Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 64
  1. #26
    Live by what you Speak. DarkReign's Avatar
    My Team
    Detroit Pistons
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    10,571
    Well, I guess I do if you count suicide. Other than that it is out of my hands. And that is a fact.
    I meant philosophically, politically, morally, ideally and willfully.

  2. #27
    Displaced 101A's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Post Count
    7,711
    The difference is that, statistically speaking, the extremely obese and those who smoke heavily are virtually guaranteed to die younger
    Dying younger, yes, but not before they retire.

    Which means, they draw Social Security for a shorter amount of time, take maintenance drugs for a shorter amount of time, are LESS healthy when they get that killer disease, and die sooner, with less heroic (expensive) treatments wasted on their half-dead selves.

    We could only be so lucky that the baby boomers were ALL fat tubs of nicotine smoking goo! There wouldn't be a Social Security or Medicare crisis. Dead people are CHEAP!!!

  3. #28
    Displaced 101A's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Post Count
    7,711
    There could even be a bonus for people who are are exceptionally lean and fit, via optional performance tessts like treadmill and resistance exercises.
    And they'll never die!!!!

    You know what statistic is most likely to dictate whether someone is REALLY, REALLY sick?

    Age.

    How much you gonna charge those bas s that didn't have the decency to die young?

  4. #29
    "Have to check the film" PixelPusher's Avatar
    My Team
    Sacramento Kings
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Post Count
    3,396
    . Dead people are CHEAP!!!
    Only if they've donated their body to medical science. Mortuaries aren't cheap.

  5. #30
    No darkness Cry Havoc's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Post Count
    33,654
    Dying younger, yes, but not before they retire.

    Which means, they draw Social Security for a shorter amount of time, take maintenance drugs for a shorter amount of time, are LESS healthy when they get that killer disease, and die sooner, with less heroic (expensive) treatments wasted on their half-dead selves.

    We could only be so lucky that the baby boomers were ALL fat tubs of nicotine smoking goo! There wouldn't be a Social Security or Medicare crisis. Dead people are CHEAP!!!
    Tell that to my uncle's family. They'd really like to hear about how hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of cancer and radiation treatments are "cheap". Your logic nears that of genocide -- why not get rid of people after 60, so they don't draw SS and we can all prosper from it? Or we could at the very least encourage them to off themselves.

    My 61 year old father who still chops wood by himself almost daily with a double-bladed ax might have a problem with being called unhealthy, though.

  6. #31
    Displaced 101A's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Post Count
    7,711
    Tell that to my uncle's family. They'd really like to hear about how hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of cancer and radiation treatments are "cheap". Your logic nears that of genocide -- why not get rid of people after 60, so they don't draw SS and we can all prosper from it? Or we could at the very least encourage them to off themselves.

    My 61 year old father who still chops wood by himself almost daily with a double-bladed ax might have a problem with being called unhealthy, though.
    Everybody dies. Most die of things that are expensive. As long as you live through your productive life (to retirement), then the economic contribution you have to give, is given. The sooner you die after that, the cheaper you are.

    Not arguing for any Logan's run-esque laws be passed, just pointing out the fallicy of charging smokers or fat people more for their (govt.) health insurance.

  7. #32
    No darkness Cry Havoc's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Post Count
    33,654
    Everybody dies. Most die of things that are expensive. As long as you live through your productive life (to retirement), then the economic contribution you have to give, is given. The sooner you die after that, the cheaper you are.

    Not arguing for any Logan's run-esque laws be passed, just pointing out the fallicy of charging smokers or fat people more for their (govt.) health insurance.
    By this reasoning, you could compare a physically fit, nutritionally aware individual to a lifelong smoker or compulsive eater who weighs 350 pounds and expect the first person to cost society more? So the accommodations that must be made for smokers and the obese, the medical treatment of the lungs (some starting in their 30s), the specialized ergonomic supports for the overweight, the pills and shots for the inevitable diabetes, is going to cost less than social security for someone who's in relative health most of their life? Social security is almost never stored as income. It's spent, and circulates right back into the economy. If the baby boomers find some way of throwing their SS paycheck in a bank vault, it will have a negative impact on the economy. But that's not going to happen.

    Believe me, if Social Security was that big of a giver, 401ks would not exist, and retirement options would be scoffed at as unnecessary. The people who truly benefit from Social Security are those who have been enrolled for SSDI income, which is derived directly from their parents prematurely dying, or setting up a trust for benefits through their employer. Medical costs are staggeringly more expensive than social security income. One or two nights in a hospital can often equal a YEAR of SS checks, if not more.

  8. #33
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    Who cares what Japan is doing? We are talking about the USA!
    Exactly. Think about how many times the elistist politicians want to impose the ideals of othet cultures upon us.

    Ready to give up even more feedomd to the democrats?

  9. #34
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Post Count
    15,842
    "allowing government control of diet and recereation"

    who's talking about that? no matter what you eat or exercise, or don't, is not the govt health insurer's role.

    The govt takes quality of health measurements from blood and urine and dimensions, and at the option the insured, performance measurement. One has full freedom to eat and do whatever. The govt health insurer is only interested in the objective measurements of health.

  10. #35
    No darkness Cry Havoc's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Post Count
    33,654
    I also have to bring up another issue that I have with trans fat even being called food. Does this mean that I can be outraged that McDonalds isn't putting wild king cobra snakes in my food? OMG THEY'RE CONTROLLING WHAT I EAT!

    But seriously, my point is this: how can anyone consider a substance like trans fat food? It's not, and has almost NO impact on the taste of an edible object. Dunkin' Donuts just removed trans fat from their entire menu -- would they really do that at the risk of business unless it's really not central to the taste of their foodstuffs?

  11. #36
    Displaced 101A's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Post Count
    7,711
    By this reasoning, you could compare a physically fit, nutritionally aware individual to a lifelong smoker or compulsive eater who weighs 350 pounds and expect the first person to cost society more? So the accommodations that must be made for smokers and the obese, the medical treatment of the lungs (some starting in their 30s), the specialized ergonomic supports for the overweight, the pills and shots for the inevitable diabetes, is going to cost less than social security for someone who's in relative health most of their life? Social security is almost never stored as income. It's spent, and circulates right back into the economy. If the baby boomers find some way of throwing their SS paycheck in a bank vault, it will have a negative impact on the economy. But that's not going to happen.

    Believe me, if Social Security was that big of a giver, 401ks would not exist, and retirement options would be scoffed at as unnecessary. The people who truly benefit from Social Security are those who have been enrolled for SSDI income, which is derived directly from their parents prematurely dying, or setting up a trust for benefits through their employer. Medical costs are staggeringly more expensive than social security income. One or two nights in a hospital can often equal a YEAR of SS checks, if not more.
    I don't know how else to explain this: EVERYBODY DIES!!! Tri-Athletes don't just get taken up at 85 - they get heart disease, cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer's - you name it, they get it; just later in life. It's just as expensive to treat them, as it was to treat their deceased peers 20 years earlier!

    Social Security isn't expensive?

    Got it.

  12. #37
    I can live with it JoeChalupa's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Post Count
    21,547
    I wish they'd ban tofu and sushi.

  13. #38
    Veteran
    My Team
    Denver Nuggets
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Post Count
    12,134
    I wish they'd ban tofu and sushi.
    You say what you want about tofu, but leave sushi out of this.

  14. #39
    I can live with it JoeChalupa's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Post Count
    21,547
    You say what you want about tofu, but leave sushi out of this.
    sushi sucks. Fry that fish and it is a different story.

  15. #40
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Post Count
    15,842
    "EVERYBODY DIES!!! Tri-Athletes don't just get taken up at 85 - they get heart disease, cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer's - you name it, they get it; just later in life."

    The personal goal is to maintain healthy, disease-free quality of life up to the very end, with the societal benefit being minimal consumption of public health resources.

    lean, well nourished, fit old people have greatly reduced risk of the diseases you list, even Alzheimer's is amenable to risk reduction.

  16. #41
    Still Hates Small Ball Spurminator's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Post Count
    37,144
    In related news....

    http://health.yahoo.com/news/ap/fast_food_ban.html

    Los Angeles wants to take bite out of fast food
    By CHRISTINA HOAG, Associated Press Writer - Tue Jul 29, 4:50 AM PDT

    LOS ANGELES - In the impoverished neighborhood of South Los Angeles, fast food is the easiest cuisine to find — and that's a problem for elected officials who see it as an unhealthy source of calories and cholesterol.

    The City Council was poised to vote Tuesday on a moratorium on new fast-food restaurants in a swath of the city where a proliferation of such eateries goes hand-in-hand with obesity.

    "Our communities have an extreme shortage of quality foods," City Councilman Bernard Parks said.

    The aim of the yearlong moratorium, which was approved last week in committee, is to give the city time to try to attract restaurants that serve healthier food.

    The California Restaurant Association says the moratorium, which could be extended up to two years, is misguided.

    Fast food "is the only industry that wants to be in South LA," said association spokesman Andrew Casana. "Sit-down restaurants don't want to go in. If they did, they'd be there. This moratorium isn't going to help them relocate."

    The proposed ban comes at a time when governments of all levels are increasingly viewing menus as a matter of public health. Last Friday, California became the first state in the nation to bar trans fats, which lowers levels of good cholesterol and increases bad cholesterol.

    It also comes as the Los Angeles City Council tackles issues beyond safety, schools and streets. The council last week decided to outlaw plastic bags.

    Fast-food restaurants have found themselves in the frying pan in a number of cities. Some places, including Carmel-by-the Sea and Calistoga, have barred "formula" restaurants altogether; others have placed a cap on them — Arcata allows a maximum of nine fast-food eateries; others have prohibited the restaurants in certain areas, such as Port Jefferson, N.Y., in its waterfront area.

    Most initiatives were designed to preserve a city's historic character. The Los Angeles bid is one of few that cite residents' health.

    The mounting pressure has caused chains to insert healthier food choices in their menus. McDonalds offers salads and low-fat dressings; Burger King stocks Kids Meals with milk and apple pieces.

    That's why the restaurant industry says it's unfair to blame them for fat people.

    "What's next — security guards at the door saying 'You're overweight, you can't have a cheeseburger'?" Casana said.

    But public health officials say obesity has reached epidemic proportions in low-income areas such as South Los Angeles and diet is the key reason.

    According to the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health, 30 percent of adults in South Los Angeles area are obese, compared to 19.1 percent for the metropolitan area and 14.1 percent for the affluent westside. Minorities are particularly affected: 28.7 percent of Latinos and 27.7 percent of blacks are obese, compared to 16.6 percent of whites.

    Perry says that's no accident. South LA residents lack healthy food options, including grocery stores, fresh produce markets — and full-service restaurants with wait staff and food prepared to order.

    A report by the Community Health Councils found 73 percent of South L.A. restaurants were fast food, compared to 42 percent in West Los Angeles.

    If the moratorium is passed, Perry wants to lure restaurateurs and grocery retailers to area.

    Rebeca Torres, a South Los Angeles mother of four, said she would welcome more dining choices, even if she had to pay a little more. "They should have better things for children," she said. "This fast-food really fattens them up."

  17. #42
    No darkness Cry Havoc's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Post Count
    33,654
    I don't know how else to explain this: EVERYBODY DIES!!! Tri-Athletes don't just get taken up at 85 - they get heart disease, cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer's - you name it, they get it; just later in life. It's just as expensive to treat them, as it was to treat their deceased peers 20 years earlier!
    And smokers and the obese don't just get emphysema or diabetes at 60. They struggle with a number of afflictions throughout their life. Lower level of health = higher cost. Those who take care of themselves and maintain a certain level of fitness are MUCH healthier, on average, than those who smoke or have weight problems.

    Since you seem to be so staunchly against the idea that smokers and the obese have maladies throughout their life (as opposed to 2 weeks of cancer and then kicking it, saving us all SO much money) I'll provide some sources.

    http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/69332.php

    http://medicine.plosjournals.org/per...d.0050029&ct=1

    This is, of course, not even discussing the environmental impact of smoking, or the damage that secondhand smoke does to those near the smoker.

    http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/art...?artid=1745908

    So yes. Kindly tell us again how smoking saves us money? That kind of logic is absolutely ludicrous, and I don't mind calling you out on it.

    Social Security isn't expensive?

    Got it.
    You misunderstand my meaning. Your contention was that those who draw social security for a long time are a drain on the economy. This is faulty for two reasons.

    First of all, that money has already been set aside in the social security fund. It was never part of the economy. Every paycheck you get, some of it goes to SS so they can fund you after you retire. You start receiving money on the deposits you made through working. This is an indirect impact on the economy. Social security is not the government melting down bars of gold from the treasury to fund the elderly. Even if a person dies early, the money stays in Social Security. It doesn't go elsewhere because someone lives to be 80.

    Secondly, Social Security is not a safety net or a golden parachute. In reality, those with only SSI (Social Security Income) receive far less than is perceived. SSDI (Social Security Disability Insurance) is the only type of SS that gives out a disproportional amount to what is put into the system. If there is a problem with SSI, it's the overhead and the governmental costs -- which can hardly be attributed to healthy individuals.

  18. #43
    Displaced 101A's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Post Count
    7,711

    First of all, that money has already been set aside in the social security fund. It was never part of the economy.
    There is no money, at all, in the SS trust fund. The congress decided LONG AGO to buy government bonds with that money - putting the actual cash into general funds. When the govt. cashes in those bonds, guess where the money is gonna come from to pay it?

    You have swallowed the SS kool-aid hook, line and sinker, haven't you?

    I own a company that pays the medical claims of over 20,000 people in and around this country. I'm telling you, smokers and fat people simply cost more earlier; not in total. Again, people get sick, stay sick, spend a ton of money in the last 2 months to 3 years of their lives, then die. My dad paid into SS his entire working life, the "Max" - because he earned over the threshold. He smoked, never took a sick day; got cancer at 60 and died before he collected a dime of Social Security, or filed a single Medicare claim. Mom got $250 bucks from SSA when he kicked. Govt. made out like a bandit.

    Mom, on the other hand, is healthy, doesn't smoke, but takes numerous maintenance drugs (hormone therapy, Allergy, etc....nothing for blood pressure or cholesterol, but, somehow, docs have signed her up for about 12 she takes daily). She also worked long enough to get the max SS benefits. She's gonna collect, beginning in two years (@67), +- $1,300 per month for the rest of her life - and that will increase via COLA'S. HER mother is currently 87 and going strong, and her grandmother lived to 100. My mom is going to be collecting those dollars, probably, for a long time (knocks on wood). Additionally, her non-smoking, non-obese, works out three times a week self, is going to start collecting Medicare in October; and Medicare is going to begin picking up the charges for those drugs, as well for the doctor's visits necessary to prescribe them. Then, AFTER ALL OF THAT, as she gets really old, she's gonna get something that requires an ICU, possibly Ho e, who knows; but it'll most likely be at least as expensive as the 2 months of cancer treatment dad got before he died.

    That particular healthy non-smoker is gonna cost a whole lot more than the smoker.

  19. #44
    No darkness Cry Havoc's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Post Count
    33,654
    There is no money, at all, in the SS trust fund. The congress decided LONG AGO to buy government bonds with that money - putting the actual cash into general funds. When the govt. cashes in those bonds, guess where the money is gonna come from to pay it?

    You have swallowed the SS kool-aid hook, line and sinker, haven't you?

    I own a company that pays the medical claims of over 20,000 people in and around this country. I'm telling you, smokers and fat people simply cost more earlier; not in total. Again, people get sick, stay sick, spend a ton of money in the last 2 months to 3 years of their lives, then die. My dad paid into SS his entire working life, the "Max" - because he earned over the threshold. He smoked, never took a sick day; got cancer at 60 and died before he collected a dime of Social Security, or filed a single Medicare claim. Mom got $250 bucks from SSA when he kicked. Govt. made out like a bandit.

    Mom, on the other hand, is healthy, doesn't smoke, but takes numerous maintenance drugs (hormone therapy, Allergy, etc....nothing for blood pressure or cholesterol, but, somehow, docs have signed her up for about 12 she takes daily). She also worked long enough to get the max SS benefits. She's gonna collect, beginning in two years (@67), +- $1,300 per month for the rest of her life - and that will increase via COLA'S. HER mother is currently 87 and going strong, and her grandmother lived to 100. My mom is going to be collecting those dollars, probably, for a long time (knocks on wood). Additionally, her non-smoking, non-obese, works out three times a week self, is going to start collecting Medicare in October; and Medicare is going to begin picking up the charges for those drugs, as well for the doctor's visits necessary to prescribe them. Then, AFTER ALL OF THAT, as she gets really old, she's gonna get something that requires an ICU, possibly Ho e, who knows; but it'll most likely be at least as expensive as the 2 months of cancer treatment dad got before he died.

    That particular healthy non-smoker is gonna cost a whole lot more than the smoker.
    Ah, yes, the whole, "Well this one member of my family smoked..." argument that invalidates all the research conducted that is contrary to the matter at hand. I should have saw that coming much earlier. I'm surprised it wasn't the first line of defense you used to justify the idea. People I work with are 30 years old, smoke, and they're already experiencing health problems.

    Again, let me pose the question to you: Do you really think smokers are wonderfully healthy until they hit their mid-50s, then suddenly get all these horrific ailments out of nowhere and die quickly?

    As for Social Security -- well, I deal with them every day. That should tell you all you need to know. I simply disagree with the idea that smokers are beneficial to this country from a medical cost standpoint.
    Last edited by Cry Havoc; 07-29-2008 at 11:45 AM.

  20. #45
    Displaced 101A's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Post Count
    7,711
    Again, let me pose the question to you: Do you really think smokers are wonderfully healthy until they hit their mid-50s, then suddenly get all these horrific ailments out of nowhere and die quickly?
    First of all, you got any comment on the Social Security funding issue?

    Next, no, many smokers develop emphysema and are hooked to oxygen tanks, take tons of drugs, etc, before there (by then) miserable lives are allowed to extinguish, but, Again, let me pose the question to you: Do you really think non-smokers are wonderfully healthy until they hit their mid-80s, then suddenly get all these horrific ailments out of nowhere and die quickly?

  21. #46
    Displaced 101A's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Post Count
    7,711
    Ah, yes, the whole, "Well this one member of my family smoked..." argument that invalidates all the research conducted that is contrary to the matter at hand. I should have saw that coming much earlier. I'm surprised it wasn't the first line of defense you used to justify the idea. People I work with are 30 years old, smoke, and they're already experiencing health problems.

    Oh, I almost forgot to respond to the condescension.....

    Ah, yes, the whole, "Well I work with these young smokers, and they are unhealthy" argument that invalidates all of the actual data that smokers don't actually spend more on health care, over the course of their lives, than non-smokers.

  22. #47
    No darkness Cry Havoc's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Post Count
    33,654
    Do you really think non-smokers are wonderfully healthy until they hit their mid-80s, then suddenly get all these horrific ailments out of nowhere and die quickly?
    I think the average non-smoker is probably healthy well into their 50s or 60s, and then generally they begin a slow decline of health.

    For smokers, that decline of health starts the DAY a person starts smoking, affects everyone who is consistently around the smoker, and ends in a painful death. I guess focusing on the last 2 years of a smoker's life and the last 20 of a non-smoker's life is a particularly handy way to level the playing field.

  23. #48
    No darkness Cry Havoc's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Post Count
    33,654
    Oh, I almost forgot to respond to the condescension.....

    Ah, yes, the whole, "Well I work with these young smokers, and they are unhealthy" argument that invalidates all of the actual data that smokers don't actually spend more on health care, over the course of their lives, than non-smokers.
    Got any facts and figures to back that up?

    What about their children? What about their loved ones? Are they unaffected by the residual health costs, as well?

  24. #49
    Displaced 101A's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Post Count
    7,711
    I think the average non-smoker is probably healthy well into their 50s or 60s, and then generally they begin a slow decline of health.

    For smokers, that decline of health starts the DAY a person starts smoking, affects everyone who is consistently around the smoker, and ends in a painful death. I guess focusing on the last 2 years of a smoker's life and the last 20 of a non-smoker's life is a particularly handy way to level the playing field.
    I think that is my point, isn't it?

  25. #50
    No darkness Cry Havoc's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Post Count
    33,654
    I think that is my point, isn't it?
    Yes. Your point is that smokers are 100% healthy and incur no health costs until the very end of their life then die suddenly in 3 days of lung cancer before they can even be seen by a doctor, so we should cheer the fact that they didn't cost us a dime of medical costs.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •