Health Care for Everyone

[FoolKiller]

My point is if you buy insurance, you are supporting those who haven't been able to take care of themselves along with the people who have had misfortunes of being sick. I don't care what type of insurance you have or how much you shop around, you're going to be paying for these people.

I never denied that. My point was in a private system you can choose how you pay for those people and how much.

I don't feel like Danoff's post contribute anything and I don't agree with his posting style so he's on my ignore list, seems to cause less issues. But freedom of choice right

Yes, but it makes you look bad when you post as if his comments never existed to those of us who see every post but can't see who you are ignoring.

Consumer involvement in what doctor you go to has very little to do with why the cost of healthcare is so high. The main reason your doctor's visit costs so much is due to malpractice, ask any doctor and they will probably tell you this, I know I've spoken with several during my employment and they all say the exact same thing. Malpractice insurance has become so out of control that it makes their overhead obscenely high meaning they have to charge a lot of money. Depending on the practice and what they do and the insurance they require, each doc could be paying $50,000 or more per year for their malpractice and this is assuming they haven't been previously sued. Factor in employees, utilities and the desire for a large salary and you see the cost of healthcare climb.

Yet they allow my insurance to pay as little as 5% of their initial charge. I'm pretty sure my $25 copay isn't covering the rest. Of course, the doctors paying $50,000 are likely grossing that much in a month, if not quicker. Don't forget, I see high cost bills all the time.

Allowing people to shop for doctors isn't really going to do much unless malpractice lawsuits are controlled and the doctor's insurance lowered. Every doctor deals with it.

Price competition exists anywhere consumers look at the cost to them. I'm not claiming that it will suddenly be pocket change. In fact, I gave real world examples to show the difference I was talking about. Apparently doctors only need to charge a fraction of what they do, because they let the insurance pay that lower amount. If malpractice requires a doctor charge you or I $1,500 then how do they survive only taking $200 when insurance pays it?

I can't ask them, it's borderline illegal. But I can tell you based on my bills it depends on what I have done and where I go. If I go out of the health system my insurance pays a very small portion and if I go within the health system they cover a pretty big chunk. I mean I've paid as much as $700 for a single doctor's visit before and they were an in system doctor that took my insurance.

I'm not talking about out-of-network coverage. That is a whole other discussion about the whys and hows of each individual plan and each case is different. I'm talking about in-network coverage, you know the doctors that agree to accept a much lower rate than what they charge you. And telling me how much you paid in one instance tells me nothing. You could have high deductible, low premium plan and have had a biopsy done in the office (done that, so I know it can be done) or any other in-office outpatient procedures. You paid $700 just tells me either you have decent premiums, a crappy plan, and had something expensive done. It sure as hell wasn't just an annual checkup.

If patients shopped based on price they really wouldn't see that much of difference because the overhead for all doctors' offices is insanely high as I've said. One doc may be a little lower than another, but overall the industry is still going to stay high priced.

I just want the in-network insurance rate.

And why wouldn't they? Healthcare isn't something you can ignore if you want to continue living, so why not charge whatever since it's either pay it or end up in bad shape/dead.

Because a dead patient tells no...er pays no bills. A patient too ill to work can't pay bills. Ultimately, it is in their best interest to give their patient good treatment and find a way that they can pay. Otherwise they'd be out of business.

Drug companies do the same exact thing before their drugs end up generic.

They also offer prescription assistance plans that provide free or extremely discounted name brand drugs. But that is a whole other discussion regarding the falsehood of how drug companies are perceived and may get way too close to describing exactly what my current job is while I am still on new hire probation.

I don't believe having zero regulations would make a good society,

Excellent, because I said no one else did.

I believe it would just end up with whoever has the most money would end up dictating what can and cannot be done.

Good thing we have regulations preventing that from happening. Only the poor people invited to George Clooney's house get a say.

Yes, there is such a thing as to much regulations, but there is also such a thing as not enough. As I've said I don't trust people to do the right thing, even with regulations they still don't do the right thing.

So you agree that regulating is a futile waste of time and resources?

I do not see why we need people regulating sugar, trans fats, salt, and so forth. That was my initial point. If you want to continue discussing regulations in a discussion that began from that topic then please address it, as this aimless regulations discussion is running us in circles to the point that you appear to be replying to something I didn't say. You just defended against the opposite of what I said and partly agreed with me. Maybe it's just late and you read it wrong.

It's not so much a personal level of decision making, but corporate. I think food should be regulated and there should be a standard to which items are made. McDonald's could make their products from just a bunch of chemicals (although I suspect they do) and sell it to the public. Say those chemicals were known to cause cancer but they made the food taste good. If McDonald's never says anything people will keep eating and eventually start getting sick. Depending on how much money McDonald's then wants to throw at the problem, they can easily keep it under wraps without the general public knowing.

Yeah, don't sell misleading products is a rule even the staunchest libertarian can agree to. But you act as if you think Id be opposed to informed consent.

I know a common theme around here is that we should throw out everything that's perceived as wrong and start anew.

Yet the theme has never had a timeline of immediately. We didn't get here over night and we can't fix it over night. No one thinks we can.

 

[Pako]

Frankly I am excited about the idea of getting to pay for someone else's abortion. Yaaaay!

(even more than I already have...)

 

[dautolover]

I know this is from a few days ago, but I've just realized how bad this actually is. We say this sort of thing as if it's the norm, but not so long ago, from a company's prospective, it was extremely far from normal. Honestly, where in the world does the government get the authority to simply say to McDonalds (or anyone for that matter) "You must use so and so to make so and so"!? This is just horrendous! This whole idea of the government protecting us from ourselves has gone off the edge. And because I've gone along with it for so long and haven't thought about it much, I never realized how awful it actually was.

To this, I would say that the average American is so busy with other things, that they don't pay attention to the things that are harmful to their bodies. Surely, if a company such as McDonalds is selling a product that uses an oil that is very bad for you, and that there is actually an alternative out there in the market, why would the government not prohibit McD's use of certain products to protect those who probably don't even think about what goes into their meat?

If I'm not mistaken, the government is why people don't smoke cigarettes as much as they used to. To be honest with you, I don't necessarily feel bad for those companies who tried to sell the idea of cigarette use as something appealing and hip, and now aren't doing so hot. I actually feel great that these companies, who knew about the effects of cigarette use but decided to not disclose those facts, are not doing as good as they were before.

 

[FoolKiller]

To this, I would say that the average American is so busy with other things, that they don't pay attention to the things that are harmful to their bodies. Surely, if a company such as McDonalds is selling a product that uses an oil that is very bad for you, and that there is actually an alternative out there in the market, why would the government not prohibit McD's use of certain products to protect those who probably don't even think about what goes into their meat?

Because it is not the responsibility of government to protect us from our own laziness. If you can't take your own health into account then why should the rest of us deal with the consequences of your actions? The US has a lot of overweight diabetics too. Now they are going after sugar by banning certain products in certain places or placing a tax on certain products. Why should we all pay extra for an occasional soft drink because Hefty McJiggles drinks a couple of liters every day? And why shouldn't Hefty McJiggles be allowed to drink a couple of liters each day?

What is so wrong with freedom?

If I'm not mistaken, the government is why people don't smoke cigarettes as much as they used to. To be honest with you, I don't necessarily feel bad for those companies who tried to sell the idea of cigarette use as something appealing and hip, and now aren't doing so hot. I actually feel great that these companies, who knew about the effects of cigarette use but decided to not disclose those facts, are not doing as good as they were before.

Again, I fail to see what the problem was. They participated in the use of a product you didn't approve of? I'm sure you are vice free and the specimen of perfect health, but forcing your choice of lifestyle on others is not cool.

My body, my choice. Not yours, not the government's, not anyone's. I've been pulling my own pants on for 25 years now and don't need a nanny reaching down from Washington to tell me how to live.

 

[Swift]

To this, I would say that the average American is so busy with other things, that they don't pay attention to the things that are harmful to their bodies. Surely, if a company such as McDonalds is selling a product that uses an oil that is very bad for you, and that there is actually an alternative out there in the market, why would the government not prohibit McD's use of certain products to protect those who probably don't even think about what goes into their meat?

They shouldn't do it because it's pretty much fascism/socialism.

How about they simply get on the media and say, "We've found oil X to be very detrimental to personal health. The following restaurant chains use this oil. Company A, Company B, ...."

That would let everyone know. If they still chose to go to those places then so be it. But they couldn't say that nobody warned them.

If I'm not mistaken, the government is why people don't smoke cigarettes as much as they used to. To be honest with you, I don't necessarily feel bad for those companies who tried to sell the idea of cigarette use as something appealing and hip, and now aren't doing so hot. I actually feel great that these companies, who knew about the effects of cigarette use but decided to not disclose those facts, are not doing as good as they were before.

I'm glad that companies that put more addictive additives in cigarettes are not doing as well. Tobacco itself isn't all that bad. With all the extra crap and the fiberglass filters, yeah, it doesn't make it any better.

But the government is being very hypocritical here as well. Taxes from the sale of tobacco go to the healthcare programs for children. So if everyone stops smoking, who's going to pay for the children's healthcare?(rhetorical, I know we'd just get it paid by borrowing more money.)

 

[Sam48]

To this, I would say that the average American is so busy with other things, that they don't pay attention to the things that are harmful to their bodies.

There is some truth to this as most Americans do prefer taste over health. However, practically all Americans know deep down that fast food isn't the best for them.

Surely, if a company such as McDonalds is selling a product that uses an oil that is very bad for you, and that there is actually an alternative out there in the market, why would the government not prohibit McD's use of certain products to protect those who probably don't even think about what goes into their meat?

Because, as I stated in my post you quoted, the government has no right whatsoever to tell a company what ingredients they may use in their product (Assuming they aren't an immediate/substantial/fatal risk to one's health).

Also, by your reasoning, should the government then ban anything with a healthier alternative? If they did so, we'd probably all end up eating potatoes and drinking spring water.

 

[FoolKiller]

Also, by your reasoning, should the government then ban anything with a healthier alternative? If they did so, we'd probably all end up eating potatoes and drinking spring water.

Too many carbs in potatoes. It's the hidden sugar. We're probably 10 years off from the potato conspiracy outrage.

 

[Pako]

*snip* Why should we all pay extra for an occasional soft drink because Hefty McJiggles drinks a couple of liters every day? And why shouldn't Hefty McJiggles be allowed to drink a couple of liters each day?

Thanks for that.... now I have to clean the coffee off my computer monitor.

Nothing substantial to add here. I think the whole thing stinks. We will be finding ourselves standing inline for proper care, and that's only if there are any decent doctors left. Welcome to the soup line!

 

[arora]

If you don't buy insurance you won't be able to afford healthcare unless you are wealthy, which a vast majority aren't. So you can either have insurance and be treated at a reasonable-ish cost to you, or you can not have insurance and go broke trying to prevent suffering and/or death of yourself. Sure it's a choice but that seems like a pretty awful one to me, I mean are you really free if the option is to buy a service or potentially die? You're bound by the system and the only way to do that is substantially decrease the cost of healthcare...which isn't possible as long as the legal system is the way it is.

Class warfare is bogus, spin doctors use it to get you all riled up and cry for more government regulations. Don't fall for that trap, the federal government regulates heavily in favor of big business not the small guy or poor poor Joey

[said=many times] Less government interference would allow a much more competitive market in the healthcare fields, leading to better service and lower costs, on the other hand, more of the same government meddling is going to lead to ridiculously high costing poor service. [/said]

They do their damn best job to create problems that would not exist without them, then they come in all captain kangaroo to the rescue, this only ever hurts us as a whole but mostly hurts the individual. Hating greedy capitalist corporations and favoring big government intervention is a contradiction, read up on all the crazy insurance, hmo, etc laws they have passed over the years and you'll see what I mean.(insurance lobbiest would be a decent google term)

If you hate the rich individual you should conclude it's the government that has made you poor and not that kat who just flew bye you in a ferrari eating a double big mac 👍

 

[Sam48]

Too many carbs in potatoes. It's the hidden sugar. We're probably 10 years off from the potato conspiracy outrage.

Hmmm, alright then maybe some sort of vegetarian diet. I'm just winging it really as I have no idea. The thing is, I can't think of anything that's good for you in excessive amounts to begin with, so therein lies the problem.

 

[Joey D]

Uh, EVERYONE can go to the ER and get treated. Do you know that there are millions of young people that chose to not pay for insurance just because they don't want to spend the cash?

Btw, you do know that most people that went bankrupt due to medical bills HAVE insurance, right?
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/...ankruptcy-Have-Insurance-Go-Bankrupt-updated-

That's from the daily kos. The problem is not insurance. It's that people can't pay the medical AND their regular bills at the same time. So by and large it's not a problem if coverage, but that medical treatment simply costs too much.

I think the millions of young people that don't have insurance simply can't afford it. I'd have a hard time paying for insurance if I wasn't able to still stay on my mom's and without insurance I'd be broke after a trip to the ER for an asthma attack.

You're right, the problem is medical treatment cost too much and I whole heartedly agree with that. But the reason the treatments are so high is due to malpractice and overhead for what a doctor's office/ hospital costs to run. In a previous job at the hospital I work at now I had something like a $600,000 operating budget and that was considered low. The money thrown around in healthcare is astronomical.

Yes, but it makes you look bad when you post as if his comments never existed to those of us who see every post but can't see who you are ignoring.

I'm only going to discuss issues with people that know how to discuss issues in a civil matter. If it makes me look bad for ignoring him then I believe I can deal with that.

Yet they allow my insurance to pay as little as 5% of their initial charge. I'm pretty sure my $25 copay isn't covering the rest. Of course, the doctors paying $50,000 are likely grossing that much in a month, if not quicker. Don't forget, I see high cost bills all the time.[/quotes]

While a doctor's office might gross several hundred thousand dollars per month, their overhead drains them pretty quickly. They have to pay their staff, buy and repair equipment (which is about 4 times more expensive since it's medical grade), rent, utilities and so on. I had a conversation with one of our top thoracic surgeons and he told me that after he pays all his expenses his practice hardly turns a profit month to month, if they turn one at all. I can't imagine other docs have it that different.

And you also have the issue with insurance, along with Medicare and Medicate not reimbursing doctors for relatively minor things. Something as simple as charting something in the wrong place can mean reimbursement is denied.

Doctors and hospitals incur more costs than either of us know and I even work in the industry.

Price competition exists anywhere consumers look at the cost to them. I'm not claiming that it will suddenly be pocket change. In fact, I gave real world examples to show the difference I was talking about. Apparently doctors only need to charge a fraction of what they do, because they let the insurance pay that lower amount. If malpractice requires a doctor charge you or I $1,500 then how do they survive only taking $200 when insurance pays it?

If the entire industry does the same thing there isn't going to be much in the way of competition according to cost. That's my point. Even docs and hospital enticed you with lower prices would you really want to go there? I mean it goes back to you get what you pay for, and everyone wants the best medical care out there. Consumers are conditioned to looks at satisfaction numbers for where they want their medical treatment at now. It's why the hospital I work is over 100% capacity everyday and the hospital down the street is floundering. We simply have better statistics than they do.

And charging you $1,500 isn't just to cover malpractice, it's to cover all the overhead that goes with running a doctors office. The only docs I know that make a killing in the industry are orthopedic surgeons, they pretty much only do elective surgeries and a knee replacement runs about $20,000 now. Doing 8-9 knees a day for 4 days a week really rakes in the money, but that's not really a representation of how the entire industry is.

Because a dead patient tells no...er pays no bills. A patient too ill to work can't pay bills. Ultimately, it is in their best interest to give their patient good treatment and find a way that they can pay. Otherwise they'd be out of business.

It's not in a doctor's best interest to give their patients the best treatment they can, it's in their best interest to treat the symptoms instead of the disease. A healthy patient pays no bills either while a conically sick one keeps paying. And if you don't think this happens than you are far more trustin then I am because I've heard enough conversations to make me believe this is true.

So you agree that regulating is a futile waste of time and resources?

Some regulations are, some aren't. So I partially agree with that statement.

Yeah, don't sell misleading products is a rule even the staunchest libertarian can agree to. But you act as if you think Id be opposed to informed consent.

Without regulations and true freedom a company wouldn't have to offer any information if it didn't want to. That's my point.

Yet the theme has never had a timeline of immediately. We didn't get here over night and we can't fix it over night. No one thinks we can.

I see far to many libertarian minded posts that think we should scrap the entire system as it is now and start fresh without an regards to what happens to the people who legitimately depend on those systems. I'm not saying every libertarian is like that, I just notice it's trend in the Opinion Forms.

Class warfare is bogus, spin doctors use it to get you all riled up and cry for more government regulations. Don't fall for that trap, the federal government regulates heavily in favor of big business not the small guy or poor poor Joey

Class warfare isn't bogus. And I'm saying we need regulations that favour a majority of the population, not whoever holds the most money. Why else do you think regulations support big business? They have money to throw at people and make them believe whatever stance is the most profitable for them. It's why I hate lobbies.

[said=many times] Less government interference would allow a much more competitive market in the healthcare fields, leading to better service and lower costs, on the other hand, more of the same government meddling is going to lead to ridiculously high costing poor service. [/said]

I don't believe that though, I think with less regulations it would end up being worse than it is now and I've said many times before I think it's pretty bad. I could easily see healthcare becoming even more expensive than it is now without some sort of guideline. As I've said I don't trust people or corporations to do the right thing, they are only going to be looking out for whatever makes them the most amount of money and forget who gets in their way.

 

[arora]

Class warfare isn't bogus. And I'm saying we need regulations that favour a majority of the population, not whoever holds the most money. Why else do you think regulations support big business? They have money to throw at people and make them believe whatever stance is the most profitable for them. It's why I hate lobbies.

Fortunalty for us, our laws were written to protect the minority from the majority. Why else do you think we keep telling you we want a smaller federal government?(a hint, article 1 section 8). Oh no! they have money?! The devils. You want the federal government to force me to pay for your healthcare, that is not their job. Perhaps I should lobby them to confiscate your car and give it to me, because I don't have one.

I don't believe that though, I think with less regulations it would end up being worse than it is now and I've said many times before I think it's pretty bad. I could easily see healthcare becoming even more expensive than it is now without some sort of guideline. As I've said I don't trust people or corporations to do the right thing, they are only going to be looking out for whatever makes them the most amount of money and forget who gets in their way.

You'd probably hire a fox to guard your hen house, that's kinda the point. If you are angry that things are expensive and unavailable, good, you should be, but to think the federal government will in anyway help you out with that is a mistake. Unless, in an unlikely event, they start repealing all the crap laws they've been ramming up our........

 

[Swift]

I think the millions of young people that don't have insurance simply can't afford it. I'd have a hard time paying for insurance if I wasn't able to still stay on my mom's and without insurance I'd be broke after a trip to the ER for an asthma attack.

You're right, the problem is medical treatment cost too much and I whole heartedly agree with that. But the reason the treatments are so high is due to malpractice and overhead for what a doctor's office/ hospital costs to run. In a previous job at the hospital I work at now I had something like a $600,000 operating budget and that was considered low. The money thrown around in healthcare is astronomical.

I work in the health insurance industry and I've seen as many young people turn down the coverage as pay for it. So it's really not a matter of coverage on the broad scale. It's a matter of why does it cost do much?

That answer of course is complex. But I believe both Fk and danoff have addressed the fact that healthcare is the only consumer industry that the consumers don't set the prices for because we never really see them with insurance.

That's the first thing that needs to get fixed.

 

[Pako]

I would agree with Swift. In the last year, our health care has more than doubled. I am grateful I have insurance or it would be home remedies for me, my wife, and my three kids. Why should it cost $185 to have the doctor say "cough" then tell me that everything is fine and to have a nice day?

Something else doctors won't do is warranty their work. When I had my bicep tendon reattached, I asked "if it pops loose, will you guys reattach it free of charge?" The Doc laughed and said that the repair was pretty much bomb proof, so I asked him again...., with his reply being a laugh and an "oh no, we can't do that...haha."

I mean, if a mechanic screws up on my car, they are going to fix it until they get it right. Why should my health care be any different.

Sorry, rant tangent....

 

[Danoff]

The amazing thing is that most doctors have "cash" rates that they'll charge as long as you don't use insurance. I've encountered "cash" rates that are 50% of the amount they charge the insurance company.

At some point it will be cheaper for you to pay for these things directly instead of going through your insurance.

 

[Swift]

The amazing thing is that most doctors have "cash" rates that they'll charge as long as you don't use insurance. I've encountered "cash" rates that are 50% of the amount they charge the insurance company.

At some point it will be cheaper for you to pay for these things directly instead of going through your insurance.

Great point. But in all honesty, those rates tend to be fairly expensive as well. But it sure beats the insurance rates if you have the means.

 

[Danoff]

Great point. But in all honesty, those rates tend to be fairly expensive as well. But it sure beats the insurance rates if you have the means.

Here's the thing though, if you're healthy, you pay the insurance rate already. Probably more than the insurance rate. That's how insurance works, the insurance company pays the insurance rate, you pay the insurance company, and if you're reasonably healthy, you pay in more than you get back.

 

[Swift]

Here's the thing though, if you're healthy, you pay the insurance rate already. Probably more than the insurance rate. That's how insurance works, the insurance company pays the insurance rate, you pay the insurance company, and if you're reasonably healthy, you pay in more than you get back.

No argument here.

 

[FoolKiller]

While a doctor's office might gross several hundred thousand dollars per month, their overhead drains them pretty quickly. They have to pay their staff, buy and repair equipment (which is about 4 times more expensive since it's medical grade), rent, utilities and so on. I had a conversation with one of our top thoracic surgeons and he told me that after he pays all his expenses his practice hardly turns a profit month to month, if they turn one at all. I can't imagine other docs have it that different.

And you also have the issue with insurance, along with Medicare and Medicate not reimbursing doctors for relatively minor things. Something as simple as charting something in the wrong place can mean reimbursement is denied.

Doctors and hospitals incur more costs than either of us know and I even work in the industry.

Actually, I do know. But that gets into my job more than I can explain right now.

What I want to know is, why have you now avoided this point multiple times?

Yet they allow my insurance to pay as little as 5% of their initial charge. I'm pretty sure my $25 copay isn't covering the rest.

Explain that, then tell me they can't have a lower rate.

If the entire industry does the same thing there isn't going to be much in the way of competition according to cost.

You just laid out the business realities of running a doctors office, as if I don't know the simple expenses incurred by all businesses. But now you act as if other business principles don't come into play. Either a doctor's office works like a business or not. Take your pick, but you don't get to pick and choose.

Yes, there is a base cost determined by market forces long before the doctor even considers his own paycheck. That is the same reason why all milk at all stores falls within a certain price range. But the milk prices aren't the same everywhere and you can get it on sale or great deals on store brand. You can buy almost any thing or service at different prices. It is how capitalism works.

That's my point. Even docs and hospital enticed you with lower prices would you really want to go there? I mean it goes back to you get what you pay for, and everyone wants the best medical care out there. Consumers are conditioned to looks at satisfaction numbers for where they want their medical treatment at now. It's why the hospital I work is over 100% capacity everyday and the hospital down the street is floundering. We simply have better statistics than they do.

Ah, so you only buy the highest rated and most expensive high end items that replacing could mean financial hardship on? And the most expensive just happens to always be the best there is?

I'd take a guess that if price competition were an issue on a consumer level that your capacity wouldn't be over 100% or your hospital would have to lower rates.

I know, business expenses. They can't go lower. I guess if you ignore how a market economy works that is true, but that isn't reality. You think overhead would be so high on things like rent/lease for office space if no doctors could pay it? See the economy works in such a way that things have to balance out. You can't just throw up a building and charge whatever in hopes of getting rich. You have to meet what your clients can pay in the region you are in. Doctors would have to meet what patients can pay and then rental properties would have to meet what doctors can pay them. If not, then everyone eventually goes out of business. Same goes for the malpractice insurance.

And charging you $1,500 isn't just to cover malpractice, it's to cover all the overhead that goes with running a doctors office.

Yet, they did it with $200 from my insurance. How? They need the $1,500, right.

The only docs I know that make a killing in the industry are orthopedic surgeons, they pretty much only do elective surgeries and a knee replacement runs about $20,000 now. Doing 8-9 knees a day for 4 days a week really rakes in the money, but that's not really a representation of how the entire industry is.

Totally explains the big houses, nice watches, and luxury sedans.

It's not in a doctor's best interest to give their patients the best treatment they can, it's in their best interest to treat the symptoms instead of the disease. A healthy patient pays no bills either while a conically sick one keeps paying. And if you don't think this happens than you are far more trustin then I am because I've heard enough conversations to make me believe this is true.

I'm trusting because I've had doctors look at me and tell me my choices and then suggest the quickest fix every time. I'm trusting because I get second and third opinions from halfway across the country, from doctors who won't get a dime from me, and got the same answers. I'm trusting because my doctor comes back from a conference and shows me newly approved procedures that could remove some of my complications. I'm trusting because I ask questions, require information on everything, and am still alive today. But then I'm a smart consumer.

By the way, if you truly hear doctors talk about that then perhaps you should report it. I can think of multiple legal reasons why a conversation of that nature should not be had where you can hear it.

Without regulations and true freedom a company wouldn't have to offer any information if it didn't want to. That's my point.

Who suggested a world without regulations in this conversation? You've argued against that point multiple times now, this time it was immediately after I supported informed consent. So, I know it wasn't me. I'd like to know where you got that from.

I'm also still confused how you jumped from regulating things like the food we eat (and Hawaii banned plastic grocery bags today) to arguing against anarchy.

I see far to many libertarian minded posts that think we should scrap the entire system as it is now and start fresh without an regards to what happens to the people who legitimately depend on those systems. I'm not saying every libertarian is like that, I just notice it's trend in the Opinion Forms.

I'm having trouble finding it. I see people saying we need something totally new, but no suggestion we make an overnight switch. Oh sure there are a handful of crazy posts, but not anything I'd call many.

If we wanted to play this game I could comment on seeing posts in the Opinions Forum saying that socialism would be the best form of government. But it hadn't been said in this most recent rise in thread activity, so I recognize it as irrelevant to this conversation.

 

[dautolover]

Frankly I am excited about the idea of getting to pay for someone else's abortion. Yaaaay!

(even more than I already have...)

It's equally exciting to pay for someone else's Viagra.

Because it is not the responsibility of government to protect us from our own laziness. If you can't take your own health into account then why should the rest of us deal with the consequences of your actions? The US has a lot of overweight diabetics too. Now they are going after sugar by banning certain products in certain places or placing a tax on certain products. Why should we all pay extra for an occasional soft drink because Hefty McJiggles drinks a couple of liters every day? And why shouldn't Hefty McJiggles be allowed to drink a couple of liters each day?

What is so wrong with freedom?

Fair enough. But, I would say that it's not so much laziness as people having different priorities. At the same time, many companies promote a specific lifestyle that push people to buy these products. And while many people try to convince themselves that they're not influenced by these media-marketing campaigns, most of them still end up buying into aspects of the culture.

Consider the common stereotype of us Americans as embracing excess. Super sized meals, SUV's (Hummers), 2 for 1 specials, combos, etc... Many companies have been responsible in promoting excess as something fundamentally important in American life, without disclosing health effects. It took a film and several government regulations to finally criticize an aspect of American life that has been with us after WWII and to get McD's to put health information into their products (something they had fought to keep on closed doors).

Surely, we cannot say an absolute statement such as "trust your government." Sometimes, it closes down options. But at other times, it provides consumers with the information that businesses want to keep hidden.

Again, I fail to see what the problem was. They participated in the use of a product you didn't approve of? I'm sure you are vice free and the specimen of perfect health, but forcing your choice of lifestyle on others is not cool.

My body, my choice. Not yours, not the government's, not anyone's. I've been pulling my own pants on for 25 years now and don't need a nanny reaching down from Washington to tell me how to live.

With cigarettes, the lifestyles of smokers would adversely affect the health of others (second hand smoke). People couldn't choose not to be exposed to it. Businesses, at the same time, would not want to disclose health information to its consumers, the effects of the product, especially on pregnant women. I feel your concern for your own choices, but I don't think you understand how businesses influence your "choices" (or maybe you just don't want to acknowledge).

And to be clear, you're not being told not to eat something. It's holding companies accountable to making a product that, if an alternative exists, is safer on the people. It's not making you less free. If anything, it frees you from unhealthy ingredients (trans fat, pink slime, etc.).

They shouldn't do it because it's pretty much fascism/socialism.

How so? As I've stated above, these regulations don't force anyone to stop eating something. Fascism would be complete control over choices and basic living options. This hardly compares.

How about they simply get on the media and say, "We've found oil X to be very detrimental to personal health. The following restaurant chains use this oil. Company A, Company B, ...."

That would let everyone know. If they still chose to go to those places then so be it. But they couldn't say that nobody warned them.

Got nothing here... good point.

But the government is being very hypocritical here as well. Taxes from the sale of tobacco go to the healthcare programs for children. So if everyone stops smoking, who's going to pay for the children's healthcare?(rhetorical, I know we'd just get it paid by borrowing more money.)

Maybe a measure to compensate for the fact that tobacco creates second hand smoke that affects children? More smoking, more children being affected. Less smoking, less children being affected...

Because, as I stated in my post you quoted, the government has no right whatsoever to tell a company what ingredients they may use in their product (Assuming they aren't an immediate/substantial/fatal risk to one's health).

That's letting the government to step in. That's giving a government an affirmative role in making companies serve products with certain ingredients.

Also, by your reasoning, should the government then ban anything with a healthier alternative? If they did so, we'd probably all end up eating potatoes and drinking spring water.

Not ban... I realize that's a corner I can't get out of. I can say this... the government isn't telling McD's to stop making burgers or stop serving unhealthy food. It's telling McD's to use a particular type of oil to continue making the same food. It's telling McD's to use a standard by which to prepare their food.

So we're not even in the food consumption phase... we're in the food preparation phase.

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

It's telling McD's to use a particular type of oil to continue making the same food. It's telling McD's to use a standard by which to prepare their food.

How does the government know what's healthier? Many of these health studies and especially the news reports are BS. People hear them and then do as much research as they do on presidential candidates. Next thing we know we are being rescued from pink slime.

edit: There are many doctors that believe the lower the cholesterol the better. Others say that a healthy person should have a specific amount of cholesterol minimum. Whose opinion will the government use when they decide if they should ban foods that significantly raise cholesterol? I don't want to play that lottery.

 

[FoolKiller]

Fair enough. But, I would say that it's not so much laziness as people having different priorities. At the same time, many companies promote a specific lifestyle that push people to buy these products. And while many people try to convince themselves that they're not influenced by these media-marketing campaigns, most of them still end up buying into aspects of the culture.

So, you think that trying to keep people from responding to marketing is a government responsibility? Then why not ban advertisements?

Oh, I know. It's none if their gorram business if I want to drink something because it is advertised by an athlete.

Consider the common stereotype of us Americans as embracing excess. Super sized meals, SUV's (Hummers), 2 for 1 specials, combos, etc... Many companies have been responsible in promoting excess as something fundamentally important in American life, without disclosing health effects. It took a film and several government regulations to finally criticize an aspect of American life that has been with us after WWII and to get McD's to put health information into their products (something they had fought to keep on closed doors).

Surely, we cannot say an absolute statement such as "trust your government." Sometimes, it closes down options. But at other times, it provides consumers with the information that businesses want to keep hidden.

You act as if I have not supported the notion of informed consent in this thread recently. I have no problem with not allowing deceptive advertising or asking them to list ingredients/nutritional information. Just don't get a regulatory hair up your butt when see what is in it. There are some very unhealthy things that I enjoy and would choose over the healthier option.

With cigarettes, the lifestyles of smokers would adversely affect the health of others (second hand smoke). People couldn't choose not to be exposed to it.

First of all, regulating private property (which includes privately owned businesses) does not affect the ability to avoid it. It just puts it on the streets, where people who don't even want to go in the place the smoker is in are exposed to it. Second, since when was it OK to ban legal activities in a legal business that no one is forced to go in?

Businesses, at the same time, would not want to disclose health information to its consumers, the effects of the product, especially on pregnant women. I feel your concern for your own choices, but I don't think you understand how businesses influence your "choices" (or maybe you just don't want to acknowledge).

I'll point out my stance on informed consent again.

Then I will point out how much I have to acknowledge and understand how businesses try to influence buying habits and even misrepresent the necessity of certain things, as someone awaiting a heart transplant and needing to maintain a low sodium diet. And when I say need, I mean it in a life or death kind of way. I can tell you now that sodium levels in a type of food can vary from 40mg to 4000mg, but every product makes it seem as if their way is the best way. I know it, I get it, and ultimately I believe it is the choice of consumers to be informed of what they put in their bodies, what it might do, and whether they still wish to consume it.

And to be clear, you're not being told not to eat something. It's holding companies accountable to making a product that, if an alternative exists, is safer on the people.

Ah yes, the I am free but the evil corporations are kept in line argument. I can eat all the trans fats I want. I just can't be sold trans fat containing foods by corporations. Because being unable to buy something due to regulation and it being a crime to buy it due to regulation are so vastly different. The goal was the same, remove the ability for said item to be consumed. It is just that regulators used semantics to trick corporation-haters into thinking they were protecting them from a predator instead of removing their own free will to make a choice.

It's not making you less free.

I'll tell you what. You tell me where I can buy Vioxx or even a 100 watt incandescent lightbulb in the US, without it being any more difficult than it was 10 years ago, so that I can use them for their intended purpose, and I will accept this notion. Otherwise, explain why I have to be protected from very publicly well known possible unintended consequences. And explain to my mother how she is still just as free as before even though the only drug that made it so she could turn her head to the left without severe pain is no longer allowed to be sold to her.

If anything, it frees you from unhealthy ingredients (trans fat, pink slime, etc.).

I have a whole thread on pink slime. I invite you to explain my lack of freedom in there. Of course, that will require you to refute all the points I have made about how pink slime isn't unhealthy.

Who is being influenced by businesses (like the media) here?

How so? As I've stated above, these regulations don't force anyone to stop eating something. Fascism would be complete control over choices and basic living options.

So removing all but the government approved choices is different how?

This hardly compares.

To freedom maybe.

Maybe a measure to compensate for the fact that tobacco creates second hand smoke that affects children? More smoking, more children being affected. Less smoking, less children being affected...

Except that many states ran into a situation where people did quit smoking because it became prohibitively expensive and they had whole programs allotted to be funded from tobacco taxes that suddenly didn't have the funding they were supposed to.

The fact that they were relying on smoking rates to not drop in order to fund important programs shows that health was the very last thing on their minds.

Perhaps you need to understand (or maybe just acknowledge) how government officials and others who are politically motivated by power try to influence your opinion by offering you false freedom from false imprisonment.

I'll quote Penn Jillette again, "Freedom is the ability to make stupid decisions."

If it is dangerous to make your own choices I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery.

 

[FoolKiller]

Because it is not the responsibility of government to protect us from our own laziness. If you can't take your own health into account then why should the rest of us deal with the consequences of your actions? The US has a lot of overweight diabetics too. Now they are going after sugar by banning certain products in certain places or placing a tax on certain products. Why should we all pay extra for an occasional soft drink because Hefty McJiggles drinks a couple of liters every day? And why shouldn't Hefty McJiggles be allowed to drink a couple of liters each day?

I hate being right.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/31/nyregion/bloomberg-plans-a-ban-on-large-sugared-drinks.html?_r=1

New York City plans to enact a far-reaching ban on the sale of large sodas and other sugary drinks at restaurants, movie theaters and street carts, in the most ambitious effort yet by the Bloomberg administration to combat rising obesity.

The proposed ban would affect virtually the entire menu of popular sugary drinks found in delis, fast-food franchises and even sports arenas, from energy drinks to pre-sweetened iced teas. The sale of any cup or bottle of sweetened drink larger than 16 fluid ounces — about the size of a medium coffee, and smaller than a common soda bottle — would be prohibited under the first-in-the-nation plan, which could take effect as soon as next March.

The measure would not apply to diet sodas, fruit juices, dairy-based drinks like milkshakes, or alcoholic beverages; it would not extend to beverages sold in grocery or convenience stores.

“Obesity is a nationwide problem, and all over the United States, public health officials are wringing their hands saying, ‘Oh, this is terrible,’ ” Mr. Bloomberg said in an interview on Wednesday in the Governor’s Room at City Hall.

“New York City is not about wringing your hands; it’s about doing something,” he said. “I think that’s what the public wants the mayor to do.”

I don't know what is scarier, the fact that it is happening or the fact that as I push what I believe the boundary government will go to further back they have yet to disappoint.

In the darkest, tiniest corner of my mind I have this little hope that all the conspiracy nonsense about artificial sweeteners is true, just so this will blow up in their faces similar to how switching from things like butter and lard to the "healthier" margarine and shortening trans fats did. Imagine the outcome if they had been as quick to regulate back then.

Well, if this goes through and stands I suspect cities like LA will follow closely and then it might as well be a national regulation, since it becomes cheaper and easier for companies to adjust everything instead of just for specific large cities.

If I owned a business affected by this I'd just put small "banned" signs over the menu listing for things made illegal by this instead of creating all new menus.

I don't want to say this, because I know what happens when I make these predictions, but: If they find this doesn't solve the obesity issue I bet maximum calorie or fat counts will be next.

And if they can do this, what prevents similar rules for sodium content, cholesterol, or anything else they deem problematic?

 

[Famine]

I don't know what is scarier, the fact that it is happening or the fact that as I push what I believe the boundary government will go to further back they have yet to disappoint.

Ah, smoking is not good for you, and it's been deemed that anything not good for you is bad; hence, illegal. Alcohol, caffeine, contact sports, meat ... bad language, chocolate, gasoline, uneducational toys and anything spicy. Abortion is also illegal, but then again so is pregnancy if you don't have a licence.

*orders rat burger*

 

[Swift]

*orders rat burger*

Enhance your calm, famine. Enhance your calm.

 

[Omnis]

Who else but Bloomberg? He's Bloomberg, Bloomberg-- you never really know what he's gonna do next. He's Bloomberg, Bloomberg-- giggity giggity giggity giggity let's ban fats!

 

[FoolKiller]

Who else but Bloomberg? He's Bloomberg, Bloomberg-- you never really know what he's gonna do next. He's Bloomberg, Bloomberg-- giggity giggity giggity giggity let's ban fats!

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...an_were_simply_forcing_you_to_understand.html

We've got to do something. Everybody is wringing their hands saying we've got to do something. Well, here is a concrete thing. You can still buy large bottles in stores. But in a restaurant, 16 ounces is the maximum that they would be able to serve in one cup. If you want to order two cups of the same time, that's fine. It's your choice. We're not taking away anybody's right to do things. We're simply forcing you to understand that you have to make the conscious decision to go from one cup to another cup.

At least he's halfway honest about his intent.

I can translate the above into truth-speak: Too many unhealthy fat people wandering around my city making it look bad. You can still be unhealthy, but not in ways that appear to publicly display unhealthy behavior. You can still get a lot, but you will pay twice as much (or more) and cause much more pollution and waste to do so. We aren't taking away your freedom, just wasting your time, money, and patience while adding money to state sales tax coffers.

Worse yet is that while walking into my office I have to go past the desk of the diabetes management people. They have the NY Times article pasted up on the wall. If they propose something similar here in Kentucky I don't know if I can stay quiet. Hell, it would even burden our own state-owned cafeteria in our building, who only sells 20oz fountain drinks. And that cafeteria is run by the same group that runs the dining services in every state park lodge and state government building in Kentucky.

 

[Danoff]

Yea, of course I hate it. And of course this is the natural consequence of nationalized healthcare (even the consequence of thinking about nationalized healthcare apparently). This is only the tip of the iceberg for food regulation, and is a clear sign that Americans really don't think about what they're singing at the opening of ball games. I don't know how we don't all just break out laughing at "land of the free".

If I can play devil's advocate for just a second:

At least this is actually getting at low hanging fruit. Guzzling soda is a major source of calories for lots of people in America (not just the fat ones). The larger cups result in more soda guzzled (studies have been done). As much as I can't stand the regulation and think it's an affront to everything government should be and everything America stands for, at least it seems to be targeted semi-pseudo-accurately, unlike what we usual get from government regulations which is an improper squeeze of the trigger pointed nowhere near the target.

Case in point, one of the cities near me banned artificial lawns for environmental reasons... in a desert... wrap your head around that one.

I don't want to say this, because I know what happens when I make these predictions, but: If they find this doesn't solve the obesity issue I bet maximum calorie or fat counts will be next.

Back in the 80s anorexia was a big concern. Imagine calorie minimums! Thank god none of my favorite models live in the US.

 

[FoolKiller]

If I can play devil's advocate for just a second:

At least this is actually getting at low hanging fruit. Guzzling soda is a major source of calories for lots of people in America (not just the fat ones). The larger cups result in more soda guzzled (studies have been done). As much as I can't stand the regulation and think it's an affront to everything government should be and everything America stands for, at least it seems to be targeted semi-pseudo-accurately, unlike what we usual get from government regulations which is an improper squeeze of the trigger pointed nowhere near the target.

The bolder part is why some places find a moderately priced (up to as much as $2.50) one-size with free refills to be a better option, which this regulation doesn't appear to address. People often drink one drink with their food, whatever the size. Some of the people will get a refill as they leave, but not many. You pay enough for them to profit off a gallon of soda and only drink 16-20 oz. This is the most likely direction places will go. It won't prevent obesity in people who just consume nonstop, and will really only help those who consume more than they intend because they went with the best deal. And unless the do address sodium contents people will drink more. A guy stuffing himself full of salty meat at Dick's Deli will still want/need massive amounts of beverage to quench his thirst.

And unless things have changed drastically since this year's State of the City address, Bloomberg is already tackling a waste disposal problem, shipping tons of garbage to places around the country.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/steven-cohen/nyc-takes-the-garbage-out_b_1210334.html

Since waste management is useless without reduction Bloomberg might be hurting himself here. Even if every restaurant went the refill route every food truck/cart and public event would not. Every large drink sold won't translate into two government-approved drinks, but there will be an increase. Recycling programs will need to be increased as well as disposal programs. The healthcare savings Bloomberg will maybe see in 20 years will be negated by waste disposal increases that will hit immediately.

Further, if the legitimacy of this is argued via shared increases in health care costs due to obesity then everyone outside New York City should fight this since New York City ships a large portion of their garbage to sites across the country. We all have to share the costs of the negative effects of NYC's growing garbage issue.

 

[DK]

I heard a stat that the average US person drinks 2.3 sodas a day. How much would 1 soda (according to that stat) be in terms of litres?