PDA

View Full Version : Environment Any idea why this is the case?


Direckshun
04-18-2011, 01:11 PM
This is the CDC's estimation of death rates by state (per 100,000 people).

http://dailydish.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83451c45669e201538df36a5a970b-550wi

Why, in your opinion, do you think this mirrors the political map (red states, blue states) so closely?

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6014a4.htm?s_cid=mm6014a4_e&source=govdelivery

mlyonsd
04-18-2011, 01:16 PM
I don't think it does mirror them.

patteeu
04-18-2011, 01:27 PM
Because liberals are intentionally implementing policies that are more damaging to places they can't win elections in. :shrug:

orange
04-18-2011, 01:31 PM
I think it basically mirrors the obesity map:

http://www.treehugger.com/obesity-usa.jpg

The real question is "what's up with Montana?"

KILLER_CLOWN
04-18-2011, 01:32 PM
I would guess it's a conspiracy of some sort.

Donger
04-18-2011, 01:33 PM
Types of diet and and exercise.

Saul Good
04-18-2011, 01:35 PM
Obesity would be the largest factor. Those states have the most people in the military as well which may play a very small role.

Saul Good
04-18-2011, 01:42 PM
There also may be more young people that move to states like New York, Florida, and California and wind up moving back. To the Midwest when they want to settle down, buy a house, raise a family, etc.

Also, the more rural states tend to be more spread out. Longer drives may mean higher chances of accidents versus large states with public transportation.

Just pulling ideas out of my ass here.

orange
04-18-2011, 01:48 PM
http://www.recipesherpa.com/chicken_recipes/uploaded_images/Fried-chicken-dinner-772227.jpg

Brock
04-18-2011, 01:49 PM
It's not political, it's just where the fatasses are.

Direckshun
04-18-2011, 01:50 PM
Because liberals are intentionally implementing policies that are more damaging to places they can't win elections in. :shrug:

You're becoming a parody.

Saul Good
04-18-2011, 01:58 PM
You're becoming a parody.

Do you completely lack the ability to detect sarcasm?

BucEyedPea
04-18-2011, 02:01 PM
http://www.recipesherpa.com/chicken_recipes/uploaded_images/Fried-chicken-dinner-772227.jpg

:LOL:LMAO

Direckshun
04-18-2011, 02:04 PM
Do you completely lack the ability to detect sarcasm?

As a rule, I take the overwhelming majority of pat's posts as sarcasm.

vailpass
04-18-2011, 02:08 PM
You're becoming a parody.

You're becoming a woman.

SNR
04-18-2011, 02:12 PM
That portion of blue also looks exactly like tornado alley

Pitt Gorilla
04-18-2011, 02:18 PM
It's not political, it's just where the fatasses are.This. Although, it might be interesting to see if being a fat **** correlates to a particular political party.

Jaric
04-18-2011, 02:56 PM
http://www.recipesherpa.com/chicken_recipes/uploaded_images/Fried-chicken-dinner-772227.jpg

That looks delicious.

Strawberries AND blueberries...

:drool:

ClevelandBronco
04-18-2011, 03:14 PM
That looks delicious.

Strawberries AND blueberries...

:drool:

My mother's people are Alabama people and I've eaten more real southern fried chicken than any Yankee should ever have a right to. I have to admit, I didn't even notice the fruit.

orange
04-18-2011, 03:28 PM
I like the green platter. No need for even a token lettuce leaf.

Jaric
04-18-2011, 03:31 PM
My mother's people are Alabama people and I've eaten more real southern fried chicken than any Yankee should ever have a right to. I have to admit, I didn't even notice the fruit.

My eyes wandered after drooling over the biscuits and what appears to be apple butter.

:evil:

Direckshun
04-18-2011, 03:33 PM
This. Although, it might be interesting to see if being a fat **** correlates to a particular political party.

One party likes a sin tax.

The other party doesn't.

You do the math.

patteeu
04-18-2011, 03:33 PM
You're becoming a parody.

It was a joke. I thought that was pretty obvious. :rolleyes:

Direckshun
04-18-2011, 03:44 PM
It was a joke.

You're not funny or likeable.

patteeu
04-18-2011, 03:47 PM
You're not funny or likeable.

:deevee:

SNR
04-18-2011, 03:47 PM
One party likes a sin tax.

The other party doesn't.

You do the math.Okay, now YOU'RE becoming a parody

Direckshun
04-18-2011, 03:49 PM
Okay, now YOU'RE becoming a parody

If you guys were really on your game, you could have mishmashed "parody" with "parity" and my liberalism.

But it's been a while since you guys have been on your game, sadly.

SNR
04-18-2011, 03:56 PM
If you guys were really on your game, you could have mishmashed "parody" with "parity" and my liberalism.

But it's been a while since you guys have been on your game, sadly.That's not how I roll.

I don't want to toot my own horn, but I made a fabulous joke in the gay marriage thread. Gay marriage isn't a red herring in the political sphere, it's a pink herring.

I can't think of anything funnier than that.

ClevelandBronco
04-18-2011, 03:59 PM
If you guys were really on your game, you could have mishmashed "parody" with "parity" and my liberalism.

But it's been a while since you guys have been on your game, sadly.

Something bothering you today that you want to share with your closest strangers here?

orange
04-18-2011, 04:09 PM
That's not how I roll.

I don't want to toot my own horn, but I made a fabulous joke in the gay marriage thread. Gay marriage isn't a red herring in the political sphere, it's a pink herring.

I can't think of anything funnier than that.

I don't know... while that's pretty good, I think my "... Istanbul AND Constantinople" thread is fantastick.

patteeu
04-18-2011, 04:22 PM
I don't know... while that's pretty good, I think my "... Istanbul AND Constantinople" thread is fantastick.

I was disappointed when I read the article and found out that they weren't really talking about calling the new city Constantinople.

Direckshun
04-18-2011, 04:24 PM
That's not how I roll.

I don't want to toot my own horn, but I made a fabulous joke in the gay marriage thread. Gay marriage isn't a red herring in the political sphere, it's a pink herring.

I can't think of anything funnier than that.

That's... yeah okay that's a pretty good one.

Jaric
04-18-2011, 05:10 PM
You're not funny or likeable.

http://208.116.9.205/10/content/7833/1.jpg

Brock
04-18-2011, 05:11 PM
One party likes a sin tax.

The other party doesn't.

You do the math.

What a stupid thing to say.

Direckshun
04-18-2011, 05:12 PM
What a stupid thing to say.

One party likes to greater regulate the shitty food mass food factories produce.

The other party doesn't.

Donger
04-18-2011, 05:14 PM
One party likes to greater regulate the shitty food mass food factories produce.

The other party doesn't.

It's about time you graced us all with what you wanted to say. Now, I can sleep tonight.

RNR
04-18-2011, 05:17 PM
That's not how I roll.

I don't want to toot my own horn, but I made a fabulous joke in the gay marriage thread. Gay marriage isn't a red herring in the political sphere, it's a pink herring.

I can't think of anything funnier than that.

So you drop a witty line in my thread and now you are in another thread dropping the same line. Nothing more than a two timer :harumph:

Brock
04-18-2011, 05:20 PM
One party likes to greater regulate the shitty food mass food factories produce.

The other party doesn't.

Oh. So that's why republican states are fatter? Because the republicans build more fast food restaurants in bumfuck arkansas than they do anywhere else?

Direckshun
04-18-2011, 05:21 PM
Oh. So that's why republican states are fatter? Because the republicans build more fast food restaurants in bum**** arkansas than they do anywhere else?

Swing and a miss.

Brock
04-18-2011, 05:28 PM
Swing and a miss.

What you usually say when someone points out one of your logically disconnected fallacies.

Direckshun
04-18-2011, 05:41 PM
What you usually say when someone points out one of your logically disconnected fallacies.

What I usually say when somebody attempts to rephrase my argument in a way that makes it no longer my argument.

See: zg23, pete.

blaise
04-18-2011, 05:56 PM
You're not funny or likeable.

Glass houses.

SNR
04-18-2011, 06:45 PM
One party likes to greater regulate the shitty food mass food factories produce.

The other party doesn't.
The only possible way I could see that generating actual results without sin taxes actually being applied to those healthy states (which isn't the case) is the fact that people who want the tax applied are probably able to stay away from those kinds of foods because they care about health shit.

I mean, that's quite a stretch. Tell me how your theory correlates to the results on your map in the OP. As far as I know, none of these taxes have been implemented in states yet.

SNR
04-18-2011, 06:48 PM
So you drop a witty line in my thread and now you are in another thread dropping the same line. Nothing more than a two timer :harumph:Look, I'm a funny, funny guy. It's not my fault my great sense of humor is wasted on you stingy dullards who won't give me the dap for my jokes that I deserve.

So that means I have to resort to re-posting my jokes. I don't like doing it any more than you like reading it twice, believe me.

Saul Good
04-18-2011, 06:57 PM
Liberals never met a tax they didn't like. It's not as if the sin taxes are somehow benevolent.

I do, however, find it amusing that they claim to be against regressive taxes when it suits them yet they slap taxes on things like cigarettes and are all for the lottery.

Brock
04-18-2011, 07:47 PM
Liberals never met a tax they didn't like. It's not as if the sin taxes are somehow benevolent.

I do, however, find it amusing that they claim to be against regressive taxes when it suits them yet they slap taxes on things like cigarettes and are all for the lottery.

It's funny. They want to tax evil fast food and things like that, but that doesn't make food that's good for you cheaper. It just makes cheap food more expensive.

Direckshun
04-18-2011, 08:33 PM
Tell me how your theory correlates to the results on your map in the OP. As far as I know, none of these taxes have been implemented in states yet.

That's fair.

I'm arguing that 9 times out of 10, terrible-for-your-health food is going to be cheaper than relatively healthy food. Unhealthier lifestyles will be cheaper to live than healthy lifestyles. And in a less regulated society, the air is less healthy, the water is less healthy, less healthy products are cheaper and easier to access, and all of these things are going to have a cumulative effect that will lead to (a.) more expensive healthcare costs, and (b.) one imagines a higher mortality rate.

Brock
04-18-2011, 09:18 PM
That's fair.

I'm arguing that 9 times out of 10, terrible-for-your-health food is going to be cheaper than relatively healthy food. Unhealthier lifestyles will be cheaper to live than healthy lifestyles. And in a less regulated society, the air is less healthy, the water is less healthy, less healthy products are cheaper and easier to access, and all of these things are going to have a cumulative effect that will lead to (a.) more expensive healthcare costs, and (b.) one imagines a higher mortality rate.

So your solution is to make cheap food more expensive. LOL

GordonGekko
04-18-2011, 09:49 PM
I don't know but I'm pretty sure Wal-Mart has something to do with this

GordonGekko
04-18-2011, 09:50 PM
Also, North and South Dakota piss on the CDC. Look at Nevada, wtf!

Direckshun
04-18-2011, 09:55 PM
So your solution is to make cheap food more expensive. LOL

Swing and a miss.

Chiefshrink
04-18-2011, 09:58 PM
I think it basically mirrors the obesity map:

http://www.treehugger.com/obesity-usa.jpg

The real question is "what's up with Montana?"

Nailed it:thumb:

SNR
04-18-2011, 10:10 PM
That's fair.

I'm arguing that 9 times out of 10, terrible-for-your-health food is going to be cheaper than relatively healthy food. Unhealthier lifestyles will be cheaper to live than healthy lifestyles. And in a less regulated society, the air is less healthy, the water is less healthy, less healthy products are cheaper and easier to access, and all of these things are going to have a cumulative effect that will lead to (a.) more expensive healthcare costs, and (b.) one imagines a higher mortality rate.I know what your argument is regarding a sin tax. But it doesn't exist (yet), so how can you argue that the results of something that doesn't exist have an effect on your map?

Direckshun
04-18-2011, 10:25 PM
I know what your argument is regarding a sin tax. But it doesn't exist (yet), so how can you argue that the results of something that doesn't exist have an effect on your map?

I was using it as an illustration that one of the two parties is willing to implement greater regulation in order to promote relatively healthier products and/or lifestyles.

SNR
04-18-2011, 10:40 PM
I was using it as an illustration that one of the two parties is willing to implement greater regulation in order to promote relatively healthier products and/or lifestyles.Then go ahead and implement the tax and show me the same map in 20 years.

Direckshun
04-19-2011, 12:21 AM
Then go ahead and implement the tax and show me the same map in 20 years.

...I think it's safe to say you're obsessing over one point of a broader argument.

One party is in favor of more involvement on behalf of government to encourage and promote healthier lifestyles. One party is in favor of government restraint.

The country's political map reflects those general orientations on the map in the OP.

Jaric
04-19-2011, 06:58 AM
Wow, so Direckshun was being serious in this thread.

blaise
04-19-2011, 07:04 AM
Wow, so Direckshun was being serious in this thread.

The map clearly shows that Democrats live healthier lifestyles. We should move forward with a variety of sin taxes and legislation.

Jaric
04-19-2011, 07:12 AM
The map clearly shows that Democrats live healthier lifestyles. We should move forward with a variety of sin taxes and legislation.
It appears so.

Although, I would think that democrats would be happy to see republicans dying at increased rates, that means they should have an easier time getting elected if all the right wingers are having fried chicken induced heart attacks.

Saul Good
04-19-2011, 07:43 AM
I was using it as an illustration that one of the two parties is willing to implement greater regulation in order to promote relatively healthier products and/or lifestyles.

In other words, swing and a miss.

Donger
04-19-2011, 07:54 AM
I was using it as an illustration that one of the two parties is willing to implement greater regulation in order to promote relatively healthier products and/or lifestyles.

It's kind of scary that anyone thinks that that should be the role of the federal government (or any government).

Direckshun
04-19-2011, 11:44 AM
It's kind of scary that anyone thinks that that should be the role of the federal government (or any government).

Are you on board with food inspection?

Greater cigarrette taxes?

Attempts by the government to attempt to mitigate disasterous health insurance rates?

Medicare?

Medicaid?

The CDC?

Widespread vaccination upon birth?

These are all efforts by the federal government to promote potentially healthier lifestyles. Not exactly the stuff of nightmares, as you suggest.

Donger
04-19-2011, 11:49 AM
Are you on board with food inspection?

Greater cigarrette taxes?

Attempts by the government to attempt to mitigate disasterous health insurance rates?

Medicare?

Medicaid?

The CDC?

Widespread vaccination upon birth?

These are all efforts by the federal government to promote potentially healthier lifestyles. Not exactly the stuff of nightmares, as you suggest.

Other than food inspection and the CDC, no, not really.

Direckshun
04-19-2011, 11:58 AM
Other than food inspection and the CDC, no, not really.

Good luck with all that.

vailpass
04-19-2011, 12:00 PM
Good luck with all that.

We're working on it.

Donger
04-19-2011, 12:00 PM
Good luck with all that.

Thanks.

AustinChief
04-19-2011, 12:01 PM
Are you on board with food inspection?

Greater cigarrette taxes?

Attempts by the government to attempt to mitigate disasterous health insurance rates?

Medicare?

Medicaid?

The CDC?

Widespread vaccination upon birth?

These are all efforts by the federal government to promote potentially healthier lifestyles. Not exactly the stuff of nightmares, as you suggest.

There are MASSIVE differences between the above (excepting possibly cigarette taxes) and attempting to regulate food choice.

Do you honestly think it is the government's place to FORCE a healthy lifestyle on a populous through the use of taxes and regulation?

JESUS FUCKING CHRIST MAN.

I am all for giving the consumer the TOOLS needed to be healthy. Things like proper food labeling, healthy school lunches and etc... but TALKING AWAY THEIR CHOICE is beyond wrong.

How do you justify it? It's ok to control people for the "greater good"? Those poor people don't know any better and it's YOUR job to tell them what's best for them? You don't want to have to pay for their medical expenses, so it's a practical economic issue? (which btw is a COMPLETE lie, a fat person that dies from a heart attack doesn't cost the medical establishment much at all)

IF that is seriously what you believe, than you can go straight to hell. It's about the most UN-American way of thinking there is.

Direckshun
04-19-2011, 12:04 PM
There are MASSIVE differences between the above (excepting possibly cigarette taxes) and attempting to regulate food choice.

Immaterial.

Donger's argument was that he believed it was "scary" for the federal government to promote healthier lifestyles.

When even he himself admits that he agrees with programs the government funds to do just that.

Do you honestly think it is the government's place to FORCE a healthy lifestyle on a populous through the use of taxes and regulation?

I've never advocated illegalizing anything in this thread. I'm not advocating forcing anything on anybody. It's all choice.

IF that is seriously what you believe, than you can go straight to hell.

You are adorable.

ClevelandBronco
04-19-2011, 12:07 PM
As long as my participation in a health insurance pool is entirely voluntary, I'll be happy to let everyone enjoy his set of choices. However, as soon as the government mandates my participation, I get a say in what you eat, what you smoke and who you fuck.

Donger
04-19-2011, 12:07 PM
Donger's argument was that he believed it was "scary" for the federal government to promote healthier lifestyles.

No, it isn't. I said it's scary that anyone thinks that that should be the role of the federal government (or any government). You seem to be implying that you are in favor of the government telling you what you can and cannot eat.

Is that correct?

Donger
04-19-2011, 12:08 PM
I've never advocated illegalizing anything in this thread. I'm not advocating forcing anything on anybody. It's all choice.


Great! So, where is the opt-out check box on my not being forced to pay for Medicaid and Medicare?

AustinChief
04-19-2011, 12:11 PM
You are adorable.
I know!

Well, I'm glad to hear you aren't that far gone and you were just responding to Donger. I do know some idiots that honestly believe that is the role of government. I have NO PROBLEM with the government promoting a healthy lifestyle by giving the consumer the tools they need to DECIDE FOR THEMSELVES. That is where it should stop though. Just like offering vaccinations is fine, forcing them upon people is not.

mlyonsd
04-19-2011, 12:46 PM
Maybe this helps explain it....
http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=244108

patteeu
04-19-2011, 12:51 PM
Maybe this helps explain it....
http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=244108

LMAO

Saul Good
04-19-2011, 01:45 PM
Other than food inspection and the CDC, no, not really.

How do Medicare and Medicaid promote healthy lifestyles? That's like saying that public funding of abortion promotes safe sex.

In other words, providing treatment of the symptom does not prevent the contraction of that which caused the symptom. If anything, it creates a morale hazard.

Donger
04-19-2011, 01:47 PM
How do Medicare and Medicaid promote healthy lifestyles? That's like saying that public funding of abortion promotes safe sex.

In other words, providing treatment of the symptom does not prevent the contraction of that which caused the symptom. If anything, it creates a morale hazard.

I would imagine that Direckshun would argue that having access to health services is directly related to having a healthy lifestyle.

Dave Lane
04-19-2011, 01:56 PM
Kinda where the uptight, fatass, republicans live. That can't be good for your health.

Saul Good
04-19-2011, 02:34 PM
I would imagine that Direckshun would argue that having access to health services is directly related to having a healthy lifestyle.

I would argue that it does the opposite. If I had a pill that would make me thin, I would eat whatever tasted good.

Access to health services makes people healthier, but it doesn't encourage them to lead healthier lifestyles. Being responsible for the cost of 100% of your own doctor visits makes you more likely to make lifestyle changes than you would if you know that you can get treated on someone else's dime.

vailpass
04-19-2011, 04:40 PM
Kinda where the uptight, fatass, republicans live. That can't be good for your health.

Living among Republicans certainly wouldn't be good for your health Loon.

Rain Man
04-19-2011, 07:52 PM
Has anyone mentioned yet that there must be some nasty stuff floating down the Mississippi River?

patteeu
04-19-2011, 07:59 PM
Has anyone mentioned yet that there must be some nasty stuff floating down the Mississippi River?

Good call. The origin might be somewhere on the Ohio River. I'm thinking the Ben Rothlisberger or those fools with the terrible towels might have something to do with this.

listopencil
04-19-2011, 08:04 PM
There are MASSIVE differences between the above (excepting possibly cigarette taxes) and attempting to regulate food choice.

Do you honestly think it is the government's place to FORCE a healthy lifestyle on a populous through the use of taxes and regulation?

JESUS ****ING CHRIST MAN.

I am all for giving the consumer the TOOLS needed to be healthy. Things like proper food labeling, healthy school lunches and etc... but TALKING AWAY THEIR CHOICE is beyond wrong.

How do you justify it? It's ok to control people for the "greater good"? Those poor people don't know any better and it's YOUR job to tell them what's best for them? You don't want to have to pay for their medical expenses, so it's a practical economic issue? (which btw is a COMPLETE lie, a fat person that dies from a heart attack doesn't cost the medical establishment much at all)

IF that is seriously what you believe, than you can go straight to hell. It's about the most UN-American way of thinking there is.











/thread

Rain Man
04-19-2011, 08:10 PM
Check out these maps of smoking incidence.

http://sae.cancer.gov/estimates/statemaps/female_current.html


Edit: that's just female rates, but it's probably similar for the whole population.

Jaric
04-19-2011, 08:11 PM
Check out these maps of smoking incidence.

http://sae.cancer.gov/estimates/statemaps/female_current.html

I'm so glad I quit.

Rain Man
04-19-2011, 08:12 PM
Good call. The origin might be somewhere on the Ohio River. I'm thinking the Ben Rothlisberger or those fools with the terrible towels might have something to do with this.

Yeah, it looks pretty obvious that once the Ohio River gets past Pittsburgh, death rates go up. Those steel mills are doing something that no one knows about.

orange
04-19-2011, 08:17 PM
Check out these maps of smoking incidence.

http://sae.cancer.gov/estimates/statemaps/female_current.html


Edit: that's just female rates, but it's probably similar for the whole population.

You can type "male" into the url and it's even more suggestive.

Fat and smoking - no way to live a long life.

[edit] "both" does the trick http://sae.cancer.gov/estimates/statemaps/both_current.html

Saul Good
04-19-2011, 08:19 PM
You can type "male" into the url and it's even more suggestive.

Fat and smoking - no way to live a long life.

Fat, drunk, and stupid is no way to go through life.

Rain Man
04-19-2011, 08:29 PM
You can type "male" into the url and it's even more suggestive.

Fat and smoking - no way to live a long life.

[edit] "both" does the trick http://sae.cancer.gov/estimates/statemaps/both_current.html

If I was a smoker, these two maps would make me quit. That can't be a coincidence.

CrazyPhuD
04-19-2011, 09:04 PM
There are MASSIVE differences between the above (excepting possibly cigarette taxes) and attempting to regulate food choice.

Do you honestly think it is the government's place to FORCE a healthy lifestyle on a populous through the use of taxes and regulation?

JESUS FUCKING CHRIST MAN.

I am all for giving the consumer the TOOLS needed to be healthy. Things like proper food labeling, healthy school lunches and etc... but TALKING AWAY THEIR CHOICE is beyond wrong.

How do you justify it? It's ok to control people for the "greater good"? Those poor people don't know any better and it's YOUR job to tell them what's best for them? You don't want to have to pay for their medical expenses, so it's a practical economic issue? (which btw is a COMPLETE lie, a fat person that dies from a heart attack doesn't cost the medical establishment much at all)

IF that is seriously what you believe, than you can go straight to hell. It's about the most UN-American way of thinking there is.

Well regulation and telling people what to do IS unamerican, but then again so is having me pay for someone else. The question is what is more unamerican. If we had a health care system where you paid for you health costs and risks were not spread among the populous then 110% I am supportive of the government staying out. But the simple fact is we do not, if you are fat and unhealthy then I will be paying for you, both through higher insurance costs and through higher taxes to support medicare. It is pretty clear science that the more overweight you are the greater chance you are to develop type II diabetes and if you develop that your health care costs can skyrocket.

The is why if you have diabetes and you try to buy insurance on your own you will find rates substantially higher than if you didn't. That's because your risk of developing major illness and expense is much higher. But that cost is masked to most people because they get insurance through their employer or the gov. However we all still pay for those extra costs. It even extends beyond just health care too. The more you weight, the more fuel that is used when flying, as america gets fatter on average our fuel costs for flying will go up. Are we going to weigh everyone before they get on a plane and charge them for the fuel that contribute to? Realistically we probably should but I have a feeling most people wouldn't tolerate that. SO as a result those that are below the median weight are subsidizing those that are above it.

I believe in the right to do whatever the hell you want....so long as you don't shit on me..then it's time for a third party to step in and arbitrate. That's the problem with obesity, everyone is so quick to call it a personal issue but the reality is obesity raises costs for everyone and that isn't fair to those who subsidize them.

That's why to some degree the taxes on cigarettes and alcohol are nearly ideal. Both of those behaviors have clear health effects and it would be hard to charge people more because they will lie. BUT by placing a tax on the product you can recover health costs based upon consumption. If you want to smoke fine, you will be paying for the additional health costs through taxes on cigarettes.

Realistically we likely do need to increase taxes on those products that are likely to contribute to the negative health impacts. Don't ban them, but do tax them so that the additional costs incurred by obesity can be paid for by those that create the problem. Not by everyone else.

Direckshun
04-19-2011, 09:07 PM
You seem to be implying that you are in favor of the government telling you what you can and cannot eat.

Swing and a miss.

But I have no bones with it allowing it to tilt the scales in favor of healthier food.

Direckshun
04-19-2011, 09:08 PM
Great! So, where is the opt-out check box on my not being forced to pay for Medicaid and Medicare?

I was talking about food pricing.

But I have no doubt that if you could make all taxes voluntary, you would.

Direckshun
04-19-2011, 09:09 PM
I have NO PROBLEM with the government promoting a healthy lifestyle by giving the consumer the tools they need to DECIDE FOR THEMSELVES. That is where it should stop though. Just like offering vaccinations is fine, forcing them upon people is not.

That's fair.

Direckshun
04-19-2011, 09:10 PM
How do Medicare and Medicaid promote healthy lifestyles?

I would imagine that Direckshun would argue that having access to health services is directly related to having a healthy lifestyle.

Yup.

Direckshun
04-19-2011, 09:10 PM
Access to health services makes people healthier, but it doesn't encourage them to lead healthier lifestyles.

Also true.

stevieray
04-19-2011, 09:12 PM
save us defleckshun. take our wiffle bats and waffles away. That would REALLY show how much you care about saving people from themselves.

Jaric
04-20-2011, 06:43 AM
save us defleckshun. take our wiffle bats and waffles away. That would REALLY show how much you care about saving people from themselves.

It will be a cold day in hell before Direckshun takes away MY waffles.

:shake:

chiefsnorth
04-20-2011, 07:17 AM
I see. This is one of those threads created to generically say that people who disagree with you are stupid.

Donger
04-20-2011, 08:35 AM
I was talking about food pricing.

But I have no doubt that if you could make all taxes voluntary, you would.

You brought up Medicare and Medicaid. So, can I opt out of paying for those or not?

Direckshun
04-20-2011, 01:25 PM
You brought up Medicare and Medicaid.

Yes, but you quoted me talking about food pricing, then assumed I would simply apply that to Medicare and Medicaid.