My HC Insurance Went Up

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

Addiction to shit food, is like any other addiction, and could be the hardest one to control too. Because while you don’t HAVE to drink or do drugs, you DO need to still eat. Not to mention that you don’t even have to get out of your car now to get shit food, and you can use a credit card too.

You also have physiological impulses which make it hard. Ever crave steak when you get stressed? I doubt it. Why? Your elevating cortisol can be counteracted by insulin, which is secreted in the presence of glucose. Ever hear of people raping cookies, pizza, ice cream, when they get stressed? I hear what you are saying, but what you are talking about it someone truly dedicated, and that is truly rare these days. [/quote]

Right, but that addiction is made worse by the ubiquitousness and ease of shit food. Maybe if you had to get out of the car, and wait 15-20 minutes, and pay more than 3 dollars for that food at mcdonalds… maybe more people would say “fuck this, I’ll just go home and cook food”.

Shit food is right up there with cigarettes… yet cigarette vending machines are hard to find and smoking is not permitted in most places. Cigarettes are also heavily taxed. Strangely, I dont hear people scream about how people have the “freedom” to smoke and its a violation of their rights… but if I say shit food should be taxed, there’s a big problem there.[/quote]

People have the “freedom” to smoke and its a violation of their rights to deny them or try to change their behavior through taxes.

62

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
I didn’t say the costs ‘need to be’ distributed or ‘should’ be distributed, just that they ‘will’ be distributed.

[/quote]

As long as people stand for it.

[/quote]

You planning the rebellion?

63

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
If ice cream cost 10 dollars a pint, what would happen? People would probably still buy it, but they would treat it as an occasional delicacy rather than something it’s “normal” to have a bowl of every night.

Isn’t making crap food cheap subsidizing bad food choices? [/quote]

Not really.

Agriculture subsidies are however, um, subsidies.

64

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
I didn’t say the costs ‘need to be’ distributed or ‘should’ be distributed, just that they ‘will’ be distributed.

[/quote]

As long as people stand for it.

[/quote]

You planning the rebellion? [/quote]

There does not even need to be one, passive resistance would be enough to collapse this system in weeks.

However, if social security systems break down, bloow will flow.

I see no reason why people who have behaved like spoiled children all their lives will suddenly act mature if shit hits the fan.

65

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
If ice cream cost 10 dollars a pint, what would happen? People would probably still buy it, but they would treat it as an occasional delicacy rather than something it’s “normal” to have a bowl of every night.

Isn’t making crap food cheap subsidizing bad food choices? [/quote]

Problem is, who gets to define what shit food is? Where does it start and stop? You have some “medical experts” that claim eating too much protein is bad for your kidneys. Does that mean that it will become illegal to drink protein shakes that have more than “X” grams of protein in it?

What about the health benefits of red wine we see in the media? The usual verbage is something like, “A glass or two is ok, but in moderation.” What is moderate, who defines it, and who will bust my balls if I don’t abide?

I think it will always come down to personal choice.

66

As far as cigarettes goes, there are studies proving it’s toxicity, you have warning labels on the packages, and you even have some tobacco companies admitting their products can kill you. Have people stopped smoking? Not really. You might have deterred some people, but people who smoke do so knowing it is unhealthy. Same thing with shit food, these people just accept the consequences that come with it. The problem is, when you, me, or anyone else has to pay for their choices. Fuck that.

My dad died from cancer, most likely brought on by 30 years of smoking. Did he yell or blame the tobacco company? Nope, he just figured it was his time. He gambled and accepted the risk. At least my pop could keep it real.

67

Then the question becomes why didn’t your dad and other smokers quit, is it because they were too addicted? The cigarette packages tell you TOXIC and DEATH but they don’t mention how addicting they are. In addition when people smoke they are releasing second hand smoke that can effect 3rd parties that could potentially be harmed.

68

[quote]Gettnitdone wrote:
Then the question becomes why didn’t your dad and other smokers quit, is it because they were too addicted? The cigarette packages tell you TOXIC and DEATH but they don’t mention how addicting they are. In addition when people smoke they are releasing second hand smoke that can effect 3rd parties that could potentially be harmed.
[/quote]

Oh shut up. I smoke and I know the risks. It was one of the things that led to my dads early death.

3rd party people are affected by just about everything we do.

69

[quote]Gettnitdone wrote:
Then the question becomes why didn’t your dad and other smokers quit, is it because they were too addicted? The cigarette packages tell you TOXIC and DEATH but they don’t mention how addicting they are. In addition when people smoke they are releasing second hand smoke that can effect 3rd parties that could potentially be harmed.
[/quote]

Yeah.

Your risk of developing lung cancer if you do not smoke is 03-0,5%.

So even if passive smoking causes this risk to increase by a whopping 50%, so what?

If you want to increase your chances of getting lung cancer by 0,15-0,25% by associating with smokers, how is that anybodies business?

70

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Gettnitdone wrote:
Then the question becomes why didn’t your dad and other smokers quit, is it because they were too addicted? The cigarette packages tell you TOXIC and DEATH but they don’t mention how addicting they are. In addition when people smoke they are releasing second hand smoke that can effect 3rd parties that could potentially be harmed.
[/quote]

Yeah.

Your risk of developing lung cancer if you do not smoke is 03-0,5%.

So even if passive smoking causes this risk to increase by a whopping 50%, so what?

If you want to increase your chances of getting lung cancer by 0,15-0,25% by associating with smokers, how is that anybodies business?[/quote]

I doubt he even knows how cancer is made. It just is bad and evil and smoking can affect it so BAD!!!

71

Dude I love how you’re so casual about it. “Yeah I smoke and I know it will probably kill me if I keep doing it but hey wtf!.” It’s a shame how a mildly intelligent guy like yourself is potentially cutting himself short. But maybe next time you could be a little more respectful about the issue for people that know people that have lost family members to that shit.

72

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
If ice cream cost 10 dollars a pint, what would happen? People would probably still buy it, but they would treat it as an occasional delicacy rather than something it’s “normal” to have a bowl of every night.

Isn’t making crap food cheap subsidizing bad food choices? [/quote]

Problem is, who gets to define what shit food is? Where does it start and stop? You have some “medical experts” that claim eating too much protein is bad for your kidneys. Does that mean that it will become illegal to drink protein shakes that have more than “X” grams of protein in it?

What about the health benefits of red wine we see in the media? The usual verbage is something like, “A glass or two is ok, but in moderation.” What is moderate, who defines it, and who will bust my balls if I don’t abide?

I think it will always come down to personal choice.

[/quote]

Why do you keep talking about “making things illegal”? I’m just talking about not making things super cheap and convenient.

73

[quote]Gettnitdone wrote:
Dude I love how you’re so casual about it. “Yeah I smoke and I know it will probably kill me if I keep doing it but hey wtf!.” It’s a shame how a mildly intelligent guy like yourself is potentially cutting himself short. But maybe next time you could be a little more respectful about the issue for people that know people that have lost family members to that shit.[/quote]

If this was directed at me take a good long look at what I wrote.

74

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
If ice cream cost 10 dollars a pint, what would happen? People would probably still buy it, but they would treat it as an occasional delicacy rather than something it’s “normal” to have a bowl of every night.

Isn’t making crap food cheap subsidizing bad food choices? [/quote]

Problem is, who gets to define what shit food is? Where does it start and stop? You have some “medical experts” that claim eating too much protein is bad for your kidneys. Does that mean that it will become illegal to drink protein shakes that have more than “X” grams of protein in it?

What about the health benefits of red wine we see in the media? The usual verbage is something like, “A glass or two is ok, but in moderation.” What is moderate, who defines it, and who will bust my balls if I don’t abide?

I think it will always come down to personal choice.

[/quote]

Why do you keep talking about “making things illegal”? I’m just talking about not making things super cheap and convenient.[/quote]

Yeah lets see which politician takes away a fat persons candy bar.

75

It doesn’t necessarily take politicians. If enough people who work at a particular place show a desire for, say, a vending machine to be removed, the business would likely remove it.

I know, its a little tiny insignificant step, and will proabably never happen, but it would be a little tiny step in the right direction.

76

I didn’t bother to read the thread, so apologies if this has been covered. But has your insurance ever “gone down?” How does this increase relate to your previous increases?

Don’t bother to answer if you don’t feel like it.

77

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
I didn’t bother to read the thread, so apologies if this has been covered. But has your insurance ever “gone down?” How does this increase relate to your previous increases?

Don’t bother to answer if you don’t feel like it. [/quote]

No, my insurance has never gone down. This increase is more troubling because the President screamed while thumping his chest, “your current plan won’t go up with this bill !” Remember that part ?

78

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
I didn’t bother to read the thread, so apologies if this has been covered. But has your insurance ever “gone down?” How does this increase relate to your previous increases?

Don’t bother to answer if you don’t feel like it. [/quote]

No, my insurance has never gone down. This increase is more troubling because the President screamed while thumping his chest, “your current plan won’t go up with this bill !” Remember that part ? [/quote]

I will be the first to admit when I’m wrong, Max…but no…I don’t remember the President saying this. He did say "You will be able to keep your insurance/the insurance you have…but I never remember him saying anything about direct price controls on private companies.

Also, only certain provisions of the Health Reform bill have even kicked in. Some may have added to your increase…but most is a result of the spiraling cost of Health Care.

If the President said " the cost of your plan would not go up" (which I really doubt)…I stand corrected.

Mufasa

79

[quote]PatMac wrote:

[quote]dk44 wrote:

[quote]PatMac wrote:

Thanks for validating my assumption that you don’t proof read your own posts.[/quote]

Man I don’t know what the hell you are talking about.[/quote]

That should be expected, you are a goat right?

No need to apologize. I can understand why it comes off that way. No, dude has good life even with paying more for insurance coverage (admittedly for questionable reasons), I’m just trying to point that out. Enough money to get health insurance, time to think, the ability to access and use the Internet, etc…
[/quote]

Here is the thing, he worked for what he has, why should anyo9ne assume they have the right to take what he has worked for.

If he chooses to give that is one thing, he can designate where what goes and it will probably used more efficiently.

But the criminal regulations make it so even though he takes care of himself and works for what he has, he has suck it up and pay for those who don’t work or take care of themselves.

where I work, the global headquarters is in France, they just start this genius idea of tiering how mush you pay for your healthcare. So if you make more you pay more for the same exact coverage. Want to know the funny thing is this upset and insulted those in the lower brackets as much as those in the upper brackets. Because it is demotivating. Now when you get a raise you lose most of it. For the same coverage.

Should food be the same. Should the cost of a chicken breast be proportional to what you make.

Oh so we can all aspire to nothing and still all have the same shit, who is going to pay to subsidize that?

80

[quote]apbt55 wrote:

Here is the thing, he worked for what he has, why should anyo9ne assume they have the right to take what he has worked for.

If he chooses to give that is one thing, he can designate where what goes and it will probably used more efficiently.[/quote]

He is giving his money to the insurance provider therefore granting them the right. He has the power to save his money and he gives it to them. To blame this on Obama is to ignore the capitalist insurance company that is asking him for more money and his willing decision to pay the higher amount. He has control yet blames someone else.

Obama is a great catch-all except in this case it’s private business that’s asking him for his cash and he’s handing it over blaming the POTUS.

Maybe, but that isn’t what is happening here - at least I’m not able to see this coming back to Obama (yet) based on what his insurance company sent him. He’s able to see it that way, but it seems more like a feeling than a fact. And it does seem to go along with his trend of not being very fond of Obama.

I think his insurance company, like most insurance companies, are just driving up rates as they choose. Something that may not occur if the industry was better (gasp) regulated.

[quote]where I work, the global headquarters is in France, they just start this genius idea of tiering how mush you pay for your healthcare. So if you make more you pay more for the same exact coverage. Want to know the funny thing is this upset and insulted those in the lower brackets as much as those in the upper brackets. Because it is demotivating. Now when you get a raise you lose most of it. For the same coverage.

Should food be the same. Should the cost of a chicken breast be proportional to what you make.

Oh so we can all aspire to nothing and still all have the same shit, who is going to pay to subsidize that?[/quote]

Lazy people will aspire to nothing. The rest of us will work hard to achieve the life we believe we have the right to live. If you aspire to nothing, you are lazy; regardless of where you life or their system of government. I think this is why so many people irrationally fear socialist policies. Once ones needs are met, they should move on and do the things that are fulfilling for them.

The actual number of complete deadbeats is a lot lower than to warrant this irrational fear of change.