in a controversial decision in Britain's High Court yesterday, "Smokers are legally responsible for their own ill-health because of their negligence in failing to give up." The article mentions probable repurcussions in regards to heavy drinkers. Posting this mainly to let folks see what talking heads and their ilk end up hashing out regarding personal responsibility vs. legally addictive substances. There are probably better links on the BBC site, but I am gone for most of the day, and figured I would give folks like me on this side of the pond a heads' up.<
>
<
>
<
>
Lupic Wulfsib<i></i>

If you dont know that smoking is gonna cause health problems by now, you have been living in a cave. If you are under 60 you have no excuse for claiming the tobacco industry is responsible for your lung cancer/emphasyma/chronic
onchitis. You started smoking knowing full well what the possible consequence was. Just like the heavy drinking part, you know what happens when you drink heavily for too many years, or what happens when you drink and drive. It isnt the tequilla factories fault you downed 12 shots and drove your car into a school bus. Traab "Love Machine" Fellhammer<
>
Human Mob Compactor of the 52nd Cycle<
>
And Almost Too Sexy To Live!<i></i>

I hope this kind of legislation makes it to the states as well. Im tired of paying for everyone and their self inflicted health issues. Insurance is too damned expensive for exactly those reasons.<
>
<
>
Smokers are on their way to not being cool anymore, this month WA state became a non smoking state. There is no smoking in ANY publicly accessible building. No more smoke in bars or restaurant. No more smoking anywhere except your own home or outside. BUT if you do smoke outside you need to be at least 25 feet away from any door or open window of any building. <
>
<
>
We went to Vinces Pizza last night which for years was slowly becoming unbearable because of all the smoke pooring out of the lounge into the rest of the building and making everything stink. The pizza was worth the discomfort though it is really the best pizza in Seattle. Last night it was nearly free of the smoke smell that we all hated. What a great evening we had, the few smokers that were with us had to go outside and around the corner to the bus stop to smoke. Willey<
>
<i></i>

_________________
Sig to come...WILLEY

Obesity is probably at least a thousand times more costly to everyone than smoking is. I guess stuffing your face until you're blue isn't your own fault though, it's a disease. Last time I looked, there are far more lard asses than smokers. <i></i>

Obesity is kind of iffy, it could easily be a genetic disorder. However, I will agree that it's likely the majority of overweight people probably take at least *some* responsibility for making themselves overweight. It's just not something you can look at and say "Ah ha! It's their own damn fault." 100 percent of the time. <i></i>

What health cost are associated with obesity? <i></i>

None<
>
<
>
<i></i>

Just wait until smoking style law suits are being used on the food industry, it's in it's infacy with fast food. Marauder Harabakc Goat<i></i>

_________________
Marauder Harabakc Goat

There are many health issues associated with obesity. That fact however does NOT have any bearing on the health issues associated with smoking. That is simply a smokers desperate attempt to have you look elsewhere while they puff on their death sticks and charge the people around them for their medical expenses.<
>
<
>
The obesity epidemic in the US should be addressed At least if someone overeats and does not exercise the ill effects on their health is entirely their own. No one dies from second hand hamburger smelling. Willey<
>
<i></i>

_________________
Sig to come...WILLEY

Quote:No one dies from second hand hamburger smelling.<
>
<
>
WHERE IS YOUR PROOF?! <
>down is the new up<i></i>

Which is why they should make it illegal, instead of making the government look like the hypocrites they truly are. It's not as if all smokers can grow the shit themselves, if the government seriously was interested in what is in the best interests of people's health they'd take it a step further. But tax dollars are what's really important here, which is why they won't. Buy them, just don't smoke them. <i></i>

Quote:Which is why they should make it illegal, instead of making the government look like the hypocrites they truly are. It's not as if all smokers can grow the shit themselves, if the government seriously was interested in what is in the best interests of people's health they'd take it a step further. But tax dollars are what's really important here, which is why they won't. Buy them, just don't smoke them. <
>
<
>
Do you REALLY want the government to step in and start banning unhealthy things? Cigarettes and alcohol would probably be at the top of the list. Then im certain some health nuts would start demanding the banning of fast food chains, so say goodbye to your quarter pounder with cheese, or your chipotle grilled stuffed burrito. Not too mention the HUGE finacial problem that would occur when an entire industry is shut down and everyone connected to it gets fired. Probably the only reasonable way to do it would be to do exactly what they are doing now. Slowly making smoking so unpleasant through banning it in public places, and hiking the prices up, and taxing the crap out of it till it hits 10 bucks a pack till it slowly phases itself out instead of sending the entire industry to a screeching halt overnight. Traab "Love Machine" Fellhammer<
>
Human Mob Compactor of the 52nd Cycle<
>
And Almost Too Sexy To Live!<i></i>

Quote:Do you REALLY want the government to step in and start banning unhealthy things? Cigarettes and alcohol would probably be at the top of the list. Then im certain some health nuts would start demanding the banning of fast food chains, so say goodbye to your quarter pounder with cheese, or your chipotle grilled stuffed burrito. Not too mention the HUGE finacial problem that would occur when an entire industry is shut down and everyone connected to it gets fired.<
>
<
>
If it's the health issue that is going to be played, then absolutely. <i></i>

Second hand smoke isn't even close to being as unhealthy as the bastards inhaling it first hand. Don't believe everything you hear from the panic driven media. If you're that stupid, you might want to just lock yourself inside your house, because your own lawn is likely to kill you faster. <i></i>

People think just because obesity isn't healthy that it raises health costs - same with smoking.<
>
<
>
Here's the thing with these half ass "studies"...<
>
<
>
Everyone dies some day.<
>
<
>
Who costs America more? A 300 pound man who dies of a heart attack at age 50 or a fit marathon runner who collects social security into his 90s?<
>
<
>
I know that insulting the fatties makes people feel good, but saying "they increase health costs" is an uninformed and unproven sentiment.<
>
<i></i>

Actually, a fit marathon runner has been putting money into SS his whole life. He doesn't deserve a little back? Key word being little. Yes Orme, you're a fucking moron. Insurance, healthcare etc. all increase when they are used. It's simple economics. For you it would be called difficult economics, simply because you're stupid. Obviously you don't have the intelligence to comprehend, even if it was explained to you. <i></i>

Junk science. We are all in trouble when we are banning things becaue it feels like the right thing to do. How could they ever prove that a cancer was
ought on by smoking specifically. However small, the chance is still there that the person just got it. <i></i>

Quote:Which is why they should make it illegal, instead of making the government look like the hypocrites they truly are.<
>
Quote:Do you REALLY want the government to step in and start banning unhealthy things? Cigarettes and alcohol would probably be at the top of the list.<
>
Quote: Junk science. We are all in trouble when we are banning things becaue it feels like the right thing to do.<
>
No one is banning anything. You just have to pay for your own stupidity and bad habits.<
>
<
>
Quote:Second hand smoke isn't even close to being as unhealthy as the bastards inhaling it first hand.<
>
That fact was never in question.<
>
Quote:Don't believe everything you hear from the panic driven media. If you're that stupid, you might want to just lock yourself inside your house, because your own lawn is likely to kill you faster.<
>
You sir must be smoking the marijuana cigarettes because that is just stupid. Provide any study from an even semi credible source that supports your argument.<
>
Quote:How could they ever prove that a cancer was
ought on by smoking specifically. However small, the chance is still there that the person just got it.<
>
That is proven the same way everything else in the world is proven, through basic science. Do you work for a tobacco company or something? That is the only source I can find that comes up with anything even close to your claim. Even the tobacco companies have not used that argument for almost 15 years. Willey<
>
<i></i>

_________________
Sig to come...WILLEY

You
eath, therefor everything your lungs take in would have something to do with lung cancer should you develop it.<
>
<
>
On a daily basis you probably
eathe in just as much shit if not more as you would get from sitting beside someone smoking a cigarette. Ever fill up your car? Hi, gasoline fumes. Ever walk near a car that has the engine running? Hi, exhaust fumes.<
>
<
>
Just because you smoke doesn't mean that you're some how magically going to get lung cancer, and there are plenty of people that have never smoked that get it as well.<
>
<
>
Oh, gotta go skin a deer, be back later. Marauder Harabakc Goat<i></i>

_________________
Marauder Harabakc Goat

This thread, eight pages from now.<
>
<
>
"You cant tell me to stop smoking, you come up and do that and i'll kick your ass in real life"<
>
<
>
"Fuck you motherfucker, when you smoke in public you are risking MY LIFE. So if you light up im going to punch your face you worthless faggot."<
>
<
>
And the monkey dies at the end of King Kong. I've ruined all of your lives forever now by spoiling two things.<
>
<
>
Carry on with your dumb thread that will solve nothing. Outside of maybe three of you, to which I applaud, you are doing nothing but sticking your dicks in the mud and doing paint by numbers with your balls. You will never be able to convince someone over the internet that smoking, second hand or not is bad, or not so bad for you. Not happening so why bother.<
>
<
>
Oh and before the whole dont like it dont read bullshit pops up, I clicked on your gay salad tossing smoking thread by accident trying to get to the casual gamer thread. <
>
<i></i>

This topics not really about second hand smoke or at least the original point didn't seem to be. It's about accountability and since smokers drive up health care costs they are being singled out, without consistancy. Let's do the same for Aids and the rest of the STD's, don't want aids don't fuck, you did it to yourself. Obesity is on the same scale, but it's easier to point fingers at smokers and much cooler nowadays than it is to address the real issue(s). <i></i>

smoking is indefensible<
>
<
>
(As is governments saying that, but quite happily taxing it - if it is bad, and we all agree it is - then ban it out right - end of problem)<
>
<
>
obesity is also indefensible - the long term costs of it will include such diseases as diabetes, strokes, hypertension - all high cost and often chronic conditions.<
>
(And don't even start with the genetic thing - next thing we will have the fat kids parents posting about it being hormones... I would hazard a guess that most obesity is caused by one simple thing - GREED).<
>
<
>
Interestingly enough, Air India today announced that 10 percent of their cabin crew would have to lose weight, or be redeployed/sacked - and at the same time it was revealed that your seat allocation on a plane may well depend on your size - those able bodied will be nearer wing exits than the lard arses as the slimmer people will be able to get out fast, while the fatties will just block the exit.... <
>
Aladinsane<
>
Bon Viveur and Pimp to the stars<
>
<i></i>

Smoking is obviously not a healthy thing to do, regardless of what combustible material you using. The tars alone cause negative effects, much less anything else that might be in the smoke.<
>
<
>
There has not been scientifically proven a direct link between smoking and cancer. Smoking greatly increases your chance of lung cancer, and other cancers associated with smoking. Tobacco usage in other forms shows the same correlation. <
>
<
>
Increased air pollution in the last century is strongly implicated in the increasing rates of many types of cancer.<
>
<
>
EPA studies used to "prove" the connection between second-hand smoke and increased risk of cancer were tweaked, to put it mildy. That information has previously been linked and is not difficult to find. Facts have little to do with people's emotional response on controversial matters. Business owners should be allowed to decide for themselves whether to allow smoking on the premises, if you don't agree spend your money somewhere else.<
>
<
>
Obesity and alcohol abuse are at least as serious public health issues as is smoking, if not more so because of the increasingly greater numbers of people affected compared to the increasingly lesser number of smokers. The cumulative negative impact of alcohol use and abuse on our society is staggering, but prohibition has already been tried and proven a dismal failure.<
>
<
>
Why limit governmental control of substances to specific, arbitrarily assigned substances? Because of public support, or lack thereof. Marijuana hardly deserves to be on the same federal schedule of controlled substances as heroin and cocaine, but there it remains. The fact that governmental regulation and taxation of marijuana would be almost impossible has a lot more to do with that situation than public health issues. Alcohol, on the other hand, is much more readily regulated and taxed. Despite the numerous negative health effects of anything other than extremely moderate use, that makes it perfectly acceptable. <
>
<
>
Why make any distinction between any substances or activities? or lack thereof? Let the government dictate what you eat, how much you exercise and what you're allowed to weigh. After all, it's for your own good - directly - and for the good of everyone, indirectly. You wouldn't want to set a bad example for "the children", would you? <
>
<
>
While we're dealing with all those nasty, unhealthy habits people have let's ban high heels too. There's no doubt they cause problems. Matter of fact, let's just let the government decide what we should wear too. It's so much easier than having to decide for ourselves. And what about which cars we drive? We all know some are much safer than others, so let's just get rid of all the less safe models and drive the very safest cars made. It's for our own good. <
>
<
>
It seems that a lot of people's health problems are directly linked to stress, also. Let's just let the government decide who we should marry, how we should raise our kids and where we should live too. That way we won't have to stress out about any of those things and suffer the associated negative health effects. <
>
<
>
If that doesn't work, we can all just take some of those wonderful drugs so frequently advertised on television, radio and in print. A little anti-anxiety, anti-depressant, central nervous system stimulant and sexual functioning enhancement drugs from our well-trusted pharmaceutical corporations will leave us all just happy little campers, right?<
>
<
>
Yeah, uh huh. <i></i>

_________________

Lol sure why not just let the government control every aspect of our lives? George Orwell's 1984 was a few years off, first it is smoking, next will be alcohol, then fast food, then red meat, so in the end we will all just eat tofu and like it LoL.<
>
<
>
I don't smoke but I don't begrudge those who do, it is their choice and anyone who really thinks stopping people from smoking is going to lower their insurance rates is probably smoking something that is illegal. <
>
<
>
The insurance companies will only say sorry but we are paying too much in costs for heart conditions
ought on by overeating and lack of exercise. I have never seen my insurance rates go down, but I sure as hell have seen them increase faster than the inflation rate each year.<
>
<
>
Somewhere I once read that the function of government is to serve the people on to rule them, guess it boils down to the definition of serve. <i></i>

It has been smoking, now it's moving onto fast food, this is happening now, not years down the road. You can thank lawyers for getting settlements for people that can't own up to shit they've done. Marauder Harabakc Goat<i></i>

_________________
Marauder Harabakc Goat

I think its BS for the insurance companies to have any say in how you live your life, medical costs are a giant scam these days as it is.<
>
<
>
My dad was a runner and a cyclist, healthy as can be. He died of a rare form of cancer that he had once, then suffered a relapse. Between multiple experimental surgeries, expensive chemo, transfusions, hospice, etc, the cost to his insurance was easily over $1 million.<
>
<
>
A fat guy or a smoker who dies of a heart attack costs comparatively nothing. <i></i>

Quote:Actually, a fit marathon runner has been putting money into SS his whole life. He doesn't deserve a little back? Oh, that's right - fat people don't pay social security. I also forgot that fat people don't pay health care premiums.<
>
<
>
And then, you try calling me a moron? That's funny consider how incredibly stupid you make yourself appear.<
>
<
>
Quote:Yes Orme, you're a fucking moron. Insurance, healthcare etc. all increase when they are used. It's simple economics.Question for you Mr. Buffett - what does this mean? Do you even know what you're trying to say? <
>
I would try to counter your points, but they're so completely senseless, I'm not sure what to say.<
>
<
>
From ages 60-90, most people's insurance costs do not go up. In fact, for most people they go down - GASP. See twit, it's a bit more than "simple economics" because of things like retirement plans, social security, and Medicare. But, I'm guessing most of that is over your head. <
>
<
>
Most people stop being significantly productive around 65. It would be best for the economy if they all fell over dead because the working class has to prop them up. There are also other non-financial costs such as general support. For example, if a person takes care of their aging grandma and that takes away from time spent with their children, you're putting an intangible drag on the future. But once again, deeper thinking such as this is beyond the ability of someone such as you who just wants to say " I AM BETTER THAN FAT PEOPLE ".<
>
<
>
So, I ask it again, with some numbers...<
>
Who costs America more? 50 year old who has a heart attack or fat cancer or whatever and dies. Let's say he racks up $200,000 in medical bills during that episode, or a 90 year who never goes to the hospital, but collects $8000 of social security for 20 years, but from age 85 to 90 is in a rest home for $40,000 a year.<
>
<
>
Please continue your sad effort to make yourself feel superior to fat pepole But, at least try to do some real thinking about the issue before speaking. <i></i>

"Fat" is the new "Smoking". Soon to be banned from entering public places, for fear of "2nd hand Fat", by thin people.<
>
<
>
Because only smokers get lung cancer, and only fat people have heart attacks.<
>
<
>
And people with a genetic pre-disposition to cancer should definitely NOT be able to use their health insurance to get treated for cancer too, because they have a greater risk than genpop according to some studies.<
>
<
>
Or people who drive cars, they should definitely never be allowed to get medical treatment for injuries from a car accident, I mean JESUS WTF did they THINK was going to happen those "car driving" assholes, if you drive a car, you will eventually crash, it's their own damn fault those dipshits. Only if you get Hit by a car should you be able to get treatment, because it wasn't the pedestrian's fault, he never chose to drive. And WTF if someone continues to drive, even AFTER being in a car accident, well fuck them up the ass with a red hot poker, fuck em, let them die. Again, definitely their fault.<
>
<
>
Oh ... wait that's the most <
>
<
>
INSANE FUCKING ARGUEMENT EVER IN THE LONG SAD HISTORY OF INSANE FUCKING ARGUEMENTS. Thanx Pat Robertson for playing SHOULD WE, OR SHOULD WE NOT, FOLLOW THE ADVICE OF THE GALACTICALLY STUPID!<
>
Arch Lich of Lanys (Retired)<
>
<i></i>

ok<
>
<
>
lets take a few steps to get some perspective<
>
<
>
excluding all those people who are fat for hormonal or genetic reasons, and lets be
utally honest, they are few and far between, what kind of impact is obesity going to have on an individuals health?<
>
<
>
Coronary Heart Disease - a given - your heart will be flabby and less effective than it should be - this is not going to kill you fast, but rather lead to a series of cardiac events that cost a lot - in terms of quality of life and that is BEFORE the actual medical cost is considered<
>
<
>
Hypertension - again pretty much a given - and as well as the increased risks re CVA you are also far more likely to develop Type Two diabetes... and all that that entails in terms of impact on quality of life, let alone the later increasing medical costs.<
>
<
>
Peripheral Vascular disease - as an adjunct to the above, but also in its own right - those ulcers that need dressing so often really screw up a persons quality of life - and cost a lot in terms of care<
>
<
>
Sleep apnoea - yes, my little fat friends - get obese and you really do run a risk of just turning up your toes as you sleep.... of course the other side of that is before you die, each episode knocks off more
ain cells, leading to mental/physical problems.. and then there is the cost of O2 therapy while receiving treatment....<
>
<
>
So, getting obese, fucks you up - plain and simple. But what about the hidden costs? When the health care workers have to move you, they run risks of self injury due to your immobility and weight.... Anaesthetists run huge risks each time they knock you out- and it is their professional living to try not to let too many people die<
>
<
>
I would hazard a guess that with in 5 years obesity, and the life style that promotes it, will cost the health care system a lot more than cancer<
>
<
>
Like smoking, obesity is plain wrong - I smoke, and I only smoke at home now (My choice as i do not want to inflict my carcinogens on others), but I am also aware that my decision is fatally flawed - but anytime some fat fucker of 200 lb plus starts to criticise I just laugh at them - the chances are, they will be in a box a long time before I will...<
>
<
>
<i></i>

Obesity isn't a matter of greed...<
>
<
>
Here's the recipe for getting obese: <
>
Work your job all day<
>
Eat the full serving of what you are given at meals<
>
Wind down at the end of the day when you get home<
>
<
>
Now this is the same thing people have done for thousands of years. <
>
<
>
The difference is that food was scarcer, so I daresay the portions were smaller and less frequent, and while now most jobs are sedentary, back then they involved back
eaking calorie burning labor. <
>
<
>
I seriously doubt 60 percent of americans are now overweight because of a sudden proponderance of greed that didn't exist before. We are victims of our own success. <
>

<i></i>

Obesity is costly on healthcare<
>
<
>
Cholelithiasis<
>
Increased risk of Pulmonary embolism<
>
Hypertension<
>
CHF<
>
Diabetes<
>
Fatty liver disease<
>
Back problems<
>
Knee problems<
>
Increased risk of ovarian cysts<
>
Increased risk of deep vein thrombosis<
>
<
>
I'm sure that's just a small sample. I work in healthcare and I would say 80% of the people between the age of 20-50 yrs old are obese and their diagnosis is related to it. <i></i>

Cancer is costly on healthcare, are you going to deny insurance benefits to those who don't eat enough
an muffins, or don't get regular
east/prostate exams? Arch Lich of Lanys (Retired)<
>
<i></i>

Uhm, what point are you trying to make? Those people do or don't smoke? Or are fat or are not fat? or what? Marauder Harabakc Goat<i></i>

_________________
Marauder Harabakc Goat

An aside :<
>
<
>
---<
>
<
>
"Question for you Mr. Buffett - what does this mean? Do you even know what you're trying to say?<
>
I would try to counter your points, but they're so completely senseless, I'm not sure what to say.<
>
<
>
From ages 60-90, most people's insurance costs do not go up. In fact, for most people they go down - GASP. See twit, it's a bit more than "simple economics" because of things like retirement plans, social security, and Medicare. But, I'm guessing most of that is over your head."<
>
<
>
-----<
>
<
>
[ONLY in response to these few statments, nothing else]<
>
<
>
COrrect me if I am wrong(and I often am), Car insurance. Health insurance all of them increase with alarming regularity when you put them to use.<
>
<
>
When you make a claim against the insurance company, and they have to pay out, they deem you a greater rsik for whatever, and generally after a few claims they raise the premium of your insurance, therefore increasing the cost there-of. THAT is basic simple economics... <
>
<
>
As for the Elderly insurance costs going DOWN, you kinda made your own argument I suppose. There are other implanted intsitutions availabe for the elderly to take up the slack of cost from the Health Insurance agency. Therfore they CAN lower their insurance costs because they are not liable for as much of the incurred medical costs. IF they were solely responsible for the medical costs incurred. the insurance prices would sky-rocket to meet the ever increasing demand the elderly put on medical costs.<
>
<
>
A tyically "healthy" 30 yr old has a lot less medical cost than a Typically "healthy" 65 year old most of the time. IT's tha tdefinition of healthy, that gets you. What's "healthy" for one is not the same standard, and does not cost the same in medical bills as it is for the other.<
>
<
>
Take the thought for what it's worth, and how little it really has to do with the subject at hand. <i></i>

_________________
"People sometimes say that ideas cannot be stamped out by force. The Albigensian Crusade proves them wrong. Ideas can be stamped out by the elimination of everyone who holds the ideas." - Quote :"Middle Ages" by Morris Bishop.

Quote:COrrect me if I am wrong(and I often am), Car insurance. Health insurance all of them increase with alarming regularity when you put them to use.<
>
<
>
Works that way with car insurance, not with health insurance. You are supposed to use health insurance. Preventative care and taking care of things early on saves a ton in health costs. Now, if you have large health insurance costs/risk factors it may be more difficult to get private insurance initially, and your premiums may be higher. But it's not like car insurance were two claims and your premiums go up.
<i></i>

Quote: Uhm, what point are you trying to make? Those people do or don't smoke? Or are fat or are not fat? or what?<
>
<
>
People who don't get regular checkups don't catch their disease as early, and it then costs more to treat the illness. My point is, since we're being all high and mighty about personal responsibility when it comes to our own healthcare, do we want our insurance agencies to cover people who don't get regular checkups? Or perhaps deny coverage for people who are at risk because of their location/occupation/genetics? Arch Lich of Lanys (Retired)<
>
<i></i>

And how much does it cost the health care system for people who live to be 95, but from age 65-95 are constantly going to the doctor, and need about 10 different perscriptions at all times?<
>
<
>
Insurance should be blind imo, because when you start applying statiscal cost analysis to every little thing and basing coverage around it, it's a pretty damn slippery slope towards DNA testing and refusal of care for people genetically predisposed to certain diseases.<
>
<
>
Tort reform, fraud reform, and a serious look at commercial drug costs (namely advertising) would have a much larger impact than profiling. <i></i>

"were two claims"<
>
, where two claims <
>
<
>
/sigh
<i></i>

Thank you Gwiber for explaining the simplicity of the matter to Orme, the dumb fuck. <
>
<
>
In reference to Monocot saying health insurance doesn't increase with claims, you must be dillusional. Why do you think healthcare has been skyrocketing? Why do you think millions go without health insurance? News flash for the ignorant, Insurance companies are out to make money. If they see their bottom line decreasing, they increase their rates. It's very simple, unless you're of Orme's intelligence. <i></i>

healthcare premiums overall have been skyrocketing yes. Your individual premium isn't affected by how many claims you have as it is with car insurance.<
>
<
>
example: I pay 100 dollars/mth on car insurance, I wreck the car in a fault collison, my monthly premium goes up to 155 until 3 years have passed.<
>
<
>
vs: I pay 100 dollars/mth on health insurance. I go to the doctor and have hand surgery for carpal tunnel. My monthly premium does not go up to 155 while the guy next to me who never visits the doctor has a premium of 100 still.<
>
<
>
Now overall premiums may be raised to cover skyrocketing costs, and if I have a risk factors and decide to get private health insurance I will be assessed a higher monthly premium than someone in good health or may not receive coverage at all. The two situations, however, are not analogous.
<i></i>

Jugg, in the interest of full disclosure, you should probably mention your weight. <i></i>

A lot of times if you make a claim on your car insurance it goes up regardless of fault, even if you have an accident report stating it wasn't your fault. Marauder Harabakc Goat<i></i>

_________________
Marauder Harabakc Goat

Health insurance premiums don't increase right away like they do with car insurance. But they do increase. Unfortunately, whether you use it or not. It affects everyone also. <i></i>

Quote:People who don't get regular checkups don't catch their disease as early, and it then costs more to treat the illness. My point is, since we're being all high and mighty about personal responsibility when it comes to our own healthcare, do we want our insurance agencies to cover people who don't get regular checkups? Or perhaps deny coverage for people who are at risk because of their location/occupation/genetics? <
>
<
>
I think there's a difference between negligence and other things you can't always help - and directly putting shit into your body that you know will harm you, then wanting compensation for it. <i></i>

Quote:Health insurance premiums don't increase right away like they do with car insurance. But they do increase. Unfortunately, whether you use it or not. It affects everyone also. <
>
<
>
That's exactly what I was saying
<i></i>

If this isn't the stupidest thread of the year I don't know what is. You guys are right, smoking doesn't cause cancer and americans are only fat because we work hard and have too much food availible. Not just a river in egypt indeed. <i></i>

Quote:are only fat because we work hard and have too much food availible.<
>
<
>
erm I said because we don't work hard. (ie sedentary jobs)
<i></i>

Shhh... just sit on your ass, don't exercise, and keep shoveling high fructose corn syrup laden stuff down your throat. The problem will solve itself.<
>
<
>
I still believe we'll eventually get wise to the fact that high fructose corn syrup is as bad or worse for you than nicotene, but at least the corn syrup doesn't stink up the whole fucking restaurant.<
>
<
>
Maybe the studies are wrong... if they're right, all of Asia (including the 10 fat people in the whole fucking continent) are all going to drop dead of lung cancer soon, since they're the chain-smokinest bunch of motherfuckers I ever saw. They smoke so much people in the Middle East and South America are going "damn you guys maybe should cut down or something...." <i></i>

I see. And how does your
illiant thesis account for the fact none of the other developed countries have the same problem? Are large quantities of food not available in france, or are they just too busy engaging in back
eaking labor to eat there? <i></i>

Actually, obesity rates are climbing pretty much in all of the industrialized nations, including France:<
>
<
>
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp...Mar28.html<
>
<
>
It's true some areas are growing faster than others, cultural food preferences play a role as well, but it really is a problem generated by our successes. <
>
<
>
I guess places like ethiopia just don't have greedy people...
<i></i>

Quote:Jugg, in the interest of full disclosure, you should probably mention your weight.<
>
<
>
I'll have you know I weigh exactly Arch Lich of Lanys (Retired)<
>
<i></i>

Yeah, you're right. I'll tell you what, next time racism comes up you can take the "hot climates lead to lack of development" theory, it's about equal in terms of accuracy and originality to the bullshit you're spouting now. <i></i>

gasp<
>
<
>
you fatass. <
>
<
>
<
>
Gnome - Dark Iron - Knight of Arcadia<
>
<
>
<i></i>

HEY, Godamn it I'm not fat I'm just big boned.<
>
<
>
GOD DAMN HIPPIES!!! Arch Lich of Lanys (Retired)<
>
<i></i>

Quote:Yeah, you're right. I'll tell you what, next time racism comes up you can take the "hot climates lead to lack of development" theory, it's about equal in terms of accuracy and originality to the bullshit you're spouting now.<
>
<
>
Are you smoking crack or something? I don't see anything particularly awe shattering or surprising on what I'm saying. <
>
<
>
Look, weight gain comes from a simple equation.. you take more in that you burn out. <
>
<
>
So, up until this past century, most of the work in the world was aguarian. You had farmers, laborers etc. Some geographic areas ate pretty calorically dense food. (You ever see a traditional southern dinner? /shudder) but as they were keeping active throughout the day through hard work, obesity rates were low.<
>
<
>
The industrial revolution leads to the creation of more sedentary work. People sit down all day in their jobs, expending few calories. People also eat more food. Instead of having to work all summer to store enough food to last them through most of the winter with luck, canning/freezing techniques and shipping lead to a plethora of food availiable year round. <
>
<
>
The first areas to develop rising obesity are those areas that traditionally ate calorically dense food. Obesity rates start out higher in places like the south. Large portions and heavy foods were needed when farming in hot humid conditions. <
>
<
>
More jobs continue to become sedentary. Large amounts of the workforce sits on their collective asses all day to earn money. Food is plentiful and cheap, as a result, portion sizes are large. Most resturant meals you can start out by seperating half of the food off to the side before you even begin to eat. <
>
<
>
In those areas where culturally physical activity is still high obesity rates are much lower. Interestingly enough, Colorado has one of the lowest obesity rates in the nation. Do you think that is because the greedy people aren't allowed to live in Colorado, or because the mountains give opportunity to a ton of physical activities like climbing, hiking, biking, snowskiing? <
>
<
>
Obesity rates have pretty much been rising in industrialized areas across the world. I guess that's just a coincidence though.
<i></i>

Saying that white collared office jobs and less manual labor is what is at the heart of the obesity problem is fucking horseshit. EVERY person in my office (And I know, this doesn't go for every office) is "of weight" and not obese. Eating McDonalds, and sitting on your ass at home while you make your kids go to the fridge and grab you last night's leftover Big Mac, and being genetically pre-disposed to obesity yet doing nothing about it, and letting your fucking kids leave dinner after one bite of food to have a popsicle leads to our obesity problem NOT OUR FUCKING WORK FORCE.<
>
<
>
In my opinion, and I am not jumping to conclusions about Mono or her parenting, this is the BS excuse given by housewives who can't handle their fucking kids so decide to blame others instead. <i></i>

<
>
No, Mono's point is a simple conclusion based on existing data. You are welcome to continue to ignore, it however. You're good at that.<
>
<
>
<i></i>

_________________
Magic in Fribur's World

I don't have any kids actually. Though if you were to ask me Ark, I'd guess the rising obesity trend in kids has more to do with the fact kids are more likely to play xbox/IM chat with their friends than run around the neighborhood or wage snowball fights.
<i></i>

Leave Ark alone, the fat little fucker. <i></i>

Quote:No, Mono's point is a simple conclusion based on existing data. You are welcome to continue to ignore, it however. You're good at that.<
>
What existing data? Do you have polls showing this, or assume that due to how popular video games are now and how un-popular hard labor is?<
>
<
>
Quote: I don't have any kids actually. Though if you were to ask me Ark, I'd guess the rising obesity trend in kids has more to do with the fact kids are more likely to play xbox/IM chat with their friends than run around the neighborhood or wage snowball fights.<
>
I would have figured you did, but even when I grew up, we had snowball fights etc and if there were an internet, people would still be arguing your point with nothing but Pong and Pitfall in their defense. You blame X-Box, rather than the parents. Who bought them the X-Box? Who isn't telling them to get off their asses? Do you blame the health conscious 8 year old (sarcasm) for that, or the parents? <i></i>