Before leaving on a family vacation to Mane this weekend President Obama appointed Sam Kass (his private chef from Chicago) as Health & Food Czar.
Do we really need a health and food Czar?
I'm thinking there could be some more important uses for the money going to this new bureaucratic post.
Michelle flies this guy in from Chicago to cook for special occasions and state dinners. I guess she probably wanted him close by. Who knows?
Czar is fitting for our rapid conversion to totalitarianism.
I wonder who the new Housekeeping Czar will be?
From the New York Times: (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/04/dining/04kass.html)
"TWICE a month, President Obama's senior policy advisers gather at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building to hash out strategies for improving the health of the country's children. Among the assistant secretaries, chiefs of staff and senior aides sits an unlikely participant: a bald, intense young man who happens to be the newest White House chef.
His name is Sam Kass. And when he's not grilling fish for the first family or tending tomatillos in the White House garden, he is pondering the details of child nutrition legislation, funding streams for the school lunch program and the best tactics to fight childhood obesity."
snip
"Mr. Kass, 29, forged a close bond with the Obamas while cooking for them and their children for about two years before they moved to Washington and has golfed with the president on Martha's Vineyard. Behind the scenes, he attends briefings on child nutrition and health, has vetted nonprofits as potential partners for White House food initiatives and regularly peppers senior staff about policy matters. ("Do we have a toxicologist who specializes in colony collapse disorder?" Mr. Kass asked in a recent e-mail message about the Department of Agriculture's position on honey bees, Ms. Merrigan recalled.)
For some former White House officials, this is nothing short of astonishing. Walter Scheib, the executive White House chef during the Clinton and Bush administrations, called Mr. Kass's involvement in public policy unique."
So he's an ex-chef (used to work at Avec in CHI), has been with the Obama's for quite a while, and works primarily with the First Lady, whose signature cause is childhood obesity. (http://www.letsmove.gov/)
Sounds ominous.
Sounds ridiculous.
Quote from: Gaspar on July 16, 2010, 01:28:00 PM
Sounds ridiculous.
Wait till he goes after Brewburger.
Quote from: dbacks fan on July 16, 2010, 01:32:51 PM
Wait till he goes after Brewburger.
Now that was funny...
Is Kass Jewish.....
Quote from: Breadburner on July 16, 2010, 03:59:07 PM
Is Kass Jewish.....
Dunno, I haven't seen his schwantz
Quote from: Conan71 on July 16, 2010, 04:00:14 PM
Dunno, I haven't seen his schwantz
Dont show him yours...He might put a warning label on it.....
Quote from: Gaspar on July 16, 2010, 11:06:49 AM
I'm thinking there could be some more important uses for the money going to this new bureaucratic post.
President Bush appointed 31 czars...
They included for the first time:
Foreign Aid Czar
Bioethics Czar
Bird Flu Czar
Birth Control Czar
Cleanup Czar
Cyber Security Czar
Faith-Based Czar
Intelligence Czar
Reading Czar
Weatherization Czar
Quote from: RecycleMichael on July 16, 2010, 06:30:48 PM
President Bush appointed 31 czars...
They included for the first time:
Foreign Aid Czar
Bioethics Czar
Bird Flu Czar
Birth Control Czar
Cleanup Czar
Cyber Security Czar
Faith-Based Czar
Intelligence Czar
Reading Czar
Weatherization Czar
I always find it so incredibly funny that the righties start all the hand-wringing with regards to 'Czars', but forget who made the most use of them...
Quote from: RecycleMichael on July 16, 2010, 06:30:48 PM
President Bush appointed 31 czars...
They included for the first time:
Foreign Aid Czar
Bioethics Czar
Bird Flu Czar
Birth Control Czar
Cleanup Czar
Cyber Security Czar
Faith-Based Czar
Intelligence Czar
Reading Czar
Weatherization Czar
So, RM, have they asked you to be the Recycling Czar? ;)
Quote from: Hoss on July 16, 2010, 07:42:23 PM
I always find it so incredibly funny that the righties start all the hand-wringing with regards to 'Czars', but forget who made the most use of them...
Who started that idiotic naming convention anyway?
Quote from: nathanm on July 16, 2010, 09:00:15 PM
Who started that idiotic naming convention anyway?
George H. W. Bush with the appointment of William Bennett,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Bennett (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Bennett)
But it traces back to Ron and Nancy
"In 1980, Ronald Reagan shifted responsibility for the anti-drug effort from the health department to the Department of Justice. "I would say that this is the most intense federal effort ever against drugs," said Associate Attorney General Rudolph Giuliani, who oversaw the D.E.A. and the Bureau of Prisons and who orchestrated expansion of the F.B.I. into drug enforcement. Senator Joe Biden began advocating for a Cabinet-level position to coordinate federal agencies—a "drug czar." So began the era of "zero tolerance." Reagan's presidency reversed his predecessors' drug-control policies, and funding for law enforcement rose to three times that for abuse-prevention and treatment programs."
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2009/7/30/22126/5103 (http://www.talkleft.com/story/2009/7/30/22126/5103)
Sorry my bad, Nixon:
"Political and popular demands for appointments of a czar routinely stem from fundamental defects or contradictions in underlying federal laws. The first modern-era American "czar" was Energy Czar John Love, appointed by President Nixon in 1973 during the gas crisis, followed by other energy czars appointed by presidents Ford and Carter. Yet, while the appointment of an energy czar consoled some people sitting in gas lines, the fundamental cause of the energy shortages -- federal price controls and other restrictions -- were kept in place until Ronald Reagan took office in 1981. "
http://www.fff.org/comment/ed0900e.asp (http://www.fff.org/comment/ed0900e.asp)
Quote from: RecycleMichael on July 16, 2010, 06:30:48 PM
President Bush appointed 31 czars...
They included for the first time:
Foreign Aid Czar
Bioethics Czar
Bird Flu Czar
Birth Control Czar
Cleanup Czar
Cyber Security Czar
Faith-Based Czar
Intelligence Czar
Reading Czar
Weatherization Czar
Actually it started with Regan I believe.
FDR appointed the first people with the nickname "Czar" back in 1941.
The first were:
Czar of Censorship
Transportation Czar
Price Czar
Oil Czar
There are no real titles of Czar, just a term for political purposes.
Just found it very interesting, especially with our discusson of the new food Czar. From Quick Service Restaurant Magazine.
http://www.qsrweb.com/blog/4865/A-Leg-Up-on-Legislation
How to keep your brand one step ahead of the law.
Now and then an irate Ayatollah or North Korea's Dear Leader issues a statement against depraved Western influences that threaten order and decorum. Over breakfast, we hear about the new Silly Bandz fatwa and think, "Yikes! When are these peoples' governments not all up in their lives?" We thank heaven we aren't living there as we bite into a trans fat-free, cage-free, reduced-salt breakfast sandwich, which we wash down with eco friendly-packaged, non-fructose orange juice (grand total: 440 calories, 59 carbs, 710mg sodium, 16g fat, 180mg cholesterol, 13g protein, 35g sugar).
Those involved with the restaurant sector may also pause to wonder, "Geez, when is our government going to stop getting all up in our menus?"
The answer, dear reader, is "Never." So best figure out early how to deal with watchdog regulation and its brand implications.
Today would not be too soon to start. The decibel level is climbing as elected officials and consumer groups voice their dismay over obesity, rising health costs and factory farming ... and lay the blame on "Big Food" — the QSR chains and processed food companies with the highest visibility. As McDonald's recently found out, proposed changes — i.e., a threatened lawsuit to make the company stop giving out Happy Meal toys — can jeopardize the very features that distinguish and differentiate a brand.
So, how can Not-So-Big Food shield itself from the fallout of Big Food-aimed legislation?
Quote from: Gaspar on July 19, 2010, 02:42:04 PM
Just found it very interesting, especially with our discusson of the new food Czar. From Quick Service Restaurant Magazine.
http://www.qsrweb.com/blog/4865/A-Leg-Up-on-Legislation
How to keep your brand one step ahead of the law.
Now and then an irate Ayatollah or North Korea's Dear Leader issues a statement against depraved Western influences that threaten order and decorum. Over breakfast, we hear about the new Silly Bandz fatwa and think, "Yikes! When are these peoples' governments not all up in their lives?" We thank heaven we aren't living there as we bite into a trans fat-free, cage-free, reduced-salt breakfast sandwich, which we wash down with eco friendly-packaged, non-fructose orange juice (grand total: 440 calories, 59 carbs, 710mg sodium, 16g fat, 180mg cholesterol, 13g protein, 35g sugar).
Those involved with the restaurant sector may also pause to wonder, "Geez, when is our government going to stop getting all up in our menus?"
The answer, dear reader, is "Never." So best figure out early how to deal with watchdog regulation and its brand implications.
Today would not be too soon to start. The decibel level is climbing as elected officials and consumer groups voice their dismay over obesity, rising health costs and factory farming ... and lay the blame on "Big Food" — the QSR chains and processed food companies with the highest visibility. As McDonald's recently found out, proposed changes — i.e., a threatened lawsuit to make the company stop giving out Happy Meal toys — can jeopardize the very features that distinguish and differentiate a brand.
So, how can Not-So-Big Food shield itself from the fallout of Big Food-aimed legislation?
It's good to know that every industry squawks about how it's being unfairly regulated. Or
might be unfairly regulated. Or at some point regulators might start to unfairly regulate it if they were to regulate more strictly. Specifically under a Democratic President, because, holy crap, they're TOTALLY anti-business, you know?
In other words:
(http://elvis-pelt.com/wambulance.jpg)
I don't think they're anti-business. They just feel like they need to impose control over the market. It's a power thing.
The market is injustice. Business is injustice. Why? Because those with more get more, and those with less get less. The message of business is "buy", "buy". The goal of business is profit.
In business, profit and product quality are a balance. A Big Mac is cheap, it's made of cheap crap. It will make you fat. Therefore to the left, it is injustice, because you are too stupid to make your own decisions, they will make them for you. This is how it starts.
In the end, you are getting pulled over in your convertible for having the top down because the new UV regulations require you to wear SPF 56 or keep the top up on your car. The government is responsible for your health. It is in their best interest to regulate your freedom.
It's for your health. It's to keep you safe. It's for your own good.
For your own good" is a persuasive argument that will eventually make a man agree to his own destruction. – Janet Frame, Faces In The Water, 1982
Quote from: Gaspar on July 19, 2010, 03:50:52 PM
I don't think they're anti-business. They just feel like they need to impose control over the market. It's a power thing.
The market is injustice. Business is injustice. Why? Because those with more get more, and those with less get less. The message of business is "buy", "buy". The goal of business is profit.
In business, profit and product quality are a balance. A Big Mac is cheap, it's made of cheap crap. It will make you fat. Therefore to the left, it is injustice, because you are too stupid to make your own decisions, they will make them for you. This is how it starts.
In the end, you are getting pulled over in your convertible for having the top down because the new UV regulations require you to wear SPF 56 or keep the top up on your car. The government is responsible for your health. It is in their best interest to regulate your freedom.
It's for your health. It's to keep you safe. It's for your own good.
For your own good" is a persuasive argument that will eventually make a man agree to his own destruction. – Janet Frame, Faces In The Water, 1982
Except the tax payers pick up the bill if you are on medicaid for your skin cancer from not wearing sun screen. Thanks to Bush's reforms now the Gov. is the first payer.
"Don't cut Medicare. The reform bills passed by the House and Senate cut Medicare by approximately $500 billion. This is wrong. " - Newt Gingrich http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704820904575055190217079952.html?mod=rss_Today%27s_Most_Popular (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704820904575055190217079952.html?mod=rss_Today%27s_Most_Popular)
Quote from: Trogdor on July 19, 2010, 03:58:33 PM
Except the tax payers pick up the bill if you are on medicaid for your skin cancer from not wearing sun screen. Thanks to Bush's reforms now the Gov. is the first payer.
"Don't cut Medicare. The reform bills passed by the House and Senate cut Medicare by approximately $500 billion. This is wrong. " - Newt Gingrich http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704820904575055190217079952.html?mod=rss_Today%27s_Most_Popular (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704820904575055190217079952.html?mod=rss_Today%27s_Most_Popular)
Good points. don't care about Bush. Don't care about Newt.
You see, the result of regulations and taxes is always more layers of regulations and taxes. No matter who's team is doing it. Regulation must be minimized, not built on. Don't tell me what to eat or when to poop. Let me make good decisions and bad decisions. Don't make a bacon cheese burger contraband.
Precisely the reason I'm trying to practice proactive health care by watching what I eat and by getting adequate exercize.
Quote from: Gaspar on July 19, 2010, 04:18:41 PM
Don't make a bacon cheese burger contraband.
Is someone trying to do that? Or are they merely attempting to balance out the immense power of advertising wielded by the likes of McDonald's (which I do occasionally eat at, thanks) by helping consumers be better informed.
Not that I think it's at all a bad thing to tax the smile out of junk food. Nobody should be allowed to externalize their costs, whether it be McDonald's, a power company, an oil company, a construction company, or anybody else. Market prices should reflect the entire cost, otherwise the market is distorted.
That's something big-L Libertarians don't get. The folks running big business are happy to distort the market, and apparently that's OK. But when government attempts to fix the distortion, whether by making sure people are more fully informed, through taxes to recoup the costs of production borne by society at large, or through regulation attempting to prevent companies from doing that in the first place, that's never OK.
As a great example, look at sprawl. Developers are often subsidized by government-paid-for infrastructure expansions to reach these far away places, thus allowing them to make more money while charging less for the end product. The artificially low price induces people to live out in sprawlsville.
Quote from: nathanm on July 19, 2010, 06:31:08 PM
Is someone trying to do that? Or are they merely attempting to balance out the immense power of advertising wielded by the likes of McDonald's (which I do occasionally eat at, thanks) by helping consumers be better informed.
Not that I think it's at all a bad thing to tax the smile out of junk food. Nobody should be allowed to externalize their costs, whether it be McDonald's, a power company, an oil company, a construction company, or anybody else. Market prices should reflect the entire cost, otherwise the market is distorted.
That's something big-L Libertarians don't get. The folks running big business are happy to distort the market, and apparently that's OK. But when government attempts to fix the distortion, whether by making sure people are more fully informed, through taxes to recoup the costs of production borne by society at large, or through regulation attempting to prevent companies from doing that in the first place, that's never OK.
As a great example, look at sprawl. Developers are often subsidized by government-paid-for infrastructure expansions to reach these far away places, thus allowing them to make more money while charging less for the end product. The artificially low price induces people to live out in sprawlsville.
Stop subsidizing people's health and then you don't need to control their lives.
Education is the tool that people need, not control.
I love a cheap buffet, but I don't eat Golden Corral every day because I know better. In New York there is actually legislation to remove salt shakers from restaurant tables. So rather than persuading the public to eat healthier through education and example, legislators choose to simply reduce freedom. Why? Force is easy and it is the primary tool of the liberal establishment.
The triumph of persuasion over force is the sign of a civilized society. – Mark Skousen
Quote from: Gaspar on July 20, 2010, 07:38:07 AM
Stop subsidizing people's health and then you don't need to control their lives.
Education is the tool that people need, not control.
I love a cheap buffet, but I don't eat Golden Corral every day because I know better. In New York there is actually legislation to remove salt shakers from restaurant tables. So rather than persuading the public to eat healthier through education and example, legislators choose to simply reduce freedom. Why? Force is easy and it is the primary tool of the liberal establishment.
The triumph of persuasion over force is the sign of a civilized society. – Mark Skousen
Do you know the salt content of the food you eat every day?
Do you know the sugar content?
Quote from: Gaspar on July 20, 2010, 07:38:07 AM
Stop subsidizing people's health and then you don't need to control their lives.
Education is the tool that people need, not control.
Yet the same people, by and large, who complain about "control" also complain when we try to force restaurants to post nutrition information regarding their food. In any event, you missed my point entirely. Way to go.
Quote from: we vs us on July 20, 2010, 08:45:04 AM
Do you know the salt content of the food you eat every day?
Do you know the sugar content?
Most of the time, but not always. Is it the government's responsibility to tell me how much I can have?
I don't know how much UV I get from the sun every day. I don't know a lot of things about what I encounter in my environment every day. Do I want the government to step in and increasingly regulate everything that surrounds me?
Not really. Why? Because it cripples me as much as it protects me.
I eat very healthy. Sometimes I want a rack of ribs (basted with 3 Guys Smokin' Smokin' Razz award winning BBQ sauce available at your local Reasor's Store) and a bag of salty salty potato chips. Not every day, but sometimes. I don't want anyone to tell me "no, you can't have that, because it's not good for you."
I want my government to treat me like an adult. A free adult.
Quote from: nathanm on July 19, 2010, 06:31:08 PM
Not that I think it's at all a bad thing to tax the smile out of junk food. Nobody should be allowed to externalize their costs, whether it be McDonald's, a power company, an oil company, a construction company, or anybody else. Market prices should reflect the entire cost, otherwise the market is distorted.
I'm missing something here. What costs is McDonalds externalizing? You mean they should be responsible to pay for people's angioplasty because common sense told those people junk food is, well, junk and they didn't heed that common sense?
Please explain...
Quote from: Gaspar on July 20, 2010, 09:18:50 AM
Most of the time, but not always. Is it the government's responsibility to tell me how much I can have?
No, but it would be good if it could tell you how much you're having.
Quote from: we vs us on July 20, 2010, 10:09:12 AM
No, but it would be good if it could tell you how much you're having.
Yes, but they do not stop there. That's the problem. When they see that people continue to drink Coke despite it's caloric content, they push to regulate or ban.
I don't mind knowing how much salt is in my potato chips.
Don't take my money and use it to tell me what I can and cannot do.
The highwayman takes solely upon himself the responsibility, danger, and crime of his own act. He does not pretend that he has any rightful claim to your money, or that he intends to use it for your own benefit ... Furthermore, having taken your money, he leaves you, as you wish him to do ... He does not keep "protecting" you by commanding you to bow down and serve him; by requiring you to do this, and forbidding you to do that. – Lysander Spooner
Quote from: Conan71 on July 20, 2010, 09:57:40 AM
I'm missing something here. What costs is McDonalds externalizing? You mean they should be responsible to pay for people's angioplasty because common sense told those people junk food is, well, junk and they didn't heed that common sense?
Well, let's start with the effects of cutting down rainforests to graze cattle. That has a significant environmental cost that they don't pay for.
And yes, the health effects of their salty and fatty food is also an externalized cost. We're paying for it through Medicaid.
People are kinda dumb. That's why capitalism works so well for us. It allows everything to be boiled down to a number: the price. If the price of eating McDonald's reflected the entire cost of eating that burger, people might make better choices. Or maybe not, but at least their bad choices would be paid for.
A better example is leather. Leather tanned in China is much, much cheaper than leather tanned in the US or Europe. This is due to the extremely lax environmental regulations in China allowing the tanners to externalize their costs by dumping pollutants rather than treating them properly. For capitalism to work, the price of a good must reflect its cost. Anything else is a distortion of the market.
Quote from: nathanm on July 20, 2010, 10:30:28 AM
People are kinda dumb. That's why capitalism works so well for us.
I love you man. You ooze liberalism. ;D
Quote from: Gaspar on July 20, 2010, 10:48:35 AM
I love you man. You ooze liberalism. ;D
I love you too, bro. :o
Quote from: we vs us on July 20, 2010, 10:09:12 AM
No, but it would be good if it could tell you how much you're having.
No one is saying that making the information available is a bad thing, just don't shove your idea's of how I should live my life down my throat on the premise that "it's for my own good". An example outside of the food are saftey sheets required by an employer that keeps any kind of chemical. They are required to have them available for anyone who would come in contact with them, yet they are not required to force people to read the safety sheets or restrict them from having the chemicals (well, in general, but then we get into regulating for reasons of public safety, not the individual, differant scenario). Nutrition should be done in the same way. Make it available.
Quote from: nathanm on July 20, 2010, 10:30:28 AM
Well, let's start with the effects of cutting down rainforests to graze cattle. That has a significant environmental cost that they don't pay for.
And yes, the health effects of their salty and fatty food is also an externalized cost. We're paying for it through Medicaid.
People are kinda dumb. That's why capitalism works so well for us. It allows everything to be boiled down to a number: the price. If the price of eating McDonald's reflected the entire cost of eating that burger, people might make better choices. Or maybe not, but at least their bad choices would be paid for.
A better example is leather. Leather tanned in China is much, much cheaper than leather tanned in the US or Europe. This is due to the extremely lax environmental regulations in China allowing the tanners to externalize their costs by dumping pollutants rather than treating them properly. For capitalism to work, the price of a good must reflect its cost. Anything else is a distortion of the market.
Wow, has McDonalds been cutting down rain forests in Iowa, Kansas, & Nebraska again?
I guess it's sort of like those carbon credits we need to buy to truly pay for the cost of our vehicles and for every airline ticket we buy, eh? You being a good citizen and buying yours Nathan?
You've obviously fallen prey to the idea that all these new taxes are simply nothing more than making responsible people and companies pay their fair share instead of realizing it's nothing more than additional financing for irresponsible government.
Quote from: Conan71 on July 20, 2010, 11:45:31 AM
Wow, has McDonalds been cutting down rain forests in Iowa, Kansas, & Nebraska again?
I guess it's sort of like those carbon credits we need to buy to truly pay for the cost of our vehicles and for every airline ticket we buy, eh? You being a good citizen and buying yours Nathan?
You've obviously fallen prey to the idea that all these new taxes are simply nothing more than making responsible people and companies pay their fair share instead of realizing it's nothing more than additional financing for irresponsible government.
Also, wasn't he all for the government taking over health care, and now he is bitching about people having to use it?
Quote from: Conan71 on July 20, 2010, 11:45:31 AM
Wow, has McDonalds been cutting down rain forests in Iowa, Kansas, & Nebraska again?
I guess it's sort of like those carbon credits we need to buy to truly pay for the cost of our vehicles and for every airline ticket we buy, eh? You being a good citizen and buying yours Nathan?
You've obviously fallen prey to the idea that all these new taxes are simply nothing more than making responsible people and companies pay their fair share instead of realizing it's nothing more than additional financing for irresponsible government.
McDonald's gets much of its meat from Brazil. (or did, maybe they've stopped by now)
I don't get why you refuse to see my point and instead insist on harping about government. I don't really care how it is that external costs get priced into products, I just want to see it happen. It allows us to bring capitalism to bear on the problems facing us. Tax? Whatever, I'd hope we spend it on something useful. Regulations ensuring that companies clean up after themselves? That's fine, too. If you've got any other ideas about how to make sure we pay the true cost of our choices, I'd be interested to hear them.
I don't really see the need to bring conservative or liberal ideology to the table on this issue, as both are nonresponsive to the problem.
Quote from: custosnox on July 20, 2010, 11:35:54 AM
No one is saying that making the information available is a bad thing, just don't shove your idea's of how I should live my life down my throat on the premise that "it's for my own good". An example outside of the food are saftey sheets required by an employer that keeps any kind of chemical. They are required to have them available for anyone who would come in contact with them, yet they are not required to force people to read the safety sheets or restrict them from having the chemicals (well, in general, but then we get into regulating for reasons of public safety, not the individual, differant scenario). Nutrition should be done in the same way. Make it available.
By and large, that's what you currently have with nutrition: an imperfect system of ingredient disclosures that covers food in some places and manners of preparation but not in others. In any event, at least maybe we can agree that better information increases everyone's ability to make better choices.
But then what? Our country is getting fatter and unhealthier, despite the louder and louder calls for better health. Despite the better labelling, and the better science (transfats suddenly = waaay bad), our obesity rate is 30% or more in some states and rising.
So how to explain it? Either the information getting out is incomplete, or the use of the information is imperfect. But either way, the problem is increasing, not mitigating.
My question for my libertarian friends is, how do you address this from a policy standpoint? What more should we be doing? Assume that most people aren't as smart or as well-educated as you are. Also assume they just care less. Assume this not because it's true but because you have to generate policy to include the least of us, not just the best. How do we halt our slide into obesity and increase our health -- ALL of our health -- in the tried and true Libertarian way?
I suspect the answer is "educate to a point and then devil take the hindmost," but I'm hopeful there'll be more provide for the common good posted.
If I can get meta for a moment, I've found it interesting that our arguments here on the board have migrated over time to be almost exclusively about whether American capitalism does or doesn't function at this point in time. Even all the hurf-durf about the inefficiency of government is an argument about economics, not about political science.
I'm not sure why this is; whether it's because of the Recession, and because all politics are about economics at this point in time, or whether all of our institutions and our lives have finally, to a one, become profit driven. Either way, it's all about supply and demand and about how to restore it (regulate it/get yer mitts off it).
Quote from: nathanm on July 20, 2010, 12:42:17 PM
McDonald's gets much of its meat from Brazil. (or did, maybe they've stopped by now)
I don't get why you refuse to see my point and instead insist on harping about government. I don't really care how it is that external costs get priced into products, I just want to see it happen. It allows us to bring capitalism to bear on the problems facing us. Tax? Whatever, I'd hope we spend it on something useful. Regulations ensuring that companies clean up after themselves? That's fine, too. If you've got any other ideas about how to make sure we pay the true cost of our choices, I'd be interested to hear them.
I don't really see the need to bring conservative or liberal ideology to the table on this issue, as both are nonresponsive to the problem.
You brought up government in the first place by saying companies like McDonalds need to pay environmental costs (let's see just
who would they pay for those costs), and talking about the burden their food is on Medicaid (uh, that's run by the government, right?).
You've been Snoped. McDonalds imports grass-fed beef from Australia and New Zealand to suppliment American beef they buy. McDonalds cutting down rain forests is a perfect example of hyperbole which is used to justify more government intervention.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/mcdbeef.asp
Are you sure you really want the price of all your consumer goods to double? I think you would tire of it real quick if all the sudden you realized that your paycheck was buying about 1/2 of what it used to be able to buy. That also scotches the notion that others have made on here that consumers don't pay corporate taxes and that they ultimately don't pay the cost of regulatory compliance. Of course they do. Done right, you could keep reducing personal income tax and make up for it in consumption taxes and compliance costs. I find it humorous the libs on here keep talking about the biggest tax cuts in history while blatantly ignoring that government is either upping the ante in other areas to make up for it or proposing to up it.
Someone abusing a manufacturer's product shouldn't make it incumbent upon the manufacturer to remedy the situation. People want to exercize poor judgement then pursue the manufacturer to make them whole. I've not had to take any special government training to know that a diet high in high fructose corn syrup and saturated fats is bad for me. I haven't even had to look especially hard to find that information. If I eat at McDonalds every day I shouldn't expect to be as healthy in a year than if I simply make my own food at home where I personally regulate what additives go into the food.
However, if I want to splurge and go have a Big Mac, super-sized Dr. Pepper, and fries along with a sundae for dessert, that's on me, especially knowing there's little positive nutritional value in any of those choices. I don't buy the excuse that poor people don't have better, less expensive choices available. Bullshit. I can make a nutritionally balanced and filling meal using whole ingredients for three or four bucks. Less than a value meal. It doesn't even take me that long to make it.
I think you believe these are all really great solutions but I can only guess you've not been exposed directly to a lot of government red tape and regulation through your personal or professional life otherwise you might better understand my skepticism and cynicism. I'm also a huge believer in individual responsibility who is tired of everyone running to the government to solve all their problems and to protect them from their own compulsions.
There are areas where the government has proven useful (OSHA, USDA, EPA, etc) to an extent. But agencies I listed and ones like them have over-stepped in many ways and only served to over-regulate when it's not necessary. If you'd like to see first hand an example of over-regulation and unecessary regulation, I'd be happy to send you a copy of a job book for a government heating plant project. Funny part is, it's a retrofit to make up for the government not properly inspecting and ensuring they were getting what they paid for, so now they have to pay another $500K to make it right as the time to get the original vendors to make good has expired.
You will have to excuse my cynicism, it's not arbitrary, but rather well-earned. In my world, I work with government at all levels. I see the inefficiencies and I see how maddening it is to not be able to bid on a project when it represents the best overall value to the government (least cost, most efficient, lowest emissions, etc) because my company owner isn't the right racial make up, wrong gender, or not a veteran on a given project. I also see how much more the government gets charged because of ridiculous compliance issues and reporting which still does very little to stem fraud and make sure the government is getting what it pays for. I don't think government is entirely bad nor inherently evil. It simply has a hard time getting out of its own way at times and well-intentioned regulations wind up having unintended consequences.
Thanks for the correction regarding McDonald's beef source. It doesn't change my point at all. Once again, my point is simply that if the costs of a particular choice are priced into the product, it removes a distortion on the market and brings simple economics to bear on whatever previously externalized costs existed.
I'm not advocating any particular method of doing that, and increased Medicaid outlays was but one example of how McDonald's externalizes some of their cost. McDonald's isn't even my point, though. Substitute coal mines, if you prefer.
Price is something we all understand. With real costs priced in, however that may come to be, we will make better decisions.
Quote from: we vs us on July 20, 2010, 01:15:35 PM
By and large, that's what you currently have with nutrition: an imperfect system of ingredient disclosures that covers food in some places and manners of preparation but not in others. In any event, at least maybe we can agree that better information increases everyone's ability to make better choices.
But then what? Our country is getting fatter and unhealthier, despite the louder and louder calls for better health. Despite the better labelling, and the better science (transfats suddenly = waaay bad), our obesity rate is 30% or more in some states and rising.
So how to explain it? Either the information getting out is incomplete, or the use of the information is imperfect. But either way, the problem is increasing, not mitigating.
My question for my libertarian friends is, how do you address this from a policy standpoint? What more should we be doing? Assume that most people aren't as smart or as well-educated as you are. Also assume they just care less. Assume this not because it's true but because you have to generate policy to include the least of us, not just the best. How do we halt our slide into obesity and increase our health -- ALL of our health -- in the tried and true Libertarian way?
I suspect the answer is "educate to a point and then devil take the hindmost," but I'm hopeful there'll be more provide for the common good posted.
So it's the "common good" we are concerned with? Ah. . . That is where our true differences lie. Socialism, Communism,and Fascism base their philosophies on the "common good." It is the primary term in their lexicon. The qualifier behind their perceived benevolence.
I am more focused on individual freedom. The freedom to choose poorly is just as important as the freedom to choose well. "Common good" is dictated. It is at the heart of tyranny. It is the loss of choice.
Quote from: Gaspar on July 20, 2010, 01:40:10 PM
So it's the "common good" we are concerned with? Ah. . . That is where our true differences lie. Socialism, Communism,and Fascism base their philosophies on the "common good." It is the primary term in their lexicon. The qualifier behind their perceived benevolence.
I am more focused on individual freedom. The freedom to choose poorly is just as important as the freedom to choose well. "Common good" is dictated. It is at the heart of tyranny. It is the loss of choice.
Sigh. I'm not a socialist, a communist, or a fascist. And "common good," is, you know, in the good of the nation. It's one of those concepts that we ourselves pioneered.
Quote from: we vs us on July 20, 2010, 02:05:18 PM
Sigh. I'm not a socialist, a communist, or a fascist. And "common good," is, you know, in the good of the nation. It's one of those concepts that we ourselves pioneered.
I did not say you were. ;)
Quote from: we vs us on July 20, 2010, 02:05:18 PM
Sigh. I'm not a socialist, a communist, or a fascist. And "common good," is, you know, in the good of the nation. It's one of those concepts that we ourselves pioneered.
It's amazing what different person's views on certain phrases can relate to their ideological alignments.
Quote from: nathanm on July 20, 2010, 01:38:14 PM
Thanks for the correction regarding McDonald's beef source. It doesn't change my point at all. Once again, my point is simply that if the costs of a particular choice are priced into the product, it removes a distortion on the market and brings simple economics to bear on whatever previously externalized costs existed.
I'm not advocating any particular method of doing that, and increased Medicaid outlays was but one example of how McDonald's externalizes some of their cost. McDonald's isn't even my point, though. Substitute coal mines, if you prefer.
Price is something we all understand. With real costs priced in, however that may come to be, we will make better decisions.
Here's where you and I will continue to differ. You see the additional Medicaid outlays as being a result of McDonalds making a faulty product. I see the problem as the product being abused by individuals who can and do know better. Tobacco or alcohol used in moderation as well as prescription drugs all have useful benefits. Problem is: people abuse them from their intended benefit but I don't see how that is the fault nor the responsibility of McDonalds to pay the freight for their customer's carelessness.
Where do you stop such madness in regulation then? I can walk into Reasors and buy 20 cans of Pringles or 20 bags of Chips Ahoy, or 20 gallons of butter milk and eat like that every day until I've become 100 pounds overweight, diabetic, and have incipient heart disease. Should Reasor's make me whole? What about Borden Dairy for making such a high fat product like butter milk, or General Mills for making foods with HFCS and saturated fats?
Perhaps you've looked at the example of the smoking settlements with the feds and states. All that seems to have done is pass off individual rights on torts and transferred that money to states to administer smoking cessation and health programs. It's also raised the price of tobacco to the $4 to $5 a pack range, yet people still smoke. I thought this was supposed to be a deterrent to unhealthy behavior. I'd be curious to see how much of the taxes and settlement money have been spent specfically on smoking programs and whether or not people with lung cancer who cannot afford treatment are getting it as a result of such programs. If they are not, it helps prove my point that the government simply imposes fees on responsible parties to fund more irresponsible government.
Quote from: Conan71 on July 20, 2010, 02:10:15 PM
I can walk into Reasors and buy 20 bags of Chips Ahoy...
I wanted to be a Chippendale dancer...I turned out to be a Chips Ahoy dancer.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on July 20, 2010, 02:19:10 PM
I wanted to be a Chippendale dancer...I turned out to be a Chips Ahoy dancer.
Glad to see you are back to your funny old self again.
(http://www.bolgernow.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/chippendale-skit.JPG)
Quote from: Conan71 on July 20, 2010, 02:10:15 PM
Here's where you and I will continue to differ. You see the additional Medicaid outlays as being a result of McDonalds making a faulty product. I see the problem as the product being abused by individuals who can and do know better. Tobacco or alcohol used in moderation as well as prescription drugs all have useful benefits. Problem is: people abuse them from their intended benefit but I don't see how that is the fault nor the responsibility of McDonalds to pay the freight for their customer's carelessness.
Where do you stop such madness in regulation then? I can walk into Reasors and buy 20 cans of Pringles or 20 bags of Chips Ahoy, or 20 gallons of butter milk and eat like that every day until I've become 100 pounds overweight, diabetic, and have incipient heart disease. Should Reasor's make me whole? What about Borden Dairy for making such a high fat product like butter milk, or General Mills for making foods with HFCS and saturated fats?
Perhaps you've looked at the example of the smoking settlements with the feds and states. All that seems to have done is pass off individual rights on torts and transferred that money to states to administer smoking cessation and health programs. It's also raised the price of tobacco to the $4 to $5 a pack range, yet people still smoke. I thought this was supposed to be a deterrent to unhealthy behavior. I'd be curious to see how much of the taxes and settlement money have been spent specfically on smoking programs and whether or not people with lung cancer who cannot afford treatment are getting it as a result of such programs. If they are not, it helps prove my point that the government simply imposes fees on responsible parties to fund more irresponsible government.
You're getting hung up on implementation details. I'm just saying that, ideally, the price of any particular good or service would reflect
all its costs. Fault is irrelevant. I'm not attempting to lay blame. It doesn't matter whether McDonald's is eeevul for selling their "food," or if the consumers of said "food" are to blame. (I actually think the latter, insofar as they are informed, anyway)
Surely you can agree that the concept is sound, even if neither of us can think of a workable way to build the externalized costs into the price of a good.
Quote from: nathanm on July 20, 2010, 04:00:19 PM
You're getting hung up on implementation details. I'm just saying that, ideally, the price of any particular good or service would reflect all its costs. Fault is irrelevant. I'm not attempting to lay blame. It doesn't matter whether McDonald's is eeevul for selling their "food," or if the consumers of said "food" are to blame. (I actually think the latter, insofar as they are informed, anyway)
Surely you can agree that the concept is sound, even if neither of us can think of a workable way to build the externalized costs into the price of a good.
As a libertarian thinker, I don't think it's sound whatsoever.
It means more government over-reaching and government determining a fair market value for a product they don't produce. As far as defining the profit of the good to the actual manufacturer and seller, all manufacturing costs are met. You could wind up starving the world if you worried about compensating for all the cow farts and CO2 emissions in transporting the beef, processing it, cooking it, oh and the emissions of all the workers in the process getting back and forth to work.
I don't know why, but I've managed to use this as somewhat of an inflation barometer for as long as I can remember. I bought a dorm refrigerator back in 1984 for $99. I noticed you can buy one today with a dry erase board on the door at Target for $89. Consumers demand cheap products. If they were okay with paying for the higher standard of living of the American worker and American regulations no doubt they would pay it, but they don't. That's why so many consumer goods are made in China, and why so many former American factory jobs are in Mexico and China.
This is the disconnect most people have with taxation. They figure as long as they get a check back every April their taxes are low enough. If they had to write a check or suddenly they were faced with higher cost of goods they need due to increased "fees" imposed on the sellers and manufacturers, they might finally start to get a feel for how much their earning power is diminished by the government's thirst for cash.
Who said the government determines the cost or gets the cash? It's got nothing to do with government; I'm talking economic theory here.
A price reflecting the entire cost of the good would promote market efficiency or it wouldn't.
Quote from: nathanm on July 20, 2010, 04:58:11 PM
Who said the government determines the cost or gets the cash? It's got nothing to do with government; I'm talking economic theory here.
A price reflecting the entire cost of the good would promote market efficiency or it wouldn't.
Who does the manufacturer pay the enviro and health impact costs to then? Does it go into a vacuum? As an economic principal, I think it sucks.
Quote from: Conan71 on July 20, 2010, 05:20:18 PM
Who does the manufacturer pay the enviro and health impact costs to then? Does it go into a vacuum? As an economic principal, I think it sucks.
Do you think it sucks because it's unworkable in reality, because the fundamental concept of price reflecting cost is unsound, or for some other reason?
Quote from: Conan71 on July 20, 2010, 01:28:06 PM
I'm also a huge believer in individual responsibility who is tired of everyone running to the government to solve all their problems and to protect them from their own compulsions.
If you're a big believer in responsibility, then I guess you shouldn't complain if your insurer hikes your health rates in a big way. That's because cyclists have death rates that are three times minimum and 10 or 11 times maximum on roads than the rates of people in cars. And you sure know the injury rates are going to be much higher, also.
Let's face it ... you're engaging in risky behavior with your cycling (and even worse if you're on a motorcycle). It doesn't take a genius to figure out that if you collide with a truck, you're hamburger. So, by that logic, your health insurance rates should be at least three times higher than the average guy's.
Quote from: rwarn17588 on July 20, 2010, 11:02:02 PM
If you're a big believer in responsibility, then I guess you shouldn't complain if your insurer hikes your health rates in a big way. That's because cyclists have death rates that are three times minimum and 10 or 11 times maximum on roads than the rates of people in cars. And you sure know the injury rates are going to be much higher, also.
Let's face it ... you're engaging in risky behavior with your cycling (and even worse if you're on a motorcycle). It doesn't take a genius to figure out that if you collide with a truck, you're hamburger. So, by that logic, your health insurance rates should be at least three times higher than the average guy's.
Thanks for the lecture. Must be some petty jealousy or were you PWI last night?
I'm quite well aware of the risks vs. benefits of what I do. I don't ride for purely selfish reasons. I can also do some good with my riding as I also take that risk to raise money for MS research, cancer research, and multiple other good causes every year like the Baptist Children's Home in OKC.
700 to 800 cyclists die on US roads every year out of 45,000 or so overall traffic deaths. What your stats don't take into account is people who are hit riding the wrong way in traffic, children darting out from between cars, people riding after dark or early in the morning without proper lighting, riding with ear buds in, or engaging in other risky behavior. Although cyclists have a higher risk per 10mm miles traveled (1.1 deaths per 10mm vs. .1 or so for cars) the raw numbers are against motorists.
And since you are quoting death statistics, that would make your argument about health insurance moot if I'm scooped up into a body bag. That would fall under life insurance, but I digress. I have a great job which pays 100% of my health insurance premium so I'm fortunate in that regard. I have supplimental accident insurance via USAC which covers me at sanctioned criterium and road race events. I also have an AD&D policy. Back to health insurance rates: actuaries take into account people get into accidents and they also take into account a certain number of people who don't take good care of themselves. I'm quite certain my health insurance premiums reflect that. I'll be riding tonight with a friend who is an actuary for BCBS and I'll be sure to quiz him about it.
I'll still take my odds over your sedentary lifestyle. I'll be sure to ride up to the hospital in my Spandex to see you when you have that quadruple bypass. Chances are far greater you will be a bigger burden on your health insurer than I will. I'm quite certain I'm far less of a risk to my health insurer than I was 5 1/2 years ago when I was still smoking, eating drive through food, and about 20-25 pounds overweight.
"Regular exercisers have lower rates of cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, cancer, high blood pressure, obesity and osteoporosis, according to background information in the article. "A sedentary lifestyle increases the propensity to aging-related disease and premature death," the authors write. "Inactivity may diminish life expectancy not only by predisposing to aging-related diseases but also because it may influence the aging process itself."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080128165734.htm
I'm going to hit Brewberger today and exercise my rights while I still can.
After the red-meat and salt bans of 2014 we will have to get our burgers on the black market. Cows will be smuggled over the border from Mexico and the FDA will be waging a multi-billion dollar meat war.
Sure, it's just ground beef, but it's a gateway food. Next thing you know you're exhibiting the tell-tale signs of addiction. Your finger-tips are orange from Cheeto abuse, and you can't start the day without an omelet.
Your family attempts an intervention, but it's too late because you've been picked up for possession of bacon. Your life is ruined.
Quote from: Conan71 on July 21, 2010, 09:15:54 AM
Thanks for the lecture. Must be some petty jealousy or were you PWI last night?
I'm quite well aware of the risks vs. benefits of what I do. I don't ride for purely selfish reasons. I can also do some good with my riding as I also take that risk to raise money for MS research, cancer research, and multiple other good causes every year like the Baptist Children's Home in OKC.
700 to 800 cyclists die on US roads every year out of 45,000 or so overall traffic deaths. What your stats don't take into account is people who are hit riding the wrong way in traffic, children darting out from between cars, people riding after dark or early in the morning without proper lighting, riding with ear buds in, or engaging in other risky behavior. Although cyclists have a higher risk per 10mm miles traveled (1.1 deaths per 10mm vs. .1 or so for cars) the raw numbers are against motorists.
And since you are quoting death statistics, that would make your argument about health insurance moot if I'm scooped up into a body bag. That would fall under life insurance, but I digress. I have a great job which pays 100% of my health insurance premium so I'm fortunate in that regard. I have supplimental accident insurance via USAC which covers me at sanctioned criterium and road race events. I also have an AD&D policy. Back to health insurance rates: actuaries take into account people get into accidents and they also take into account a certain number of people who don't take good care of themselves. I'm quite certain my health insurance premiums reflect that. I'll be riding tonight with a friend who is an actuary for BCBS and I'll be sure to quiz him about it.
I'll still take my odds over your sedentary lifestyle. I'll be sure to ride up to the hospital in my Spandex to see you when you have that quadruple bypass. Chances are far greater you will be a bigger burden on your health insurer than I will. I'm quite certain I'm far less of a risk to my health insurer than I was 5 1/2 years ago when I was still smoking, eating drive through food, and about 20-25 pounds overweight.
"Regular exercisers have lower rates of cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, cancer, high blood pressure, obesity and osteoporosis, according to background information in the article. "A sedentary lifestyle increases the propensity to aging-related disease and premature death," the authors write. "Inactivity may diminish life expectancy not only by predisposing to aging-related diseases but also because it may influence the aging process itself."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080128165734.htm
Methinks I struck a nerve. :o
No jealousy ... no PWI last night. No booze at all, in fact, and it wasn't even my bedtime. And I get plenty of regular exercise without zipping around at 40 mph. So the "sedentary" swipe doesn't apply.
But considering, by your own admission, that bicyclists are 10 times more likely to die on roads, it's hardly a stretch to see the serious-injury rate would be higher as well. Because motorists and others are often at fault doesn't change these cold, hard facts. Or that your "taking responsibility for yourself" mantra seems to be obviously contradicted by taking up a transportation hobby that is much riskier.
I just want to point out that our health problems are not entirely due to our (as in, the "typical" American) sedentary lifestyle. Stress is also a significant factor in cardiovascular problems. In some ways, it's even worse than poor diet, because it keeps your blood pressure high even when you eat well, making the fat deposits even more likely to kill you.
Stress also is a strong contributor to poor diet, both just from plain lack of time and because crappy food produces a stronger dopamine response in the brain.
So really, if we want to make our insurance companies happy, we should all demand fewer working hours and more vacation! ;D
Quote from: rwarn17588 on July 21, 2010, 09:42:39 AM
Methinks I struck a nerve. :o
No jealousy ... no PWI last night. No booze at all, in fact, and it wasn't even my bedtime. And I get plenty of regular exercise without zipping around at 40 mph. So the "sedentary" swipe doesn't apply.
But considering, by your own admission, that bicyclists are 10 times more likely to die on roads, it's hardly a stretch to see the serious-injury rate would be higher as well. Because motorists and others are often at fault doesn't change these cold, hard facts. Or that your "taking responsibility for yourself" mantra seems to be obviously contradicted by taking up a transportation hobby that is much riskier.
You were the one who started the swiping talking about my cycling. Tapping on a keyboard and 22 oz curls don't count as exercize, buddy.
Everything's a risk RW, I live my life the way I want to without fear and mange risk the best I can. I've raced sprint cars and motorcycles, owned and flown small aircraft, I row in prairie river water, hike, ski, ride motorcycles, etc. I do take responsibility for myself and accept the consequences of my activities good and bad. I also do whatever I can to mitigate the risks associated with any activity I do. Insurers take these things into account when they set insurance rates and they are far more worried about paying out claims for tobacco users and people with heart disease and type II diabetes than they are bicyclists. Regardless, my fair share is paid on my behalf in my insurance premiums.
Methinks you're just being petty. Don't you have some Marine buddies to go regale about how their sacrifice is no more important or significant than people with other risky jobs?
Quote from: nathanm on July 21, 2010, 10:14:17 AM
I just want to point out that our health problems are not entirely due to our (as in, the "typical" American) sedentary lifestyle. Stress is also a significant factor in cardiovascular problems. In some ways, it's even worse than poor diet, because it keeps your blood pressure high even when you eat well, making the fat deposits even more likely to kill you.
Stress also is a strong contributor to poor diet, both just from plain lack of time and because crappy food produces a stronger dopamine response in the brain.
So really, if we want to make our insurance companies happy, we should all demand fewer working hours and more vacation! ;D
I agree whole-heartedly on fewer working hours. Exercize is a great way to mitigate the effects of stress, so actually being sedentary amplifies the effects of stress.
Quote from: Conan71 on July 21, 2010, 10:23:06 AM
Everything's a risk RW, I live my life the way I want to without fear and mange risk the best I can. I've raced sprint cars and motorcycles, owned and flown small aircraft, I row in prairie river water, hike, ski, ride motorcycles, etc. I do take responsibility for myself and accept the consequences of my activities good and bad. I also do whatever I can to mitigate the risks associated with any activity I do. Insurers take these things into account when they set insurance rates and they are far more worried about paying out claims for tobacco users and people with heart disease and type II diabetes than they are bicyclists. Regardless, my fair share is paid on my behalf in my insurance premiums.
The point I was making is that you have repeatedly criticized people for making poor decisions about their lifestyles and thus raising our insurance rates. But you engage in an activity -- or activities, as you now acknowledge -- that are fraught with much higher risks. Isn't that hypocritical?
If you're going to truly mitigate risk to yourself, wouldn't it be sensible to simply stop an activity that's 10 times more likely to lead to death or serious injury?
Aren't risk-takers such as you are one of the reasons that insurance rates are higher?
I have no stress...I just don't give a damn.
Quote from: Conan71 on July 21, 2010, 10:23:06 AM
You were the one who started the swiping talking about my cycling. Tapping on a keyboard and 22 oz curls don't count as exercize, buddy.
It sounds like you're getting stressed. That's not healthy!!! :D
Quote from: nathanm on July 21, 2010, 10:14:17 AM
I just want to point out that our health problems are not entirely due to our (as in, the "typical" American) sedentary lifestyle. Stress is also a significant factor in cardiovascular problems. In some ways, it's even worse than poor diet, because it keeps your blood pressure high even when you eat well, making the fat deposits even more likely to kill you.
Stress also is a strong contributor to poor diet, both just from plain lack of time and because crappy food produces a stronger dopamine response in the brain.
So really, if we want to make our insurance companies happy, we should all demand fewer working hours and more vacation! ;D
Very very true. We certain genetic predispositions that we have very little control over. We can control that to a small degree with diet. Everyone in my family dies in their 90's. They were all raised on butter, drink plenty of beer and eat more salt than most. Many have been life-long smokers. I spent at least half my life enjoying biscuits and sausage gravy every morning for breakfast. I eat better than that now.
My cholesterol is low, blood pressure is low and I am not overweight.
My wife is 10 years younger than me. She has high blood pressure, bad cholesterol, and is a cancer survivor. Everyone in her family is lucky to make it to 70. She, and her parents have watched their diets for years.
Unless we can regulate genetics, we have far less control than we think. Add stress and you open up an entirely new can of worms.
Quote from: rwarn17588 on July 21, 2010, 10:42:20 AM
The point I was making is that you have repeatedly criticized people for making poor decisions about their lifestyles and thus raising our insurance rates. But you engage in an activity -- or activities, as you now acknowledge -- that are fraught with much higher risks. Isn't that hypocritical?
If you're going to truly mitigate risk to yourself, wouldn't it be sensible to simply stop an activity that's 10 times more likely to lead to death or serious injury?
Aren't risk-takers such as you are one of the reasons that insurance rates are higher?
You're just being a jackass now.
I had a motocross accident in 1986 which resulted in a broken hand. My insurer at the time refused coverage so I paid, out of pocket, for surgery and all care related. It took me about two years to pay it off, but I paid it in full. I also was taken to the hospital as a result of a race car crash the year before, also not covered. The ambulance was provided by the race track so I didn't incur any expense with that, but I got to pay for an ER visit and a room for the night plus whatever else they crammed into my bills. I also paid that out of pocket. I've paid for ongoing chiropractic care for a neck injury from a racing accident in 1992. I don't see hypocrisy in any of that. Please point out where there is some.
Where I'd be a hypocrite is if I engaged in being a couch jockey, hitting the drive through three times a day, smoking two packs a day, draining a 12 pack every night, and relying on fellow taxpayers to cover my health care costs or being a deadbeat and simply charging off unpaid medical bills. I take advantage of my employer-provided health care and paid for my own health insurance for my family when I owned my own business. Sorry RW, no hypocrisy there either.
There's study after study illustrating the increased health care costs and early on-set of aging associated with sedentary lifestyles. I don't know why I'm repeating myself again but apparently my cycling represents far less risk to my health insurer than angioplasty, bypass surgery, prolonged cancer treatment, maintenance for diabetes, COPD, etc.
I actually represent a far better risk to a health insurer. And at least as of the last life insurance policy I took out, cycling was not an excluded activity, nor did they ask if I engaged in cycling. If it ever does become an issue to get life insurance or health insurance, I will buy insurance through one of USA Cylcling's insurance partners.
Boo-yah!
Quote from: Conan71 on July 21, 2010, 11:16:19 AM
I had a motocross accident in 1986 which resulted in a broken hand. My insurer at the time refused coverage so I paid, out of pocket, for surgery and all care related. It took me about two years to pay it off, but I paid it in full. I also was taken to the hospital as a result of a race car crash the year before, also not covered. The ambulance was provided by the race track so I didn't incur any expense with that, but I got to pay for an ER visit and a room for the night plus whatever else they crammed into my bills. I also paid that out of pocket. I've paid for ongoing chiropractic care for a neck injury from a racing accident in 1992.
Good for you. But what about later? What if you become no longer able to pay out-of-pocket and you need medical care that is related to injuries from your risk-taking? You know who's going to have to cover that, don't you?
Conan in 20 years ... :D
(http://images.buycostumes.com/mgen/merchandiser/29235.jpg)
Quote from: rwarn17588 on July 21, 2010, 11:31:08 AM
Good for you. But what about later? What if you become no longer able to pay out-of-pocket and you need medical care that is related to injuries from your risk-taking? You know who's going to have to cover that, don't you?
I'd be humored more if it weren't for having to already deal with the ignorant, arrogant, and outright dangerous behavior of some motorists out on the road. I also recognize there are some jackasses out there on bikes.
Again, people with heart disease, cancer, respiratory disease, liver disease, orthopaedic problems, osteoporosis, cancer, and diabetes wind up taxing the system far more than those with cycling injuries and there's a far better chance someone my age with a sedentary lifestyle will hit the system much sooner than I will with far costlier medical problems. If that day comes for me, I will have paid into the system for about 50 years at that point, at which time I'd say I've pad my share into the system. I've paid a healthcare premium since my first job with Federal withholding when I was 14 years old via Medicare tax, and I've never drawn a penny from it.
The health benefits do outweigh the risk for most cyclists. If they didn't cyclists would pay more for health and life insurance premiums.
Also interesting to note is that either drivers are becoming more bicycle aware or injuries aren't reported as frequently as they were 15 years ago, but from 1995 to 2007 annual injuries went down from 61,000 to 43,000 and deaths from 833 to 698.
http://www.bikeleague.org/media/facts/
Rwarn in 20 years:
(http://almostdorothy.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/jabba-the-hut-1-749957.jpg)
Quote from: Conan71 on July 21, 2010, 12:14:42 PM
I also recognize there are some jackasses out there on bikes.
Do they make movies about them in other cities?
Quote from: Conan71 on July 21, 2010, 12:14:42 PM
Rwarn in 20 years:
(http://almostdorothy.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/jabba-the-hut-1-749957.jpg)
You forgot Princess Leia in a bikini.
Quote from: rwarn17588 on July 21, 2010, 01:15:27 PM
You forgot Princess Leia in a bikini.
She was hot back in the day
(http://www.kristensen.us/2002/star_wars_celebration2/images/meeting_celebs/carrie_fisher_slave_girl.jpg)
Not so much now:
(http://www.celebritypuke.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/12/celebritypukecom-fisher2.jpg)
FYI Rwarn, my buddy who is a health insurance actuary at BCBS laughed his donkey off when I told him your premise that I represent a greater risk to a health insurer than someone who sits on their butt all day. He also said the statistics on auto/bike accidents is absolutely meaningless in calculating health insurance rates.
(http://blogs.pitch.com/plog/the_more_you_know2.jpg)