The cold hard fact is that no one is forcing anyone to continually eat copious amounts of high calorie, high fat, high carb junk food. If you are someone who does that and then rants and rages about the high cost of health care and lower life expectancy, then someday, someone is likely to call you out on it.




Uhm...me. And many, many other people who can read the greasy handwriting on the wall. US obesity rate in 7.5 more years? 43%. Disastrous for our country!





?





Love reading the nutritional pamphlets.
Used one yesterday in deciding to pass on a carb convention in a cup, otherwise known as a Jamba Juice fruit smoothie.



No, here's the biggest part of the problem: people refusing to work to get their own house in order. That's where credibility is lost. The solution? People working to get their own house in order.

"No, here's the biggest part of the problem: people refusing to work to get their own house in order. That's where credibility is lost. The solution? People working to get their own house in order."



As Gandhi said, "Be the change you want to see in the world."


Taking personal responsibility is much more difficult than choosing to put the responsibility in the hands of the government. However, making healthy lifestyle choices is one side of the issue. The other side is the nature of the health care system that is in place when it is needed. I think few would argue that our current system is the best we can do. Whether the Obama care program is an adequate improvement is certainly open to debate.

I agree. As a too fat man in America, I agree. I have caused most of MY problems. But, to sanctimoniously proclaim that my health choices (or Beavis') reduce the quality or eliminate the credibility of the condemnation of a broken American health system is a simple cop out.

The food industry is fattening us up and the sheeple are willingly plodding to the slaughter.

To suggest the answer is "all those people waking up and stop walking to the slaughter" is to A. deny the human experience and, B. ignore real solutions.

I wonder how it would work if food were put in store aisles based on fat and/or carb percentage.

End Cap Signs could say,

"REALLY, REALLY, FAT FOR LARD ASSES", and
"IF YOU'RE NOT FAT ENOUGH" and
"JUST ENOUGH FOR AN EXTRA ROLL OVER THE BELT" or
"FOR THE HEALTH JERKS WHO MAKE US ALL FEEL GUILTY"

Statistically, "we" can't win if the corporations want to keep coming at us. Without intervention, the corporations will eventually turn us into a nation of super blobs... or a nation of more super blobs. And the medical corporations will continue to take more and more of our resources for the medical problems we have created in our ravenous stupors. Left unchecked with unlimited resources and, especially now, a government and judicial system, they win. We lose.

It is so simple to blame corporations for personal weaknesses. I disagree with your statement. I don't smoke because I know it will kill me. I don't overeat for the same reason. I don't think I am unique for that insight.

I don't think it is wrong to ask for personal accountability for health choices. I also think that not doing this contributes to the problem but that is only partly what is wrong with the health care law. My main complaint is that it is too expensive to administer. This is going to add to the federal employment numbers big time. Just what we need. More people for our workers who produce things to pay for.

I really don't think you are all that obtuse, are you? But, based on your previous post, I'm sure you haven't read the book.

When many people have limited funds to pay for healthy food, must rely on food banks who don't necessarily have access to the healthiest food to give people, don't have transportation to go grocery shopping and, especially in inner-cities, often have to rely on small mini-markets for much of their groceries, don't have a freezer/canner so they can stock up their pantry when prices are low, and the numerous other obstacles to making healthy life-style choices you promote, it can be near impossible for people to achieve your level of "perfection". But, to you, I'm sure none of this matters and are just excuses of lazy, selfish people.

I'm beginning to wonder how you can stand walking amongst mere mortals.

Where, exactly, did I "rant and rage" about my lower life expectancy?

Parable:

Jesus sees a sick and homeless person on the side of the road. Does Jesus

A. Say "well, he obviously made some bad choices, so I'm not going to help him,"

or

B. help.

You say Americans have lower life expectancies because Americans make bad choices and don't take responsibility for their own actions.

Japanese people see their doctors an average of 14 times a year. The reason their health care system is considered "unsustainable" is because they're living too long and too many older people are in the system.

So if we have a Japanese-style system, we'll live too long...which will be unsustainable...and anyway, Americans lack character and make poor choices so we don't deserve to live as long?

Who's acting as the "death panel" now, Herr Mengele?

This is exactly why having conservatives in charge is so frightening. Liberals have their faults. But liberals don't write off the humanity of entire classes of people based on lies, disinformation and pure petty cruelty.

I think you're a self-righteous, pompous, mean and petty ass, Iky, but I don't think you deserve to die. You, on the other hand, apparently think I do.

Instead of talking about the issue, you made it about your appraisal of the moral inferiority of the person to whom you were talking.

It was the textbook definition of a sanctimonious ad-hominem. Embarassing.

Republicans and Democrats think differently. When Democrats think about social problems, they think about society. When Republicans think about social problems, they think "how about me?"

So when a Democrat is talking about unfair taxes, a Republican's response (based on the projection of their own values) leads them to believe that the Democrat must be poor. When a Democrat talks about the value of social programs, it must be because the Democrat is a welfare recipient. When a Democrat talks about our fundamentally messed up healthcare system, it must be because he's a lazy, fat unhealthy person who is exploiting you... laughing at you from the dialysis chair.

... because seeking the exploitive opportunity is what Republicans do, they expect reciprocity from everyone else.

Disagree all you want. But, left unchecked, actually even assisted by the government and like a small stream, corporations will eventually carve the Grand Canyon. People come and go, but the international conglomerates will be there plodding along throwing billions of dollars whereever they need to to get their way.



You are not unique. And you may enjoy better health because of your choices. And others may have worse health because of theirs. But, there will be people getting sick in spite of great choices and people living into their 90's chain smoking. We have the most expensive system without the best results. And many are without care (skip the obligatory "everyone can go to the ER" crap).



What's your definition of personal accountability? In America today, it's "if you made bad choices or get really unlucky, you're S.O.L." I have a different vision for America.



Maybe. I know our current system is too expensive and we're not getting the results we should.

Democrats want to solve problems with other people's money. Republicans realize that we are the other people. "About me" is really "about us".

That totally cannot be grasped by most Democrats. They start by thinking they are spending the rich peoples money and are going to be so surprised when health care is "their care" and runs out of control with it's generosity. No one can afford this as it is now legislated.

It isn't about generosity. We all benefit from public health, public welfare and public infrastructure.

Besides, for 90% of the country, "the money" IS "other people's money". That's the downside of allowing absolute wealth concentration, when one person has all the money, he gets the lunch check.

In the United States 20% of the people own 85% of all the wealth. The median net worth of the bottom half of the country is essentially zero.

It might be true that 80% of citizens want to pay for social programs with other people's money, because that's the only kind of money there is.

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html