those aren't choices, they are diseases.

/troll

my wife's job provides our family healthcare, and a couple years ago they started HRA exams every year. you need a 70 to pass. passing gets you (i think) a 20% cut off your healthcare expenses. people were outraged when they started this program. we were happy. ange got 100 and 99 (and she was 4 months pregnant during one of those), i got a 92 and 99. ange's boss failed due to weight, lost 50 pounds in a year, and still failed due to lasting effects of being overweight for a long time, i.e. cholesterol. but all because of these HRA's he is wayyyy more healthy than he used to be a couple years ago. and he's getting healthier every year (turns out money is quite a good incentive.) oh yeah, if you smoke at all, you lose 28 points. so while it's technically possible for smokers to still get a 70+, it rarely happens.

i think america is progressing to the point where healthy people aren't paying the majority of unhealthy people's health insurance. and unhealthy people (hopefully) will be driven by money to get healthier.

next up: america needs to change their car insurance programs so that i don't have to pay a shitload more for getting speeding tickets, when i have never caused or been in an accident in 15 years of driving. who cares if i speed, as long as i actively avoid accidents.

IGNORANCE

or

BACONAISE bacon flavored mayo

So basically thraxle you're endorsing public programs to inform consumers about the repercussions of their unhealthy habits. I agree with you wholeheartedly. That is certainly something we can all get behind and I applaud Mrs. Obama on her work with children's programs of this very nature.


"i think america is progressing to the point where healthy people aren't paying the majority of unhealthy people's health insurance. and unhealthy people (hopefully) will be driven by money to get healthier"

I agree Monte, but at the same time I don't think the choices should be between "figure out you're unhealthy and change" or "lose all your money and die". I know those are two extremes but I hope you get the gist of the dichotomy I'm painting. Certainly incentive systems similar to what the U.K. has and cutting out insurance companies and the profit factor all together would go a long way in making the system efficient.


In the U.K. doctors are given monetary incentives to reduce the unhealthy habits of their patients. For instance a doctor is given a bonus for reducing the number of his or her patients that smoke. So basically, the healthier you make your patients the more money you make. It's a rather eloquent idea and it is probably one of the reasons the U.K. has such an efficient healthcare system for what they spend per capita.

Oh one last thing I forgot to mention Monte. Since healthy food is generally more expensive, and being healthy as opposed to unhealthy is generally a more expensive lifestyle, such a system isn't appropriate or available for many Americans. That's why I mentioned the dichotomy this would create.

Poor people generally can't afford healthy food. I'd say most of the upper middle class would be alright though, but I'm sure it would still be taxing on any middle class family budget to completely switch to healthy alternative and in some cases it may even offset some monetary gains in respect to health costs.

Anyway you get my point. I absolutely like the idea of incentives for good health though.

I'll give you one thing, you are definitely a typical liberal. You can take any point of view and flex it in a way that makes it about poor versus rich. Buying lettuce/cucumber/tomato is much cheaper than buying three combos at the local McDonald's. Eating healthy is and advantage of the rich. Drinking water is A LOT cheaper than buying soda. Hell, most of your "health neccessities" are food stamp items.

Don't pull that rich versus poor shit on eating healthy.....it's very hollow.

is and = isn't an

terrible brain fart...

OH and last thing, the whole reason we have an insurance-based healthcare system as opposed to a universal one in this country is because it was argued that it would incentivize people to either become healthier or have their premiums go up. And unfortunately it doesn't seem like that has worked out very well. Maye it might have worked in a different country but it doesn't seem to be working in the United States. As Kaiser Permanente, the God father of our healthcare system, put it to Nixon "the whole emphasis is on less healthcare."

Thraxle I don't want to argue semantics with you. Human being developed by deriving their sustenance from nuts, berries, and fish. Not cucumbers, tomatoes, and lettuces, and while I see a great merit in those foods they are certainly not the end all be all healthy foods. Foods that are actually very good for you, caviar, salmon, sea bass, berries, alkaline water (not tap water) are all more expensive than regular food.

And this is a rather trollish argument we're getting into so I'd like to avoid it. It is generally accepted that healthier food is more expensive.


Case in point: ramen

human beings*

And yeah I recognize I didn't put too much effort into the post above, but come on Rob. You can honestly say that it's cheaper to eat healthy.

Even with your McDonalds example you're ignoring the fact that a burger from McDonalds is far cheaper than say a burger from a real restaurant or even one that you make yourself with fine ingredients. So while I see where you're going with it it was really a poor example.

ive never heard someone argue that its cheaper to eat unhealthily. intriguing.

to be honest, our biggest "choice" expense is food. we don't eat extravagantly. we eat out maybe 1.5 times a week on average (and cheaply at that, i.e. costco hot dogs or pizza). i think ange and i are "healthy" because 1) we are reasonably active, and 2) we eat reasonable portions. we don't do the organic thing, it's never been attractive to ange due to the higher costs. i'd say on average we spend about $10 per meal (to feed two adults, and a 2.5 year old.)

so i guess i'm finding it hard to relate my family experience to the concept that cheaper food is unhealthier. what exactly do you mean by cheap food? i guess we could get by on less money if we cut out vegetables/fruits, and therefore we'd be less healthy. but i'd be hard-pressed to feed my family on mcdonalds for $10 a meal.

in the end, i tend to believe moreso that being fat costs more than being healthy. just because you have to eat a shitload of calories to get fat and stay fat.

perhaps this whole discussion is moot because there should be a dual focus not just on eating healthy food, but also on exercising and staying active. if america were to exercise enough, they would be able to afford a higher caloric intake.

on a sidenote, was watching a pbs documentary about which public schools are the most successful in the nation, and some of the quirky methods they use that are producing much better results than the standard model. in one of the highly successful schools, a P.E. teacher successfully argued to the board that every day the kids should start off with one hour of exercise. this is radical, since in todays public school, P.E. has been mostly forced out of the curriculum. the school was surprised to see it's test results significantly improve, but upon further investigation, it made scientific sense, because the human brain learns more efficiently when it has chemicals in it that are produced from exercise. so i guess what im trying to say is, exercise not only leads to healthier americans, but also smarter americans.

and btw, IGNORANCE is now my fave idea for trendz's shirt. good job whoever recommended that.