessert or appetizer in your life.

I'm impressed, really.

IkeaMonkey* is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:30 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.