Why do people vote against their own interests? (American Healthcare reform)

  • Thread starter Thread starter LemonAndLime
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I have mixed feelings about this. First of all, what is wrong with the insurance system is that since we’re a free society and a republic with choices in the hands of consumers, consumers make lousy choices. Take Sam. He eats doughnuts for dinner each night, smokes cigarettes, eats at McDonald’s and downs Big Macs for dinner. He doesn’t walk, jog, exercise, or give a dang about his health. He sits around watching the boob-toob after work. He has diabetes, hypertension, high cholesterol.

He has Blue Cross and so do I. I am a vegetarian (I actually am). I am about 20 lbs overweight but I watch my blood pressure, walk a lot, try to stay active, eat whole grains, low fat soymilk, some occasional sweets, low carbs, plenty of vegetables and fruits, organic lifestyle, etc. We both have the same insurance. Gurney is paying higher premiums for Sam. Sam is a deadbeat. Gurney’s health is good except for the occasional cold or allergy flare-up. My premiums are high because of Mr. Slob.

I resent that. I don’t like paying for this guy! Yet when the government tries to tell McDonald’s to knock off the trans fats or harrasses cigarette companies or tries to get restaurants to offer more healthy choices, tea partiers jump off the couch crying socialism! socialism! They talk out of both sides of their mouths? They hate the fact that the government wants to try to make things healthier thus sticking up for the right to eat junk food and garbage AND YET they sympathize with the insurance companies who are raising their rates precisely because of slobs and junk food-inhalers?

If we want to stick with private insurance only, then we need to do SOMETHING to get people to get healthier. This country is obese. I have travelled overseas many, many times. Trust me, people are not all blimps in other countries, especially Asia and Europe. This country is full of wide-load porkers, convenience foods, slop, preservatives, pestacides, and junk. We are a fat country.

Some people, usually conservatives, cry, “education! education! just education people and we won’t have to be socialists telling us all how to live!” and yet trust me, teachers will get yelled at by tea party parents when we try to teach nutrition at school. “I don’t want to raise my boy an organic, tree-huggin’ hippie boy!” that’s the expected outcome. And it does no good to teach nutrition if mom and dad take the kid to the Micky-Dee’s drive-thru after work and pump 'em full of sodium, fat, and blub.

So what do we do?

One option is to raise the premiums on people who are overweight. Set goals and healthy weight cut-offs. If a person exceeds it by more than a few pounds, their premiums go up 40% a year. They could also give discounts to people who go to gyms and get positive physicals, etc. If they are diabetic, they should drop weight and help deal with it. High blood pressure? Drop weight! Exercise. Give incentives, punish obesity, educate, and the government should try to get restaurants to publish nutrition information, ban certain ingredients, drop higher taxes on chains that shovel out slop like the fast food dives, etc.

If we could be pro-active, punish the obesity-makers, get this country healthier, we wouldn’t have to look at things like the public option.

Now, having said all that, what about people with GENUINE health problems? Some folks have cancer, diabetes from birth, lukemia, parkinsons (like my mom), injuries, you name it. Is it fair to refuse those folks with pre-existing conditions and throw them out in the cold? The Far Right would say “yes” without batting an eye. It’s all $$$, business baby, not a moral issue at all. :rolleyes:

We need a balance. and the governments, states, should play a role. As long as we have to be in this as a team with insurance, then as Hillary said, it takes a village. The day that we have insurance companies that only insure one person, then we can have the luxury of keeping government and common sense out. But the world we live in has massive pools of people grouped under one insurance provider and the healthy have to pay for the slobs. Republicans stick up for the right to be a bum, are ok with the sky-rocketing obesity and crisis, and sit on their thumbs with corny plans like tort reform that are somehow going to change the whole scope of things. Nonsense.
Goodness! You should welcome having the obese, etc, in your insurance pool rather than resent them. They tend to die more quickly. Heart attacks and such. I recall a doctor once opining that if we lived long enough we would all die of cancer. Now, THAT’s expensive! If anyone has a basis for complaint, it would be the obese, who drop dead suddenly from coronary occlusion, massive strokes and such, who are paying for you “fit” folks very expensive cancer treatment somewhere down the road.
 
Because there is still the issue of providing healthcare coverage to those who can’t afford it.

The problems that you’ve mentioned simply don’t exist in countries which already have socialized healthcare. The pharmaceutical industry also spends many times the amount of money on marketing and lobbying than it does on acctual research and development.
  1. Agreed. So why is a healthcare law that was promised to lower costs, and is being proven to not do that, your desired solution? Why do you not acknowledge that the government’s forays in the providing cost effective healthcare is a failure?
  2. Re: other countries: Broad statement that would need evidence.l We will have to agree to disagree on this one.
  3. money spent by Pharma: So they should not advertise their product in order to sell more, in order to recover costs? Also, if the risk of government legislating them out of business wasn’t so high, then perhaps they wouldn’t need to spend money on lobbying.
I’m not defending the profit margins of pharmaceuticals as much as I am trying to ensure government doesn’t screw up that industry so that the flow of new medicines comes to a grinding halt.
 
Goodness! You should welcome having the obese, etc, in your insurance pool rather than resent them. They tend to die more quickly. Heart attacks and such. I recall a doctor once opining that if we lived long enough we would all die of cancer. Now, THAT’s expensive! If anyone has a basis for complaint, it would be the obese, who drop dead suddenly from coronary occlusion, massive strokes and such, who are paying for you “fit” folks very expensive cancer treatment somewhere down the road.
They also help keep Social Security and from running out of funds sooner than it will. Imagine what would happen if we were all healthy and lived longer! :eek: 😛
 
And people say that Americans are paranoid and hypocritical! They’re all wrong aren’t they? Not!

Wow. The government tries to do what its elected to do - govern and make decisions on behalf of the people who elect them - and they get accused of being too controlling and socialist. Why not just have an anarchic state instead then? Why bother with a government?

.
No, we don’t elect people to act as nannys for us, we elect them to do OUR bidding. They are elected to carry out what WE want. Not their own personal agenda. And we had many many town meetings last year where the public made it perfectly clear we didn’t want the program they had proposed. They did it anyway, and today we show them who is really boss, with our votes.
 
No, we don’t elect people to act as nannys for us, we elect them to do OUR bidding. They are elected to carry out what WE want. Not their own personal agenda. And we had many many town meetings last year where the public made it perfectly clear we didn’t want the program they had proposed. They did it anyway, and today we show them who is really boss, with our votes.
Yup, and that’s why we sing the “Star Spangled Banner” instead of “God Save the Queen”. Notwithstanding that we more or less speak the same language, we just aren’t Brits.
 
And people say that Americans are paranoid and hypocritical! They’re all wrong aren’t they? Not!

Wow. The government tries to do what its elected to do - govern and make decisions on behalf of the people who elect them - and they get accused of being too controlling and socialist. Why not just have an anarchic state instead then? Why bother with a government?

Personally, I think its un-Christian to vote against free healthcare. Why? A poster a while back worded it very well, I’ll re-post it if someone wants me to.
As I, and others have said, it is not free. If it comforts you to think that your government “gives” you something, have at it. Some who have even a rudimentary knowledge of economics know that it is not free, you, as a taxpayer, foot the bill one way or the other. And what you end up with when you have “free” healthcare is diminished and sub-standard care. There are ways here to help those who cannot help themselves, and it does not require dismantling the whole system that serves the majority of the citizens well and give everyone poor care.
 
What are their constitutional arguments against the current healthcare legislation? I have a basic understanding of the US law-making process etc.

I’m not really asking about Obamacare in particular, more like the apparently negative thoughts of something like the NHS in America. So not so much about the financial and legal side of it but trying to find out why people wouldn’t want it on principle. It’s hard to take people’s opinions of it seriously when they say “it’ll harm the economy” - yeah, but, that’s not going to have a massive impact on your personal life though is it? You know what I mean? I think some of the financial arguments really don’t get to the real reasons behind people not liking the idea.
It is so hard to try to discuss with someone who has little knowledge of our Constitution. The founding fathers wanted to keep legislation from government on a local basis and specifically stated that those powers not given to the federal government is reserved to the states. There are those of us who believe that government is most effective on the local level. And when a country’s economy is in the state ours is in now, it is folly to suggest that they take on even more debt. I don’t want the economy to collapse. Who would rescue us? Obama care was passed by legislators who did not read the bill and all kinds of nefarious stuff was stuck in there that had nothing to do with healthcare.

Finally, Americans are not as complacent as Europeans. We are used to having excellent healthcare, and if we can, we are willing to pay for it with insurance. Since you have stated that you don’t get the “real” reasons people don’t want universal healthcare, you are not understanding how things work here. It’s always best not to criticize that which we do not know about.
 
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8474611.stm

Last year, in a series of “town-hall meetings” across the country, Americans got the chance to debate President Obama’s proposed healthcare reforms.

What happened was an explosion of rage and barely suppressed violence.

Polling evidence suggests that the numbers who think the reforms go too far are nearly matched by those who think they do not go far enough.

But it is striking that the people who most dislike the whole idea of healthcare reform - the ones who think it is socialist, godless, a step on the road to a police state - are often the ones it seems designed to help.

In Texas, where barely two-thirds of the population have full health insurance and over a fifth of all children have no cover at all, opposition to the legislation is currently running at 87%.

Instead, to many of those who lose out under the existing system, reform still seems like the ultimate betrayal.

Why are so many American voters enraged by attempts to change a horribly inefficient system that leaves them with premiums they often cannot afford?

Why is that Americans are voting against steps to provide free healthcare when its in your own personal and financial interests?

Before anyone argues about my use of the word “free” - the healthcare is free. You pay tax yes, but it doesn’t increase when you go into hospital therefore you’re not being charged for the care you’re recieving, therefore it is free TO YOU. It’s like paying the postage on what you order but not actually paying for the order itself.

The article might be from earlier this year but it discusses the reasons why people have been against it, from an outsider’s perspective (British). This is where I’m coming from as a British person - I just can’t understand why people are against attempts to make it “free.” The issue of “Obamacare” is very much topical at the moment in the USA, and it’s got us Brits talking again too.
I have not read the entire thread because I posted one long answer and a quick follow-up last night on the thread you started that was lost. But I will answer this post from my own point of view.

First, I am *so tired *of people’s puzzlement that some people “vote against their own self-interest.” The idea of voting *for *my own self-interest is repugnant to me, and I am very happy that it is also apparently repugnant to many other Americans. Why on earth should I vote for my self-interest? Why wold I be so selfish as to allow myself to be bribed by appeals to my self-interest to give someone a job?

I do my best to vote in the best interests of my country. I do not think it is in the best interest of my country to be doing things for me that I should be doing for myself. I do not think it is in the best interest of my country to vote for someone who works to bring hard-earned money from other people to me.

And when it comes to health insurance, I do not see why I should support a new law which is currently estimated to cost my country, my fellow citizens, close to $1,000,000,000, esp in an area which has been notoriously plagued by under-estimates of costs.

I do not see why I should support a law which will cause problems for businesses, which are those entities which create real jobs for people, a law which goes against the Catholic principle of subsidiarity, a law which is not a solution to the problem we have in our health care system but is instead a power grab of yet another section of our economy, currently at close to 1/5th of our economy.

So even tho this law might (but might not) benefit me, I am against it, because I believe it is not a good idea for my country to do this.
 
Disturbing logic but it makes sense in a twisted sort of way 😛 I still, however, believe it is far more expensive to pay not only for all the diabetes and heart meds PLUS the open-heart surgery, the physical therapy often involved, ambulances, insulin, and constant doctor visits than just paying for preventive maintenance. Plus healthier people may live longer but need less surgery, maintenance, and there’s less drama than with these big wide-load buffet folks. 😛

As you might know, I’m a teacher. Ridge, you should see how many FAT kids we have now! I actually teach at the same school where I went to elementary as a kid. I actually work alongside my sixth grade teacher that I had as a kid. Talk about eerie! :eek: Anyway, when I was a kid there in the 80’s, shoot, you might have one or two fat kids in the whole class. Now, there are at least 7 or 8 fat boys and 5 or 6 fat girls in each class. Some are so fat that they’re winded just walking to class. We went to science camp up in the foothills. Shoot, some of those kids about vapor-locked on the trails. Walking two miles for these 12-year-olds was like asking them to climb Mt. Everest.

Our youth is more sedentary, fat, out of shape, and pitiful physically than I’ve ever seen. People can say that liberals want a health nanny state but something needs to be done to stop this tide. In twenty years all these little porkers are going to be adults and we’re going to have enough diabetes, heart disease, cancer, and health issues to cripple the system!
Goodness! You should welcome having the obese, etc, in your insurance pool rather than resent them. They tend to die more quickly. Heart attacks and such. I recall a doctor once opining that if we lived long enough we would all die of cancer. Now, THAT’s expensive! If anyone has a basis for complaint, it would be the obese, who drop dead suddenly from coronary occlusion, massive strokes and such, who are paying for you “fit” folks very expensive cancer treatment somewhere down the road.
 
I have mixed feelings about this. First of all, what is wrong with the insurance system is that since we’re a free society and a republic with choices in the hands of consumers, consumers make lousy choices. Take Sam. He eats doughnuts for dinner each night, smokes cigarettes, eats at McDonald’s and downs Big Macs for dinner. He doesn’t walk, jog, exercise, or give a dang about his health. He sits around watching the boob-toob after work. He has diabetes, hypertension, high cholesterol.

He has Blue Cross and so do I. I am a vegetarian (I actually am). I am about 20 lbs overweight but I watch my blood pressure, walk a lot, try to stay active, eat whole grains, low fat soymilk, some occasional sweets, low carbs, plenty of vegetables and fruits, organic lifestyle, etc. We both have the same insurance. Gurney is paying higher premiums for Sam. Sam is a deadbeat. Gurney’s health is good except for the occasional cold or allergy flare-up. My premiums are high because of Mr. Slob.

I resent that. I don’t like paying for this guy! Yet when the government tries to tell McDonald’s to knock off the trans fats or harrasses cigarette companies or tries to get restaurants to offer more healthy choices, tea partiers jump off the couch crying socialism! socialism! They talk out of both sides of their mouths? They hate the fact that the government wants to try to make things healthier thus sticking up for the right to eat junk food and garbage AND YET they sympathize with the insurance companies who are raising their rates precisely because of slobs and junk food-inhalers?

If we want to stick with private insurance only, then we need to do SOMETHING to get people to get healthier. This country is obese. I have travelled overseas many, many times. Trust me, people are not all blimps in other countries, especially Asia and Europe. This country is full of wide-load porkers, convenience foods, slop, preservatives, pestacides, and junk. We are a fat country.

Some people, usually conservatives, cry, “education! education! just education people and we won’t have to be socialists telling us all how to live!” and yet trust me, teachers will get yelled at by tea party parents when we try to teach nutrition at school. “I don’t want to raise my boy an organic, tree-huggin’ hippie boy!” that’s the expected outcome. And it does no good to teach nutrition if mom and dad take the kid to the Micky-Dee’s drive-thru after work and pump 'em full of sodium, fat, and blub.

So what do we do?

One option is to raise the premiums on people who are overweight. Set goals and healthy weight cut-offs. If a person exceeds it by more than a few pounds, their premiums go up 40% a year. They could also give discounts to people who go to gyms and get positive physicals, etc. If they are diabetic, they should drop weight and help deal with it. High blood pressure? Drop weight! Exercise. Give incentives, punish obesity, educate, and the government should try to get restaurants to publish nutrition information, ban certain ingredients, drop higher taxes on chains that shovel out slop like the fast food dives, etc.

If we could be pro-active, punish the obesity-makers, get this country healthier, we wouldn’t have to look at things like the public option.

Now, having said all that, what about people with GENUINE health problems? Some folks have cancer, diabetes from birth, lukemia, parkinsons (like my mom), injuries, you name it. Is it fair to refuse those folks with pre-existing conditions and throw them out in the cold? The Far Right would say “yes” without batting an eye. It’s all $$$, business baby, not a moral issue at all. :rolleyes:

We need a balance. and the governments, states, should play a role. As long as we have to be in this as a team with insurance, then as Hillary said, it takes a village. The day that we have insurance companies that only insure one person, then we can have the luxury of keeping government and common sense out. But the world we live in has massive pools of people grouped under one insurance provider and the healthy have to pay for the slobs. Republicans stick up for the right to be a bum, are ok with the sky-rocketing obesity and crisis, and sit on their thumbs with corny plans like tort reform that are somehow going to change the whole scope of things. Nonsense.
Oh. My. Hate on fat people much??? This was one of the most uncharitable posts I’ve read in a long time.
 
How is it uncharitable? You missed the entire point. “hate?” 😛 Oh my goodness. You totally missed the point.

People don’t like the idea of a public option or nationalized health care. They also like the status quo with nutrition and obesity and I’m merely saying that it makes no sense? Why must I pay for someone else who is eating like a maniac and stuffing themselves with doughnuts in the morning? Why should I pay for their blood pressure meds, visits to cardiologists, cholesterol issues, diabetes issues/insulin, open heart surgery, and everything else when it’s PREVENTABLE?

Far Right conservatives hate the “nanny state” when the government tries to put modest changes into effect to try to make people healthier. They say, “if I want to eat at IHOP every night and shovel pizza, lard, sodas, and filth down my gullet, that’s my right!” and yet they don’t realize that that mentality of “food libertinism” is what makes the whole system bogged down.

Do you have any clue how fat our kids are becoming? Seriously? Do you? Am I “hating” and “uncharitable” or am I just outraged that so many people (in here also) don’t care about it and think the status quo is acceptable, burying heads in the sand?

I’m trying to figure out to WHOM I’m being uncharitable, theoretically? And to whom I’m issuing “hate?”

We live in a country that doesn’t want to change its habits. We just want to take meds AFTER we get a condition and try to control the problem, not get rid of it.

Walk down the street and look around at all the double chins, fat folks, and huffin and puffin you see from people just to push a shopping cart. You can call it hate, I call it genuinely concerned and worried for our country. Europe doesn’t have this level of blub. They also don’t live at fast food chains, use trans fats, more mediterranean diet, less sodas, more exercise. But then again, after mentioning Europe I suppose “European socialist” will get added to the charges of hate and unchartableness :rolleyes:😛
Oh. My. Hate on fat people much??? This was one of the most uncharitable posts I’ve read in a long time.
 
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8474611.stm

Last year, in a series of “town-hall meetings” across the country, Americans got the chance to debate President Obama’s proposed healthcare reforms.

What happened was an explosion of rage and barely suppressed violence.

Polling evidence suggests that the numbers who think the reforms go too far are nearly matched by those who think they do not go far enough.

But it is striking that the people who most dislike the whole idea of healthcare reform - the ones who think it is socialist, godless, a step on the road to a police state - are often the ones it seems designed to help.

In Texas, where barely two-thirds of the population have full health insurance and over a fifth of all children have no cover at all, opposition to the legislation is currently running at 87%.

Instead, to many of those who lose out under the existing system, reform still seems like the ultimate betrayal.

Why are so many American voters enraged by attempts to change a horribly inefficient system that leaves them with premiums they often cannot afford?

Why is that Americans are voting against steps to provide free healthcare when its in your own personal and financial interests?

Before anyone argues about my use of the word “free” - the healthcare is free. You pay tax yes, but it doesn’t increase when you go into hospital therefore you’re not being charged for the care you’re recieving, therefore it is free TO YOU. It’s like paying the postage on what you order but not actually paying for the order itself.

The article might be from earlier this year but it discusses the reasons why people have been against it, from an outsider’s perspective (British). This is where I’m coming from as a British person - I just can’t understand why people are against attempts to make it “free.” The issue of “Obamacare” is very much topical at the moment in the USA, and it’s got us Brits talking again too.
Well, I see you managed to get your rant “reposted”!

So, how’s that Sharia Law working for you folks over in the UK? I personally don’t understand why you’d allow that to happen…But, your government seems to think it’s a good thing and beneficial to the people; otherwise, they wouldn’t allow it.
 
Viruses? Seems like a sham to me. I watch the kids at my school inhaling hot cheetos, stopping at the corner doughnut shop to pick up two maple bars on the way to school with mommy, inhaling a big gulp, eating a greasy lunch, and refusing to do ANY activity on the playground. The result—rolls of fat, double chin, huffin’ and puffin’ and pot bellies. Just my a priori experience of observation

There’s “research” to support just about anything out there. Homosexuals try the “gay gene” and the “sex predator” gene has been thrown out there. That’s a stretch. Viruses making kids porky? Pretty unlikely IMO…
Check this out; apparently at least some childhood obesity is associated with a virus.

Check these out:
Sweetener use in USA

Obesity rates in USA

Funny how both the number of obese people and the use of high fructose corn syrup both started going up at the same time.

Just sayin’
 
Viruses? Seems like a sham to me. I watch the kids at my school inhaling hot cheetos, stopping at the corner doughnut shop to pick up two maple bars on the way to school with mommy, inhaling a big gulp, eating a greasy lunch, and refusing to do ANY activity on the playground. The result—rolls of fat, double chin, huffin’ and puffin’ and pot bellies. Just my a priori experience of observation

There’s “research” to support just about anything out there. Homosexuals try the “gay gene” and the “sex predator” gene has been thrown out there. That’s a stretch. Viruses making kids porky? Pretty unlikely IMO…
I do believe that a certain amount of the “obesity epidemic” is related to things other than lifestyle, because too many people have too much trouble loosing weight, and because it seems that all of a sudden, lots of people were gaining a lot of weight. I just see people spouting off like you have been, without considering that there might be something else going on.

Sure, a lot of kids eat a lot of junk food, and I’m not denying that that would be a factor, but there are a lot of kids, and adults, who eat real food and still gain weight, and people who work very hard to loose the weight without any change.

Used to be that we thought ulcers were because of tension and the like, then we found out that it was a bacterial infection. Oops! So it’s not unheard of for something we think is a lifestyle thing to turn out to be something else.
 
Your post is perfectly compelling without the unecessary nasty statement that I’ve been “spouting off.” And why is your post NOT “spouting off?” I suppose your points are lucid and intelligent, right? I’m tired of people on this forum using nasty terms like “rants” and “spouting” when you disagree. Can you disagree with me respectfully without the garbage?

I totally disagree with your analysis. There is no fuel or evidence to support it. Consider this:

50 years ago we scarcely had “fast food.”
50 years ago we didn’t have video games, kids played outside, not sedentary
50 years ago people didn’t suck down soda 24/7
50 years ago we didn’t have trans fats/partially hydrogenated oils
50 years ago we didn’t use hormones and antibiotics in chicken and milk
50 years ago we used less preservatives
50 years ago portion sizes weren’t the size of Wyoming

Something to think about before you start “ranting” 😉 that somehow the drinking water or aliens are responsible for us all getting fat.

It’s a simple formula: open mouth more, stuff food in more, less activity, fatter. 🙂
I do believe that a certain amount of the “obesity epidemic” is related to things other than lifestyle, because too many people have too much trouble loosing weight, and because it seems that all of a sudden, lots of people were gaining a lot of weight. I just see people spouting off like you have been, without considering that there might be something else going on.

Sure, a lot of kids eat a lot of junk food, and I’m not denying that that would be a factor, but there are a lot of kids, and adults, who eat real food and still gain weight, and people who work very hard to loose the weight without any change.

Used to be that we thought ulcers were because of tension and the like, then we found out that it was a bacterial infection. Oops! So it’s not unheard of for something we think is a lifestyle thing to turn out to be something else.
 
Your post is perfectly compelling without the unecessary nasty statement that I’ve been “spouting off.” And why is your post NOT “spouting off?” I suppose your points are lucid and intelligent, right? I’m tired of people on this forum using nasty terms like “rants” and “spouting” when you disagree. Can you disagree with me respectfully without the garbage?

I totally disagree with your analysis. There is no fuel or evidence to support it. Consider this:

50 years ago we scarcely had “fast food.”
50 years ago we didn’t have video games, kids played outside, not sedentary
50 years ago people didn’t suck down soda 24/7
50 years ago we didn’t have trans fats/partially hydrogenated oils
50 years ago we didn’t use hormones and antibiotics in chicken and milk
50 years ago we used less preservatives
50 years ago portion sizes weren’t the size of Wyoming

Something to think about before you start “ranting” 😉 that somehow the drinking water or aliens are responsible for us all getting fat.

It’s a simple formula: open mouth more, stuff food in more, less activity, fatter. 🙂
I think if we were all vegetarians, there’s be a lot less obese people and we’d live a lot longer. Candy, ice cream, soda,alcohol and many of the other items you’ve mentioned all have sugar in them. More then you ever need. You get enough natural sugar from fresh fruit; No one needs food with refined sugar in it. cutting out all the junk people eat would go a long way to help prevent diabetes and other health related issues.
 
That very much sounds to me like donating to charity, which we as Christians are very much encouraged to do. The way you put it, its evil to give to charity.
Taking money or anything else away from someone, against their will, is stealing. It is not charity, even if the money is used for the poor. You must be a Robin Hood fan.
 
How is it uncharitable? You missed the entire point. “hate?” 😛 Oh my goodness. You totally missed the point.

People don’t like the idea of a public option or nationalized health care. They also like the status quo with nutrition and obesity and I’m merely saying that it makes no sense? Why must I pay for someone else who is eating like a maniac and stuffing themselves with doughnuts in the morning? Why should I pay for their blood pressure meds, visits to cardiologists, cholesterol issues, diabetes issues/insulin, open heart surgery, and everything else when it’s PREVENTABLE?

Far Right conservatives hate the “nanny state” when the government tries to put modest changes into effect to try to make people healthier. They say, “if I want to eat at IHOP every night and shovel pizza, lard, sodas, and filth down my gullet, that’s my right!” and yet they don’t realize that that mentality of “food libertinism” is what makes the whole system bogged down.

Do you have any clue how fat our kids are becoming? Seriously? Do you? Am I “hating” and “uncharitable” or am I just outraged that so many people (in here also) don’t care about it and think the status quo is acceptable, burying heads in the sand?

I’m trying to figure out to WHOM I’m being uncharitable, theoretically? And to whom I’m issuing “hate?”

We live in a country that doesn’t want to change its habits. We just want to take meds AFTER we get a condition and try to control the problem, not get rid of it.

Walk down the street and look around at all the double chins, fat folks, and huffin and puffin you see from people just to push a shopping cart. You can call it hate, I call it genuinely concerned and worried for our country. Europe doesn’t have this level of blub. They also don’t live at fast food chains, use trans fats, more mediterranean diet, less sodas, more exercise. But then again, after mentioning Europe I suppose “European socialist” will get added to the charges of hate and unchartableness :rolleyes:😛
Don’t worry, the government is going to take care of our fat, sugar, and salt intake shortly.
 
I do believe that a certain amount of the “obesity epidemic” is related to things other than lifestyle, because too many people have too much trouble loosing weight, and because it seems that all of a sudden, lots of people were gaining a lot of weight. I just see people spouting off like you have been, without considering that there might be something else going on.

Sure, a lot of kids eat a lot of junk food, and I’m not denying that that would be a factor, but there are a lot of kids, and adults, who eat real food and still gain weight, and people who work very hard to loose the weight without any change.

Used to be that we thought ulcers were because of tension and the like, then we found out that it was a bacterial infection. Oops! So it’s not unheard of for something we think is a lifestyle thing to turn out to be something else.
:sad_yes:
Unfortunately for some of the medications weight gain is also a side affect. My mother had to take one of those. She has had an extremely difficult time getting the weight off.

BTW, my mil had one of those ulcers. It took them forever to figure out what it was. It went away once she had the right medicine to treat it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top