Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
The schools should at a bare minimum remove all junk food from vending machines.... including soda. If students want it, they can bring it in, but the schools should not be profiting off of selling crap.
Obesity (My Sincere Apologies For Pulling A Jarod)
- Thread starter cawacko
- Start date
The schools should at a bare minimum remove all junk food from vending machines.... including soda. If students want it, they can bring it in, but the schools should not be profiting off of selling crap.
What part of my answer means I haven't?
Are you going to pretend that the only options are status quo or government?
Bfgrn
New member
I said no such thing Damo. Anyone who is willing to accept a system where all the incentives are to collect years of premiums from the customer, then refuse to pay out when that person's very life may depend on treatment is not very smart. I don't think you should watch the video Damo, knowledge can be damaging.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
Bfgrn
New member
Conservatives have no problem with tort reform, which is HUGE government intervention. Not only is it government running people's lives, it can ruin people's lives. Not only is it government dictating, it undermines our very freedoms to a fair trial by our peers. It is dictating to a jury what they can or can't award. It is saying that a jury of American citizens are not competent enough to determine if a lawsuit is legitimate or frivolous.
But, it protects the conservative's aristocrats. Studies have show that thousands of people die every year because some doctors won't even wash their f'n hands.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
tort reform is not "huge" government intervention....laws are created by teh government...hence you need the government to work, change etc...with the laws
i seriously doubt those studies exist....link up
and tort reform has nothing at all to do with whether the jury thinks the case has merit or is frivilous, in fact, it has nothing to do with the merits of the case...it is about caps on awards....and right now i don't support most tort reform ideas i've seen from the repubs or dems
Yeah you're right. 'The government should tell us all what to do for our own good. Up to and including the way to wipe our a$$.
Feel better now?
apple0154
MEOW
The government could tax certain fast foods just as they tax cigarettes.
The problem with obesity is the general population lacks education. The government needs to do more to promote healthful eating.
As for Damo's comment in msg 3, "For some, quality of life may be determined by the enjoyment of foods that may be banned to "save society" from having to pay for them" we have to ask what type of life does such a person have?
Who would do something that is harmful in order to get enjoyment and by that I mean if we knew someone was a diabetic and we saw them eating sugar-laden foods to the point where their circulation was effected and resulted in amputations of feet and legs would we not question the person's sanity? Or if we saw an alcoholic who regressed to becoming a street person would we not consider they needed help?
The problem is not with government telling us what to do. The problem is with government telling us the wrong thing to do. That is where the idea of freedom came from. The government's control of people's lives was not to the benefit of the general population and the general population didn't have the tools to change the government. Thus revolution.
In a democracy/free country we have the power to change government and policy.
Again, I'm suggesting taxes on foods that are determined unhealthy. In most cases it is not natural foods but processed (man-made) foods that are unhealthy. Why should someone be permitted to sell cakes or hamburgers with dressing or anything else with outrageous levels of fat and sugar?
How can anyone object to the government implementing sensible policies? If being "free" means the right to harm ourselves and contribute to an early death why is attempted suicide illegal?
apple0154
MEOW
Which brings up the question should the paper unroll from the top or the bottom, and why?
Good Luck
New member
Why is it so many look to government to solve what are, essentially, personal problems? Yes, obesity is a major problem in our society. But when push comes to shove, excluding the small percentage of people with glandular problems, etc., the vast majority of obesity is due to personal choices. We start looking to government to solve a problem which is, in the end, caused by personal choices, then we end up with government interfering with personal choices.
Can government play a role? Yes. They can inform. Propagandize, even. Influencing personal choice through information is significantly different from control through regulation. But that should be the limit when it comes to personal problems (even if they are epidemic) which are the result of personal choices.
Of course, there is the question of what happens when personal choice affects others? That's when it becomes a sticky issue. Smoking is one topic already mentioned. Smoking affects others in several venues. First is second hand smoke. People can decide to indulge in their little nicotine habits all they want as far as I am concerned - as long as they keep it out of my face. People do NOT have the right to choose for me whether I get exposed to smoke or not - that is MY choice. Cigarette smoke gives me a headache. Why should I put up with a headache for someone else's indulgence? And why should I be the one having to avoid restaurants and the like because of someone else's choice? Hence, smokers should not - and rightfully do not - have the right to ruin my enjoyment of my favorite restaurants and such with their habit. I was fine, personally, when the segregated smoking areas, but only when they were truly segregated. All too often the smoking area was not isolated enough to prevent smoke from the "nonsmoking" area - but there was recourse for those places. But an outright ban of public smoking, IMO, is going too far. Why is it we have become so absolute about these things? (Why? because it gives government more power. And government will always find more excuses to take more power.)
But obesity is a different kettle of fish than smoking. Obesity cannot waft on the air currents to bother others. The reason obesity DOES affect others is due to government regulations. Yes, regulations are why the health costs of obesity affect those of us who are not obese. Despite rhetoric to the contrary, there are numerous laws governing the insurance industry, and part of those regulations limit how much insurance companies can adjust their actuarial tables to individual circumstance. There is plenty of evidence out there supporting the claims that smokers health problems cost upwards of 5 times that of non-smokers, or that obesity results in 2-3 times the health costs of people who are within ten percent or so of healthy weight. But can insurance companies charge smokers 5 times the premiums they charge non-smokers, or obese people 2-3 times? (Hollow laugh) Of course not! The LAW (ie: government) won't allow such disparity because it would be "unfair"! And, of course, medicare/medicaid makes no distinctions at all. (How making people who make healthy choices in their lives pay for those who deliberately do not make healthy choices is "fair" is beyond my ability to comprehend. Go ask one of the big mommy government liberals to explain that one.)
In short, the government is WHY obesity is costing us all more - and now some here want government to ADD to their regulations, coming to the point of directly interfering with personal choice, because their regulations prohibit people from paying for the consequences of their own decisions. Give me a BREAK! If I want to take my grandson to McDonalds and buy him a burger, fries, soda AND A TOY, who the fuck is anyone from government, or any of you big mommy government twits, to tell me I can't because someone else has a fat kid? FUCK THAT!
Can government play a role? Yes. They can inform. Propagandize, even. Influencing personal choice through information is significantly different from control through regulation. But that should be the limit when it comes to personal problems (even if they are epidemic) which are the result of personal choices.
Of course, there is the question of what happens when personal choice affects others? That's when it becomes a sticky issue. Smoking is one topic already mentioned. Smoking affects others in several venues. First is second hand smoke. People can decide to indulge in their little nicotine habits all they want as far as I am concerned - as long as they keep it out of my face. People do NOT have the right to choose for me whether I get exposed to smoke or not - that is MY choice. Cigarette smoke gives me a headache. Why should I put up with a headache for someone else's indulgence? And why should I be the one having to avoid restaurants and the like because of someone else's choice? Hence, smokers should not - and rightfully do not - have the right to ruin my enjoyment of my favorite restaurants and such with their habit. I was fine, personally, when the segregated smoking areas, but only when they were truly segregated. All too often the smoking area was not isolated enough to prevent smoke from the "nonsmoking" area - but there was recourse for those places. But an outright ban of public smoking, IMO, is going too far. Why is it we have become so absolute about these things? (Why? because it gives government more power. And government will always find more excuses to take more power.)
But obesity is a different kettle of fish than smoking. Obesity cannot waft on the air currents to bother others. The reason obesity DOES affect others is due to government regulations. Yes, regulations are why the health costs of obesity affect those of us who are not obese. Despite rhetoric to the contrary, there are numerous laws governing the insurance industry, and part of those regulations limit how much insurance companies can adjust their actuarial tables to individual circumstance. There is plenty of evidence out there supporting the claims that smokers health problems cost upwards of 5 times that of non-smokers, or that obesity results in 2-3 times the health costs of people who are within ten percent or so of healthy weight. But can insurance companies charge smokers 5 times the premiums they charge non-smokers, or obese people 2-3 times? (Hollow laugh) Of course not! The LAW (ie: government) won't allow such disparity because it would be "unfair"! And, of course, medicare/medicaid makes no distinctions at all. (How making people who make healthy choices in their lives pay for those who deliberately do not make healthy choices is "fair" is beyond my ability to comprehend. Go ask one of the big mommy government liberals to explain that one.)
In short, the government is WHY obesity is costing us all more - and now some here want government to ADD to their regulations, coming to the point of directly interfering with personal choice, because their regulations prohibit people from paying for the consequences of their own decisions. Give me a BREAK! If I want to take my grandson to McDonalds and buy him a burger, fries, soda AND A TOY, who the fuck is anyone from government, or any of you big mommy government twits, to tell me I can't because someone else has a fat kid? FUCK THAT!
Last edited:
Bfgrn
New member
tort reform is not "huge" government intervention....laws are created by teh government...hence you need the government to work, change etc...with the laws
i seriously doubt those studies exist....link up
and tort reform has nothing at all to do with whether the jury thinks the case has merit or is frivilous, in fact, it has nothing to do with the merits of the case...it is about caps on awards....and right now i don't support most tort reform ideas i've seen from the repubs or dems
Educate and inform the whole mass of the people...They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty.
Thomas Jefferson
'link up' Yurt? You need to 'wake up'. I'll do this for you this time, but I'm not your nanny. As a citizen, you're supposed to know this shit.
I know you don't 'like' me, that's fine. But I don't lie Yurt. If I say something, I can back it up. And no matter how many 'negs' you fire my way, it will not stop or control me from standing up for what I know and for what I believe. This is my country too; I want my kids and grand-kids to live in an America like I grew up in.
Right now, my country looks nothing like the America I grew up in. The America the liberal era created. The whole of human history has been dominated by aristocracies and plutocracies. Power and wealth have always held advantage over the common man.
What made America truly 'exceptional' was not our Army or our Navy. It was the growth and success of the most robust middle class in history. It's genesis was the New Deal and it blossomed and thrived through the Great Society. It made America the envy of the world, the 'city upon the hill'. But when power and wealth decide to fight back, and they have one party in their pocket, the outcome is not in doubt unless the people stay informed and stand up for their God given rights.
Much of that 'exceptional' America has been erased by 30+ years of conservative policies that were a concentrated assault on the middle guy and the little guy. This conservative malfeasance has neither built nor created anything. But the destruction it caused can only be ignored by someone who is so brainwashed that they vote for more of it.
Tort reform IS government intervention. It's bureaucrats dictating what a jury of our peers can or can't do. It undermines our justice system and gives the big guy a baseball bat he can use to beat the final measure of injustice into the little guy. Not only does the person or family suffer from the results of the doctor mistake or negligence, or the corporate toxins or dangerous product, the person and family must also endure the measure of the final insult: 'Yes, you were gravely wronged, but you will not justly compensated'
The whole argument by Republicans on 'tort' reform falls apart and exposes their for the elite agenda. It violates their 'absolutes'. It is government intervention, it ignores states rights and it IS 'statism'. When you start looking into tort reform you find out it has been an ongoing campaign by Republicans, the Chamber of Commerce, insurance companies and manufacturers of dangerous products and chemicals to protect corporations, doctors and hospitals from facing personal responsibility when THEY screw up or are guilty of neglect.
U.S. Chamber of Commerce Continues to Beat Tort Reform Drum
By Bret Hanna - Attorney
There are a number of good sources of information which debunk the myths of tort reform perpetuated by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce who put the interests of corporations before those of the people injured by their corporate negligence and greed. One such source is a blog post by Injury Board member attorney Wayne Parsons which pulls together a great deal of authoritative information on the topic. Others include Blocking the Courthouse Door: How the Republican Party and Its Corporate Allies Are Taking Away Your Right to Sue [obtained by members or by purchase only], The Myth of the Litigation Crisis; Corporate Wolves in Victims' Clothing, and PRI's Corporate-Funded Tort Reform Study Proves Tort Reform Doesn't Work.
The History Of Tort Reform
“It is no secret that, for more than three decades, business interests have invested billions of dollars to sell the public a distorted view of a legal system that is justifiably envied throughout the world. They say rampant litigiousness requires tort “reform” that restricts the legal rights of injured people, not those of businesses suing businesses, which account for most litigation. What they seek, really, is corporate welfare-assurance that their misdeeds will be paid for not by them, but by others.” - Richard H. Middleton, Jr., Past President of the American Association of Justice
Joanne Doroshow, one the best friends the American consumer has ever had exposes one of the great conspiracies of the 2oth century: the tort reform scam - the BIG lie that started long ago:
For the last 15 years, insurance companies, manufacturers of dangerous products and chemicals, the tobacco industry and other major industries have been engaged in a nationwide assault on the civil justice system. In nearly every state and in Congress, corporations and their insurers have waged a relentless campaign to change the laws that give sick and injured consumers the ability to hold their offenders responsible for the injuries they cause. . .
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
247 Americans Die Every Day from Doctors not Washing Their Hands
A Conversation With Dr. Peter J. Pronovost
[URL="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/09/science/09conv.html?hpw"]Doctor Leads Quest for Safer Ways to Care for Patients[/URL]
Q. WASH YOUR HANDS? DON’T DOCTORS AUTOMATICALLY DO THAT?
A. National estimates are that we wash our hands 30 to 40 percent of the time. Hospitals working on improving their safety records are up to 70 percent. Still, that means that 30 percent of the time, people are not doing it.
At Hopkins, we tested the checklist idea in the surgical intensive care unit. It helped, though you still needed to do more to lower the infection rate. You needed to make sure that supplies — disinfectant, drapery, catheters — were near and handy. We observed that these items were stored in eight different places within the hospital, and that was why, in emergencies, people often skipped steps. So we gathered all the necessary materials and placed them together on an accessible cart. We assigned someone to be in charge of the cart and to always make sure it was stocked. We also instituted independent safeguards to make certain that the checklist was followed.
We said: “Doctors, we know you’re busy and sometimes forget to wash your hands. So nurses, you are to make sure the doctors do it. And if they don’t, you are empowered to stop takeoff on a procedure.”
Q. HOW DID THAT FLY?
A. You would have thought I started World War III! The nurses said it wasn’t their job to monitor doctors; the doctors said no nurse was going to stop takeoff. I said: “Doctors, we know we’re not perfect, and we can forget important safety measures. And nurses, how could you permit a doctor to start if they haven’t washed their hands?” I told the nurses they could page me day or night, and I’d support them. Well, in four years’ time, we’ve gotten infection rates down to almost zero in the I.C.U.
We then took this to 100 intensive care units at 70 hospitals in Michigan. We measured their infection rates, implemented the checklist, worked to get a more cooperative culture so that nurses could speak up. And again, we got it down to a near zero. We’ve been encouraging hospitals around the country to set up similar checklist systems.
Q. WHAT EXACTLY WAS WRONG HERE?
A. As at many hospitals, we had dysfunctional teamwork because of an exceedingly hierarchal culture. When confrontations occurred, the problem was rarely framed in terms of what was best for the patient. It was: “I’m right. I’m more senior than you. Don’t tell me what to do.”
Doctor-Caused Disease
HOSPITAL INFECTIONS
In the 1840's Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis directed a teaching hospital in Vienna, where 75% of the women giving birth were dying of puerperal fever. He observed that doctors went from dissecting cadavers to delivering babies without washing their hands. Dr. Semmelweis made the "radical" policy change of requiring doctors to wash their hands before delivery a baby. An amazing thing happened - the mortality rate drop fifteen-fold. Unfortunately, his arrogant colleagues couldn't see the connection, so they dismissed him and ostracized him. The rejection ultimately drove Semmelweis to death in an insane asylum - another great moment in the history of iatrogenic disease.
But doctors are enlightened nowadays about sanitation, aren't they? A 1981 study of washing habits in intensive care units found that only 28% of the doctors washed between patients in a teaching hospital and only 14% washed in the private hospital! Dr. Mendelsohn noted:
. . . the sanitary practices of the medical personnel are often abominable and the hospital itself is probably the most germ-laden facility in town.
Your chances of getting an infection in the hospital are one in 20 with 15,000 people dying annually from hospital-acquired infections.
Doctor and Patient
Why Don’t Doctors Wash Their Hands More?
By PAULINE W. CHEN, M.D.
Published: September 17, 2009
Over the last 30 years, despite countless efforts at change, poor hand hygiene has continued to contribute to the high rates of infections acquired in hospitals, clinics and other health care settings. According to the World Health Organization, these infections affect as many as 1.7 million patients in the United States each year, racking up an annual cost of $6.5 billion and contributing to more than 90,000 deaths annually.
"Harry Truman once said, 'There are 14 or 15 million Americans who have the resources to have representatives in Washington to protect their interests, and that the interests of the great mass of the other people - the 150 or 160 million - is the responsibility of the president of the United States, and I propose to fulfill it.'"
President John F. Kennedy
Again, either you believe what I said supports the status quo and that my mind would "change" to support government and keep repeating this nonsense, or your post makes no sense.
Are you going to continue pretending that the only choices are this or big gubmint?
I watched the video, you were wrong it didn't change my mind, the "solution" is not to have government be the provider that carries with it problems equal to those in the video and more problematic to my personal freedoms.
Now, ignorance of your own eminently foolish inference notwithstanding. The video didn't change my mind, nor will more outrages by big insurance companies who are foisted upon us by those great Union "victories" that chained us to our employers through "benefits" like these that would commit those outrages...
Bfgrn
New member
Damn you Damo...(LOL)
Listen, I posted an informative interview with a 15 year executive from one of the biggest insurance providers. He provides a very enlightening view of how the insurance industry works, and how it has changed in the last decade. I thought you were someone that was open-minded enough to watch it. I was wrong, my apology.
Again, I watched the video and it didn't change my mind. Government is IMO still no better solution and can (and will) cause equal problems that are more directly effecting to my personal freedoms.
You can apologize all you want, the video didn't have the effect on me you thought it would have.
Bfgrn
New member
What's your take on 'medical loss ratio'?
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
this is stupid, if you make a claim, it is up to you to back it up...as a citizen....lmao...ok...obama is from kenya, as a citizen you're supposed to know this shit...see...that is why you need to back up your claim, anyone can make a claim regardless of its validity...
i don't like or dislike you, i don't know you...and you have lied and you do not always back your claims up. its comical to watch you whine daily about neg reps...what you of course fail to tell people is that you declared neg rep holy war on me because i gave you one neg rep...you sent me a neg rep in response seething with anger and declaring your holy war against my reputation....and damn it, i take reputation very serious, it defines me, without uber grind rep i am nothing, i will not survive without it...
see, this why i don't like your posts, not you, your posts...whats ironic is that it was WW2 that pulled us out of the depression, but you claim it was only the new deal and not any military action....thats dishonest...even the most staunch supporters of the new deal admit that WW2 had an effect on lifting us out of the depression, the only issue is how much credit do we give to the new deal
i never said it wasn't government intervention...learn to read. and once again, i don't support the current efforts on tort reform...learn to read.
let me ask you this:
should punitive damages be unlimited, in that, if your damages are say $5, should you be allowed to have an award of $5 billion dollars in punis? yes or no will suffice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
unfortunately for you, your links do not support your crazy ass notion that Studies have show that thousands of people die every year because some doctors won't even wash their f'n hands
at best the reports say they "contribute"....nice try, care to try again
Bfgrn
New member
I don't lie Yurt, but I found out you don't always like the truth. How do I know that? Because it causes you to send out neg reps and it causes you to lie. BTW, I said I know you don't 'like' me. The ' _' are Scare quotes.
Let's start with some of your lies Yurt.
You sent me a neg rep, and I sent you back my standard response to anyone that 'negs' me. I told you that I don't send out neg reps, but I return them. I consider them the act of a coward who is too scared to confront me on the board for all to see. I don't know how your find that 'seething with anger', and BTW, I didn't even follow up by sending all yours back. And I didn't declare a holy war, YOU did. From that point forward, you sent me a barrage of neg reps seething with angry comments.
Yurt, you need to pay attention. I didn't say anything about the Great Depression or make any related claims.
I think you need to learn to 'remember' Yurt.
I said: "Conservatives have no problem with tort reform, which is HUGE government intervention."
You said: "tort reform is not "huge" government intervention....laws are created by teh government...hence you need the government to work, change etc...with the laws"
Punitive damages should be unlimited. It should not be dictated by government bureaucrats being lobbied and pressured by organizations and corporations that represent the interests of one of the litigants. It must be up to the courts to decide. I am very confident a group of citizens can listen to each specific case and make a fair judgment, then make a ruling if it deserves an award of $5, $5 billion dollars or thrown out of court. Our founding fathers felt the same way, that's why they created our judicial system.
Again Yurt, the truth causes YOU to lie. The reports clearly show that 'thousands of people die every year because some doctors won't even wash their f'n hands.'
Let's take the first of many reports I provided.
247 Americans Die Every Day from Doctors not Washing Their Hands
I'll do the math so you don't have to take off your shoes and socks.
247 X 365 = 90,155
Well Yurt, at least now I understand why you resort to the neg rep instead of confronting me on the board for all to see.
Last edited:
It is his way! Then when you confront him about it, he cries that your revealed private messages! I have to ignore him, it is better that way!I don't lie Yurt, but I found out you don't always like the truth. How do I know that? Because it causes you to send out neg reps and it causes you to lie. BTW, I said I know you don't 'like' me. The ' _' are Scare quotes.
Let's start with some of your lies Yurt.
You sent me a neg rep, and I sent you back my standard response to anyone that 'negs' me. I told you that I don't send out neg reps, but I return them. I consider them the act of a coward who is too scared to confront me on the board for all to see. I don't know how your find that 'seething with anger', and BTW, I didn't even follow up by sending all yours back. And I didn't declare a holy war, YOU did. From that point forward, you sent me a barrage of neg reps seething with angry comments.
Yurt, you need to pay attention. I didn't say anything about the Great Depression or make any related claims.
I think you need to learn to 'remember' Yurt.
I said: "Conservatives have no problem with tort reform, which is HUGE government intervention."
You said: "tort reform is not "huge" government intervention....laws are created by teh government...hence you need the government to work, change etc...with the laws"
Punitive damages should be unlimited. It should not be dictated by government bureaucrats being lobbied and pressured by organizations and corporations that represent the interests on one of the litigants. It must be up to the courts to decide. I am very confident a group of citizens can listen to each specific case and make a fair judgment, then make a ruling if it deserves an award of $5, $5 billion dollars or thrown out of court. Our founding fathers felt the same way, that's why they created our judicial system.
Again Yurt, the truth causes YOU to lie. The reports clearly show that 'thousands of people die every year because some doctors won't even wash their f'n hands.'
Let's take the first of many reports I provided.
247 Americans Die Every Day from Doctors not Washing Their Hands
I'll do the math so you don't have to take off your shoes and socks.
247 X 365 = 90,155
Well Yurt, at least now I understand why you use the neg rep instead of confronting me on the board for all to see.
Which brings up the question should the paper unroll from the top or the bottom, and why?
Over the top, of course. Why? That's the way it's always been done at my house.
Insurance companies are regulated against abuse. Does it guarentee abuses still do not happen, no. Insurance companies are rated and regulated against abuses however and consumers DO have courses of action that are effective via their state regulator. I know because I have used them and was very satisfied with the effectiveness.
When you buy insurance you sign a binding legal agreement. An insurance company cannot just deny you coverage without the grounds to do so based on your policy agreement. Conversley if they do deny coverage you are entitled to you can appeal to your states regulator to apply pressure, which as I stated was very effective both times I used them. Once for an auto policy and once for a health policy.