• Cyburbia is a friendly big tent, where we share our experiences and thoughts about urban planning practice, the built environment, planning adjacent topics, and anything else that comes to mind. No ads, no spam, and it's free. It's easy to join!

NEVERENDING ♾️ The NEVERENDING Political Discussion Thread

Vel, thank you for posting this story. I wish the media would cover these stories instead of this nonsense that Fox has been covering about "real stories. real people" of Obamacare. ....

More disclosure: the poster leading the Crusade Against Obamacare on here shares my zip code in real life. It's easy to copy & paste relentless diatribes against "those people." Guess what. I am one of those people. And I care about all of our community, not just the tunnel version of my immediate household.
 
This statement is dependent upon one's ideology and mental circuitry. Plenty of people believe - and have incorporated it into their self-identity - the opposite of what you wrote. I'm not saying you are incorrect, I'm just saying the "truth" of your statement depends upon what one believes. This is all part of our ongoing rapid understanding of the human brain and how it works, and statements like yours are illustrative to help researchers understand in-group identity and mental circuitry.

.02

This was more a reflection of what mskiis tends to parrot. My own beliefs are a bit more nuanced and in opposition to the underlying ideology of mskiis.
 
I don't pretend there is anything that I can say what will change peoples mind regarding the ACA and I respect people for being able to form their own opinion of it. Just the same, no one has said anything in here that changes my personal belief that this is bad policy and is in contradiction to what the founding fathers intended for the US.

Having said all of that, after reading the other comments I started to think about why the US has health care problems. The fact is simple. Most American's live lifestyles that are detrimental to their health. Until recently we were the fattest country in the world (Mexico is now number one), we still have high rates of illegal drug use, we eat unhealthy food, and we live sedentary lifestyles. I have said this before and I am going to say it again, we need to focus on preventative actions before we address anything else.

I think that unless there is a legitimate medical reason why a person is over weight (such as a thyroid issue), then overweight people should pay a lot higher insurance rates than people who have a body fat content (not BMI) that is acceptable for their range. That increase should be based on the percentage of body fat past the maximum for that person's range. For example, if a person's body fat content is 20% above the maximum for their age/height/sex group, then they should pay 20% higher premiums. Smokers should pay double that of non-smokers, people who are found do have illegal dugs in their system should be required to pay 100% of their medical bill for that visit. People should also be able to reduce their health insurance cost for participating in quarterly health assessment programs that will not only weigh a person, but also do a full blood panel and complete health assessment. People who make improvements in their health should be able to get discounts.

People need to be held responsible for their personal decisions.
 
Having said all of that, after reading the other comments I started to think about why the US has health care problems. The fact is simple. Most American's live lifestyles that are detrimental to their health. Until recently we were the fattest country in the world (Mexico is now number one), we still have high rates of illegal drug use, we eat unhealthy food, and we live sedentary lifestyles. I have said this before and I am going to say it again, we need to focus on preventative actions before we address anything else.

And how might we implement such preventative actions? How about creating a better link between healthcare providers and patients. Say, for example, by pulling everyone into a comprehensive system of healthcare coverage? Preventative health by linking all Americans to a primary care provider instead of reactionary care where people just show up at the ER is a key aspect of the ACA. You should know that.

I think that unless there is a legitimate medical reason why a person is over weight (such as a thyroid issue), then overweight people should pay a lot higher insurance rates than people who have a body fat content (not BMI) that is acceptable for their range. That increase should be based on the percentage of body fat past the maximum for that person's range. For example, if a person's body fat content is 20% above the maximum for their age/height/sex group, then they should pay 20% higher premiums. Smokers should pay double that of non-smokers, people who are found do have illegal dugs in their system should be required to pay 100% of their medical bill for that visit. People should also be able to reduce their health insurance cost for participating in quarterly health assessment programs that will not only weigh a person, but also do a full blood panel and complete health assessment. People who make improvements in their health should be able to get discounts.

People need to be held responsible for their personal decisions.

You are too funny, M’skis! Why stop with weight? How about if you get skin cancer because you didn’t use adequate protections then you have to pay for 100% of your treatment? How about STDs? That’s based on choices we make as well.

There are countless problems I have with your point of view as it relates to delivering healthcare. First, people make sound and unsound decisions all the time. What if someone has a health plan and then makes a bad choice? Do you rescind the coverage? Send them a bill for the whole amount? How can you prove when that choice was made? Are you going to monitor people’s behavior to such a degree that you can change the percentage they have to pay as a direct result of poor health choices? Cause that sounds pretty dystopian to me.

Most health issues are not the result of a good choice/bad choice dichotomy. Its much more complex with that. Let’s say I have sickle cell anemia. That’s not my fault, correct? But I can control my outbreaks (which require treatments) by avoiding stressful situations. What if I take a stressful job? Or help my neighbor move? Is that a good choice or a bad choice? Should my share of the premium be scaled accordingly?

I have been struggling the last month with a herniated disc in my neck and having a hell of a time getting in to see my doctor for treatment. But the problem was the result of bike riding. That was a choice I made. Is the injury my fault? What about falling down the stairs because I was wearing my socks? My choices, my fault. Should I pay 100% of my premium as a result?

Consider the example of a kid who grows up in a household where the parents do not make healthy choices with regards to diet. Now the child is a young man/woman and overweight. Where does this person’s “personal responsibility” lie? At what point should this person have “woken up” and addressed their poor health issues as it relates to weight? And how might this person become educated about this information if they have not been connected with a doctor because they have to pay 100% of the premium and cannot afford that? Would that relationship, in which a healthcare professional can work with a patient to improve health, not be an overall benefit? Or should we relegate such people to their own devices, hope they don’t fall victim to the insidiousness of Pringles and soft drink ads, and if not, well, its their own damn fault? What if depression is a contributing factor but they cannot afford the 100% premium? Should we hope they off themselves and not drain the system?

What if you live in an urban food desert? You are 70 years old and must make two bus transfers to get to the closest supermarket (true story, by the way). There is only so much food you can carry with you and you are still working because your husband died and there was not adequate money to live on from his pension (so time is limited for you to make this foray). But all around you are fast food restaurants and corner stores selling cheap, high caloric and fatty foods. You do not have the same access to fresh food choices that those in more affluent areas do. Is this your fault? Your choice? Should you pay 100% of the premium? Or should you have chosen to make more money and live in the suburbs?

Lastly, I think this is just a very Un-American attitude. If this was the prevailing view through history, Social Security would never have been established, for example. But maybe you think that is a bad idea as well.

This has been great fun, but I am not going to add anything more to my comments on this topic. I feel bad clogging the feed. But this was just too outrageous not to respond to...
 
I don't pretend there is anything that I can say what will change peoples mind regarding the ACA and I respect people for being able to form their own opinion of it. Just the same, no one has said anything in here that changes my personal belief that this is bad policy and is in contradiction to what the founding fathers intended for the US.

Having said all of that, after reading the other comments I started to think about why the US has health care problems. The fact is simple. Most American's live lifestyles that are detrimental to their health. Until recently we were the fattest country in the world (Mexico is now number one), we still have high rates of illegal drug use, we eat unhealthy food, and we live sedentary lifestyles. I have said this before and I am going to say it again, we need to focus on preventative actions before we address anything else.

I think that unless there is a legitimate medical reason why a person is over weight (such as a thyroid issue), then overweight people should pay a lot higher insurance rates than people who have a body fat content (not BMI) that is acceptable for their range. That increase should be based on the percentage of body fat past the maximum for that person's range. For example, if a person's body fat content is 20% above the maximum for their age/height/sex group, then they should pay 20% higher premiums. Smokers should pay double that of non-smokers, people who are found do have illegal dugs in their system should be required to pay 100% of their medical bill for that visit. People should also be able to reduce their health insurance cost for participating in quarterly health assessment programs that will not only weigh a person, but also do a full blood panel and complete health assessment. People who make improvements in their health should be able to get discounts.

People need to be held responsible for their personal decisions.

Skif, short of the unequal treatment of people that you propose, everything else is part of the ACA. The focus on preventative care over disaster care, the reauirement for people to take responsibility over their health care, the incentives for participating in health assessmets. All there. As far as people being healthy, one of the first steps in that process is education and access to health care - both things that did not exist on a close to universal level and that the ACA attempts to deal with. Those are things you just said you support, but then you also don't support. Weird.
 
Skif, short of the unequal treatment of people that you propose, everything else is part of the ACA. The focus on preventative care over disaster care, the reauirement for people to take responsibility over their health care, the incentives for participating in health assessmets. All there. As far as people being healthy, one of the first steps in that process is education and access to health care - both things that did not exist on a close to universal level and that the ACA attempts to deal with. Those are things you just said you support, but then you also don't support. Weird.

Two words: (my interpretation of the) Founding Fathers. *Drops mike

Never mind that we try to have a system that works, and is cost effective, and that also has comparable outcomes to other developed nations, it's not what I think should be done because it was never expressly written in the Constitution and people on facebook also tell me it is bad.

No offense, but this is my casual observation of how the argument has been going....
 
I don't pretend there is anything that I can say what will change peoples mind regarding the ACA and I respect people for being able to form their own opinion of it. Just the same, no one has said anything in here that changes my personal belief that this is bad policy and is in contradiction to what the founding fathers intended for the US.

Having said all of that, after reading the other comments I started to think about why the US has health care problems. The fact is simple. Most American's live lifestyles that are detrimental to their health. Until recently we were the fattest country in the world (Mexico is now number one), we still have high rates of illegal drug use, we eat unhealthy food, and we live sedentary lifestyles. I have said this before and I am going to say it again, we need to focus on preventative actions before we address anything else.

I think that unless there is a legitimate medical reason why a person is over weight (such as a thyroid issue), then overweight people should pay a lot higher insurance rates than people who have a body fat content (not BMI) that is acceptable for their range. That increase should be based on the percentage of body fat past the maximum for that person's range. For example, if a person's body fat content is 20% above the maximum for their age/height/sex group, then they should pay 20% higher premiums. Smokers should pay double that of non-smokers, people who are found do have illegal dugs in their system should be required to pay 100% of their medical bill for that visit. People should also be able to reduce their health insurance cost for participating in quarterly health assessment programs that will not only weigh a person, but also do a full blood panel and complete health assessment. People who make improvements in their health should be able to get discounts.

People need to be held responsible for their personal decisions.

So you would be ok with hockey players paying more for insurance because of their lifestyle? You are also ok with slavery, certain people being counted as 3/5 of a person, women not having the right to vote, and senators not being elected by popular vote?
 
I just had a cheeseburger for lunch, I guess my insurance premium is going up 1.3% as a result. I think I'll eat a salad for lunch tomorrow so it can go down .9%
 
In news from the north - Toronto Mayor Rob Ford announces new Sister City agreement with Washington D.C. retroactive to February 1990.
 
Just sayin'

I don't drink. Gave it up after undergrad and there was no one with whom to party at my first job. (Carter administration)

I typically ride a bicycle for any trip less than five miles, or when picking up items smaller than three grocery bags. It's not uncommon to see me riding to nearby gigs and special events with my uniquely large instrument.

For my post-graduate work, I moved to the university environs and pedaled the three miles to class. (No 60-mile commutes here.)

At my pre-op physical, my BP was 115-over-something ridiculously low...I rode a bike the 7 miles to the doctor's office.

Some health conditions are hereditary, and by the time you realize you're affected, it's just too late to go back and select different parents.
 
And how might we implement such preventative actions? How about creating a better link between healthcare providers and patients. Say, for example, by pulling everyone into a comprehensive system of healthcare coverage? Preventative health by linking all Americans to a primary care provider instead of reactionary care where people just show up at the ER is a key aspect of the ACA. You should know that.



You are too funny, M’skis! Why stop with weight? How about if you get skin cancer because you didn’t use adequate protections then you have to pay for 100% of your treatment? How about STDs? That’s based on choices we make as well.

There are countless problems I have with your point of view as it relates to delivering healthcare. First, people make sound and unsound decisions all the time. What if someone has a health plan and then makes a bad choice? Do you rescind the coverage? Send them a bill for the whole amount? How can you prove when that choice was made? Are you going to monitor people’s behavior to such a degree that you can change the percentage they have to pay as a direct result of poor health choices? Cause that sounds pretty dystopian to me.

Most health issues are not the result of a good choice/bad choice dichotomy. Its much more complex with that. Let’s say I have sickle cell anemia. That’s not my fault, correct? But I can control my outbreaks (which require treatments) by avoiding stressful situations. What if I take a stressful job? Or help my neighbor move? Is that a good choice or a bad choice? Should my share of the premium be scaled accordingly?

I have been struggling the last month with a herniated disc in my neck and having a hell of a time getting in to see my doctor for treatment. But the problem was the result of bike riding. That was a choice I made. Is the injury my fault? What about falling down the stairs because I was wearing my socks? My choices, my fault. Should I pay 100% of my premium as a result?

Consider the example of a kid who grows up in a household where the parents do not make healthy choices with regards to diet. Now the child is a young man/woman and overweight. Where does this person’s “personal responsibility” lie? At what point should this person have “woken up” and addressed their poor health issues as it relates to weight? And how might this person become educated about this information if they have not been connected with a doctor because they have to pay 100% of the premium and cannot afford that? Would that relationship, in which a healthcare professional can work with a patient to improve health, not be an overall benefit? Or should we relegate such people to their own devices, hope they don’t fall victim to the insidiousness of Pringles and soft drink ads, and if not, well, its their own damn fault? What if depression is a contributing factor but they cannot afford the 100% premium? Should we hope they off themselves and not drain the system?

What if you live in an urban food desert? You are 70 years old and must make two bus transfers to get to the closest supermarket (true story, by the way). There is only so much food you can carry with you and you are still working because your husband died and there was not adequate money to live on from his pension (so time is limited for you to make this foray). But all around you are fast food restaurants and corner stores selling cheap, high caloric and fatty foods. You do not have the same access to fresh food choices that those in more affluent areas do. Is this your fault? Your choice? Should you pay 100% of the premium? Or should you have chosen to make more money and live in the suburbs?

Lastly, I think this is just a very Un-American attitude. If this was the prevailing view through history, Social Security would never have been established, for example. But maybe you think that is a bad idea as well.

This has been great fun, but I am not going to add anything more to my comments on this topic. I feel bad clogging the feed. But this was just too outrageous not to respond to...

Excuses Excuses... that is all you are tossing out here..

So let me get this right... it is ok to raise rates on old people and people who smoke, but not people who are obese because of lack of discipline? (Please note, that I don't like how they calculate BMI, but it appears that is where the numbers are right now.

According to the CDC, the following are all contributed to weight:
  • Coronary heart disease
  • Type 2 diabetes
  • Cancers (endometrial, breast, and colon)
  • Hypertension (high blood pressure)
  • Dyslipidemia (for example, high total cholesterol or high levels of triglycerides)
  • Stroke
  • Liver and Gallbladder disease
  • Sleep apnea and respiratory problems
  • Osteoarthritis (a degeneration of cartilage and its underlying bone within a joint)
  • Gynecological problems (abnormal menses, infertility)

To make matters worse, several of the leading causes of death are lifestyle related:
  • Heart disease: 597,689
  • Cancer: 574,743
  • Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 138,080
  • Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 129,476
  • Accidents (unintentional injuries): 120,859
  • Alzheimer's disease: 83,494
  • Diabetes: 69,071
  • Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 50,476
  • Influenza and Pneumonia: 50,097
  • Intentional self-harm (suicide): 38,364

Notice several on both lists?

If people took better care of there health then we would not be in the situation that we are in right now. As for making bad choices... what if someone drinks too much and gets into a car accident. It might have been their first time driving... choices have consequences. As for your situation of the food desert it is supply and demand. If people suddenly realize that their heath and weight are directly related to their food intake, people will make different choices when it comes to food intake.

I walk 2 to 3 miles almost 5 to 7 mornings a week, do light cardo 2 to 3 times a week and weight training 2 to 3 times a week with a bow flex that we bought used. I also can go out to B-dubs for wings twice a month, have a burger on occasion, or even pizza like I did last week without giving it a second thought. As for heredity, there are a lot of things that heredity causes. Everyone on my mom's side of the family and my sister has or had high blood pressure. My sister is medicated for it and I was before I started eating heather. I am the oldest male on my dad's side not to have a heart attack or other heart related medical emergency. I know that if I lived a normal american lifestyle I would be highly medicated or dead. Instead I am healthier now than when I was in college. I know that there are things that no matter how hard people work, they can't change.

Being healthy takes discipline and in the TV - fast food culture that we live in that is so abundant here in the US, most people lack discipline. Too many people don't want to do the work that it takes to be healthy or successful. Instead too many people use excuses because they don't have the will power to make the correct little choices day after day.

As for being un-American... un-american is telling people that they need to buy a good or service, sometimes (and it appears more often than not) at a higher expense than if they otherwise bought it on the open market. LINK
 
If people took better care of there health then we would not be in the situation that we are in right now.]

I think what wahday is trying to say is that people "taking better care of their health" is not 100% about decisions that that person makes. It is often outside the control of the individual. I believe he was trying to say that it is a little more nuanced than people just making better decisions. Which seems to be what you're saying.
 
I think what wahday is trying to say is that people "taking better care of their health" is not 100% about decisions that that person makes. It is often outside the control of the individual. I believe he was trying to say that it is a little more nuanced than people just making better decisions. Which seems to be what you're saying.

Yes, that was indeed my point.
 
Last edited:
Yes, that was, indeed, my point.

And what I am saying is that the parts that are within a persons control, influence their health and is a decision and therefore rates should be based on that.

So you would be ok with hockey players paying more for insurance because of their lifestyle? You are also ok with slavery, certain people being counted as 3/5 of a person, women not having the right to vote, and senators not being elected by popular vote?

Wow... talk about accusations with the bold and underlined statements. I missed that part. Are you calling me racist? If you are, grow a backbone and say it. I believe in equal opportunity and that includes women and african americans having a full vote. I say equal opportunity because if someone always squanders their opportunities, then they should not live the same lifestyle as someone who has worked hard.

As for the hockey players thing... YES they should be charged a higher premium. They are charged a higher premium for life insurance. Similar to people who ride motorcycles. If choose to embark on activities that increase the chance of getting hurt, then yes they should charged a higher insurance premium just like smokers do.

I have commented on the election of Senators in the past... once again YES. They should be appointed by each state and not elected by popular vote... but it also needs to be part of a larger governmental overhaul. It has happened in the past, it can happen again.

I don't remember who commented that we shouldn't complain or want to repeal Obamacare until it is fully enacted... if a house is on fire, you don't wait for it to be fully engulfed to call the fire department. It is bad legislation and should be repealed before it does more damage to the healthcare industry.
 
Last edited:
I alway like to stop by and see what the topic of the day is. It seems ACA is still up for debate, I'll move on.
 
And what I am saying is that the parts that are within a persons control, influence their health and is a decision and therefore rates should be based on that.

Some insurance plans are incentive or behavior based. My sister- and brother-in-law's plan is partly behavior based. Their company also has the employees pay premiums based on their wages.

Is it your contention that the ACA is not allowing health insurance providers to have incentive or behavior based plans? I haven't read anything regarding this topic.
 
Sorta related to what I was saying upthread:



It's easy to copy & paste relentless diatribes against "those people." Guess what. I am one of those people. And I care about all of our community, not just the tunnel version of my immediate household.

This is what I was getting at with the 'psychological idea' upthread. We can take whomever's theory we want, but essentially there is a spectrum of "self-regarding" to "other-regarding" and how we deal with the world.

This was more a reflection of what mskiis tends to parrot. My own beliefs are a bit more nuanced and in opposition to the underlying ideology of mskiis.

Ah, got it. Apologies, I was more interested in using it as a jumping off point than assigning judgement, however.
 
Some insurance plans are incentive or behavior based. My sister- and brother-in-law's plan is partly behavior based. Their company also has the employees pay premiums based on their wages.

Is it your contention that the ACA is not allowing health insurance providers to have incentive or behavior based plans? I haven't read anything regarding this topic.

No, I too have not seen that in the ACA... but the more that I thought about it the more I wondered if we are putting the cart before the horse. If we put things into place, which can be private market expansion of lifestyle choices (such as smoking) then it would encourage people to live a much healthier lifestyle. Not just talking about little changes but something quantitate such as weight and body fat content, inclusion of illegal substances, quarterly (if not monthly) health screening, and more.

I will also admit that given that there are enough socialist minded people in here, a small part of me knew that people would get worked up over it and say silly things... like that I am racist and it is un-American.
 
A work-around

From my FB buddy Michael Moore.

http://www.thehealthsherpa.com/

And a success story from a FB friend:
DONE !
Mark and I are signed up for health and dental insurance. We'll be receiving our packets and health cards toward the end of this month.
Total monthly cost for health and dental?
$152.23
We can live with that!​

That's for two people...
 
From my FB buddy Michael Moore.

That's for two people...

There is finally some reporting of the outcomes of signing up. Lots of stories like this, many more than the few paraded around as evidence of catastrophic gubmint socialism.

Personally, I'd like for it to work so we can shift the burden off employers so the US can be competitive again.
 
I love hearing the argument, " that is not what are founding fathers intended." What most people forget the founders did not agree on everything. John Adams and Thomas Jefferson where both founding fathers and had very different opinions on how how this country should be run.
 
I love hearing the argument, " that is not what are founding fathers intended." What most people forget the founders did not agree on everything. John Adams and Thomas Jefferson where both founding fathers and had very different opinions on how how this country should be run.

The Founding Fathers don't know shit about the world today. The fact that we would look to guys 200 years ago is asinine. Sorry. I don't care what George Washington thinks about a republic because he has no idea what it is like to live in 21st Century America. The Framers / Founding Fathers know all junk is just silly. Time has evolved our country for the better. If it weren't a living document, the Constitution would be even more antiquated.
 
I will also admit that given that there are enough socialist minded people in here, a small part of me knew that people would get worked up over it and say silly things... like that I am racist and it is un-American.

Listen comrade, I am hardly a socialist. But what makes a socialist? Seriously, what does? I hear conservatives always throwing this term "socialist", but what is one. Just curious on your take, that is all. :p
 
And what I am saying is that the parts that are within a persons control, influence their health and is a decision and therefore rates should be based on that.



Wow... talk about accusations with the bold and underlined statements. I missed that part. Are you calling me racist? If you are, grow a backbone and say it. I believe in equal opportunity and that includes women and african americans having a full vote. I say equal opportunity because if someone always squanders their opportunities, then they should not live the same lifestyle as someone who has worked hard.
No, what I'm saying is that you slept through your early American History classes. That or you weren't playing attention or rejected anything that didn't fit your ideology. You should try reading something beside Ayn Rand.
 
You should also turn that statement around and apply it to yourself.

None of us are ideology-free. We all have our own biases regarding ACA and that doesn't make any of us more "right" than those holding different views.

Anyway, it's been repeatedly stated by the more reasonable people and "experts" out there that there will be winners AND losers with ACA. On the bright side, the losers will still have health care, they'll simply have to pay more for it. The ACA takes a deeply flawed system....and keeps it deeply flawed.

As for me, I'm more interested in seeing what happens down the road. Will ACA actually control health care costs? We'll have to wait and see.



No, what I'm saying is that you slept through your early American History classes. That or you weren't playing attention or rejected anything that didn't fit your ideology. You should try reading something beside Ayn Rand.
 
I'm fairly certain that I'm qualified to weigh in (no pun intended) on the higher insurance rates for fat people topic. You may or may not know that in a former life I was an insurance underwriter, working for excess and surplus lines companies running risk pool groups like these fancy new "exchanges" the government has set up for the ACA. That's right, they're nothing new (but that's beside the point). RPGs have been around, and the underwriters that run them know how to handle it. They have their own standards and actuarial tables and data, and they insured high risk and "uninsurable" people a long time ago.

If you're contending that underwriting insurance for fatties will be insufficient because of the health care costs associated with them go ahead and put your mind at ease because it will be nothing compared to the costs for pre-existing conditions. All those cancer babies, preemies, 10 year olds with leukemia...their families should all pay enormous premiums or better yet....nobody should have to insure them because I can tell you that according to the actuarial tables it's not effing possible to turn a profit and insure them.....OH WAIT, that's one of the problems that ACA is attempting - imperfectly, God forbid - to address. See, nothing really changed here, dude. Where fatties like me get a break is in being associated with a giant risk pool like, say, public employees. I don't, btw, get a break on life insurance, just like a smoker or older person doesn't. They don't care about my medical records, just my BMI.

Drop the discussion of how much fat people should have to pay. Health insurance was a huge gamble for everybody to begin with. Seemingly perfectly healthy people keel over and bite it on their way to GNC every day or get hit by busses more often because they won't just drive their damn cars. There's some actuarial nonsense for you. People have tried to be nice about it. Drop it. It's a stupid line of reasoning and a stupid thing to be worried about.

all my love, ursus.

Sorry, last point I promise.

If you reason that people with "lifestyle" problems (read, fatties and smokers) should be made to pay higher premiums because they're costing you money I can only assume you mean through your premiums. Stay with me now, then it follows that the best thing would be to eliminate them from the situation entirely, right? Don't insure them, and don't provide them care and your premiums will go down, right? Wrong. They go up. 70% of the nation is considered Overweight, and not much less Obese. Throw smokers in, too and your risk pool just became really, really small. And that's what it's all about, dude. Risk pooling. Take it on faith for me, just this once, from an underwriter. Risk pooling. Fat people and smokers pay premiums too, and there are shit-loads of us, so your premium costs are not increased because of our presence. Sorry. That's just how the whole business side of it works.....and worked for hundreds of years before the ACA.

Now, the ACA may not fix that. I realize that there are actual medical costs to be considered, and that premiums reflect that. My contention is that the ACA will be able to allow the risk pooling that has always gone on to continue. I believe this because we all made a pretty good living doing it for excess and surplus lines before, and I believe in the ability of those greedy bastards I used to work for to find a way to do this and still turn a small profit. I am, you see, a capitalist after all. :)
 
No, I too have not seen that in the ACA... but the more that I thought about it the more I wondered if we are putting the cart before the horse. If we put things into place, which can be private market expansion of lifestyle choices (such as smoking) then it would encourage people to live a much healthier lifestyle. Not just talking about little changes but something quantitate such as weight and body fat content, inclusion of illegal substances, quarterly (if not monthly) health screening, and more.

I will also admit that given that there are enough socialist minded people in here, a small part of me knew that people would get worked up over it and say silly things... like that I am racist and it is un-American.

These would all be pretty intrusive into ones' life no? Not the most libertarian of ideals if you ask me.

I'm pretty sure I'm not getting worked up and saying silly things, and as I've posted before, I agree with lots of your political leanings, so please don't lump me into your "socialist" generalizations, as I'm one of the frequent posters in this thread.

If you'd like to stand up to your statements, please point out what posters are "socialist minded".
 
I'm fairly certain that I'm qualified to weigh in (no pun intended) on the higher insurance rates for fat people topic. You may or may not know that in a former life I was an insurance underwriter, working for excess and surplus lines companies running risk pool groups like these fancy new "exchanges" the government has set up for the ACA. That's right, they're nothing new (but that's beside the point). RPGs have been around, and the underwriters that run them know how to handle it. They have their own standards and actuarial tables and data, and they insured high risk and "uninsurable" people a long time ago.

...

Now, the ACA may not fix that. I realize that there are actual medical costs to be considered, and that premiums reflect that. My contention is that the ACA will be able to allow the risk pooling that has always gone on to continue. I believe this because we all made a pretty good living doing it for excess and surplus lines before, and I believe in the ability of those greedy bastards I used to work for to find a way to do this and still turn a small profit. I am, you see, a capitalist after all. :)

These are good points, thank you for sharing them. We see recent stories from Mexico on their growing obesity - we know that diseases of affluence are much different than diseases of yore. Anyhoo.

To clarify, IIRC 50% of our health care costs go to 5% of individuals. That's right: very sick people Hoover up a ton of money.

Second: the thing to remember about smokers and morbidly obese is that the total cost of lifetime care for these folks is less. That's right: less. Why? They die sooner.
 
And now for something completely different...


So, apparently yesterday was an Election Day (my district had nothing to vote on this time around). But, there were a couple of interesting results in the larger metro Atlanta area:

Atlanta mayor: the incumbent Kasim Reed won in a landslide, garnering 85% of the total votes - not a huge surprise (his ad campaign this time around was basically "I'm Your Mayor"), but four years ago he squeaked into office by the slimmest of margins. For someone with rumored national aspirations, this does give him a lot of momentum (assuming he doesn't screw up too badly over this term).

GA State Senate District 14 (slightly north of my district); One dude (out of six on the ballot) received no votes. Zero. He didn't even bother to vote for himself.
 
Breathing a sigh of relief after the election at my city of employment. Election was essentially an endorsement of our planning program & staff.
 
My neighboring community which have some of the best schools in the state voted again against a budget override. There was a campaign sign that said, " Destroy Public Education. Vote No on the Override, people should pay to educate their own children." The override was to keep the funding level and would not have raised taxes.
 
Other interesting local election news.

Detroit: First white mayor in 40 plus years

Colorado: 25% sales tax on recerational pot sales

NYC: First democratic mayor since 1989

Virginia: Voted in a democrat for governor, many are saying this is the final chapter in Virginia becoming a "blue" state.

SeaTac, WA: It is looking like the $15 minimum wage for that city is going to win

Harris County, TX: It looks like the AstroDome, the 8th Wonder of the World is doomed for the wrecking ball after a $217 million bond to convert the site into a convention facility failed 53% - 47%. That is a shame. A revitalized AstroDome combined with Reliant Stadium would have created a nice convention and events hub on the southside of Houston, releiving some of the congestion around the Convention Center downtown. Many people were saying the measure failed in Harris County because of the large percentage of "non-native" and temporary residents, people who have no historical tie to the AstroDome.

Pasadena, TX: Voters narrowly approved a measure that would convert two of the City Council districts to at-large. The City tried this a year ago and was shot down by a judge for voter rights reasons. In the wake of the Supreme Court decesion regarding the Voter Rights Act, the City tried again and the measure passed by a slim margin, just over 1%.

I wish more people would vote in local elections, these are the elections that have an immediate impact on your day to day lives. Yet for all of that importance turn out is shockingly low. For example, the AstroDome vote had only 240,000 votes in total out of a county that has 1.9 million registered voters. Most cities in Harris County had elections, including Houston's mayoral election. So it wasn't like the bond was the only thing on the ballot.
 
Last edited:
Listen comrade, I am hardly a socialist. But what makes a socialist? Seriously, what does? I hear conservatives always throwing this term "socialist", but what is one. Just curious on your take, that is all. :p

I use the term as one who wants governmental control of industry (like healthcare) to create a forced equity based on the distribution of goods, regardless of ones personal actions.

No, what I'm saying is that you slept through your early American History classes. That or you weren't playing attention or rejected anything that didn't fit your ideology. You should try reading something beside Ayn Rand.

I have. I would suggest that you read the following... I already have.
Autobiography of Ben Franklin
The complete writings of Thomas Jefferson
Autobiography of George Washington
George Washington written by Washington Irving.
The Writings of James Madison
The Writings of Alexander Hamilton
The Federalist Papers
Democracy in America by Tocqueville
The Complete Works and biography of Thomas Paine
Oh, and this thing called The Constitution of the United States:

Or maybe you should read something other than CNN and democratic talking points once in a while.

These would all be pretty intrusive into ones' life no? Not the most libertarian of ideals if you ask me.

I'm pretty sure I'm not getting worked up and saying silly things, and as I've posted before, I agree with lots of your political leanings, so please don't lump me into your "socialist" generalizations, as I'm one of the frequent posters in this thread.

If you'd like to stand up to your statements, please point out what posters are "socialist minded".

If done in a free market context without government intervention or control, then it is libertarian. As for socialist, when the government take control of an industry and distributes the goods not based on contribution but based on need, that is socialism.
 
And in other news:

Chris Christie won in a 60% blowout victory in heavily democratic New Jersey.

Republican county executives win reelections in heavy democratic Westchester and Queens counties.

Terry McAuliffe blew a double point lead a few weeks ago to eke out a narrow 2.5% victory against a deeply flawed GOP candidate in a three-way race.

Washington State voters rejected proposal to require food to have GMO labeling, 55-45%.

Other interesting local election news.

Detroit: First white mayor in 40 plus years

Colorado: 25% sales tax on recerational pot sales

NYC: First democratic mayor since 1989

Virginia: Voted in a democrat for governor, many are saying this is the final chapter in Virginia becoming a "blue" state.

SeaTac, WA: It is looking like the $15 minimum wage for that city is going to win

Harris County, TX: It looks like the AstroDome, the 8th Wonder of the World is doomed for the wrecking ball after a $217 million bond to convert the site into a convention facility failed 53% - 47%. That is a shame. A revitalized AstroDome combined with Reliant Stadium would have created a nice convention and events hub on the southside of Houston, releiving some of the congestion around the Convention Center downtown. Many people were saying the measure failed in Harris County because of the large percentage of "non-native" and temporary residents, people who have no historical tie to the AstroDome.

Pasadena, TX: Voters narrowly approved a measure that would convert two of the City Council districts to at-large. The City tried this a year ago and was shot down by a judge for voter rights reasons. In the wake of the Supreme Court decesion regarding the Voter Rights Act, the City tried again and the measure passed by a slim margin, just over 1%.

I wish more people would vote in local elections, these are the elections that have an immediate impact on your day to day lives. Yet for all of that importance turn out is shockingly low. For example, the AstroDome vote had only 240,000 votes in total out of a county that has 1.9 million registered voters. Most cities in Harris County had elections, including Houston's mayoral election. So it wasn't like the bond was the only thing on the ballot.
 
And in other news:

Chris Christie won in a 60% blowout victory in heavily democratic New Jersey.

Washington State voters rejected proposal to require food to have GMO labeling, 55-45%.

To be fair in NJ, it was no surprise that Christie won reelection. Once Booker decided to run for Senate instead of Governor that race was over.

I don't know what the details were behind the GMO labeling in WA, but if it was like the same campaign here in CA last year, there was a lot of outside money that was thrown towards defeating that proposal. All-in-all it is hard to judge national trends based on an off-year election, yet the press and pundits do it all the time.
 
I voted for a millage increase for local parks and voted for a Democrat over the Republican for a city council seat.

I don't vote based on the party, but based on what that person or issue will do at that level of government.


As for the GMO labeling, that is one I would have liked to see passed on a state by state level.
 

This is the incredible thing to me. I haven't read all those books but I have read the federalist papers and various writing of Franklin, and I don't see how anyone can read those and come away with the conclusion that they were all in agreement much less that they were all in agreement with modern conservative ideology. That you somehow got that impression from reading these things boggles my mind.
 
This is the incredible thing to me. I haven't read all those books but I have read the federalist papers and various writing of Franklin, and I don't see how anyone can read those and come away with the conclusion that they were all in agreement much less that they were all in agreement with modern conservative ideology. That you somehow got that impression from reading these things boggles my mind.

“We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.”
― Benjamin Franklin
 
This is the incredible thing to me. I haven't read all those books but I have read the federalist papers and various writing of Franklin, and I don't see how anyone can read those and come away with the conclusion that they were all in agreement much less that they were all in agreement with modern conservative ideology. That you somehow got that impression from reading these things boggles my mind.

They were not of the same conclusion. Nor was SCOTUS ruling on Obamacare... but that is the ruling therefore it is correct to say "The Supreme Court declared it constitutional and a tax."

It is how it has been all the way back to ancient Greece where the opinion of the majority was the opinion of the whole. (Plato's The Republic)
 
As for the GMO labeling, that is one I would have liked to see passed on a state by state level.

To be fair, it is not quite as simple as a single state issue. If a company has a distribution beyond just that state, they will either need to have separate packaging for just that state which lists the GMO presence (and add to their production cost), or they will carry over that packaging into other states as they do now. Since most people have a fear of GMO products (regardless of the evidence towards any risk (bad of good) from GMO), they will usually lend a product to be at a disadvantage in the marketplace. Plus, since different companies receive ingredients from a wide variety of suppliers, they will likely have to add the label anyways in case some off chance GMO is found. I know that companies (such as the ones my father works for) does the same thing with the "substances within this product are known to the State of California to cause cancer" even if that substance may not be present; the risk of liability is simply too high. But I am also not on the Monsanto is trying to poison us train either, and while I prefer locally grown foods (support local :)), I'm not particularly concerned with GMOs. I think if we were to do the labeling, it would probably be easier to do it everywhere.
 
To be fair, it is not quite as simple as a single state issue. If a company has a distribution beyond just that state, they will either need to have separate packaging for just that state which lists the GMO presence (and add to their production cost), or they will carry over that packaging into other states as they do now. Since most people have a fear of GMO products (regardless of the evidence towards any risk (bad of good) from GMO), they will usually lend a product to be at a disadvantage in the marketplace. Plus, since different companies receive ingredients from a wide variety of suppliers, they will likely have to add the label anyways in case some off chance GMO is found. I know that companies (such as the ones my father works for) does the same thing with the "substances within this product are known to the State of California to cause cancer" even if that substance may not be present; the risk of liability is simply too high. But I am also not on the Monsanto is trying to poison us train either, and while I prefer locally grown foods (support local :)), I'm not particularly concerned with GMOs. I think if we were to do the labeling, it would probably be easier to do it everywhere.

For cost efficiency, I agree. But I don't think that it is too unusual. In some cases companies they need to make entirely new products or at least modified projects. For example, there are products for cars that don't meet the emissions standards in CA. Same thing with some handguns. All of my handguns would be illegal in CA, but are perfectly legal here in MI.

There is also soda can returns and in some states, they just have standardized labeling on all their cans because some states have deposits, some don't.

If enough states require GMO's to be labeled, then it would be more cost effective to just label them all, regardless of the state.
 
For cost efficiency, I agree. But I don't think that it is too unusual. In some cases companies they need to make entirely new products or at least modified projects. For example, there are products for cars that don't meet the emissions standards in CA. Same thing with some handguns. All of my handguns would be illegal in CA, but are perfectly legal here in MI.

There is also soda can returns and in some states, they just have standardized labeling on all their cans because some states have deposits, some don't.

If enough states require GMO's to be labeled, then it would be more cost effective to just label them all, regardless of the state.

That seems like a bit of a false equivalence.. you are not going to avoid a product in a can simply because your state may not offer cash redemption, a product with a GMO won't become illegal, and I won't import a non labeled product either. I agree with the concept of labeling (it is good to know what you're actually getting), but I was just pointing out that the consequences probably would not be isolated at the state level.
 
That seems like a bit of a false equivalence.. you are not going to avoid a product in a can simply because your state may not offer cash redemption, a product with a GMO won't become illegal, and I won't import a non labeled product either. I agree with the concept of labeling (it is good to know what you're actually getting), but I was just pointing out that the consequences probably would not be isolated at the state level.

Now I see where you were going. It is not the cost of labeling per state, but the fear that it might frighten away potential buyers. I think that is something that they would have to weigh carefully. What is more cost effective, loosing the costumers who don't want to eat GMO food, or hiding it from them in states that don't want to require that it is labeled.
 
Now I see where you were going. It is not the cost of labeling per state, but the fear that it might frighten away potential buyers. I think that is something that they would have to weigh carefully. What is more cost effective, loosing the costumers who don't want to eat GMO food, or hiding it from them in states that don't want to require that it is labeled.

I think once that cat is out of the bag, even at the state level, there will be an some level of impact to its national market. I think if we were to do it, just get it out of the way, rather than create individual unfunded mandates in random states. Had the bill passed, you will still find out that products in Coke may have traces (or more) of GMO, but our state would have paid for that disclosure.
 
And in other news:
Terry McAuliffe blew a double point lead a few weeks ago to eke out a narrow 2.5% victory against a deeply flawed GOP candidate in a three-way race.
McCaullife would've cruised if it weren't for the dumpster fire that is Obamacare.

At the risk of being called a teabagger and Obamakkkare hater, I'll just leave this here:
http:// http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/kathleen-parker-what-obama-forgot-to-apologize-for/2013/11/08/6e72505a-48b0-11e3-a196-3544a03c2351_story.html


http:// http://p.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/nov/8/obama-white-house-earn-top-liar-labels-obamacare-f/
 

Do you live in Virginia? I just used the dumpster fire to discover that you could obtain a health plan in Fairfax county for as little as 123 a month not counting any subsidies you might qualify for.
 
Do you live in Virginia? I just used the dumpster fire to discover that you could obtain a health plan in Fairfax county for as little as 123 a month not counting any subsidies you might qualify for.

^Try putting in your personal info and it fails, I know this because I tried to help a family member get coverage in FL. It's a game of bait and switch with this thing.
 
Back
Top