...Or taxing me on it and sending the money to others that will not work and finance their own choices. miles
That's what is going on now.
You have millions of people who don't exercise, eat like heifers beefing up for the slaughter, get into unnecessary health problems at a very young age, and then spend decades piling up medical bills. And guess who gets to pay for that either directly or indirectly?
I don't claim to have the answer, I'm just saying that what everyone on this thread is bitching about is the status quo already.
Will
Exactly. No only tax dollars but most of what health-conscious people pay (both out of pocket and money from your employer) for health insurance goes to subsidize the "sugar-lovers" when they get sick.
Dr Barry Sears said the healthcare reform begins in YOUR kitchen.
Healthy people live longer, typically stay employed longer and have to subsidize all the idiots like those in this thread who are ignorant enough to believe that over-consumption of sugar is without consequence.
Seems something struck a nerve with you. I don't seen anyone here advocating eating sugar until you swell up and die. I do see people saying that sugar used correctly is a good thing and the government should butt out. They should butt out about taking my money and giving to other people for all of their pet causes. miles
What you fail to realize is the fedgov is already neck deep in this schit to begin with. Ever look at the food pyramid? Eleven servings of breads and cereals daily? My 14yo daughter had an idiot RN ask her exactly that on a questionaire for a sports physical this past year.
Archer Daniels Midland and other huge agribusiness concerns wield huge influence in DC, they sway congressmen, bureaucrats, and TV producers with money. Those so influenced trot out their talking points every chance they get, like a NASCAR driver thanking "pepsi" for his win (cause he gets a check every time he utters the word).
Here's where the scientific "finger" points to; cancer, heart disease, type II diabetes, alzheimers (now called type III diabetes) and most autoimmune disorders are caused by the modern diet, refined carbs (SUGAR) in particular.
The optimal diet is the Paleolithic Diet, lean meats, vegetables, fruits, and maybe some dairy (though that really isn't paleo). Sick people tend to get healthier when they eat like that and healthy people slowly loose their health when they eat the average person's diet.
When you enter a grocery store, only buy foods on the outer wall. Produce, meats, fruit, and dairy. These are the most perishable and the LEAST PROFITABLE. The boxed crap on the aisles is where a supermarket makes it's money. It is also where agribusiness makes IT's money. There is no "tomato lobby", if you don't think there is a grain/corn lobby, you are fundamentally ignorant. ADM executives want you to remain ignorant of all this, their ability to buy alligator shoes and nice suits depends on it, because if enough people wake up and realize what's being done to them there will be hell to pay.
The assumptions in the article are mostly correct, I do NOT agree it should require MORE fedgov involvment. I agree with Travis, let natural selection take its course. If big bowls of mac and cheese and DR peppers make you happy, and you become a diabetic, and your foot starts to rot, and you can't afford health care, then you oughta be SOL.
Exactamundo X1000
Out of pocket health insurance premiums should be indexed to BMI...start making people pay for their poor eating/lifestyle choices and things may change real quick.
The worst in all of this is how the children of this country are in such poor health.
Wanted: Vintage Remington or Winchester hats, patches, shirts. PM me if you have something.
The same people who attack high fructose corn syrup seem to be fine with honey, but apparently they don't know that honey contains an even higher percentage of fructose. Maybe honey wouldn't be so popular with health nuts if it were called high fructose insect excrement.
It would be interesting to try that term on someone. Hey, would you like some high fructose insect excrement on your pancakes? Or ask the waitress for some high fructose insect excrement for your toast next time you go out to breakfast with your buddies.
I don't believe it's the fructose content that's the problem with high fructose corn syrup.
Apart from the empty calorie argument, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with fructose, be it produced from corn syrup or the product of insects. However, there's no significant difference in how the human body reacts to high fructose corn syrup and how it reacts to honey. In both cases there's little else in either substance besides water, glucose and fructose.
Unlike sucrose (table sugar), the body uses glucose and fructose directly, so it causes spikes that some claim cause damage over time. Everything in moderation is the answer.
The problem is that we have to pay for all those fat asses, in one way or another. Keep working guys, some pepsi drinking donut eating fat ass is depending on your hard earned money to take care of him when he's older.
Many don't know that smokers and fat people have lower lifetime health costs than people who don't smoke and/or are not overweight. In fact, it's the so-called health nuts who have the highest lifetime health costs. How can this be? Simple, no one lives forever and even the healthiest eventually develop chronic and incurable diseases that cost lots and lots to treat and they are in treatment longer.
For employers the goal is to keep workers healthy until they retire and then it's not their problem, but as a society we have to address lifetime health costs, so from a practical point, the government should promote risky activities (swimming with sharks), heavy smoking, drinking and fast food for retired people; it would save trillions in medical costs.
Many don't know that smokers and fat people have lower lifetime health costs than people who don't smoke and/or are not overweight. In fact, it's the so-called health nuts who have the highest lifetime health costs. How can this be? Simple, no one lives forever and even the healthiest eventually develop chronic and incurable diseases that cost lots and lots to treat and they are in treatment longer.
For employers the goal is to keep workers healthy until they retire and then it's not their problem, but as a society we have to address lifetime health costs, so from a practical point, the government should promote risky activities (swimming with sharks), heavy smoking, drinking and fast food for retired people; it would save trillions in medical costs.
Do you have a source for that? I'd be interested in reading the study.
Wanted: Vintage Remington or Winchester hats, patches, shirts. PM me if you have something.
Many don't know that smokers and fat people have lower lifetime health costs than people who don't smoke and/or are not overweight. In fact, it's the so-called health nuts who have the highest lifetime health costs. How can this be? Simple, no one lives forever and even the healthiest eventually develop chronic and incurable diseases that cost lots and lots to treat and they are in treatment longer.
For employers the goal is to keep workers healthy until they retire and then it's not their problem, but as a society we have to address lifetime health costs, so from a practical point, the government should promote risky activities (swimming with sharks), heavy smoking, drinking and fast food for retired people; it would save trillions in medical costs.
Decreased life expectancy for smokers is true, everything else is BS.
Biologists tell us the a human's theoretical maximum lifespan is between 100 to a max of 120yrs. After so long, cell-division reaches what is called apoptosis, or programmed cell-death. Additionally your immune cells become overtasked and unavailable to meet your next microscopic invader.
Certainly, "It is appointed unto man once to die" Hebrews 9:27. Redd Foxx once quipped, "All you health nuts are gonna be sorry one day, lying in a hospital bed, dying from nothing".
My mother drank like fish for decades, smoked 2 packs/day for sixty years, and ate mostly crap for a diet. She still lived to 80, the last three years in a nursing home after a bad stroke, the five prior to that unable to care for herself and needing daily care. It would take a team of accountants to total up what she cost taxpayers and the sum would be staggering.
Jack La Lane made it to 96 before a lung ailment took him out. He lived until he was quite old, got sick and died quickly. He was still very vital WAY up into his 80's, at age 80 he still had a 34in waist and a 50in expanded chest. Jack also thought sugar was a damn poison.
So yes, as Hank Williams crooned, "We'll never get out of this world alive". People who eat clean, routinely pick up heavy schit like barbells and exercise vigorously are going to die as well, but they have vastly extended productive years with a very compressed period of morbidity at the end of their lives.
To seriously assert that those who do it right are the problem is idiocy.
Many don't know that smokers and fat people have lower lifetime health costs than people who don't smoke and/or are not overweight. In fact, it's the so-called health nuts who have the highest lifetime health costs. How can this be? Simple, no one lives forever and even the healthiest eventually develop chronic and incurable diseases that cost lots and lots to treat and they are in treatment longer.
For employers the goal is to keep workers healthy until they retire and then it's not their problem, but as a society we have to address lifetime health costs, so from a practical point, the government should promote risky activities (swimming with sharks), heavy smoking, drinking and fast food for retired people; it would save trillions in medical costs.
Do you have a source for that? I'd be interested in reading the study.
Our main finding is that although the current health care costs of healthy retirees are lower than those of the unhealthy, the healthy actually face higher total health care costs over their remaining lifetime.
Many don't know that smokers and fat people have lower lifetime health costs than people who don't smoke and/or are not overweight. In fact, it's the so-called health nuts who have the highest lifetime health costs. How can this be? Simple, no one lives forever and even the healthiest eventually develop chronic and incurable diseases that cost lots and lots to treat and they are in treatment longer.
For employers the goal is to keep workers healthy until they retire and then it's not their problem, but as a society we have to address lifetime health costs, so from a practical point, the government should promote risky activities (swimming with sharks), heavy smoking, drinking and fast food for retired people; it would save trillions in medical costs.
Decreased life expectancy for smokers is true, everything else is BS.
Biologists tell us the a human's theoretical maximum lifespan is between 100 to a max of 120yrs. After so long, cell-division reaches what is called apoptosis, or programmed cell-death. Additionally your immune cells become overtasked and unavailable to meet your next microscopic invader.
Certainly, "It is appointed unto man once to die" Hebrews 9:27. Redd Foxx once quipped, "All you health nuts are gonna be sorry one day, lying in a hospital bed, dying from nothing".
My mother drank like fish for decades, smoked 2 packs/day for sixty years, and ate mostly crap for a diet. She still lived to 80, the last three years in a nursing home after a bad stroke, the five prior to that unable to care for herself and needing daily care. It would take a team of accountants to total up what she cost taxpayers and the sum would be staggering.
Jack La Lane made it to 96 before a lung ailment took him out. He lived until he was quite old, got sick and died quickly. He was still very vital WAY up into his 80's, at age 80 he still had a 34in waist and a 50in expanded chest. Jack also thought sugar was a damn poison.
So yes, as Hank Williams crooned, "We'll never get out of this world alive". People who eat clean, routinely pick up heavy schit like barbells and exercise vigorously are going to die as well, but they have vastly extended productive years with a very compressed period of morbidity at the end of their lives.
To seriously assert that those who do it right are the problem is idiocy.
You can't use individual cases to answer the question of which group has higher lifetime healthcare costs. Here is just one short article that shows that the healthy have higher lifetime healthcare costs than the unhealthy.
Many don't know that smokers and fat people have lower lifetime health costs than people who don't smoke and/or are not overweight. In fact, it's the so-called health nuts who have the highest lifetime health costs. How can this be? Simple, no one lives forever and even the healthiest eventually develop chronic and incurable diseases that cost lots and lots to treat and they are in treatment longer.
For employers the goal is to keep workers healthy until they retire and then it's not their problem, but as a society we have to address lifetime health costs, so from a practical point, the government should promote risky activities (swimming with sharks), heavy smoking, drinking and fast food for retired people; it would save trillions in medical costs.
Do you have a source for that? I'd be interested in reading the study.
Our main finding is that although the current health care costs of healthy retirees are lower than those of the unhealthy, the healthy actually face higher total health care costs over their remaining lifetime.
Define "healthy" for me, because your bogus article talks about "healthy" people 65yrs and older with "chronic" diseases.
65yo crossfitters who eat a paleo diet, don't, as a rule, incur chronic diseases.
I think your study is BS.
What sort of lifestyle habits are you trying to justify, if you don't mind my asking?
Define "healthy" for me, because your bogus article talks about "healthy" people 65yrs and older with "chronic" diseases.
65yo crossfitters who eat a paleo diet, don't, as a rule, incur chronic diseases.
I think your study is BS.
It's not just one study, it's a whole body of research. Just google "lifetime healthcare costs" and start reading.
It doesn't matter how healthy people live, they eventually develop chronic and terminal diseases that cost money to treat. Healthy people might not develop such conditions in their 70s, but they'll develop them in their 80s or 90s. Remember, I'm not talking about individual cases, or the benefits to the individual, but the cost to society.
Obviously, it's beneficial to individuals to live a healthy lifestyle, but it's also true that such individuals will use more healthcare dollars in their lifetimes than individuals who live unhealthy lifestyles. The reason for this is the inevitability of decline and disease before death. Someone who dies of a heart attack in their 50's uses a lot less healthcare dollars than someone who dies of Alzheimer's in their 90s. Sorry if this is shocking news to you.
Originally Posted by Take a knee
What sort of lifestyle habits are you trying to justify, if you don't mind my asking?
Some posting on this topic seemed to think fat people, as a group, are costing society a lot of money, when it's actually health nuts, as a group, who cost society more money. It's a fallacy that the government can save healthcare dollars by promoting healthy living for older people. This is something people should know as we vote this fall to elect who will be the president 2013 - 2016.
As an individual I don't care if I cost society more money, I try to a live a healthy life style, but without getting obsessed over it.
A "body of research", like the "studies" that tell us Lipitor will prevent heart attacks, cholesterol causes heart attacks and other bogus BS that real scientists have analyzed and found so many confounding variables as to render the "study" (which really isn't a study in the first place) meaningless.
Healthy, fit people are the problem? You are nuts Mac.
This country is facing an absolute explosion of adult-onset diabetes that is directly attributable to the US diet. Public health officials are sounding the alarm now that caring for these people will bankrupt this nation. They'll say your "study" is FOS as well.
Define "healthy" for me, because your bogus article talks about "healthy" people 65yrs and older with "chronic" diseases.
65yo crossfitters who eat a paleo diet, don't, as a rule, incur chronic diseases.
I think your study is BS.
It's not just one study, it's a whole body of research. Just google "lifetime healthcare costs" and start reading.
It doesn't matter how healthy people live, they eventually develop chronic and terminal diseases that cost money to treat. Healthy people might not develop such conditions in their 70s, but they'll develop them in their 80s or 90s. Remember, I'm not talking about individual cases, or the benefits to the individual, but the cost to society.
Obviously, it's beneficial to individuals to live a healthy lifestyle, but it's also true that such individuals will use more healthcare dollars in their lifetimes than individuals who live unhealthy lifestyles. The reason for this is the inevitability of decline and disease before death.
They'll also use more electricity, need housing for longer (cause they'll live longer), eat more meals, need an auto for longer, etc, etc.
THEY WILL ALSO BE MUCH MORE PRODUCTIVE THEIR ENTIRE LIVES.
Define "healthy" for me, because your bogus article talks about "healthy" people 65yrs and older with "chronic" diseases.
65yo crossfitters who eat a paleo diet, don't, as a rule, incur chronic diseases.
I think your study is BS.
It's not just one study, it's a whole body of research. Just google "lifetime healthcare costs" and start reading.
It doesn't matter how healthy people live, they eventually develop chronic and terminal diseases that cost money to treat. Healthy people might not develop such conditions in their 70s, but they'll develop them in their 80s or 90s. Remember, I'm not talking about individual cases, or the benefits to the individual, but the cost to society.
Obviously, it's beneficial to individuals to live a healthy lifestyle, but it's also true that such individuals will use more healthcare dollars in their lifetimes than individuals who live unhealthy lifestyles. The reason for this is the inevitability of decline and disease before death.
They'll also use more electricity, need housing for longer (cause they'll live longer), eat more meals, need an auto for longer, etc, etc.
THEY WILL ALSO BE MUCH MORE PRODUCTIVE THEIR ENTIRE LIVES.
You seem to be getting all riled up. Maybe a song will make you feel better.....
Define "healthy" for me, because your bogus article talks about "healthy" people 65yrs and older with "chronic" diseases.
65yo crossfitters who eat a paleo diet, don't, as a rule, incur chronic diseases.
I think your study is BS.
It's not just one study, it's a whole body of research. Just google "lifetime healthcare costs" and start reading.
It doesn't matter how healthy people live, they eventually develop chronic and terminal diseases that cost money to treat. Healthy people might not develop such conditions in their 70s, but they'll develop them in their 80s or 90s. Remember, I'm not talking about individual cases, or the benefits to the individual, but the cost to society.
Obviously, it's beneficial to individuals to live a healthy lifestyle, but it's also true that such individuals will use more healthcare dollars in their lifetimes than individuals who live unhealthy lifestyles. The reason for this is the inevitability of decline and disease before death.
They'll also use more electricity, need housing for longer (cause they'll live longer), eat more meals, need an auto for longer, etc, etc.
THEY WILL ALSO BE MUCH MORE PRODUCTIVE THEIR ENTIRE LIVES.
My guess is the "health nut" probably has no problem paying for these things himself as well. Who is more likely to leach off the middle class? A phat [bleep] or someone in control of their life?
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/nhqZTmxJ/Screen-Shot-2020-11-08-at-5-01-55-PM.png)
