We're From the Government, and We're Here to Help You Lose Weight 9:15 AM, JUN 26, 2012 • BY GEOFFREY NORMANSingle PagePrintLarger TextSmaller TextAlerts While most of Washington is waiting around, nervously chewing on its fingernails in anticipation of the Supreme Court's Obamacare decision (may I have the envelope, please), there are some who are still in the fight. As Melissa Healy writes in the Los Angeles Times:
a federal health advisory panel on Monday recommended that all obese adults receive intensive counseling in an effort to rein in a growing health crisis in America.
That too many Americans weigh far too much is indisputable. That they need counseling in order to find out why they are fat and what they can do about it ... well, less so. One suspects that most overweight people have heard the old mantra of "eat less; exercise more." Why, one wonders, should it require "intensive" counseling to get this message across? Is it that hard to understand?
And, then, there is the question of costs and who pays them. As Ms. Healy reports:
Few private health insurers now reimburse physicians for weight-loss counseling or pay for programs that patients seek out on their own.
And worse:
A growing number, in fact, charge obese patients more for coverage — a policy that some public health officials have denounced as punitive and ineffective.
People who are at risk, because of their own behavior, paying higher insurance premiums. Why the sheer, brutalizing, inhumanity of it.
And one does wonder if the higher premiums might serve as an actual incentive to cut back on the potato chips and start taking the stairs. Lose weight, save money. Most people would understand the appeal of that even without intensive counseling.
Still, maybe the counseling route is worth the effort, one thinks. After all:
Obesity and obesity-related diseases are already responsible for an estimated $147 billion in annual healthcare spending.
So maybe we should go the panel's route, even though:
Widespread adoption of [its] recommendation would increase ... spending, at least initially.
And much of the increase will be borne by the non-obese, since that's the way subsidies work. But if it slims the population down enough to cut back on the cardio-vascular afflictions, the diabetes, and the other ills associated with obesity, then maybe we should soldier up and go with more government, less personal responsibility, and a spike in the population of counselors instructing grown-ups on the importance of eating more leafy green vegetables.
Except that:
The panel acknowledged that one problem with its recommendation was that no studies have shown such intensive programs provide long-term health benefits.
Oh.
I take out of you what you put in I can't put in you what you don't take care of
be very very careful of being labeled....unhealthy lifestyle will be labeled a 'mental health issue'.....your smart phone will lock you out of all purchases you want and only give you what you need(according to the at least standards)
be careful what we wish for
...you are a product of your environment, your environment is a product of your priorities, your priorities are a product of you......
The replacement of morality and conscience with law produces a deadly paradox.
STOP BEING GOOD DEMOCRATS---STOP BEING GOOD REPUBLICANS--START BEING GOOD AMERICANS
Yes. Some where around 1% by the Republican data they presented, are Dead Beats who earn enough to buy health care insurance, but don't buy it and push the cost of their health care on to the taxpayers.So... SOME people, a small number of people will be forced to buy health insurance (the Republican Plan) from a private for profit company.
As to your question... "How does it feel to be fascist?" I would have no way of knowing the answer to that question... I've never been a fascist.
LOL...So the 1% that does not have health insurance but have enough money to purhcase it push the cost of health care onto the taxpayers? Is this 1% taxpayers? YES! So they are pushing health care costs onto themselves?LMAO!
Now the federal government and the Democrat Party is forcing people to buy corporate health insurance or pay a penalty for a product they may never use. Just for being alive!
Once Obamacare is fully implemented, the democrat party will be the party of the corporate insurance industry. Funding their campaigns with insurance industry profits, earned using money they forced out of the pockets of all Americans to give to their cronies in the insurance business.
Again...How does if feel to be a fascist?(use your google bar - do some research)
MORE insurance is unfair....We want people to have health insurance because we are concerned about their health, BUT, they can't have TOO MUCH insurance and care TOO MUCH about their health.
SOCIAL JUSTICE!!!
And yet a few years back when Congress and the State Legislatures were getting boat loads of money from the Insurance industry - the state was encouraging/pushing (not mandating) people (especially baby boomers to buy long term care insurance). Don't get me wrong, there was nothing wrong with people actually planning for their later years and choosing to get insurance to protect help pay for long term health care. But now those same people are going to be penalized for thinking and planning ahead and taking care of their future long term care needs. The same would be true for people who could afford and chose to buy more expensive than basic policies or possibly even insurance to cover catastrophic health care needs.
I do not believe it is the Federal governments role to force people to buy anything. And on top of that then have the nerve to penalize people for buying "too much" of what they want everyone to buy.
Joe Pagliarulo made a good point on the radio this morning --- would extreme liberals be happy if a future Congress and President were to take this Supreme Court ruling and decide -- let's pass a law mandating that all Americans buy a gun or pay a penalty (tax). I don't believe they (the extreme liberals) would.
Furthermore, I have grave concern over the Chief Justice iNSERTING his own "legislative intent" in this case. President Obama and those who supported the bill in Congress REPEATEDLY stated it was not a tax -- not intended to be a tax. Of course, one could counter that they were just lying all along. But the judicial system has a long history of looking at the actual statements made by those who drafted and voted for a piece of legislation to determine "legislative intent". And if President Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and the extreme liberal members of Congress repeatedly stated that it was not a tax - how does a justice of the Supreme Court pull a rabbit out of his hat ( or a ruling out of his backside) and say "the court is going to tell you what the intent was or should have in order to make the legislation constitutional."
The Supreme Court ruling sets a number of dangerous precedents.
George Amedore & Christian Klueg for NYS Senate 2016 Pete Vroman for State Assembly 2016[/size][/color]
"For this is what America is all about. It is the uncrossed desert and the unclimbed ridge. It is the star that is not reached and the harvest that is sleeping in the unplowed ground." Lyndon Baines Johnson
Furthermore, I have grave concern over the Chief Justice iNSERTING his own "legislative intent" in this case. President Obama and those who supported the bill in Congress REPEATEDLY stated it was not a tax -- not intended to be a tax. Of course, one could counter that they were just lying all along. But the judicial system has a long history of looking at the actual statements made by those who drafted and voted for a piece of legislation to determine "legislative intent". And if President Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and the extreme liberal members of Congress repeatedly stated that it was not a tax - how does a justice of the Supreme Court pull a rabbit out of his hat ( or a ruling out of his backside) and say "the court is going to tell you what the intent was or should have in order to make the legislation constitutional."
The Supreme Court ruling sets a number of dangerous precedents.
What i've been reading is that the Obama Solicitor General argued Obamacare to the Supreme Court as a tax. Supreme Court arguments aren't really for public consumption. Legal arguments are way over the heads of 90% of Americans. So knowing that, the Democrats publicly sold it as a fee or fine, but hid the fact they were going to argue it as a tax.
Wallace plays the audio of Solicitor General arguing it as a tax.
YOUR ORGANIZATION (VENDOR) IS RECEIVING THIS LETTER IN ITS CAPACITY AS A VENDOR TO ******* 42 USC 1320-a-7 prohibits ****** from arranging with or contracting with and individual or entity who has been excluded from participation in Federal healthcare probrams for the provision of items or services for which payment may be made under a Federal Health Care program.
billing and coding edits-various billing and coding edit software packages assist in detecting billing and coding which is not compliant with rules associated with FEDERAL HEALTH CARE PROGRAMS
...you are a product of your environment, your environment is a product of your priorities, your priorities are a product of you......
The replacement of morality and conscience with law produces a deadly paradox.
STOP BEING GOOD DEMOCRATS---STOP BEING GOOD REPUBLICANS--START BEING GOOD AMERICANS
Health insurance mandate unfairly squeezes middle class
The government doesn’t have the right to tax people just for being alive. If the courts allow the government to do this, it’s reasonable they will eventually fi nd other services/commodities they will insist on people having and will tax for not having. The poor are covered by government programs and the rich can afford coverage. The middle class will continue to be squeezed, especially if employers fi nd it cheaper to pay penalties for not offering insurance than to continue to offer it. In 2016, a single person will have to pay a minimum penalty of $695 for not having insurance — which for many lower middle-class, single people, is their entire tax return. The reason health care is so expensive is because health care is so expensive. If thought about, it is laughable that the government addresses the high cost of health care by devising ways to force people to buy coverage instead of ways to force the multibillion-dollar insurance and health care industries to reduce the costs of their services to realistically affordable levels. A CT scan, which lasts about two minutes and uses technology that has been around for decades, should not cost hundreds to thousands of dollars. Reasons are given for the high cost of health services — to protect against malpractice suits, the cost of research, etc. — but at the end of the day, it is not just a stereotype to say that insurance reps, doctors, heads of hospitals and the like generally live very comfortable lifestyles while millions go without medical help because they can’t afford it, some dying as a result. These exorbitant rates are just profi ts for the companies, disguised as necessities.
Apparently the latest television technology allowed Fox News to capture two of this board's posters in order to video their reaction to the Supreme Court's ruling on Health care. The video spans several days immediately after ObamaCare was declared Constitutional. (The poster's names were not released, but their screen names are obvious to any board regular)
" VICTIMS OF OBAMACARE "
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
I think victims is the improper term....NO ONE IS A VICTIM....JUST A RAT IN A CAGE....
COME CLOSER....let me gnaw off your nose
Senders apparently HAS health insurance... and seems to have little regard for those millions of Americans who have none. " I got mine... Screw everyone else."
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Senders apparently HAS health insurance... and seems to have little regard for those millions of Americans who have none." I got mine... Screw everyone else."
Help me out...Am I supposed to feel sorry for the millions that don't have health insurance, and feel angry at those that don't have it but can afford it? Should I feel sorry for the ones that can afford and choose not to buy it, and are forced(theft) by the government to pay for those that can't afford it? When should I feel sorry for the person that is robbed by the government? Sometimes I have trouble sorting out the way the state wants me to feel. Oh so very confusing!
Help me out...Am I supposed to feel sorry for the millions that don't have health insurance, and feel angry at those that don't have it but can afford it? Should I feel sorry for the ones that can afford and choose not to buy it, and are forced(theft) by the government to pay for those that can't afford it? When should I feel sorry for the person that is robbed by the government? Sometimes I have trouble sorting out the way the state wants me to feel. Oh so very confusing!
By what you post here Cicero, you have no feelings for anyone except yourself. " I got mine... Screw everyone else.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
By what you post here Cicero, you have no feelings for anyone except yourself. " I got mine... Screw everyone else.
No, my problem is, I have feelings for EVERYBODY. I feel sorry for the person that works hard everyday to accumulate capital trying to get ahead, and is forced to use that capital to purchase a product they do not want. I feel sorry for the permanent underclass created through this forced dependency.
Fascist box supports forcing EVERY Americans to give their money to the corporate masters, in return Americans get a promise of health care.
The entrepreneurial spirit is dead in America. No more individual risk taking, Americans have turned into the euro trash across the Atlantic. Next will be 8 weeks state paid vacation and a state pension at 50.
“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.” The above is quoted verbatim from the U.S. Constitution. As Chief Justice (of the Supreme Court) Roberts noted, Congress does not have the power to require citizens to purchase specific products, nor to penalize them for not making said purchase. Justice Roberts then claimed that the individual mandate provision of “Obamacare” is, in fact, a tax, which Congress can legally impose. Maybe Justice Roberts overlooked the sections of the Constitution quoted. It seems quite clear that the founding fathers intended taxes to be levied for the purpose of administering this nation, and that those taxes be imposed equally and fairly on all citizens. Nothing is mentioned about using taxes as a penalty — in fact, it seems pretty clear that they did not want that to happen. That was one of the factors that pushed the colonies into revolution. Roberts put himself into a corner with this issue; even the president is backing away from calling the penalty a tax. The court ruling is inconsistent on its own merits and clearly conflicts with both the wording and intent of the Constitution. On this July 4, let’s take time to refl ect on the greatest freedom bestowed upon American citizens — the right to make our own choices. We need to make our voices heard; one choice facing us right now — do we want to live in George Orwell’s “1984” or live free in 2012 (and beyond)?
Cicero is really siding with the Free Loaders... those who suck at the public teat... it's bad enough when the poor do that, but in this case, Cicero is defending those who have enough money to buy health insurance, they have access to that insurance... yet they'd rather let YOU AND I pay for their hospital bills, and their doctor bills when they become seriously sick or injured.
Cicero imagines it's theft when it's a "tax", but it's his Constitutional Right for the "Free Loaders" to take dollars out of the Tax Payers Pockets.
The Republicans initiated this TAX, on the issue of fairness. They were afraid if the TAX were not mandatory, that the Free Loader Deadbeats would get a free ride at taxpayer expense.
A free ride is exactly what Cic is promoting.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Logged
