[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
[quote]challer1 wrote:
[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
Perhaps my question for you is, would you not agree that water/green tea would be a better option for a beverage.
That a salad with meat would be a better option than a sandwich and 4 slices of deli turkey.
That plain yogurt with their own added berries would be better than flavored?[/quote]
No.
I would agree that people are more likely to change once they learn to eat for a PURPOSE and stop randomly labeling shit as “bad” and “good”.
I drank green tea for years. My reasons? It was lower in calories and had less sugar. Why did I want those things? Because I had a goal of losing some body fat and not drinking something all day that would just give me cavities and make that harder.
MY REASON is why I ate that way. It wasn’t because someone labeled it “bad” or “good” for me.
Get it?
Why would plain yogurt be the better option for all people?
Oh wait…you just mean the fat ones…because we will somehow teach the country what not to eat but only speak to one side of the room.
Teach goals and teach lifestyle…but quit trying to put labels on all food like that because I just may want that rootbeer one day and it won’t kill me.[/quote]
“Oh wait…you just mean the fat ones…because we will somehow teach the country what not to eat but only speak to one side of the room.”
Yes. Exactly. We should teach that “Its generally not good to eat this, and if you’re fat you REALLY shouldn’t eat this.”
People like you just feed the problem because fat people, in debating what to eat, will think “Oh, that big muscular guy said no food is bad or good, so I shouldn’t think of this Big Mac as bad…”
Yes, X. Some foods are bad. Let me explain some simple things to you:
Bad food = food that has a net negative effect on your body
Bad food =/= food that instantly kills you.
So your argument that “Drinking that root beer won’t kill me!” doesn’t make a case for that root beer is good for you.
Get it?[/quote]
What you dont seem to get that it is all about choices.
If someone wants to stuff his face with junk food and accepts that he will most likely live a shorter and less healthy life, junk food is GOOD.
For him.
You dont get to make decisions for other people, not even what priorities they should have.
[/quote]
If we nationalize healthcare you can bet your ass regulations regarding obesity will be an issue.
When their right to be fat fucks with my bank account I’ll make their dumbshit decisions my responsibility.
Hopefully that won’t happen. Still a fucking pain they raise private health care costs too, though.
It’s illegal of course but I won’t hire fat people because they raise my insurance costs. Plus they are no doubt lazy fucks and would be worthless employees.[/quote]
I actually remember seeing some european study about 5 years back which concluded that it is actually cheaper for insurance companies if people are fat - they die young and hence do not have many years of retirement to collect expensive benefits while not working. Fat people also typically do not live long enough to get diseases common with age.
A fat person might have higher health care costs from age 25-65, but many will not live much past that age. It costs much more for someone who is otherwise healthy but lives to be 80+ to have healthcare. Things like supporting assisted living and nursing homes for years as well as treating common diseases in old age (prostate cancer, arthritis, alzheimers, eye problems, joint replacements, etc) are much more expensive in the long run than a single open heart surgery.
A fat person might tax the system for a $50,000 triple bypass and then die a few years later, whereas a healthy person might develop Alzheimer’s at age 75 and then live in a nursing home for the last 5 years of their life and rack up 50,000-75,000 a year in health care expenditures.[/quote]
Fat people will rack up charges for joint replacements, strokes, multiple heart issues, cancer, diabetes and complications et cetera much sooner than fit people. The good ones die from a heart attack, the rest tend to hang on and rack up medical bills for years.
Insurance accounts for costs across risk pools designated by age. Of course the older a “pool” the more expensive it will be, with a random spike in the mid 50s as cancer rates increase statistically for some reason and then fall off again.
Your study would have to isolate the obese from age defined risk pools and calculate for total lifetime cost vs. Total costs for a non obese pool which probably wasn’t the case as those calculations would not be standard and there would be no focus on such info. Basically apples to oranges.[/quote]
Cancer rates do not “fall off again”… they explode. People over 70 are nearly 4x as likely to get cancer as someone who is 50. For men the growth is even more rapid, and its due to prostate cancer.
The morbidly obese don’t typically live long enough to get prostate cancer. I have seen estimates that treating prostate cancer runs over $100,000 - much more than your typical heart surgery.