In a more perfect world people would just take the initiative to get in shape all by themselves. There wouldn't be health complications to poor lifestyles that drive up medical cost for everyone. Private insurers raise rates for everyone because of this. The cost of government medical coverage goes up because of poor lifestyle choices which leads to both higher taxes and higher deficits.
In a perfect world doctor's wouldn't have to run thirteen tests for the same thing out of the fear of being sued. In a perfect world, more competition would lower prices.
In a perfect world taxes wouldn't be so high that both parents need to work 50 hours a week to support a family. There would be more time for exercise, more time to make nutritious meals.
Do you think anything should be done at all FTS when it comes to this? Or should we take a hands off approach and let things continue in the direction they are going? You've offered criticism but no solution to this particular issue. This specific issue that was raised by the thread itself. The issue of medical cost associated with not living a healthy lifestyle.
Yes I have offered a solution. Get out and jog. Do some sit ups and push ups. There is a correlation between health and effort, not between health and nautilus machines. It's not that people need a gym membership to get healthy. They need to be active. I don't see why the tax payers need to pay for gym memberships when tennis shoes are cheap. You don't even need shoes to exercise. Do you propose that the government take over health clubs too? What's next? Should we ban fast food? You have every right to criticize the choices people make, but it seems like you are more interested in taking those choices away, and that's not right, that's not American.
I think some incentive should be offered otherwise the obesity epidemic will balloon out of control which will raise cost and shorten lives. I think just creating a bunch of free facilities wouldn't really work because too many of them would go unused. I figured tax breaks would motivate people to take the initiative themselves, and it could be paid for by money saved from not having to pay for medical cost associated with poor lifestyles.
But, wouldn't not having to go to the doctor offer financial incentive? Where do you propose this money come from? I mean, there isn't a lot extra coming in. If we wind up taxing sodas and twinkies, we would still be in a massive deficit. People on the left like to crticize Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy because they help the successful, but these are just the same. Thinner people get better jobs and live happier lives. Wouldn't this legislation just benefit people who already lead a pretty charmed existence?
If it worked out like that it would be win win. Maybe it would work like that, but that was the thought put in to it. I think people should be encouraged to be less of a burden on both the state and the insurance company by making good choices.
But, just like the healthcare bill, there is no money for it and it doesn't address the specific problem. Tax incentives are found money in a case like this. It might inspire a few people to change their lives, but all in all, it does more harm than good by putting the nation further in debt.
What is your answer to this specific issue?
To the healthcare issue or the obesity issue? My answer to the healthcare issue is the same as it's always been. We need a combination of tort reform, access to coops and small subsidies. As far as the obesity issue goes, I feel it is someone's choice to be overweight. Shit, I am overweight, and I can tell you right now that a tax incentive wouldn't change my life one bit. I exercise, I eat well, I just don't metabolize as fast. I live a happy life, I just have a bit of a belly. The solution for me would be less beer, but frankly, I am not interested in that.
---------------
Democrats had been flirting with government assisted medical coverage since the New Deal (and yes I know you don't like Roosevelt or the New Deal). Truman supported it but it didn't really go anywhere.
The New Deal did nothing for America beside introduce debt. It created short term jobs and just shifted unemployment further down the line. World War II saved us from The Depression. The problem with an NHS is that instead of helping those that can't help themselves, it incentivizes those who choose not to help themselves. Sure, it would help some people, but no more than creating competition within the the market and providing small subsidies would do.
Kennedy openly supported healthcare, he just didn't have the votes. The Democrats lost seats in the house the same year he was elected. In 1961 after Kennedy was elected there was the first White House Conference on aging which was mostly about medical care reform. He supported and worked with senator Clinton Anderson and senator Cecil King on the King-Anderson Bill.
That bill was defeated by doctors, who refused to work under that legislation. Furthermore, I don't think that bill ever got out of committee. That wasn't the right that defeated it, which has been your assertion from go.
Johnson never tried? Are you sure you don't want to rethink that? Medicare and Medicaid were major portions of Johnson's Great Society. Medicare and Medicaid were created during Johnson's administration.
That is indigent care and welfare, not an NHS. That was also met with fairly broad Republican support. Once again, your assertion that Republicans block healthcare doesn't fly.
Carter worked out some administrative changes to help make it it more cost efficient. Carter was a weak president though, and personally my least favorite Democrat ever elected to the office.
Worst President until the current one.
He was at war with the more liberal members of his own party, there was an energy crisis, and a terrible economy. So expanding medical coverage wasn't going to happen. The more liberal democrats in the party supported it. If Ted Kennedy wouldn't have killed that one lady in a car wreck he probably would have been president instead, and he would have pushed for expanded coverage as president, just as he pushed for it as senator.
If only our best candidate wasn't a drunk, a murderer, and an obstructionist of justice, we would have won! Do you understand how bad that sounds?
Clinton wanted it, but it was impossible due to Republican opposition.
It was impossible because the bill he proposed was crap too. It would have passed had it not been so full of earmarks and handouts. That bill, like this one, did nothing to address the costs of healthcare, and instead chose to just throw money at the problem.
