KaskadskyjKozak

just like for global warming

best not to try, and move along. :-)

some "risks" and lifestyle choices clearly have a higher cost than others. you look to address the ones with the highest impact first and then move down the list.

I thought we were charging every individual for the risk they incurred? You can stay perfectly healthy with negligible injury risk riding the stationary bike and using the stairmaster And...? "neglible injury risk"? Really? 1) either you have to buy a stairmaster or stationary bike and keep it in your home - higher carbon footprint to produce the exercise equipment, and heat/maintain the larger house you need to keep the equipment (or forgo a couch or kitchen table in your 600 sq. ft. apartment, ha ha) 2) incur risk driving to and from the gym where you use the exercise equipment, and also adding to you CO2 footprint (transport to/from the gym)

for Chuckie

1) You're building an argument out of nothing and positing it as fact. As I said, nice try. Show me the numbers. You don't have them, so keep repeating your claims? Sorry, still not convinced. 2) You sound just like the global-warming deniers that you so readily criticize. Obesity is a huge problem in this country. 3) You don't know me, so fuck off with the personal stuff.

I don't buy that. Prove statistically that it is more dangerous (and costly) to bike than to drive. Or that the way *I* bike or drive is as dangerous as others who do the same. I've been in exactly one fender bender in (knock on wood) 22 years and over 200,000 miles of driving. ONE. I was rear-ended at a red light turned green in a backed-up intersection in 1991. YOU don't know that *I* increase the cost at all, now do you?

As has been pointed out KK, telling people what they "need" to hear often isn't the most effective means of getting them to change their behavior. Which I believe is the subject of this right? I'm not so sure. If the message was consistent and caught momentum things make change. But making endless excuses and rationalizations will lead nowhere. And come on, if you can't convince people to lose weight because it is healthier how the fahk are you going to convince them to reduce their CO2 footprint to reduce the temperature change from 10 degrees to 5 over the next 50 years?

climbing-related injuries do not and will not ever bankrupt our health care system. but, hey, if some day everyone is so fit and into active, dangerous sports that this becomes a problem we can have that discussion then.

So really what you and JayB are saying is you want people to be charged by risk as long as your premiums aren't affected. Typical No, what I am saying is I want us to stop pussy-footing around about telling people what they need to hear, rather than want to hear. That's what the thread started out as. And it's hilarious (and case in point) to read all the defensive reaction to that suggestion. As for an extra cost in premium costs, why not? If I am fit, I should pay less, and if I get sick or hurt a lot, well, maybe I should pay more too. Not to say you should be bankrupted by the delta in cost, but something reasonable.

Damn straight. Show a pair of lungs with bitch tits hanging off em. Like yours? looks like someone needs a "manzier"

Bullshit. Give me numbers. How many cyclists die or are injured every year compared to drivers on our freeways? Normalize it based on participants in said activity if you'd like. And how much does that cost the system? Now compare with the costs of health care for obesity-related care. It's ludicrous to propose that cycling-related injuries are driving up health-care costs. You can do better than that. And face it, what is increasing in this country along with health care costs? Cyclists? Or Obesity? Where do you thing the stronger correlation might be?

Perhaps it's who I know, but I know more athletes who've required extensive, expensive, knee surgery than morbidly obese. i don't know any athletes who've had that type of surgery, but lots of obese people who have

health care costs and cost of social security to start with

Bullshit. People should be charged by the pound. Especially those pregnant people--they are adding to the overall cost anyway. (Discount if they help out all those guys with lactating-MILF fantasys though--stress reliever). nice try, you keep bringing up pregnancy costs. But do you actually believe that the cost of pregnancies (pre-natal care plus delivery costs) in the US even compares to the cost of health care to treat obesity related problems, procedures etc? Do you know how much a friggin' knee-replacement operation costs for example? and let's not forget the CO2 footprint. Fatter people consume more (and expel more waste). At least that hypocrite Al Gore is not a lard-butt and if anything, rising health care costs can NOT be tied to higher pregnancy costs...

Bullshit. People should be charged by the pound. Especially those pregnant people--they are adding to the overall cost anyway. (Discount if they help out all those guys with lactating-MILF fantasys though--stress reliever). nice try, you keep bringing up pregnancy costs. But do you actually believe that the cost of pregnancies (pre-natal care plus delivery costs) in the US even compares to the cost of health care to treat obesity related problems, procedures etc? Do you know how much a friggin' knee-replacement operation costs for example? and let's not forget the CO2 footprint. Fatter people consume more (and expel more waste). At least that hypocrite Al Gore is not a lard-butt

all the people here getting all defensive about this notion that fatties would pay extra crack me up. we're not talking about someone who could stand to lose 10, 20, even 30 lbs. that has probably happened to all of us at some point, and could happen again. There are an alarming number of folks in this country who are 50, 100, 150 lbs overweight... and more. there are huge consequences to this life style on all of us.

I probably disagree with about 35% of what is deemed "right wing"

hey, good job. I'm between 60 and 65. what kills me is people who think that going on a 10 mile hike, or biking to work is some gargantuan, strenuous, fitness-freak outing. "you bike from Bellevue... wow". actually, no, that's not much of a physical exertion - get off the couch and try to do something...

I still kicked your ass up to camp muir.

this may be the most accurate statement ever made on cc.com i'm shocked it came from KK. go figure. right wing nuts like sex too. i never would've guessed You know, the "people pigeon-holing" gets real tiresome. I've got plenty of positions to differentiate myself from the run-of-the mill right-winger. take off the blinders.

Yeah, I used to be 140/90. These days it's more like 120/70.

and since you dislike road grit in the ass-crack, I can assume sex on the beach is "out" with you too?

Have you purchased life insurance? You get a physical, and they take down your weight. The premium depends on whether you are overweight, smoke, have high-blood pressure, etc. That is fair, and I think the same should be done for health insurance, especially if it gets nationalized. There is a difference between suffering from an ailment due to "bad luck" (including genetics) and purposely engaging in an unhealthy, destructive lifestyle.

I am opposed to waterboarding. Is that clear enough? Although I'm OK with chinese-water torture since that is roughly what riding in the rain is like.