[quote]phaethon wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
and being sedentary in both work.
[/quote]
In which the employee is given little choice.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
isn’t a result of being “victimized” by external forces and evildoers
[/quote]
I have removed the “in the fast food industry” because you are spot on. However, obesity is often a result of being victimized by external forces and evildoers. So much stress at work? Eating makes you feel better. Having trouble keeping a roof over your families head? Eating makes you feel better. Wife was cheating on you and divorced you? Eating makes you feel better.
Obesity is a sign of a troubled society rather than a lazy one.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
…removing their responsibility to pay for it is the problem primarily driving the moral hazard aspect of it, as is the case with all insurance mechanisms.
[/quote]
If insurance in general is the problem then how do we fix it? Outlaw health insurance?
But I think the real problem is the almost immediate positive reward and then very slow (years) negative reward feedback loop.
To explain what I mean I will use heavy drinking as an example. Most people I know who drink heavily feel great while they are drinking but then feel horrible the morning after. If they felt horrible as they started the beer that would push them over the edge into “too much alcohol” then they would almost immediately stop. But because the negatives are just 1 day later people tend to ignore them.
What we need are better feedback loops. One approach is to show our contempt for people when they eat really unhealthy amounts/types of food. So if you go to kfc with your friend and he orders a bucket of 20 chicken drumsticks and a large bottle of coke you should stop talking to him that day and sit away from him. Presto, now we have a quick feedback loop.
And this used to happen. I think because when there was less food to go around you were considered a huge asshole for eating so much around people who could barely afford to eat a little. But now it is “mean”! And we can’t be mean or someone might have their feelings hurt. :S
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
And, just to finalize it, everything you have argued for is fine, as far as it goes - pleas for “universal” health care are common. But let’s call it what it is - a form of wealth distribution. People get care - that isn’t the problem. What you want is for other people to pay for it.[/quote]
There would be wealth distribution but it isn’t really the point. The problem is health care costs in the US are rising much faster than they are in other countries.
Part of the reason is many people lack insurance but can still get care. And when the hospital gives them the bill they say they can’t pay (and they really can’t). So the hospital has to recoup these costs from the paying customers. There is no real way to avoid wealth redistribution unless those who cannot afford it are denied care.
And denying people care when their life is in danger causes its own problems. Big problems.[/quote]
No you are being idiotic, for the sake of sanity I hope you are being sarcastic. Sorry but because some people are to pathetic to understand the difference between instant gratification and delayed gratifications, because they have no responsibility in their life and act on impulses they know are going to be detrimental in the end, does not make it our responsibility to pay for their self indulgent lifestyle.
Seriously that is the most moronic argument I have ever heard, I hope you are being sarcastic and I am just not picking up on it.
By your argument we can’t hold serial killers accountable, because at the time it feels good and they don’ think about the consequences.