so now that the government can mandate that we buy something . . .

[kelpdiver 2]

rushmc

i agree for the most part
but his president, until lately get a free pass
to question him brings claims of being a racist
(according to Oprah)

any idea why he and the dems are trying to push the sign up for next year until after the elections?
I go an idea!

And how can a President just re-write law by chaning deadlines defined within a law?
Because to question him bring the race card again
fortunatly, this card has been played enough that people are starting to say fuck it, call me racist if you wish
but this is not about race

Oh, I am bet you have NEVER told a lie
well
only if it was necessary to achive an end
then it is ok
Right?

You know, the people in Moveon (and many here) that didn't vote for that guy in 2000 made the same complaints for 8 years straight. And the ones that didn't vote for Clinton made many of the same, and the guys that didn't vote for Bush in 88....you're acting like this guy reinvented the Presidency.

His administration hardly differs from any others. The only important detail is the (D) in his title.

[tkhayes 124]

1. car insurance
http://www.flhsmv.gov/ddl/frfaqgen.html

Quote

I am registering a vehicle for the first time in Florida. Is automobile insurance mandatory?

Yes. If you own a vehicle with at least four wheels and are registering it, you must have Florida insurance.

I rest my case

[tkhayes 124]

http://lwd.dol.state.nj.us/labor/wc/employer/require/insure_index.html

oo-oo, another. I know I know - you added the condition 'just because they exist'.

I know of no such condition, but of course, you would change the terms and definitions just to make your argument. And if you can do that, then I get to make the constitutional argument of the ACA by defining it as the 'general welfare of the United States', right? Article 1, Section 8, in case you missed it...

[davjohns 1]

rehmwa

***1 - Not so much. Healthcare works best when people have access to preventative care as well and catch things early. Prevention is better than cure and all that.

OK - define the minimum to achieve that. And get EVERYONE to agree with your definition

(enforce all your criteria without violating people's rights to choose for themselves how to live their lives)


I'll start - IMHO, preventative care starts with fitness and nutrition. Fitness = exercise. Health = how we eat. Let's give everyone a gym membership and create an eating plan for everyone. Force them to workout and eat like I think they must.



good luck

Prevention IS better. That's why everyone's diet will be prescribed for them. Lean meats and veggies. No breads, pastas, potatoes, rices, fried food, sauces, etc. And mandatory exercise for everyone. Heart rates at 80-90% of max for at least thirty minutes five times per week. Monitors will arrive in the mail coded to your health account. Failure to comply will result in an additional 'tax'.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[DrewEckhardt 0]

davjohns

Prevention IS better. That's why everyone's diet will be prescribed for them. Lean meats and veggies.

Nope.

Quote

No breads, pastas, potatoes, rices, fried food, sauces, etc. And mandatory exercise for everyone. Heart rates at 80-90% of max for at least thirty minutes five times per week. Monitors will arrive in the mail coded to your health account. Failure to comply will result in an additional 'tax'.

You're forgetting the corporatist interests who pay for the congress creatures' election campaigns and employ them in lucrative lobbying positions when they move on.

Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) spent a lot of money getting Obamacare passed and if they don't get a good return on their investment selling things like statins they won't be giving any congress critters cushy seven figure jobs like they did Representative Billy Tauzin who got a seven figure gig as their CEO and president after he did good work passing Medicare Part D (if the name sounds familiar that's because he was the guy who negotiated with Obama to remove the profit-killing ACA provision allowing re-import of prescription drugs).

The National Cattleman's Beef Association wants us to eat beef and has a PAC.

The National Corn Growers Association and Iowa Corn Growers Association make piles of money when people chow down on corn-fed beef and guzzle soda made from high-fructose corn syrup. They have PACs too.

Etc.

I don't think required compliance with a government food pyramid is unlikely, although what's in it will have at least as much to do with who spent money as the food's impact on our heath.

If ACA as passed was really about saving money we'd have not-for-profit government insurance like Medicare or Tricare, not a mandate to buy product from for profit companies allowed a 25% markup on whatever health service they provide (assuming small group and individual plans with an 80% minimum medical loss ratio).

Obviously that's not the case and astute readers will observe that with a gross margin legally limited to 20% (15% for large group plans, much more for catastrophic plans) they can only make more money by providing more health care with one approach being not doing things to make people healthier.

Although they all end in "ism", "socialism", "capitalism", and "corporatism" are very different things.

[Stumpy 256]

DrewEckhardt

I don't think required compliance with a government food pyramid is unlikely

Really? I've lived in the US, and another 3 different countries with varying levels of socialised health care and have never been told what to eat.

These kind of arguments get a touch ridiculous when you take the slippery slope comments too far.

Never try to eat more than you can lift

[davjohns 1]

We're in violent agreement. I wasn't being totally serious. People would stop voting for legislators that try to legislate healthy living. Logically, that's what should happen. Realistically, it will be skewed by financial interests as you suggest.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[davjohns 1]

Not really. Countries with socialized medicine do consider taxing people extra for certain behavior. The French considered an obeisity tax at one point. It's a matter of time on those kinds of measures. Some US cities are currently regulating size of soft drinks, red meat, and other products out of 'health concerns'. When those ideaological positions meet financial realities of universal healthcare, it isn't ridiculous at all.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[davjohns 1]

Related thought...

Suppose I have high cholesterol. The Dr. wants me to take a prescription medication to bring it down. I want to use diet and exercise. Continuing to have high cholesterol presents health risks that might increase my healthcare costs in the future. If I refuse to follow the Dr.'s advice, should I be taxed for that?

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[SkyDekker 1,121]

davjohns

Related thought...

Suppose I have high cholesterol. The Dr. wants me to take a prescription medication to bring it down. I want to use diet and exercise. Continuing to have high cholesterol presents health risks that might increase my healthcare costs in the future. If I refuse to follow the Dr.'s advice, should I be taxed for that?

Considering high cholestoral can only be controled by diet and exercise to a small degree....you may want to listen to your Dr.

I ran by a dead cop in the Toronto marathon. He was in the process of getting chest compressions and was revived later on. He too thought he could control his cholesterol with diet and exercise alone. Turned out he was wrong.

(Don't you hate it when things aren't black and white.....)

[rushmc 18]

SkyDekker

***Related thought...

Suppose I have high cholesterol. The Dr. wants me to take a prescription medication to bring it down. I want to use diet and exercise. Continuing to have high cholesterol presents health risks that might increase my healthcare costs in the future. If I refuse to follow the Dr.'s advice, should I be taxed for that?

Considering high cholestoral can only be controled by diet and exercise to a small degree....you may want to listen to your Dr.

I ran by a dead cop in the Toronto marathon. He was in the process of getting chest compressions and was revived later on. He too thought he could control his cholesterol with diet and exercise alone. Turned out he was wrong.

(Don't you hate it when things aren't black and white.....)

So,are you going to answer his question?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[SkyDekker 1,121]

I took his question as rhetorical. Outlining a situation in which he believed going against the Dr advice would yield a more cost saving scenario, yet get better results.

I answered this rhetorical scenario with the counter point, indicating it just isn't that simple.

Lastly, there isn't any talk about taxing people for not following Dr advice, so the whole scenario is erally quite silly.

So, if you are desperate for an answer and are having a hard time putting your mind at rest: yes I absolutely think davjohns should get extremely hefty tax increases for not following his Dr advice!!!! He should be further taxed for serving his country. Lastly, the guy has an incredible body and should be forced to eat many cheeseburgers. Then we should all kill a blavk baby so they can't play the knockuot game in Chicago and be ignored by MSNBC.

Is that enough answers for you?

[rushmc 18]

SkyDekker

I took his question as rhetorical. Outlining a situation in which he believed going against the Dr advice would yield a more cost saving scenario, yet get better results.

I answered this rhetorical scenario with the counter point, indicating it just isn't that simple.

Lastly, there isn't any talk about taxing people for not following Dr advice, so the whole scenario is erally quite silly.

So, if you are desperate for an answer and are having a hard time putting your mind at rest: yes I absolutely think davjohns should get extremely hefty tax increases for not following his Dr advice!!!! He should be further taxed for serving his country. Lastly, the guy has an incredible body and should be forced to eat many cheeseburgers. Then we should all kill a blavk baby so they can't play the knockuot game in Chicago and be ignored by MSNBC.

Is that enough answers for you?

thans
but I think you missed his point

As you are right, it is not that simple
Where does the line belong?

Who gets to define where the line is?

And I am not desperate for anything


You one the other hand?

Well, you are just silly

As you have already stated here a couple of times you know very little about the ACA
Yet you post like you think yourself to be an expert

giddy up

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[SkyDekker 1,121]

Quote

As you are right, it is not that simple
Where does the line belong?

Where you as a society place it, through your elected respresentatives and the judicial system as a check and balance.

I am pretty sure we won't be establishing the line in Speaker's Corner giving answers to every single scenario. But hey, maybe you think different...

[kelpdiver 2]

SkyDekker

Considering high cholestoral can only be controled by diet and exercise to a small degree....you may want to listen to your Dr.

I ran by a dead cop in the Toronto marathon. He was in the process of getting chest compressions and was revived later on. He too thought he could control his cholesterol with diet and exercise alone. Turned out he was wrong.

How did you get his private medical information while running a marathon? And how did you conclude that his cholesterol level was the primary factor in the incident? Deaths in marathons happen to a lot of "healthy" people. It's not a particularly healthy thing to do.

[rushmc 18]

SkyDekker

Quote

As you are right, it is not that simple
Where does the line belong?

Where you as a society place it, through your elected respresentatives and the judicial system as a check and balance.

I am pretty sure we won't be establishing the line in Speaker's Corner giving answers to every single scenario. But hey, maybe you think different...

Well, society as a whole did not want ACA. Even less want it know
But once you realize that the ACA is not about health care, why it was done makes much more sense

Again, the ACA is not about HC. And your post demonstrates this fact. How, by showing your willingness to ues laws like the ACA to CONTOL things up to and including behavior
Now, when this happens we get liberal and government know it alls who just know they are smarter thant the people they are trying to control and they push crap like this at us

Well, this morning poll about the Senate gives me hope that we will take care of these bungeling busy bodies and throw them out

I can only hope
But a year in politics is a long long time

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kelpdiver 2]

Stumpy

***

I don't think required compliance with a government food pyramid is unlikely

Really? I've lived in the US, and another 3 different countries with varying levels of socialised health care and have never been told what to eat.


until recently, few other nations had the problems with diet that we see in the US. But now that the UK and the Aussies are challenging us for obesity counts, has anyone started proposing such notions?

Not really sure how you can enforce a food pyramid versus just discouraging the elements on top. It's particularly problematic when we can't agree if carbs are evil or essential. It would be another spot, like BMI, where athletes would need to ignore the guidelines.

[SkyDekker 1,121]

kelpdiver

***
Considering high cholestoral can only be controled by diet and exercise to a small degree....you may want to listen to your Dr.

I ran by a dead cop in the Toronto marathon. He was in the process of getting chest compressions and was revived later on. He too thought he could control his cholesterol with diet and exercise alone. Turned out he was wrong.

How did you get his private medical information while running a marathon? And how did you conclude that his cholesterol level was the primary factor in the incident? Deaths in marathons happen to a lot of "healthy" people. It's not a particularly healthy thing to do.

Because I "met" him through a Canadian (actually mostly Ontario) running forum where he posted about his story. He is back to running now, dude was stone dead when I ran by him.

Obviously here in Canada, where we went down the slippery slope of socialised health care a long time ago, we now tax people extra for doing dangerous things like running marathons.

(Never mind that most marathon deaths are due to pre-existing conditions, like the girl who died during that same marathon)

[SkyDekker 1,121]

Quote

Well, society as a whole did not want ACA. Even less want it know

If you have a rogue government, your founding fathers put the 2nd amendment in place specifically for that purpose. Don't blame me if you don't have the balls to use it

[kelpdiver 2]

SkyDekker

***
How did you get his private medical information while running a marathon? And how did you conclude that his cholesterol level was the primary factor in the incident? Deaths in marathons happen to a lot of "healthy" people. It's not a particularly healthy thing to do.

Because I "met" him through a Canadian (actually mostly Ontario) running forum where he posted about his story. He is back to running now, dude was stone dead when I ran by him.

Obviously here in Canada, where we went down the slippery slope of socialised health care a long time ago, we now tax people extra for doing dangerous things like running marathons.

(Never mind that most marathon deaths are due to pre-existing conditions, like the girl who died during that same marathon)

Ok, I understand how you got the details, but still missing the part where you can assign the cause of the accident to the cholesterol reading. If you want to say that diet/exercise only work marginal on this level (my personal experience suggests the opposite), then cite medical journals, not a guy you met.

Hyponatremia is not a pre-existing condition. It's unclear if this problem peaked in the last decade, though.

[SkyDekker 1,121]

Quote

but still missing the part where you can assign the cause of the accident to the cholesterol reading. If you want to say that diet/exercise only work marginal on this level (my personal experience suggests the opposite), then cite medical journals, not a guy you met.

Dude, you are not running a court room. I am just repeating what he said. You don't like it, don't believe it. We now have two data points, him and you. Maybe the two of you can start a medical journal together.

Quote

Hyponatremia is not a pre-existing condition. It's unclear if this problem peaked in the last decade, though.

Hyponatremia is also not marathon related. Exercise associated hyponatremia can occur in all endurance events and can be avoided. Hyponatremia does not have to be associated with exercise though. So it is really a silly argument to bring forward as to why marathons are not healthy.

[SkyDekker 1,121]

Quote

If you want to say that diet/exercise only work marginal on this level (my personal experience suggests the opposite),

On a less high horse level...and for those who care.

High cholesterol can be greatly impacted by exercise and diet choices. Roughly 80% of your cholesterol is produced by your liver. In some cases, the liver over produces cholesterol. In those cases diet and exercise won't help and that waxy substance continues to build until a portion breaks off the artey wall, block your heart and you die...or get close to it.

Hence, diet and exercise alone won't help in those cases.

All this to illustrate that davjohn's original (rhetorical) example had another side..

[kelpdiver 2]

SkyDekker

Dude, you are not running a court room. I am just repeating what he said. You don't like it, don't believe it. We now have two data points, him and you. Maybe the two of you can start a medical journal together.

yes, forgive me for not taking your proscribed medical advice at face value.

Quote

Hyponatremia is also not marathon related. Exercise associated hyponatremia can occur in all endurance events and can be avoided. Hyponatremia does not have to be associated with exercise though. So it is really a silly argument to bring forward as to why marathons are not healthy.

Aside from marathons, the only other place you're likely to see this phrase used would be fraternity hazing incidents.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/267305.php
http://impruvism.com/cardio-heart-disease-4/
Also add the temporary immune system disfunction, the elevated levels of troponin, depletion of electrolytes, and all the micro damage from taking tens of thousands of steps, mostly on hard concrete/asphalt.

Sure, there are other endurance events on par.

FTR, I did NYC at the beginning of the month, and Big Sur and San Diego in years past. I stand by it - the arbitrary length of 26 isn't great for you, well past the point of diminishing returns. The just as arbitrary half marathon is a much better choice.

[SkyDekker 1,121]

Quote

the arbitrary length of 26 isn't great for you

Don't forget the .2....those last .2 can be pretty painful.

I myself prefer Half Iron and Iron distance triathlon, working up to ultra and eventually a 100 miler.

Badwater holds more interest than Big Sur.

[kelpdiver 2]

SkyDekker

Badwater holds more interest than Big Sur.

sure, if you're interested a race like that, then you'd want Big Sur to start (or better yet, end) at Hearst Castle and do the entire length of the BS coast.

The 50k ultra makes no sense to me, other than a metric uprounding of the 42k marathon. The longer ones would as point to point races, providing the points are interesting. It's hard to beat Death Valley and Mt Whitney, though the stretch in the middle might be a bit dull.

For me, I think the tinman length is as far as I want to go.