I all for Bush plan when it comes to healthcare, tax credits/deductions for healthcare insurance is a great idea. The sooner government gets out of the way with their funding the better we will all be. government should be in the business of mandating rules and regulations and enforcing those rules and regulations not direct funding of pet projects.

But it’s all good because we can just blame people’s lazyness and while this does nothing to solve the problem it lets the government seize more power, continues the profits of the food industry, and makes people think they have no self discpline thereby ensuring low self esteem in the population.

As far as fat people being out of shape. have you ever tried to carry around a 100, 200, 300 pound backpack all day every day? Are you in good enough shape to carry this weight around everyday? Can you get out of bed in the morning with 100pd weight on your chest? Are your muscles strong enough to propel your legs over miles with a 150pd backpack strapped to your chest. What’s that old saying “walk a mile in their shoes….

So if even the experts can not decide what is causing the obesity problem how can the avg citizen who is bombarded everyday with a new health message be expected to be healthy? when I was young I would wonder how people could get to be fat, as I have gotten older I understand it is a slow, steady condition that slowly invades your body one that you must be on a constant look out against. You do not go to sleep one night skinny and wake up the next day fat. You might start putting on an extra pound or two a year in your 20′s, then maybe its 3-4 in your 30′s, then it speeds up and soon your packing on 5 every 6 months or maybe ten. Your diet might even stay the same but you body ages and you slow down.

No this crusade against fat people is misplaced, your premiums will not go down if all of America suddenly lost 100 pounds. The insurance companies are not going to refund you unused money, the government will not suddenly declare a tax break and give you your money back. The money saved if any will simply go to the bottomline of the insurance companies and to another pet project of the government. So you give up your freedom for what? That’s right for nothing. don’t believe me? i’m still waiting for the car insurance rate cut because my state passed a seat belt law. they passed it like 10 years ago. Still waiting for all the money I was going to save from that nanny state bill. And while we are at it I’m still waiting for all the money I was going to save on insurance premuims and taxes once people stopped smoking. Still waiting for that also.

This “its costing me money because your fat” is a joke and a straw man for the insurance companies and government to raise funds and to shift the blame.

tneloms on February 18, 2008 at 7:54 PM

Of course those experts have skin in the game so to speak. Much like the global warmists experts have skin in the game. there have been cars for 50 years Americans did not start getting fat until the late 70′s when the diet changed. We use to eat bacon and eggs for breakfast now we eat proceesed sugar that people call cereal. We use to smother our bread with real butter, now we use processed hydrogenated vegtable oil, we use to have meat every night for suppers now we have low fat stir fry. the list goes on and on. Watching kids playing I don’t see them using any less energy than they did 30 years ago. Are we exercising less? The number of gym memberships are at all time highs. Men use to like to have muscle now they jog for their health. Every hear of a weight lifter dying from a massive heartattack after a lifting session? No but how many stories have you read of people dying from a heartattack after a jog. Many more.

Just look at nature. You ever see a fat mountain lion? Or a fat wolf? No? I bet you have seen a fat cow and I bet you have seen some fat horses. One eats meat the other has a low fat, low protein diet. Guess which is which. You know you expand more calories digesting meat than carbs right? So 100 calories of meat is NOT the same as 100 calories of sugar. You also understand that FAT when eaten decreases the hunger trigger. Thus you eating 100 calories of fat will make your feel fuller than 100 calories of carbs. thus you eat less for the same punch. therefore simply by changing your diet to a high protein medium fat and low carb diet while eating the same calories will cause you to lose weight because one you feel fuller and will eat less often and you expand more energy digesting your food thus giving your body less energy to store as fat.

primary emphasis on reducing dietary fat may have actually contributed to the dramatic increase in rates of obesity, diabetes and certain heart disease risk factors observed over the last two decades in the United States.

DAVID S. LUDWIG, M.D.
Boston, July 13, 2002

The writer is director of the obesity program, Children’s Hospital, and an assistant professor of pediatrics, Harvard Medical School
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE7DD1239F934A25754C0A9649C8B63&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

But I also think most of you will agree that as long as private actions have a detrimental effect on the rest of society, some of those actions need to be regulated. Yes, we should regulate as little as possible, because government is terrible at doing things like this, but it still must be done sometimes. For example, I support regulations on smoking in public because that causes a direct harm to others and there’s no other way to prevent that harm from happening.

tneloms on February 18, 2008 at 7:54 PM

Again I ask, “who decides?”.

Even the instance you cite (smoking in public places) as a good example of increased regulation is problematic. The “direct harm” done to others by second-hand smoke has been wildly (and provably) exaggerated by those with an anti-smoking agenda in order to garner support for infringing on the private property rights of individuals for the good of “the rest of society”.

It is a fundamental question of priorities.

Which is of greater value?

A citizenry comprised of free individuals equal in the eyes of the law or a state made up of clients being ministered to by “experts” whose mission it is to see that the security of the majority is in no wise threatened by the sometimes questionable exercise of free-will by a minority?

If you value the former, then the argument against increasing government regulation is not “because government is terrible at doing things like this”.

I don’t mind the manner in which the government takes on such projects. I mind that they are considered the rightful purview of state functionaries in the fist place.

Well put — and you’ve got a good list. But one you forgot is: “promote individual health insurance plans instead of employer plans”. So long as the tax law forces employers into providing health insurance, the health insurance industry will remain collectivized and collectivist.

While on the subject of health, I have to note that elementary economics has observed that anything with less than infinite supply always gets rationed. This isn’t a theory, this is an observation — like “things fall downward” or “longer days correlate with warmer ones”. When rationed out, you can use a number of different methods — such as by price, by the amount of time you wait in line (think concert tickets), or how politically connected you are (your dacha or mine?).

People complain about health care in the US because you can go broke. That’s because it’s rationed by price. You get better care if you can afford it, but it might cost you all you have.

What other method would they prefer? Rationing by time is done in the UK — pretty much all operations have months-long waiting lists. If you don’t survive until your number comes up, oh well. Rationing by political connection is favored by totalitarians everywhere. Support the regime, or the next time you get sick may be your last.

As unseen notes, nobody is talking about the supply side of things — so what basis would they use for allocating health-care resources? Would you rather be broke ($), dead (time), or in chains (politics)?

I understand and agree with the fear of a nanny state. I think it’s mostly a slippery slope argument — first this, then banning smoking in the home, teenage sex, etc.) — which I also agree with, because as you point out, our government and certainly others have slipped down this slope when given the chance.

But I also think most of you will agree that as long as private actions have a detrimental effect on the rest of society, some of those actions need to be regulated. Yes, we should regulate as little as possible, because government is terrible at doing things like this, but it still must be done sometimes. For example, I support regulations on smoking in public because that causes a direct harm to others and there’s no other way to prevent that harm from happening. But I certainly don’t support banning smoking in the home, because the harm to society (taxpayers paying for hospital bills when you get cancer if you’re uninsured) can be prevented by other means (making you pay for your cancer treatment).

Specifically in this case, I support getting rid of the law that hospitals must treat everyone regardless of insurance, and allowing insurance companies to charge extra to those who don’t make the effort to stay healthy. But until that’s done, there’s a direct harm that’s being caused to society by those who don’t stay healthy. And the government shouldn’t overstep too much in trying to curtail it, but minimal steps such as taking this issue into account when planning cities are a reasonable thing to do.

I agree with everyone that personal responsibility is important. I think the scientist in this article that everyone is complaining about would agree with that too. But you also also have to do something about those who refuse to take responsibility as long as you don’t give them an incentive to continue their ways. I don’t think planning cities such that more people can bike or walk to work provides an incentive for people to continue to refuse to take responsibility for their health. It also doesn’t infringe too much on their rights to eat as much as they want and exercise as little as they want.

Yes I deny it. The fact is that obesity did not become a problem until the government interfered in our diet and started to promote low fat alterniatives “to protect society from “heart diesease”.

unseen on February 18, 2008 at 4:16 PM

I don’t know what to say to this. There are numerous studies that show that the rise in obesity has been caused by less overall exercise in our lifestyles, especially in children. You can dispute those studies, but I don’t think there’s much disagreement among experts who have studied this.

Huge straw man.

The Monster on February 18, 2008 at 5:01 PM

I was responding to a comparison that 4shoes made (at 3:12 PM).

Well who could ever argue with that logic. The Government is already involved in other things, so let’s get them involved in everything.

right2bright on February 18, 2008 at 5:36 PM

That’s not was calbear was saying. calbear said that since the government is the only entity that can be in charge of city planning specifically (not other things), it makes sense for it to take into account things like public health when doing it. I assume you agree that things like city planning can’t be done by private businesses.

“I’m the enemy because I like to think. I like to read. I’m into freedom of speech and freedom of choice. I’m the kind of guy that could sit in a greasy spoon and wonder, gee, should I have the T-bone steak or the jumbo rack of barbecue ribs or the side order of gravy fries? I want high cholesterol. I would eat bacon and butter and buckets of cheese. Okay? I want to smoke Cuban cigars the size of Cincinnati in the nonsmoking section. I want to run through the streets naked with green Jell-O all over my body reading Playboy magazine. Why? Because I might suddenly feel the need to. Okay, pal?”

I suddenly feel like going home and watching a little Demolition Man.

Government is already what’s in charge of city planning, etc., and has gotten into other things for the benefit of society – the G.I. Bill, government-sponsored research into the sciences (from disease cures to the Internet), pro-growth tax incentives. They should not ignore health when they’re doing what they’re doing already. And it will lower per-capita health care costs, since the health costs associated with obesity are fairly large; it’s a problem with manifestations that kill slowly.2008 at 4:56 PM

Well who could ever argue with that logic. The Government is already involved in other things, so let’s get them involved in everything.
So, who is going to tell you what to eat, what to put in your kids lunches, how much exercise you need?
What government program will be needed for this, and how large and costly?
Dude, this is how a socialist society is born…always with “good” intentions. You know, if we can just help them poor black folk with a little money, and the more kids they have, well it only makes sense to give them more money…and you know the rest of the story.
If you think the Government (which is now Pelosi, Reid, etc.) has your best interest, and can tell you how to live a healthy life…well, you may be posting on the wrong blog.
Pray that Jack LaLane is our national health care administrator and not these government workers.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7250372.stm

Maybe we can set up special “cellphone rooms” so the radio waves doesn’t impact us non-cellphone users. I know let’s have them be required to go out back to lite up their phones. and those in homes with children should never be allowed to have cellphones near the precious children.

Well since people talking loud on a cellphone in every place I go bothers me more than a fat person Can we start harping on the people always talking on their cellphones now? since they are costing me a fortune or will be in the coming decade. cancer is after all more expensive and harder to cure then being overweight. All of you with cellphones for the good of the country stop talking. The government will be putting out rules stating that Verizon can only offer 15 minute monthly plans soon.

Heavy mobile phone use may be linked to an increased risk of cancer of the salivary gland, a study suggests.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7250372.stm

Um, so you advocate making pedophiles take personal responsibility for their actions and keeping the government out of it? Or should the government arrest and punish pedophiles, take actions to prevent them from getting near children, and provide resources for both the abuser and the abused to avoid future incidents?

Huge straw man. A pedophile who acts upon his urges is forcing himself onto someone who isn’t remotely able to form consent. The only moral justification for the institution of government is to defend against those who do harm to others, so if it fails to act in this area, what good is it?

(However, I strenuously oppose Sex Offender Registries that place any additional restrictions on the liberties of people who committed their offense before the law establishing these restrictions was passed. They are unconstitutional on their face. What part of “no ex post facto law” is so hard to understand?)

When I give into my urge to have a pint of Edy’s Grand Ice Cream, I’m a consenting adult engaging in a personal vice, and if I don’t pay for it at the health club, I’ll surely pay for it with a lower quality of life, and higher cost of the health care I’ll need for being a lardass. It is only because government has taken upon itself the payment of health care costs (thereby forcing those costs onto all taxpayers) that the lawsuits against tobacco companies have finally been successful. When it was about an individual adult making choices and bearing the costs thereof, they never got anywere.

People like John Edwards will try to take a bite out of McDonald’s and Baskin-Robbins soon enough.

Then let the health providers charge appropriately. It is not up to the government to determine the risk to the insurance companies.

Government is already what’s in charge of city planning, etc., and has gotten into other things for the benefit of society – the G.I. Bill, government-sponsored research into the sciences (from disease cures to the Internet), pro-growth tax incentives. They should not ignore health when they’re doing what they’re doing already. And it will lower per-capita health care costs, since the health costs associated with obesity are fairly large; it’s a problem with manifestations that kill slowly. People who really want to will still refuse to exercise and eat like pigs, but we can easily improve on a culture in which, for example, bicycling is both dangerous (due to street design) and mocked (which I don’t want government to directly address, but it still irks me).

Hmmm…lets see if we did away with food stamps, and healthcare for the poor than they would: 1)not be able to buy as much food and 2) would not be able to seek healthcare. Of course then we might go back to having some starve to death and have famine in America again which would increase the healthcare costs more as the government launches more programs to deal with the lack of eating willpower of the poor. But that free market worked well back then….I will state again obesity is not the cause leading to a rise in healthcare costs just like a sudden evolutionary trend of higher intelligence is not the cause leading to higher college costs. The problem is the governmental programs put in place by demand side economics during the liberal control of our government from 1930-2008.

For a free market to be free you have to have rules and regulations or the free market quickly becomes unfree as those that make the most use the power and wealth they acquired to quickly stack the deck increasingly in their favor.

Um, so you advocate making pedophiles take personal responsibility for their actions and keeping the government out of it? Or should the government arrest and punish pedophiles, take actions to prevent them from getting near children, and provide resources for both the abuser and the abused to avoid future incidents?

Oh, I already know 99% of them are unable/unwilling to take personal responsibility for their actions. And yes, for them I totally advocate government taking action to keep them out of public. My point was in reference to the “scientist” making excuses for a group of people. There is no basis for a scientist to make a statement like the one we’re commenting on, it says that no one must take responsibility for their own actions. I guess my comparison
was not a great one, it’s just that in the past people have made excuses for pedophiles, when I believe regardless of why they’ve done it, they should be forced to take responsibility, one way or another.

I agree about attacking both sides. I’m saying that it is not a specific group that is driving the increase it is the total of the entire group. I would wager we could decrease demand more by targeting illegals than the fat people. That’s not the point. Even if we removed both from healthcare we would not reduce costs because we are not attacking the right supply/demand and that is the supply and demand created by government. The government pumps in basically an unlimted demand from new customers in their search for more votes. While at the same time they pump in unlimited funds thereby increasing the price.

The Monster on February 18, 2008 at 3:56 PM

Right on!

Only one quibble though. If (formerly) Great Britain is any indication, I suspect that NHC will mean a lot of both.

Yes I deny it. The fact is that obesity did not become a problem until the government interfered in our diet and started to promote low fat alterniatives “to protect society from “heart diesease”. By cutting out fat and protein we increased our intake of sugars and carb which is more a cause of diabeties that weight add into that the school lunch and breakfast programs for the “poor” that are promoting this diet of low fat, low protein and high carbs and you get the nations poorest citizens eating the worst deits. So what does the liberals and government control freaks do with the problem they created well they decide to shift the blame.

Let me repeat the reason that healthcare costs are increasing is because at the present time the healthcare industry has a customer with an unlimited supply of money. Namely the Federal and State governments. If you own a business and one of your customers comes in and says he wants something and money is no problem that he will pay any price are you going to raise your prices or give him a deep discount? Add into the mix that healthcare’s other biggest customer is big business also with very deep pockets and you get smart people on the supply side raising prices. Throw in the increased demand by people that do not pay for any healthcare out of their pockets and you set up a scenrio of hyper price inflation.

the obesse is no more burden on the system than the old, or pregent mothers, newborn /premature babies, or the handicapped and in many regards they are less of a burden. Should we next decide how long a person can live? Who can have a baby, how many babies they can have? that no premature baby can be left to live?

gaining weight or being fat is a natural body defense mechinism to ensure our species survival during times when food is not available, the people that you sneer at that are now obeese, it was their genes that enabled our species to survive. And if anyone is stupid enough to think that those times can not/will not come again you do not know natural history, nor human history. Go ask some in Africa why they find large women attractive.

Macroeconomics states that supply and demand will dictate price. The government wants to decrease demand for helathcare by targeting the groups that use more of it, yet at the same time they want to increase demand by bringing in another 45 million people that are now uninsured. If less and less people are being treated or insured why does price keep going up? If 45 million people no longer have health insurance and therefore should not be able to recieve healthcare why does the price go up? The prices should be coming down not up in a normal world. It is because the government is stepping in a artifically keeping prices up by creating artifical demand. If something is free you will have unlimited demand. (as a side note this is why music companies can not compete with downloading, they have the opposite problem of unlimited supply)

It is NOT a coincidence that the two industries having the highest price inflation: higher education and healthcare just happen to be the two industries that the government continues to fund at higher and higher rates. You want college expenses to come down shut off federal aid, you want healthcare costs to come down shut off federal aid. As the pie of available funds shrink colleges and healthcare workers will reduce their prices and increase their quality to compete for customers.

Will this mean less people go to college? Or less people get healthcare? Maybe. It is just as likely that as the price for these things come down MORE people will be able to afford these services on their own therby increasing the amount of people being covered or enrolled.

The liberals always want to attack the demand side of the equation in everything and the rep want to attack the supply side when the answer is to attack both. Gas prices are another issue. You want to decrease gas prices you can decrease demand or increase supply. The rep want to increase supply by more drilling, more refineries while the liberasl want to decrease the demand by hybrids, solar, wind, fuel cells, bio fuels, etc. You want to make gas very cheap do both. attacking demand will keep gas prices because the supply is limited. increasing supply will only make demand higher. If you increase the supply at the same time you decrease demand than you will have gas prices close to $1.00/gallon. Same goes for healthcare and college. Increase supply and decrease demand.

Or should the government arrest and punish pedophiles, take actions to prevent them from getting near children, and provide resources for both the abuser and the abused to avoid future incidents?

Yes, everyone should take responsibility for their own actions. But when they don’t, and this adversely affects the rest of society, the government should provide incentives and punishments to fix the problem, and create and environment in which the problem can be more easily curtailed.

tneloms on February 18, 2008 at 3:33 PM

Which problems? Who decides?

I would like to remind people that much of the support for gun control laws was engendered by arguments from academics and health care professionals who falsely branded gun violence as an “epidemic” like tuberculosis in order to justify government intervention.

Let’s see how this works:

Or should the government arrest and punish pedophiles those who abuse public health resources with unhealthy lifestyle choices, take actions to prevent them from getting near children processed foods, cigarettes, firearms, alcohol, and provide resources (re-education?) for both the abuser(an adult exercising his or her capacity for free-will) and the abused (the welfare state) to avoid future incidents?

34 lbs. is awesome…it’s amazing, not only the loss, but the mental attitude to do it…you are a winner.

right2bright on February 18, 2008 at 9:01 AM

That’s very encouraging!…

baldilocks on February 18, 2008 at 12:28 PM

Aw shucks, thank you! And kudos to you Baldilocks, and Darin & Michealo.

Losing weight is hard work. I’ve done it on my own without any formal plan. Just put common sense to work with portion control and what I eat. Cut out those things that I know are bad for me, added in things that are healthy and voila! 34 pounds lost in 9 months. Slow and steady wins the race.

Ultimately you have to be personally motivated to do this – and therein lies the problem. Motivation and hard work don’t really go together much anymore, sadly.

Oh yeah, and my Hubby has lost 25 pounds the same way as me.

There is little or no free market force that curtails this phenomenon of obesity-related illness leading to rising health care costs. The free market forces are from people who care enough about their own health to buy exercise and diet products, but this apparently hasn’t been enough. Since the government ends up paying for a good amount of this, it makes sense that the government would want to create an environment in which this is less of a problem.

This is how the Mommy State (gives you stuff) empowers the Daddy State (kicks your butt when you get out of line). The whole thing got messed up when wage and price controls were imposed during WWII, and employers started offering fringe benefits to attract and/or retain good workers.
Once you believe that “someone else is paying”, your incentive to control the costs goes away. Despite all efforts to reengage the patient in the cost control loop, so long as health care is not purchased directly by the patient, the problem will persist. Look to the ridiculous waiting lists north of the border for where we’ll go once Nationalized Health Care is a reality.
And then there’s this: I know people who don’t have my “lifestyle”. What they do in their bedrooms is none of my business… right up to the point where I am coerced into paying for it. Then suddenly their promiscuous behavior is costing me money.

Either NHC will force people like me to pay for others’ bad choices, or will start interfering with their freedom to make those choices. Or more likely, a little of both.

calbear on February 18, 2008 at 3:38 PM

Then let the health providers charge appropriately. It is not up to the government to determine the risk to the insurance companies.

and create and environment in which the problem can be more easily curtailed.

tneloms on February 18, 2008 at 3:33 PM

Once again, you are for open borders?
You see, you can’t legislate personal responsibility. That has been tried, and it has failed time and time again. Peer pressure, like overweight people have to pay more for an airline ticket…higher insurance premiums…not allowed to sit next to me in a theater…that kind of stuff.
*
Instead we insult them by saying stuff like, “she would be so pretty if she lost weight”, or “well, she has a great personlality”, “he is reminds me of…”. The fact is, she/he should lose the weight because that’s what they want to do…or keep it because they are comfortable with it. But never the government (which bureaucrat do you want in charge of this?)to give any incentive (read hand in pocket for a program to expand…pun alert)or create a punishment for being overweight (you vill be skinny, ve vill demand it!!!)

That is a false statement that has been promoted by liberals. Health care cost have gone up not because of personal behavior but because of governmental actions. It is not the obesse that is driving helathcare costs up it is the FACT that the government is covering more and more people for longer amounts of time.

You want to take serious action to solve healthcare costs fine let’s attack the costs from the supply side instead of the demand side

No – how about attacking it from both sides? I seriously doubt either one alone is enough to solve the problem. Also, my “false statement that has been promoted by liberals” was promoted by Bryan on Friday. I never said that obesity was the primary or only cause of our health care crisis, but it’s one of many causes that we would be wise not to ignore.