[Dakarʒ]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

I hate to say this, but I'm with Doofy on this one. Politician regulation has gone far enough. Education is what's needed.

Self-control, too.

[Gossamer]

Originally Posted by Dakarʒ 

Self-control, too.

I can't help but reply to your post.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

And adding an even worse socialized heath care system on top of it, where people will get the message- be a lazy as you want with your health, someone else will pay for the problems you develop later- will only make the core problem grow even more.

Ha, I love the way you conservatives think. If there's a health problem in the country, how do we address it? Make sure people continue to not have health insurance!

[Kerrigan]

Here's what I don't understand:

We're told that weight cannot be effectively controlled by altering your diet. But then we're also told that increasing obesity has to do with unhealthy junk food diets and sedentary lifestyles.

So in theory, if I were fat, the best way for me to lose weight would be for me to control my calorie intake and exercise, and this should work for just about anyone. But then why do 3/4 or more of dieters fail? In most cases of failure, it must just be due to laziness and/or inability to follow through.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

Here's what I don't understand:

We're told that weight cannot be effectively controlled by altering your diet. But then we're also told that increasing obesity has to do with unhealthy junk food diets and sedentary lifestyles.

That's a good point. Here's my theory: The social forces are just so powerful that they're almost impossible to overcome. We're just too inundated with cheap high-calorie food, we work too much, our jobs and activities are too sedentary. Put it all together, and it's not so much that you've got to be lazy to fall for it, rather, you've either got to have an unusual metabolism or extraordinary willpower to overcome it. That's why you get 2/3 of the US overweight or obese. It just doesn't make sense that you'd see this massive increase in weight in such a short time - the past 30 years - if it was all just willpower.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

Ha, I love the way you conservatives think. If there's a health problem in the country, how do we address it? Make sure people continue to not have health insurance!

Thanks, King Kneejerk.

First of all, the healthcare and insurance systems, in ANY case, (socialized ponzi scheme mess or not) should not be for crowds of people needing bypass surgeries in their mid-30's because they've sat on their asses all their lives- the same way the primary reason for auto insurance isn't for drunks and reckless drivers to feel there's a safety net for the damage they cause, so have a few more and put the pedal to the metal.

If people sit around and watch TV or surf the web 8 hours a day, every day, eat crap food, and never get their fat asses on a bike, do any sort of exercise, go to a gym, or do anything to take care of themselves (and newsflash, it's not any big conspiracy, millions of people do just that) it's not anyone else's friggen heath insurance problem, it's a personal LIFESTYLE problem.

Why, oh why am I not surprised that one of the posterboys for the endless entitlement crowd wouldn't know the difference?

No, putting an endless-trillion dollar ponzi scheme band-aid on the SYMPTOMS of a lifestyle problem doesn't even begin to address the problem itself.

I love the way you liberals DON'T think.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Thanks, King Kneejerk.

First of all, the healthcare and insurance systems, in ANY case, (socialized ponzi scheme mess or not) should not be for crowds of people needing bypass surgeries in their mid-30's because they've sat on their asses all their lives- the same way the primary reason for auto insurance isn't for drunks and reckless drivers to feel there's a safety net for the damage they cause, so have a few more and put the pedal to the metal.

If people sit around and watch TV or surf the web 8 hours a day, every day, eat crap food, and never get their fat asses on a bike, do any sort of exercise, go to a gym, or do anything to take care of themselves (and newsflash, it's not any big conspiracy, millions of people do just that) it's not anyone else's friggen heath insurance problem, it's a personal LIFESTYLE problem.

Why, oh why am I not surprised that one of the posterboys for the endless entitlement crowd wouldn't know the difference?

No, putting an endless-trillion dollar ponzi scheme band-aid on the SYMPTOMS of a lifestyle problem doesn't even begin to address the problem itself.

I love the way you liberals DON'T think.

The vast majority of health problems people face today are behavioral, primarily smoking and diet/exercise, and also alcohol abuse, illegal drugs, sexual behavior, driving, and guns. Very few are unpreventable or not linked to some type of behavior. If we're going to start denying people health care for lifestyle-caused conditions, we're going to deny all but a very small fraction of people health care.

The idea that people would be less healthy if we had universal coverage or "socialized health care" - which, in conservative jargon, just means any improvement to the disaster that we have now - is truly and utterly illogical and ludicrous, no matter how central it is to conservative "thinking."

[RAILhead]

I think we need to have a look at this "Diana" girl.

[osiris]

I agree. She sounds totally hot.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

The vast majority of health problems people face today are behavioral, primarily smoking and diet/exercise, and also alcohol abuse, illegal drugs, sexual behavior, driving, and guns. Very few are unpreventable or not linked to some type of behavior. If we're going to start denying people health care for lifestyle-caused conditions, we're going to deny all but a very small fraction of people health care.

No one is being denied healthcare, that's merely your "gloom and doom" at all costs assertion. The difference is, people need to pay for their OWN healthcare, and take care of THEMSELVES to begin with, not hang the bill for making bad lifestyle choices on someone else.

If someone leads a high health risk lifestyle, IE: smokes, drinks too much, doesn't exercise, doesn't eat well, is sedentary, then the heath problems they WILL develop aren't for those that HAVE taken care of themselves to be stuck with, its for the individual to avoid in the first place, and pay for their own insurance in the second.

I see you socialists feel you've done so well with your class envy/tax the rich crap, that now you're moving on to health envy/tax the fit!

"It's not your fault you're an overweight pile of lard, chimney with emphysema at far too young of an age! Why, it must be some convoluted conspiracy that made you that way! It's not your fault! It's Bush's fault! Karl Rove did it! Big Food made you eat unhealthy, and Big TV made you sit on your ass in front of it for years on end. It's unfair! It's that FIT person over there who should pay for your health problems!"

The idea that people would be less healthy if we had universal coverage or "socialized health care" - which, in conservative jargon, just means any improvement to the disaster that we have now - is truly and utterly illogical and ludicrous, no matter how central it is to conservative "thinking."

Yeah, huge waiting lists, the responsible being excessively soaked to pay for the irresponsible, every nitwit in the world overrunning hospitals because they've got a hangnail and think someone else is footing the bill, and the fact that you haven't done anything with the problems caused by people who don't take care of themselves other than make them think they have a "safety net" for their risky behavior that someone else pays for... all that is really going to make anyone healthier. Riiight. Just like all your class envy and soaking the rich nonsense has REALLY ended poverty.

[OldManMac]

Of course, none of the obesity epidemic in America has anything to do with the corn, wheat, and soybeans that the federal government subsidizes, which are just some of the ingredients turned into sugar in such things as Twinkies, while it gives virtually no subsidies to growers of most vegetables. It's just a coindcidence that the American public started getting fatter as these subsidies started growing, which just coincidentally started occuring when junk food started providing more calories per dollar than healthy food, I'm sure. I'm sure it's just a coincidence that liquid sugar machines started showing up in our schools at that time as well. I'm also sure it's just a coincidence that poorer people, trying to stretch their food dollar would rather spend a buck on a bag of chips than a bag of carrots, especially when the junk food is more conveniently placed in stores than the healthy stuff.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/22/ma...wlnlede.t.html Interesting article, titled You Are What You Grow, and it explains a lot about how government subsidies have a large impact on what we eat. No one is saying there isn't any personal responsibility involved, I'm sure, but when you're poorer and not as educated about what's good for you, and aren't aware of the complexities of a balanced and healthful diet, and you're constantly bombarded with advertising that's misleading at best, it isn't always so black and white. Of course, there are those to whom everything is black and white because they know it all, and can't conceive of everybody else not being like them.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Yeah, huge waiting lists

Sounds like you REALLY know what you're talking about.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by analogika 

Sounds like you REALLY know what you're talking about.

Yes, because no one EVER heard of wait lists in nations like Canada!

So of course, you dimwits would *imagine* that a nation with 300 million people vs. Canada's 35 million, would somehow not have an even bigger problem with waiting lists under some socialized ponzi-scheme.

You pretty much NEVER know what you're talking about!

[Monique]

So you conservatives would go around hospitals and say you do not deserve to be taken care of because you ate a french fries, or you smoke a cigarette or you had unprotected sex, etc. What a joke with conservatives, you are against abortions but you want to see overweight people or smokers, or gays, or people having unprotected sex died because it would be more economical.

[Kerrigan]

I'm not gonna let anyone die me.

[Gossamer]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

I'm not gonna let anyone die me.

What if it was a really pretty shade of blue?

[Sherman Homan]

Zune brown?

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by KarlG 

Of course, none of the obesity epidemic in America has anything to do with the corn, wheat, and soybeans that the federal government subsidizes, which are just some of the ingredients turned into sugar in such things as Twinkies, while it gives virtually no subsidies to growers of most vegetables. It's just a coindcidence that the American public started getting fatter as these subsidies started growing, which just coincidentally started occuring when junk food started providing more calories per dollar than healthy food, I'm sure. I'm sure it's just a coincidence that liquid sugar machines started showing up in our schools at that time as well. I'm also sure it's just a coincidence that poorer people, trying to stretch their food dollar would rather spend a buck on a bag of chips than a bag of carrots, especially when the junk food is more conveniently placed in stores than the healthy stuff.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/22/ma...wlnlede.t.html Interesting article, titled You Are What You Grow, and it explains a lot about how government subsidies have a large impact on what we eat. No one is saying there isn't any personal responsibility involved, I'm sure, but when you're poorer and not as educated about what's good for you, and aren't aware of the complexities of a balanced and healthful diet, and you're constantly bombarded with advertising that's misleading at best, it isn't always so black and white. Of course, there are those to whom everything is black and white because they know it all, and can't conceive of everybody else not being like them.

I mostly agree with you.

This is certainly a part of it, but it's not the only nor is it the biggest part IMHO. It's just one of many parts.