*WPT* Fat now an Illness
Fri Jul 16, 2004 12:00 pm
http://www.cnn.com/2004/HEALTH/diet.fitness/07/16/medicare.obesity.ap/index.html
WTF!!!!
Bush's medicaire crap bill has already caused the largest spike in prescription drug prices ever (poor pharmacuetical companies they evidently weren't raping us hard enough before) Now Fat people are eligible for Medicaire.
KEERIPES! As if we weren't being ripped off enough. Here's a concept for the fat bastards out there (no offense to the real Fat Bastard:D ) Stop eating so frigging much and exercise! What a concept.
Wonder how many 100's of millions of our tax dollars are now going to go to lazy sons of bitches who won't get of their fat asses?
WTF!!!!
Bush's medicaire crap bill has already caused the largest spike in prescription drug prices ever (poor pharmacuetical companies they evidently weren't raping us hard enough before) Now Fat people are eligible for Medicaire.
KEERIPES! As if we weren't being ripped off enough. Here's a concept for the fat bastards out there (no offense to the real Fat Bastard:D ) Stop eating so frigging much and exercise! What a concept.
Wonder how many 100's of millions of our tax dollars are now going to go to lazy sons of bitches who won't get of their fat asses?
Fri Jul 16, 2004 12:23 pm
The problem is no one regulates large corporations, not the medicaire bill.
Fri Jul 16, 2004 1:08 pm
It is possible that these treatments will make some people more productive. I do have mixed feeling about it though. Many obese people bring this "illness" upon themselves. I have an aunt who was so obese she began to use a a motorized scooter to get around Wal-Mart and other places. The problem is, these obese people need to be walking more, not less. When they get to the point that mobility is reduced, the problem just gets worse.
Another one of these illnesses is alcoholism and drug addiction. The government actually cracked down about 10 years ago on people who were receiving social security disability for addiction and set limit of 24 months of benefits if the person was in treatment if I remember correctly. It just doesn't make sense to give addicts a check every month and have them not work because they are disabled. I also don't think that children should be on SSI disability except in extreme cases.
Jim
Another one of these illnesses is alcoholism and drug addiction. The government actually cracked down about 10 years ago on people who were receiving social security disability for addiction and set limit of 24 months of benefits if the person was in treatment if I remember correctly. It just doesn't make sense to give addicts a check every month and have them not work because they are disabled. I also don't think that children should be on SSI disability except in extreme cases.
Jim
Fri Jul 16, 2004 1:32 pm
Will this increase the costs of health insurance?
Fri Jul 16, 2004 1:39 pm
The problem is no one regulates large corporations, not the medicaire bill.
Yuck! Less government not more. How about no programs that gaurantee OUR tax dollars as profit for those same corporations. I know it against a socialist creed but I am against government entitlement programs.
Fri Jul 16, 2004 2:25 pm
fat people need to be eligable for front line duty
operation: get behind mean mama JABBA
operation: get behind mean mama JABBA
Fri Jul 16, 2004 2:55 pm
Originally posted by Colonel Ingus
Yuck! Less government not more.
Then do not cry foul when they bend you over, like they all do. Persciption drugs are up because no one regulates those companies. Perscription drugs have risen 3 times that of inflation. Their costs have not gone up. They have replaced American workers with cheaper foreign workers. Yet they have to raise the prices because seniour citizens will be saving just a little bit more.
BTW, do you have home owners insurance?
Fri Jul 16, 2004 3:02 pm
Then do not cry foul when they bend you over.
You miss the point completely Jimmy. I am crying foul. Foul at the government. Contrary to socialist-liberal philosphy I want minimal government in my life.
Fri Jul 16, 2004 3:03 pm
hold back the blood
Fri Jul 16, 2004 4:29 pm
Originally posted by Colonel Ingus
You miss the point completely Jimmy. I am crying foul. Foul at the government. Contrary to socialist-liberal philosphy I want minimal government in my life.
The government has to regulate, if not, your life will be nothing.
Yes or no, do you have home owners insurance?
Fri Jul 16, 2004 4:38 pm
The government has to regulate, if not, your life will be nothing.
And you say you are not a liberal.
And for you to say answer the question when you continually evade any point you cannot counter with rhetoric or rant is highly amusing.
I, however, am not like that. No, no homeowners insurance.
The Government (as envisioned by our Founding Fathers)was designed to have a minimal impact on persons and their properties. Thanks to political agendas of the past hundred years were are far far away from that.
Free Markets will regulate themselves. I am sure you will point out all kinds of "examples" of how I am wrong and I will counter with the proof that it was government meddling that caused those situations.
You are arguing from an "entitlement" mentality. People deserve things and by God if they can't get it themselves we'll use the government to get it for them.
A few of us out there see it differently. How about people earn what they get? Anything wrong with that? If they can't afford it then they won't buy it. If the company that wants to sell it wants to keep doing business then they will adjust their prices accordingly.
That is until we use programs like medicaire to shore up those prices and stick it to the tax payer.
Now go ahead and make whatever non-germaine point you were going to make about a product I don't use (but do help you pay for thru my taxes).
Fri Jul 16, 2004 5:38 pm
Originally posted by JimmyTango
The government has to regulate, if not, your life will be nothing.
Yes or no, do you have home owners insurance?
No offense but that is the most idiotic thing i have ever heard in my life.
Big government is not only wrong, it does not work. Regulation of privately owned companies is against the point of free enterprise. If you don't like something a company is doing, then take your business to a competitor.
The only thing the federal government needs to do for me is keep us from getting invaded. That's it. Everything else can be voted on at the state level.
And while thier at it.. repeal the ILLEGAL federal income tax. It was never ratified by all the states but pushed through for "war time" needs. Privatization of all current government agencies, from police to firemen to utility services, etc. will create a better product through competition.
Fri Jul 16, 2004 5:43 pm
Originally posted by Colonel Ingus
And for you to say answer the question when you continually evade any point you cannot counter with rhetoric or rant is highly amusing.
I am sorry, who is posting rhetoric and ranting here? Sure as hell seems to be you. Not just this thread either, how many in the last month have you started or posted in that is nothing but ranting?
There also sure seems to be a lot of people sick of it. When they voiced that opinion, you opened a new thread ranting about it!
It's obvious you are already pissed off with this last post.
Originally posted by Colonel Ingus
The Government (as envisioned by our Founding Fathers)was designed to have a minimal impact on persons and their properties. Thanks to political agendas of the past hundred years were are far far away from that.
They also wanted no taxes at all, African-American's to be slaves AND cound as 3/5's of a vote, etc etc etc.
Why the change? Because most importantly, they wanted this country to grow and change with the times.
Political agenda's have not changed this, our growth as a nation and as humans has changed this. What was that big growth spurt? The industrial revolution. It single handedly has forced us to keep the government involved. Why? Easy, because if not our kids would be shoveling in a coal mine with a life span of maybe 20 years old, if they are lucky. Just like it was before that evil government of ours got involved.
In today's society the government MUST regulate. This isn't anarchy, you know.
Oh, and the reason I was asking about home owners insurance. You are paying for protection, correct? A tree falls on your roof you pay the deductable and the rest is paid for by the insurance company, correct?
Typical clause is most home owners insurance:
2 claims in 5 years and your are dropped.
So basically, if you use the protection you are paying for, they drop you and keep the money you have been sending them.
That is bullshit, and that is what happens without government regulation.
Fri Jul 16, 2004 5:53 pm
Originally posted by CodeRed68
No offense but that is the most idiotic thing i have ever heard in my life.
Big government is not only wrong, it does not work. Regulation of privately owned companies is against the point of free enterprise. If you don't like something a company is doing, then take your business to a competitor.
The only thing the federal government needs to do for me is keep us from getting invaded. That's it. Everything else can be voted on at the state level.
And while thier at it.. repeal the ILLEGAL federal income tax. It was never ratified by all the states but pushed through for "war time" needs. Privatization of all current government agencies, from police to firemen to utility services, etc. will create a better product through competition.
No offense but that is the most idiotic thing i have ever heard in my life.
There is no true free enterprice, your problem is you are taking it literally. That is like saying if I want to kill someone it is OK because I am in America, and America has freedom. There are laws to keep order, saying there are onyl supposed to be laws for citizens and not companies makes no sense at all.
Get rid of federal taxes? Might as well move to a new country now, the US would be done for in under a month. You notice that dept this nation has, getting bigger each day because we can not balance a check book, guess what happens with no federal income tax going at least partially to it? Or that highway you drive to work on mostly paid for by federal grants?
Privatization of police and fire and utility, etc? LOL.
'Hello, police officer, I need help, there is someone rapping my grandmother inside that house!'
'That will be $149.99 before I can help your grandmother, son.'
'But my allowance is only $1.00 a week.'
'I'm sorry I can not help you then, but besure to tell your grandmother you love her before she shuts her eyes, you might regret it later on when she never wakes up.'
Fri Jul 16, 2004 6:10 pm
Jimmy it is not a suprise that private companies will always create a better product through competition for your dollars. This can be taken to the level I speak of including police officers. A private police force will want to get the contract of your city and hence provide the best protection otherwise the city will fire them and hire the better police force. Just an example but this goes the same for all the other public agencies.
This will be paid for by local city and state taxes.
The same goes for roads. Let each state pay thier own way. If you don't like the roads in a particular state, oh well, drive around it or move to a different state. When the state starts seeing its citizens all leaving, they will budget this out from the local taxes collected. Oh and while they are at it, use a private company to build the best road there is for cheaper then public road workers do it for.
Although I would not have a problem for a federal highway system.
I also would not have a problem with a small federal income tax. Let's say 3-4% should be enough. Not 38% or more like it is now!
Let me keep my money in my pocket and spend it as I see it's best for me and my family. If I live in Louisiana I should not have to pay for some welfare program in NYC.
The Federal govt should be as minimal as possible and let the citizens decide for themselves how to spend thier money and to choose who to provide services for them.
People also need to be held accountable for thier own situation and be responsible for themselves.
This will be paid for by local city and state taxes.
The same goes for roads. Let each state pay thier own way. If you don't like the roads in a particular state, oh well, drive around it or move to a different state. When the state starts seeing its citizens all leaving, they will budget this out from the local taxes collected. Oh and while they are at it, use a private company to build the best road there is for cheaper then public road workers do it for.
Although I would not have a problem for a federal highway system.
I also would not have a problem with a small federal income tax. Let's say 3-4% should be enough. Not 38% or more like it is now!
Let me keep my money in my pocket and spend it as I see it's best for me and my family. If I live in Louisiana I should not have to pay for some welfare program in NYC.
The Federal govt should be as minimal as possible and let the citizens decide for themselves how to spend thier money and to choose who to provide services for them.
People also need to be held accountable for thier own situation and be responsible for themselves.