Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
napsgear
genezapharmateuticals
domestic-supply
puritysourcelabs
UGL OZ
UGFREAK
napsgeargenezapharmateuticals domestic-supplypuritysourcelabsUGL OZUGFREAK

A lifetime of poor diet and inactivity, and YOU are paying for it

MattTheSkywalker

Elite Mentor
Platinum
Cancer is largely due to poor lifestyle choices. So is AIDS. So is hypertension. Many medical conditions are due to poor lifestyle choices and poor decision making.
 
Not really that noticeable in regards to a decrease on one's bank account, they would of found another way to come up with the cash, invented a new crisis or something, but still not too honorable.
 
Secondly, its not uncommon for people who get gastric bypass to have less obesity related health problems like arthritis, or diabetes, or other illnesses. This could save money as well as spend it.
 
nordstrom said:
Cancer is largely due to poor lifestyle choices. So is AIDS. So is hypertension. Many medical conditions are due to poor lifestyle choices and poor decision making.

Medicare should be disbanded - that's the real issue.

It takes something as viscerally ugly as obesity to cause people to realize how revolting the idea of paying for other people's health care.

When you see a 300 pound woman with fat hanging out, think of medicare. They are equally disgusting, except the fat person can't take your money.

Until now.
 
havoc said:
Not really that noticeable in regards to a decrease on one's bank account, they would of found another way to come up with the cash, invented a new crisis or something, but still not too honorable.

speak for yourself sir. medicare is currently 1.5% of your paycheck, and unlike social security, it has no cap.

Agree on the crisis invention technique, the philosophy is well known, the implementations of it continue to amaze me.
 
MattTheSkywalker said:
Medicare should be disbanded - that's the real issue.

It takes something as viscerally ugly as obesity to cause people to realize how revolting the idea of paying for other people's health care.

When you see a 300 pound woman with fat hanging out, think of medicare. They are equally disgusting, except the fat person can't take your money.

Until now.

Nah. Healthcare is one of those civic protections that most people who live in a developed country think everyone should have access to. No different than law enforcement, fire departments, higher education, roads, etc.

What i don't get is on EF people get mad about having to spend money on obesity, but they also get mad when new drugs come out that cause you to lose weight without effort. Catch-22.
 
It could save a whole city. Some lard ass will eat til they are "obese" then sit around in a mu mu and collect checks. BUT will end up getting stuck in a nuclear tank, preventing a catastophic explosion, and believe me, it will be funny!
 
im guessing the thinking behind it is to try and nip diabetes in the bud (i.e. stop mere obesity letting them get diabetes, which is probably covered and which complications cost far more)

so maybe thisis justifiable if they have the statistical and scientific data to show they could influenece the progression in a population to more complications



scandinavian europe doesnt have fat people...i never saw one. they have to walk and cycle more however....but with lower pollution levels, excellent public transport, gorgeous women and low crime i'd probably be following suit
 
danielson said:
scandinavian europe doesnt have fat people...i never saw one. they have to walk and cycle more however....but with lower pollution levels, excellent public transport, gorgeous women and low crime i'd probably be following suit


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3451491.stm

The rest of your post was spot on too. Obesity treatment saves money on treatments for arthritis, type 2 diabetes, hypertension, sleep apnea, etc.
 
nordstrom said:
Nah. Healthcare is one of those civic protections that most people who live in a developed country think everyone should have access to. No different than law enforcement, fire departments, higher education, roads, etc.

the feelings of 'most people' by definition are irrelevant. Most people would vote to re-appropriate the fortunes of billionaires to themselves...doesn't mean we do it.

Healthcare unfortunately is different. There is no societal enhancement derived from healthcare as thereis from the other things you referenced. There is an across-the-bosrd benefit from roads, law enforcement etc. The benefit is the same for everyone.

Socialized healthcare chooses one individual over another; the benefits are disproportional. The presence of civic protections (whatever that means, sounds like a special-interest phrase) such as roads, law enforcement etc. are indifferent to the user. They disincentivize no one. Socialization, even partially, of healthcare is a massive disincentive to healthy behavior.

What i don't get is on EF people get mad about having to spend money on obesity, but they also get mad when new drugs come out that cause you to lose weight without effort. Catch-22.

What I don't get is why you would post eht opinions of people on a narrowly focused chat board to support philosophical opinions.
 
danielson said:
scandinavian europe doesnt have fat people...i never saw one. they have to walk and cycle more however....but with lower pollution levels, excellent public transport, gorgeous women and low crime i'd probably be following suit

Talk about mixing apples and oranges!

Which countries are you referring to? Oil-rich Norway? Talk about anomalous!!

And Sweden? Sweden has not produced ANY net jobs since 1950. Of Sweden's top 30 companies, none were founded after 1930. Contrast that with the economic growth of the US since 1950: 60M net jobs!

This comparison is such a non-starter....
 
nordstrom said:
Obesity treatment saves money on treatments for arthritis, type 2 diabetes, hypertension, sleep apnea, etc.

Obesity treatment = tie fatty to bumper for 2 hour drive, rinse, repeat.
 
Anyone wanna go to IHOP? I hear its a two fer day?
 
nordstrom said:
Obesity treatment saves money on treatments for arthritis, type 2 diabetes, hypertension, sleep apnea, etc.

This also makes the naive assumption that it is the role of the government to spend money to save money, as if they have a right to the money in the first place!!

Go Komrade go.

Just admit it: you like using the power of law to take money from the people who produce it. It meets a psychic need of yours.
 
a lifetime of poor diet and inactivity will result in death. sadly.

my grandfather, at about 5'7", weighed approx 300lbs at the time of his death. his death was a result of Hypoxia and Cardiac Arrest, the cause was labeled as Obesity (i'm looking at the death certificate as i type this). he had high blood pressure and high chlosterol as a result of his weight. he died at 75.

he was not, however, one to sit around in a moo-moo and suck off the system. he retired full time work in 84, and continued working part time until i believe 94 or 96. he enjoyed his life, never made excuses for his weight (he loved to eat and admitted it, said that was his problem). i've seen his wedding pictures and other pics from when he was much younger and was about 135lbs. hard to imagine that it's the same person.

obesity is a problem. too many people don't lack the discipline to keep their diet in control.
 
crak600 said:
obesity is a problem. too many people don't lack the discipline to keep their diet in control.
It's true, alot of people get mentally addicted to food. As loud as Matt squacks, we do need to deal with the fat problem in this country.
Or at least make a law against fat chicks wearing tight clothes.
 
I thought this was going to be another call out thread about me
 
i thought medicare was for emergency treatments only?

Why the FUCK would someone want private medical insurance when medicare is paying for practically everyone and everyTHING out here in LA. And now "weight loss treatments"?? You gotta be shittin' me. I don't even get that on my Blue Cross!
 
jestro said:
It's true, alot of people get mentally addicted to food. As loud as Matt squacks, we do need to deal with the fat problem in this country.

What problem? it is a problem for individuals, and the consequence should belong to those individuals as well.

That's how you deal with a problem, not by intervening.

Squack lol

Or at least make a law against fat chicks wearing tight clothes.
Now that, I could go for!
 
Shhhhsh. And people call me lazy. I just have different priorities. I don't care about trying to get rich, I just want to look like an adonis until the day I die. OK, I'd like to have the money too.
 
MattTheSkywalker said:
What problem? it is a problem for individuals, and the consequence should belong to those individuals as well.

That's how you deal with a problem, not by intervening.

Squack lol


Now that, I could go for!


Here's the problem... people have been making the "personal responsibility" case for quite some time now. First of all, it doesn't work. We're been advocating personal responsibility for decades and people just keep getting fatter and fatter. There are more fat people now than 2 year ago. Is everyone in 2004 magically less responsible? Not likely.

The problem arises from the prevalence of pure shit foods in our markets and our advertising. And the sad thing is, the government is so bound to special interest groups in the food industry, that they can't even issue a statement that says "eat less."
 
casualbb said:
Here's the problem... people have been making the "personal responsibility" case for quite some time now. First of all, it doesn't work. We're been advocating personal responsibility for decades and people just keep getting fatter and fatter.

Well, I like it when people who disagree with me open up their disagreement with a self-contradiction.

If people cannot be responsible for themselves, then they cannot be responsible for others. Self-explanatory. Discussion over.

But allowing the idiocy of your post to stand on its own wouldn't be any fun. And I want to have some fun, dammit.

You say We're been advocating personal responsibility for decades and people just keep getting fatter and fatter.

With the ever-rising amount of litigation, how are we advocating personal responsibility? Where was the advocacy for it whe McDonald's had to pay a woman who spilled coffee on herself?

Where was the personal responsibility when the tobacco industry had to pay out billions because people smoked even though the warnings had been on the packs of cigarettes since 1970?

And of course, recent litigation on fast food issues, which was, heroically, dismissed, but will re-appear.

I'd say we've been advocating anything but personal responsibility.

There are more fat people now than 2 year ago. Is everyone in 2004 magically less responsible? Not likely.

Here is the "magic" question: WHO CARES? Obesity is an individual's problem. It ONLY becomes someone else's problem when someone else has to pay for the costs of treating the co-morbidities associated with disease.

In short, obesity is ONLY a problem when we abandon personal responsibility. Since, according to you, we need to abandon personal responsibility, using your thought process, the problem will only get worse.

If you are obese, it is not MY problem until I have to pay for your stupid fat ass. :)

The problem arises from the prevalence of pure shit foods in our markets and our advertising.

Do advertisiers put a gun to your head? last I looked, ingredients are required to be on the side of every food item in the supermarket. Fast food places have the contents of their menu items posted in readily visible areas.

And the sad thing is, the government is so bound to special interest groups in the food industry, that they can't even issue a statement that says "eat less."

Why should the government tell you how to eat? Do we need a bureaucrat to tell us how to take care of our bodies? What if we WANT to be fat?
 
Medicare needs to be reworked, and many of the add ons and rampant abuses are mind boggling.

But the suggestion that as a nation we should no longer provide medical care to the most needy is neither practical or humane. People aren't animals that can be ignored, and the program provides necessary services to many who would otherwise have to do without any care whatsoever
 
JerseyArt said:
Medicare needs to be reworked, and many of the add ons and rampant abuses are mind boggling.

But the suggestion that as a nation we should no longer provide medical care to the most needy is neither practical or humane. People aren't animals that can be ignored, and the program provides necessary services to many who would otherwise have to do without any care whatsoever

If you stop helping a person, they might just learn to take care of themselves. if you think this is too absolute, well, I understand that.

But from a market standpoint, it is the presence of the government along with private industry as the third party payors that have made health care so expensive.

Getting the government out is the way to let the market fix prices.
 
MattTheSkywalker said:
If you stop helping a person, they might just learn to take care of themselves. if you think this is too absolute, well, I understand that.

But from a market standpoint, it is the presence of the government along with private industry as the third party payors that have made health care so expensive.

Getting the government out is the way to let the market fix prices.

Matt,

As a libertarian, and fiscal conservative, I sympathize with a great deal of your angst and reasoning.

But as you yourself alluded to, your position is somewhat rigid and absolute, never a good place upon which to build a firm foundation with respect to any policies involving human beings.

Do I think medicare needs to be downsized,reworked, and reprioratized? Most certainly.

However, as a person, and as a society, I would hope to aspire to greater heights than the equivelant of "F' them if they can't take care of themselves."

I have no idea what your background is, but it strikes me somewhat as reflecting someone who was genetically fortunate enough to be born to parents able to care for him without trouble. Rarely do you witness such sentiments coming from a self made individual. There is something to be said for experience and walking in the other mans shoes.
 
Last edited:
MTS. i posted a much more descriptive thread about this around 6 months ago. nonetheless i totally agree. most of my patients are morbidly obese.
 
juicedpigtails said:
MTS. i posted a much more descriptive thread about this around 6 months ago. nonetheless i totally agree. most of my patients are morbidly obese.

A nice way of saying fat asses.
 
MattTheSkywalker said:
Talk about mixing apples and oranges!

Which countries are you referring to? Oil-rich Norway? Talk about anomalous!!

And Sweden? Sweden has not produced ANY net jobs since 1950. Of Sweden's top 30 companies, none were founded after 1930. Contrast that with the economic growth of the US since 1950: 60M net jobs!

This comparison is such a non-starter....

ok so they havent produced jobs

they have started numerous social programs to target obesity however. People with diabetic complications will continue to be treated by healthcare as otherwise they would die. The general public is unwilling to let that happen (death) and due to the free commercial leash given in your country and mine, sweets and high calorie food is served in high school cafeteria's everywhere.

Yes, in an ideal world their moms and pops should be telling them to eat right. but most likely there parents wont, and they are not mature enough to knwo that if they get trapped in an obesity lifestyle they will suffer!

the difference between the article nordy posted and what we do is they realised they are going to have a diabetes epidemic and they got a lid on it. this will SAVE money, yes it is government saying we have to spend money to save money but for centuries we have treated the symptoms of disease in an attempt to remove them from the public but have neglected to change the underlying causes.

You can if you want, revert to a purely capatalist society with no reign on what is peddled to kids, and no mass social programs,

you will get those who are sensible living well and provideing for their family, but you will also get massive social degeneration, a breakdown of social structure and as a result massive sequalae of deprivation (crime, drugs, teen pregnancy)...they will eventually have to be contained within walls to stop them robbing and pillaging others...far-fetched but entirely bprobable and predicted by many analysts as the rich-poor divide worsens

, by helping them we aren;t only helping them but society and the environment as a whole. this appears to be a fundamental difference between europe and the us...and the way i think and you do. maybe (i hope not) when i'm earning $$$ i'll change but im guessing like you said its apples and oranges
 
nordstrom said:

lol,
"For example, we know that obesity tends to run in families," Kim said. "But we have yet to pinpoint exactly what it is that causes, say, the Smith family to splash about their backyard pool blissfully unaffected while, just over the fence, the Jones family languishes 30 percent overweight on their barbecue deck."
 
These obese people are going to use this as a crutch.

If they would just get off their butts and walk and do something to boost their metabolism. And not eat all this junk food.
I've seen people on Welfare come through grocery lines with a cart full of food and most of it was "Junk Food."
They bring this on themselves and were going to end up paying for it.
 
On an individual basis it is an individual issue. But obesity is just like minority school underachievement. On a systemic level, it must be treated as a systemic problem. Rising obesity rates reflect america having an environment increasingly encouraging of obesity. Either we can say "screw them, let them eat themselves to death," or deign to look broadly at the problem and try and create an environment better encouraging of healthy eating.
 
Why not use fat people as game for sports hunting?

Instead of using endangered and beautiful animals for game, let's use abundant and ugly fat people. Every year we could have a fat people culling where we would hunt down and kill all people suffering from obesity.

That would give them some incentive to loose weight, too!
 
danielson said:
ok so they havent produced jobs

they have started numerous social programs to target obesity however. People with diabetic complications will continue to be treated by healthcare as otherwise they would die. The general public is unwilling to let that happen (death) and due to the free commercial leash given in your country and mine, sweets and high calorie food is served in high school cafeteria's everywhere.

"They haven't produced jobs" sure does sound a lot nicer than "their economy and standard of living has stagnated as socialist after socialist has gutted the economic heart of the country".

It is a failed attempt at Utopia, just like all the others. A disaster. But oh, look, they got 1 or 2 things right! They must be great. So what is the country produces no net wealth for 60 years?

Can you imagine what would happen to the US and world economies if America porduced no net jobs for 60 years? Only because Sweden is irrelevant to the world can it be such an abect economic failure.

Yes, in an ideal world their moms and pops should be telling them to eat right. but most likely there parents wont, and they are not mature enough to knwo that if they get trapped in an obesity lifestyle they will suffer!

You either own your body or you do not. I prefer to own it, not to be property of the state, which is what you are espousing.

the difference between the article nordy posted and what we do is they realised they are going to have a diabetes epidemic and they got a lid on it. this will SAVE money, yes it is government saying we have to spend money to save money but for centuries we have treated the symptoms of disease in an attempt to remove them from the public but have neglected to change the underlying causes.

Government is not an investment bank. it should not be making these kinds of decisions. it should be protecting rights....only. You are intimating that the state has rights, when it does not. Individuals have rights only.

All the cost of obesity goes away if the government gets out of the health care biz. And, guess what? prices go down.

You can if you want, revert to a purely capatalist society with no reign on what is peddled to kids, and no mass social programs,

How about: we own our own bodies, and property rights are enforced? I will settle for that. is that too much to ask?

you will get those who are sensible living well and provideing for their family, but you will also get massive social degeneration, a breakdown of social structure and as a result massive sequalae of deprivation (crime, drugs, teen pregnancy)...they will eventually have to be contained within walls to stop them robbing and pillaging others...far-fetched but entirely bprobable and predicted by many analysts as the rich-poor divide worsens

Sounds like modern day America.

The walls you describe are jails, and we have more people in them than every other countryt in the world. Wake up bro. it is already here, and government intervention into people's everyday lives is the reason.

This is not an economic thread, but it is labor laws that keep poor people poor, not capitalism. it is unions that drive everyone;s wages down, except the few inside it. Poverty is by its very defintion the absence of welath and therefore the enemy of the free market

The free market seeks to create wealth, so by defintion it destroys poverty.

This is capitalism 101. why is this not taught in schools????? OH, I know. Teahcers are a special interest group,and here in the US, a powerful union.

, by helping them we aren;t only helping them but society and the environment as a whole. this appears to be a fundamental difference between europe and the us...and the way i think and you do. maybe (i hope not) when i'm earning $$$ i'll change but im guessing like you said its apples and oranges

Society is "everyone but me". Why would I want to be chained to that? I just want the chance to look out for me. Just me. I won't tell you what to do, and you don't tell me what to do. Seems fair, yes?
 
The whole thing is a Bush Admin gift to the healthcare industry. Medicare was recently revamped so that companies in healthcare will reap billions while seniors "supposedly" get to save a couple hundred bucks a year on prescription drugs. Don't worry...in the coming years you'll see a slew of drug company adverstisments on TV promoting drugs that address obesity. All paid for by medicare....

Vote Bush out!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
nordstrom said:

Oh man, that link is hilarious!


While others might have been discouraged by failure, Kim has intensified his efforts.

"I'm in the lab day and night," Kim said. "The other researchers will say 'Come have dinner with us,' but I'm so busy that I have to just grab some yogurt from the vending machine. I'm just too busy running over to the research facility on the west side of campus or carrying samples to the lab up on the fourth floor. I've lost 20 pounds since starting this project in January."

Even though he expressed concern about his recent weight loss, Kim said he will continue his work unabated.

"I can't worry about me right now; finding a cure for obesity is far too important," Kim said. "And, honestly, I feel better than I've felt in years. My work, although difficult, is energizing. I can't turn my back on my research while, all around me, Americans are dropping like enormous flies."


:D
 
This is the best part

"I came down with obesity two years after I got married," 41-year-old Oklahoma City resident Fran Torley said. "I know it was hard for my husband to watch me suffer from this disease. When he caught obesity a year later, he got so depressed, he couldn't do anything but sit on the couch. Some days, we sit and watch television from dawn till dusk, hoping for news of a breakthrough."
 
JerseyArt said:
Matt,

As a libertarian, and fiscal conservative, I sympathize with a great deal of your angst and reasoning.

But as you yourself alluded to, your position is somewhat rigid and absolute, never a good place upon which to build a firm foundation with respect to any policies involving human beings.

You sound like you are advocating a need for compromise. I cannot understand why. Compromoise is the enemy of reason and logic. If something is healthy and productive, and something else is a bane to that productive thing, how can they compromise?

How can food compromise with poison, or a business compromise with a thief?

Compromise is a lack of reason, a lack of conviction.

You are substituting political expediency for logical reasoning. The modern American state is so controlled by a politically-based thought process that people are incapable of thinking outside it. When they do, they seem like radicals, when really, only reason is being advocated.

Many of our citizens have been brainwashed to the point where even uncompromising reason is considered improper because of it is politically unviable.


Do I think medicare needs to be downsized,reworked, and reprioratized? Most certainly.

However, as a person, and as a society, I would hope to aspire to greater heights than the equivelant of "F' them if they can't take care of themselves."

What greater height is there than giving people all of their natural rights, and creating a system of government defined by equal justice under law, that protects these rights from infringement by criminals or the governemnt itself?

What greater height can a society rise to?

This type of society fu*ks no one. It gives each individual a chance to create the best life they can.

I have no idea what your background is, but it strikes me somewhat as reflecting someone who was genetically fortunate enough to be born to parents able to care for him without trouble. Rarely do you witness such sentiments coming from a self made individual. There is something to be said for experience and walking in the other mans shoes.

I am not sure what this implies or what it is supposed to mean.

I've never been President, but I can judge what policies I agree and disagree with. I've never been a serial killer, but I know that murder is wrong.

This "other man's shoes" line of thought is likewise illogical. each of our experiences are unique and therefore cannot ever be experienced exactly the same by another.

I do not seek to judge other people. In fact, I seek exactly the opposite. I seeka system of government that protects an individual's rights. On this I cannot compromise.
 
Top Bottom