The F$$d P$lice are C$ming

[PhilsFan]

The problem is that some school district somewhere decided it wanted to do right by its people and offer them healthy food, and that is the worst thing in the world to Iron Horse, so you'll never get a legitimate response.

[KhanadaRhodes]

because the only place to get a burger and fries is a school lunch. that's why you can't find anyone at a mcdonald's from 2-4 pm, aka after school.

[MrsSpringsteen]

Unless and until every food desert is eliminated no one should ever go hungry. In food deserts healthy foods aren't readily available at all.

Should the Government Pay for Us to Eat Fast Food? | The Stir

"We've all heard the alarming reports about food stamp use: It's currently at an all-time high and more than 45 MILLION Americans -- that's about 15 percent of the population, folks -- are relying on food stamps. But here's a detail you may find even more shocking about the government assistance program: Fast food chains owned by the YUM! brand are trying to get in on the action and get approved to accept food stamps. In other words, the government will be paying for low-income, hungry people to eat at Taco Bell, Pizza Hut, KFC, and Long John Silver's.

Is it just me or does this sound like an incredibly horrific idea?

Typically, exchanging food stamps for prepared foods is not allowed; however, there is a loophole that permits states to allow restaurants to serve disabled, elderly, and homeless people (who don't have the ability or resources to prepare their own foods). And, that's where the YUM! restaurant brand sees its opening to participate. According to a spokesperson for the company, it makes perfect sense to expand the food stamp program and "enabl[e] the homeless, elderly, and disabled to purchase prepared meals with ... benefits in a restaurant environment." In a nutshell, they're arguing that it's better to eat Taco Bell than go hungry.

But here's why it's a horrible idea: As anyone who eats out a lot will tell you, prepared restaurant food costs a lot more money (and food stamps) than purchasing whole foods like beans, fruits, vegetables, and rice. Fast food isn't just expensive, it doesn't provide any nutritional value or even fill people up for that matter. Making it even easier for people -- namely, low-income people who don't typically have access to healthy foods -- to get access to fast food doesn't make financial sense. Not to mention the fact, it would be a public health disaster.

Of course, we can't dictate what people eat: Those who qualify for public assistance are no different than people who don't in that they should be allowed to make personal choices for themselves without judgement -- and that absolutely includes what they eat. We can't stop these chains from advertising their unhealthy food to low-income people; but perhaps we could focus instead on efforts that educate people about how to make the best choices when it comes to nutrition."

[the iron horse]

French fries now under adult supervision.

I agree that parents should be in charge of what their children are
allowed to eat.

I'm just not confinced tactics like this do much of anything to really solve
the problem of obesity:
Michelle Obama to join Olive Garden announcement - BostonHerald.com

[VintagePunk]

Originally Posted by VintagePunk

I love PB&J too. That's my lunch more often than not (on whole grain toast), and I'm a grown-ass adult.

Iron Horse, your attitudes toward food and physical activity seem very sensible. If only everyone could think that way. But they don't, obviously. So what would your attitude/solution toward those who don't be? Leave them on their own and let them wallow in their own poor-nutrition worlds and suffer the inherent diseases? Should the government attempt to inform about poor choices? Should they regulate? Where is your personal line?

Originally Posted by the iron horse

Thank you so much for answering a simple question.

Take care

Are you the pot or the kettle? And I even asked my question nicely.

[INDY500]

Originally Posted by Canadiens1131

No man is an island.

Overweight and obese people put a tremendous stress on the healthcare system in the United States, whether Iron Horse decides to make his own sensible individual choices or not. These people cost him, and every taxpayer money.

I wonder why many conservatives seem to have this fallacy of a view that every family lives on a large parcel of land with a home they earned through the American dream and the personal freedom and space to not ever affect any other individual in society negatively.

It's the "plantation", 19th century view of society and in this day and age it's ludicrous.

Unwed mothers and their children put a tremendous stress on the healthcare system in the United States.

Illegal citizens and their children put a tremendous stress on the healthcare system in the United States.

Homosexual men with AIDS put a tremendous stress on the healthcare system in the United States.

These statements would be true as well but somehow I don't think we'll hear your concern about them. Not PC. Currently only smokers and fatties deserve our scorn for burdening the healthcare system.

But really, why does it concern you or anyone else if someone you don't even know smokes or is overweight? Rides a motorcycle without a helmet or is a couch potato. Why is it your or the government's business? It wasn't in the "plantation 19th century," so why "in this day and age"? Well... the government made it everyone's business with this cobbled together collective utopia didn't they? Now I guess we're to be a nation of busybodies tracking our neighbors high-fructose corn syrup intake or failure to wear safety glasses while running the leaf blower.

But we could wipe out obesity, tobacco use and illegitimacy; ban motorcycles and leaf blowers--and the single greatest expense to any healthcare system would still exist.

Old people. It's Pops and his bad ticker and chemo. Granny and her rheumatoid arthritis and broken hip. That's who's running up our healthcare tab. Which probably explains why the only 3 countries that have legalized euthanasia also have universal health care. Well, only 3... so far.

[BVS]

This is probably right up there with one of your worse posts ever...

And do you still wonder why the Tea Party is looked at as a bunch of uninformed bigots?

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by INDY500

Homosexual men with AIDS put a tremendous stress on the healthcare system in the United States.

These statements would be true as well but somehow I don't think we'll hear your concern about them. Not PC. Currently only smokers and fatties deserve our scorn for burdening the healthcare system.

well, let's see, there are millions and millions and millions more smokers and fatties than gay guys (or, say, african-american women, since gay men are less than half of HIV infections) with AIDS. but you shouldn't worry -- you think all gay men are rich, so therefore, we all have ultra-fancy private health care. really, no burden to you at all.

so, yes, this statement really is much more about being ignorant than about being bravely un-PC.

Old people. It's Pops and his bad ticker and chemo. Granny and her rheumatoid arthritis and broken hip. That's who's running up our healthcare tab. Which probably explains why the only 3 countries that have legalized euthanasia also have universal health care. Well, only 3... so far.

i'd say something about your thinly veiled "death panels" comment, but then again, you certainly trust the government to execute people of questionable guilt, so why are you so concerned about pulling the plug on granny?

[INDY500]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

well, let's see, there are millions and millions and millions more smokers and fatties than gay guys (or, say, african-american women, since gay men are less than half of HIV infections) with AIDS. but you shouldn't worry -- you think all gay men are rich, so therefore, we all have ultra-fancy private health care. really, no burden to you at all.

so, yes, this statement really is much more about being ignorant than about being bravely un-PC.

Not ignorance, my list isn't meant to show the highest economic impact pathologies only to illustrate that there are all kinds of behavior related healthcare costs. Only some of which as concerned citizens of the collective we're supposed to point and screech at:


By the way, if we really want to discourage unhealthy behavior why is Obamacare so insistent on community ratings for health insurance rather than experience rating?

i'd say something about your thinly veiled "death panels" comment, but then again, you certainly trust the government to execute people of questionable guilt, so why are you so concerned about pulling the plug on granny?

Granny isn't on deathrow. Granny wasn't found guilty by a jury of her peers and granny doesn't get 10 to 15 years of appeal after appeal. Granny isn't guilty of anything but becoming too expensive to a politicized heathcare system.

[Canadiens1131]

Originally Posted by INDY500

Unwed mothers and their children put a tremendous stress on the healthcare system in the United States.
That's why I support manditory sex ed in schools, not putting our fingers in our ears and telling kids who will have sex anyway that abstinence is the only way to go.

And there is indeed a problem with fatherhood in the black and hispanic communities, but that is another conversation for another thread, where it won't be veering off topic.

Illegal citizens and their children put a tremendous stress on the healthcare system in the United States.
I support immigration reform actually. Just not stopping random brown folks in Arizona and asking, "Yes, your pap-has pleazzzze?" (Nazi accent for effect).

Homosexual men with AIDS put a tremendous stress on the healthcare system in the United States.
Straight people with AIDS put stress on the healthcare system.. What's your point? Maybe you should go watch 'Philadelphia' and have a little cry, Indy.

These statements would be true as well but somehow I don't think we'll hear your concern about them. Not PC. Currently only smokers and fatties deserve our scorn for burdening the healthcare system.

But really, why does it concern you or anyone else if someone you don't even know smokes or is overweight? Rides a motorcycle without a helmet or is a couch potato. Why is it your or the government's business? It wasn't in the "plantation 19th century," so why "in this day and age"? Well... the government made it everyone's business with this cobbled together collective utopia didn't they? Now I guess we're to be a nation of busybodies tracking our neighbors high-fructose corn syrup intake or failure to wear safety glasses while running the leaf blower.

But we could wipe out obesity, tobacco use and illegitimacy; ban motorcycles and leaf blowers--and the single greatest expense to any healthcare system would still exist.

Old people. It's Pops and his bad ticker and chemo. Granny and her rheumatoid arthritis and broken hip. That's who's running up our healthcare tab. Which probably explains why the only 3 countries that have legalized euthanasia also have universal health care. Well, only 3... so far.

What's with the Orwellian angle you put on everything? Is it growing up under the shadow of Communism?

Maybe my generation, growing up in the 90s, is a bit more optimistic. Nice of your to show your true colours every once in a while, though...that was a doozie of a post

[maycocksean]

Originally Posted by INDY500

Granny isn't guilty of anything but becoming too expensive to a politicized heathcare system.

She's also too expensive to the private insurance industry so. . .

[the iron horse]

Originally Posted by BVS

This is probably right up there with one of your worse posts ever...

And do you still wonder why the Tea Party is looked at as a bunch of uninformed bigots?

As always BVS is on topic.

[financeguy]

Originally Posted by INDY500

Granny isn't on deathrow. Granny wasn't found guilty by a jury of her peers and granny doesn't get 10 to 15 years of appeal after appeal. Granny isn't guilty of anything but becoming too expensive to a politicized heathcare system.

Indeed, and Granny is not, in all probability, a brutal murderer, which most of the people on deathrow undoubtedly are.

I'm in favour, as a general rule, of public health care, but your points about double standards are also, I think, well made. We read all the time about some celebrities doing AIDS charity work, but not so much about the same celebrities involved in similar efforts for cancer research. Perhaps it's just not fashionable enough.

Cancer affects practically everyone at some stage in their lives, whereas AIDS for the most part affects only certain demographic groups. It is a selective disease - essentially, to be blunt, a lifestyle disease, and, sorry, Irvine, but infection rates for male homosexuals, at least in the West, remain disproportionately much higher than for any other demographic group.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by the iron horse

As always BVS is on topic.

Have you met the kettle?

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by INDY500

Not ignorance, my list isn't meant to show the highest economic impact pathologies only to illustrate that there are all kinds of behavior related healthcare costs. Only some of which as concerned citizens of the collective we're supposed to point and screech at:

we're talking numbers, here.

Granny isn't on deathrow. Granny wasn't found guilty by a jury of her peers and granny doesn't get 10 to 15 years of appeal after appeal. Granny isn't guilty of anything but becoming too expensive to a politicized heathcare system.

you trust that the government has reached the right verdict? you have no problem with a government that can and will kill you should it so choose but you somehow have a problem that may require you to simply hold health insurance?

party of death i suppose?

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by financeguy

We read all the time about some celebrities doing AIDS charity work, but not so much about the same celebrities involved in similar efforts for cancer research. Perhaps it's just not fashionable enough.

i don't think this is true at all. celebrities do lots of different charities, certainly cancer is on that list, as are many others. AIDS is a big one, certainly, but if you look at the scale of *global* AIDS, it's already the deadliest disease in human history. that does seem to point out that it's worth of some consideration.

Cancer affects practically everyone at some stage in their lives, whereas AIDS for the most part affects only certain demographic groups. It is a selective disease - essentially, to be blunt, a lifestyle disease, and, sorry, Irvine, but infection rates for male homosexuals, at least in the West, remain disproportionately much higher than for any other demographic group.

disproportionate, yes, when 5% of the population makes up about 45% of the population with HIV in the West. i agree. but there's that other 55% of heterosexuals who have it, and sadly it's their plight that actually made the government start to care about AIDS. when it was just gays and Haitians in the early 1980s, no one cared. mothers and children had to start dying.

lung cancer certainly seems a lifestyle disease. so does any number of heart ailments related to weight, stress, smoking, diet, and exercise.

AIDS continues to be stigmatized in a way that other diseases aren't, and sexual diseases in general are stigmatized in ways that other diseases aren't. look at the "controversy" over Guardasil here in the US. the real objection was not that it was a somehow unsafe vaccine, quite the contrary. the real controversy was that some abstinence-obsessed parents thought it would encourage kids to go out and have sex since, hey, no HPV to worry about! this is why the abstinence-only crowd is obsessed with supposed "failure rates" of condoms -- because knowledge that facilitates responsible sexual activity utterly crushes their "no sex till biblical marriage" because it removes the fear-mongering and scare tactics they use about STDs and about how contraception is utterly doomed to failure.

certainly people bring diseases upon themselves. still, yes, i actually do feel more sympathy for someone who neglects to use a condom in a heated moment than someone who smokes a pack a day for 20 years and is diagnosed with Stage 4 lung cancer.

[INDY500]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

i don't think this is true at all. celebrities do lots of different charities, certainly cancer is on that list, as are many others. AIDS is a big one, certainly, but if you look at the scale of *global* AIDS, it's already the deadliest disease in human history. that does seem to point out that it's worth of some consideration.


disproportionate, yes, when 5% of the population makes up about 45% of the population with HIV in the West. i agree. but there's that other 55% of heterosexuals who have it, and sadly it's their plight that actually made the government start to care about AIDS. when it was just gays and Haitians in the early 1980s, no one cared. mothers and children had to start dying.

The pendulum than swung widely to the other side and any suggestion that spending on HIV (including research) was becoming far too disproportional compared to diabetes or heart disease was deemed bigoted. And no public figure in the 90's dare to refuse a red AIDS ribbon.

Incredible knowledge of retroviruses resulted from that research which has been applicable to the treatment of several diseases including HIV but AIDS was a perfect example of what happens to health care when it becomes politicized. With Obamacare this will only intensify exponentially as lobbyists flock to D.C. to insure their treatment, procedure or drug is listed under the government's mandated coverages. Especially as the pressure to contain costs intensifies.

Will the best medications get picked or the ones produced by the manufacture cozy with the right people? Will the most needy patients get treatment or the most powerful special interest groups? Will politicians be able to speak truthfully or will everything become demagogued as we now see with our other entitlements?

[BVS]

Originally Posted by INDY500

The pendulum than swung widely to the other side and any suggestion that spending on HIV (including research) was becoming far too disproportional compared to diabetes or heart disease was deemed bigoted. And no public figure in the 90's dare to refuse a red AIDS ribbon.

Incredible knowledge of retroviruses resulted from that research which has been applicable to the treatment of several diseases including HIV but AIDS was a perfect example of what happens to health care when it becomes politicized. With Obamacare this will only intensify exponentially as lobbyists flock to D.C. to insure their treatment, procedure or drug is listed under the government's mandated coverages. Especially as the pressure to contain costs intensifies.

Will the best medications get picked or the ones produced by the manufacture cozy with the right people? Will the most needy patients get treatment or the most powerful special interest groups? Will politicians be able to speak truthfully or will everything become demagogued as we now see with our other entitlements?

This IS healthcare right now. You have to be aware of this. Just look at your presidential hopeful for that...

You cannot be this blind.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by INDY500

And no public figure in the 90's dare to refuse a red AIDS ribbon.

how awful. thank goodness we're more free of the iron grip of compassion these days.

the broader point about HIV is that it is a global epidemic, and it took heterosexuals dying to get the churches involved.

there is definitely a good argument to be made that there is disproportionate AIDS funding, but hey, that's just the free market talking.

[INDY500]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

how awful. thank goodness we're more free of the iron grip of compulsory compassion these days.

There, that's better.