Pete_H

Of course. There's also a huge difference between the overweight person who is aware of their situation and at least trying to do something about it and the chronically slothfull tub of shit. I just don't have a lot of sympathy for those on the extreme end of the shitbag scale.

but, given that assuring access to healthcare is a fundemental requirement for a civilized nation, aren't you going to be the first to shit kittens when nefarious government agents call for "social engineering" by demanding excercise, control over diets, and the right to deny care to those deemed "unfit?" you sure ever phatty out there just "doesn't care" about his health? no role for genetics? where they live (christ, good luck staying in shape in alabama in the middle of summer!)? their job? access to whole-foods n' la fitnesses? i mean i like to hate a man as much as the next guy, and fatties can't hardly chase you down, but seeing as how skinny folks drop dead of cancer n' heart problems too, i'm not sure that these guys should be public enemeies #1... Now THAT is a pile of crap. So let's start with genetics. I am sure the genetics in Africa and African Americans aren't so different, same with population originating from Europe. While you'll have maybe 5-7% obesity due to genetic or other disorders outside of the US, why are African Americans obese at the same rate, which is about 70%. Stop with these excuses- there are NONE. The fact of the matter is in 2003 Group Health study found teenagers consuming 1800 calories per day in the form of soft drinks and an average calorie intake of 3900 for adults. Simple math shows- too much too eat and not enough energy output. People are free to choose whatever fucking lifestyle they want. But if you decide to be fat, you lose your right to bitch about healthcare cost. Unless you sign DNR and that is fine. So no healthy food in places- again it's simple. If people demand it, they will start selling better food. Don't like Wallmart- don't go and buy there- IT IS THAT SIMPLE!. And contrary to your ignorant statement skinny people are way less likely to develop cardio-vascular disease or cancer. There are statistics to back up my statement. I suppose you think homeless people want to be homeless, too The fatties are victims! Poor fatties.

Its not just fatties, but anyone with perpetual shitbag syndrome. I'm pretty sure the people who have so many chronic illnesses caused by extreme poor lifestyle choices they are "disabled," are a huge drag on the health care system. I have no statistics, just my experience as a health care provider. But we as a society aren't going to ignore these people, so finding a way to care for them efficiently is in the best interest of all.

I think we should render the fatties down for their blubber and turn it into biofuel. That way we could solve the health care issue and the energy crisis.

Sure. Financial incentives are indeed a big factor in inefficiencies. Unnecessary technology is yet another. Obamacare doesn't address any of these issues. I would also argue that the cost of liability management is much greater than you acknowledge. CYA (Cover Your Ass) is endemic in health care. For example, a doc may be 98% sure of a certain patient diagnosis based on a physical exam, patient history / interview, etc. But the doc is going to order extensive blood work, scans, and perhaps even invasive procedures because there's no downside for them; and they can show they covered all their basis if they ever get hauled into court. In looking at other countries that don't have such legal concerns hanging over the heads of health care providers, there is absolutely no ststistical reduction in recovery or diagnosis rates.

Yeah. I just think its way outside the role of government to require businesses to provide healthcare; and it doesn't seem very efficient or make much sense. There's no way that could be correct. A very high percentage of patient treatment decisions are motivated by liability concerns (lots of unnecessary tests, treatments, procedures). Tort reform is really only going to damage one interest group and that's the aggressive, profit-driven plaintiffs' attorney industry. By capping damages, perhaps a very occasional deserving party won't get as much remuneration as they deserve, but so goes the interest of public policy. Sorry. Not so much a study, but more like Dartmouth researcher John Wennberg's life work. Please look him up on wikipedia. A great book that covers a lot of Wennberg's research and the inefficencies of our health care system is "Overtreated" by Shannon Brownlee. Finally, the book "Confidence Men" by Ron Suskind, is great. More about the financial crisis, but Suskind covers how the Obama admin was aware of Wennberg's highly credible research, but chose to ignore it in developing their health care policy.

Huh?

I think doing nothing would have been better than passing bad policy. I don't think Obama could have passed universal health care legislation. However he may have been able to reduce health care cost by focusing on reducing health care providers' exposure to med mal liability. Also could have pushed for more standardization of health care delivery, which reduces unnecessary procedures. In formulating policy, he completely ignored the most interesting and relevent studies coming out of the University of New Hampshire that proves there is no static demand for health care; that it is the same as any other product on the free market. I'll try and find a link / citation for you.

Citation, please. Just my simple opinion. Though I would have to say the preschool policy the administration is pushing right now is a good example. And while I'm on my soapbox, I'll opine how Obama really shit the bed on the health care thing - and I'm totally in favor of socialized health care.

Are these the only "liberals" you have for a frame of reference? No wonder. It must be a simple world you live in. Well I try to keep my world simple. But then again, I don't have to spend most of my time at work, so I've got that luxury. Obama fundamentally believes that more government involvement is the answer to all of our problems and that our collective debt and the productive / successfull members of our society should pay for it. That paradigm indeed falls on the liberal end of the American policy spectrum. To be equitable, I think most Republicans are dumbfucks too.

No way dude. A liberal Democrat like Obama couldn't possibly do that. You think Obama's a liberal democrat? I LOL'D!!! Not as liberal as Senor Chavez or that Karl Marx guy. But its all quite relative, so you've got a point there.

No way dude. A liberal Democrat like Obama couldn't possibly do that.

And I fucking hate baseball.

Cool. Well then what really was your point other than to point out the double standard of our foreign policy, which I thought has been pretty obvious since the early 19th century.

Yes its hypocritical. But what's worse: being a hypocrite or having Kim Ill Jong nuclearate the whole world? I do agree though, Korean food can be damn good.

Good points Tvash. If we have nukes we should be FAIR and make sure everyone has them too. If you bring cupcakes, or enriched uraniam yellowcake, to school you better bring enough for everyone, even the weird kid who tortures puppies after school. Afterall, international politics is all about being FAIR.

the first step is to learn how to spell it right.

Bright colors and Dynafits, of course.

Its comical how you dehumanize and villafy anyone on the other side of your extreme position; then attempt to discredit the moderates who seek to find common ground. Like a sad liberal internet version of Karl Rove.

I don't doubt this to be true, but I have to admit I'd be pissed if I was a "responsible, law-abiding" gun enthusiast and the government outlawed guns I owned. It would be like the government taking my skis or telling me I couldn't ski in a certain area because of all of the recent avalanche deaths. That said, I see no downside to a policy, similar to the one Tvash outlined, that makes guns harder to get and easier to track and regulate.

P.S. Build us some new telepheriques and bakeries while you're at it.

I'm not going to scour the internet for statistics to back up my personal experiences working in public safety. But, yes, most violence in my experience involves ETOH and DV.

Depends on how you define rare. In certain areas of Seattle and surrounding King County "random" violent assaults are not rare at all. I could indeed understand why law-abiding citizens who frequents such areas may want to protect themselves with a firearm. Prove it. Perhaps you should ride along with a police unit or fire dept. aid unit for a handful of nights in White Center, Belltown, or Rainier Valley, etc. and you may be suprised at the amount of random violence that occurs out there. Of course, lots of DV and alcohol related crime too.

Thats like saying a whole lot of reefer addicts are serial masterbaters and sex offenders.

Depends on how you define rare. In certain areas of Seattle and surrounding King County "random" violent assaults are not rare at all. I could indeed understand why law-abiding citizens who frequents such areas may want to protect themselves with a firearm.