Re the health care discussion, so-called “preventive” care doesn’t eliminate expensive major medical care and procedures, it simply delays them (everyone needs end-of-life care eventually), thus adding to the cost (on top of the cost of the preventive care). It does, however, add to quality of life for most people with chronic illness. That being said, most chronic illnesses today can be prevented or reversed with proper exercise and nutrition, which itself adds to quality of life.

Why should those who make intelligent choices when it comes to diet and health be forced to subsidize those who don’t? Is it a question of morality? If so, is it moral for someone who makes bad choices to force someone who doesn’t to work more to pay for their medical care?

This twinkie experiment proved that calories in/calories out are all that matter for weight loss. The resounding message to all overweight people is it doesn’t matter what you eat; just eat fewer calories. Don’t waste time and energy on confusing, faddy, diets like low carb, paleolithic, cabbage, vegetarian, etc. None of that stuff matters. Just eat fewer calories.

Of course, if the truth ever spread that weight loss could be boiled down to one sentence, that would put out of business a billion dollar industry of nutrition and dieting, so we’ll continue to over-complicate things.

Thanks for doing your part to add to the confusion, Discover.

Every single diet and nutrition advice other than “eat fewer calories” should come with the warning — ONLY WORRY ABOUT THIS STUFF ONCE YOU’VE GOTTEN SKINNY. Until then, get skinny by eating fewer calories, period.

That’s not entirely correct. The taxpayer generally only pays for those who are homeless or on Medicare/Medicaid. If a middle class person without insurance goes to the emergency room, they’ll receive the bill in the mail and could lose their house trying to pay it off because they lacked the common sense to get basic health insurance (it’s generally cheaper to buy insurance than pay in full for medical work). During their stay in the ER, costs are covered by the hospitals (for and non-profits), not the government, although local governments often contribute subsidies to hospitals as a special interest. Generally, the government only reimburses hospitals for work covered under insurance (Medicare/Medicaid/Cobra), which is why many hospitals refuse to do certain procedures on non-insured patients (as well as the liability). That’s also why many non-profit agencies have free or low cost clinics as well.

If the government were to establish a national health care plan in the US, it would certainly result in a net loss over making incremental changes to our existing private system. The government would need to establish departments, employees, benefits plans, pensions, costs of running those offices, etc. It’s also been studied that government insurance plans would be no less costly than private plans and would likely result in the government running a budget deficit on health costs if they offered premiums significantly lower than the private sector (just as Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid are already in the red). It’s also been noted that the quality of care would likely decline due to red tape and rationing to keep government costs down. In the end everyone will be covered and be able to see a doctor, sure, but you’ll end up waiting months for a procedure like people do in Canada and England, whereas it can be done ASAP under a private plan. A private plan also allows one to make their own decisions, rather than wait for bureaucratic approval. Talk about waiting until you’re almost dead for coverage…

Furthermore, government run entitlements are essentially ponzi schemes that often result in deficits and constant borrowing to cover the costs. Running a government in that manner is highly detrimental over the long term and unsustainable without very high taxes in the US.

If they had insurance, they would be paying for their obesity or whatever, not us. That is why requiring health insurance, just like requiring automobile insurance, saves money for the rest of us.

Consequently, there was some talk about Canadian provincial governments (who are responsible for health care) suing tobacco companies to recover the costs.

There has also been some talk, though nowhere near as much, of suing companies like MacDonalds for making high-fat food which contributes to the cost of caring for heart-disease patients. I don’t see that going anywhere, as it is harder to tie a heart patient’s disease to any particular thing he/she has eaten during his/her lifetime. But it is pretty easy to make a link between smoking and lung cance, which makes the tobacco companies easier targets.

The beauty of America is having the freedom of choice, however that also gives people the freedom to make poor choices. It would unethical and unconstitutional to force upon people how and what to eat because there’s plenty of healthy people that enjoy the unhealthy food as well, only in moderation, and remain healthy. It wouldn’t be fair to prevent people from making their own food choices, the bottom line: it’s about personal responsibility. The same premise goes for smoking, drinking, unprotected sex, drug abuse, etc.

This also corresponds to some issues with stupidity in abusing our legal system. For example, a woman once sued McDonald’s because she got fat, thankfully she lost. Another man in NY state is suing a supermarket and manufacturer of canned tuna because he got mercury poisoning after eating about 3 cans of tuna a day for over a year. He will very likely lose that case as well, but it reveals the mentality of some Americans (lacking personal responsibility and blaming others for their own poor choices for which they believe is deserving of inordinate amounts of money).

If the latter, than almost any health issue could be chalked up to “Bad choices” and “Personal responsibility”. If the former, I would have to ask why people in nations with socialized healthcare, like France, do not have such levels of obesity as exists in the US?

Ultimately, I think there are structural reasons for obesity in the US that have little to do with whether or not people can receive coverage for obesity-related illnesses. Many people in the US rely on cheap, pre-packaged meals, which are not healthy. Quantity is favoured over quality. Part of that is cultural, part of it is the economic incentives which forces most workers into longer hours for less relative pay.