Jump to content

Photo

Half Devils/Half Politics Poll


  • Please log in to reply
76 replies to this topic

Poll: Half Devils/Half Politics Poll (48 member(s) have cast votes)

What do you care more about?

  1. Devils re-signing Parise (33 votes [68.75%])

    Percentage of vote: 68.75%

  2. Supreme Court Health Care Decision (15 votes [31.25%])

    Percentage of vote: 31.25%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#61 Daniel

Daniel

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,676 posts

Posted 28 June 2012 - 04:00 PM

lol. I get your point, but look at what's happened with smoking. A lot less people smoke now than 20-30-40 years ago. Getting the information out there helps. Yes, mcdonalds tastes good and is easier than finding healthy food, but why is that? It's connected to what I was saying about farm subsidies. Corn is VERY heavily subsidized and even insured. You may ask, are vegetable treated the same way? The answer is no, they're not. Grow healthy fruits/vegetables and you get no subsidies. Be Monsanto or ConAgra and grow sh!t tons of corn and meats full of hormones and are genetically modified, get a ton of subsidies. See how this works? lol. If one had incentive to eat healthy, one would more likely(not will) eat healthier. If healthy food was cheaper than mcdonalds, people would buy it more, period. But when you can get in 300+ calories for $1 at mcd's, why are you gonna spend $5 to get 300 calories from fruits or veggies?

As I said, the whole subsidies providing incentives to eat crappy food is a whole other discussion, but very related to health and healthcare.


At best this stuff will help out at the margins. Even the decrease in smoking rates hasn't helped all that much. Smoking is also a different kind of animal than junk food. Hard to explain why, but it just is.

The best you can hope for is to tax consumption of unhealthy stuff to pay for the costs of treating the medical consequences. But again, that's a tax on poor people.
  • 0
Posted Image
I collect spores, molds and fungus.
Hello fellow American. This you should vote me. I leave power. Good. Thank you, thank you. If you vote me, I'm hot. What? Taxes, they'll be lower... son. The Democratic vote is the right thing to do Philadelphia, so do.
How do you spot risk? How do you avoid risk? And what makes it so risky?

#62 ATLL765

ATLL765

    Assistant Coach

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,186 posts

Posted 28 June 2012 - 04:02 PM

I would imagine that places where smoking has really gone down are the places where cigarettes have been taxed the most.


It's gone down across the country, but I'm sure moreso in places like NY or places that are better educated. That's kinda what I'm talking about when it comes to incentives to live healthy. It's the reverse of that, but works the same. If someone so chooses to live their life in a way that runs the risk of letting themselves become a burden to society by becoming seriously ill, then they should be taxed to provide monies to cover those costs. Absolutely ok with that. And I smoke so it's not just me not caring because it doesn't affect me.

At best this stuff will help out at the margins. Even the decrease in smoking rates hasn't helped all that much. Smoking is also a different kind of animal than junk food. Hard to explain why, but it just is.

The best you can hope for is to tax consumption of unhealthy stuff to pay for the costs of treating the medical consequences. But again, that's a tax on poor people.


That's why I would rather see it go more towards subsidies for healthy foods than taxes on junk food. Make healthy stuff cheaper not crap more expensive. Although a slight increase in cost of junk food via removing subsidies would be acceptable to me.

If the gov't is gonna subsidize stuff, it might as well be something that will repay us through lower healthcare costs, right?

Edited by ATLL765, 28 June 2012 - 04:05 PM.

  • 0

#63 RedArmy8

RedArmy8

    Senior Devil

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 614 posts

Posted 28 June 2012 - 04:04 PM

I'd rather have a single payer system anyways. That being said, reimbursements for Medicare need to flattened so that you don't see abuses in the system of people being pushed towards treatments that have higher reimbursement rates. Again, here the argument is flatten the rate, broaden the base. Specialist are overpaid in our system, GPs are underpaid. Shift that so that specialists get less and GPs more and you will have more GPs and greater access. Less specialists could hurt, but usually a bit of a wait to see one isn't gonna kill you and if it is, the GP will let you know and I would hope that there could be a way to allow more needing patients skip in line. I'm over-simplifying, but you get the point.


Would much rather have single payer as well.
  • 0
The plan is to undermine the role of an independent press while constantly whining that any reportage that deviates from a staunch conservative narrative is biased … while at the same time filling the editorial vacuum that that creates by filling the propaganda juggernaut from under the guise of a news organization. And that organization would be called Fox News.

Socialism is no more impractical than capitalism - either in their purest form are ridiculous, unachievable ideals. A healthy society requires healthy doses of both.

#64 ATLL765

ATLL765

    Assistant Coach

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,186 posts

Posted 28 June 2012 - 04:08 PM

Would much rather have single payer as well.


I think it's the clear way to truly lowering costs. When you have a single payer, you have such leverage on costs of treatments because it's a take it or leave it situation. Either take $X for an x-ray or don't do it and you gotta assume that if it's still profitable, it will be done. I know Japan, in the case of x-rays said $X is what we'll pay and the industry responded by pushing manufacturers to create cheaper x-ray machines. I believe this was done by cutting out some of the more advanced and lesser used features on the machines, but that's, again, a trade off you have to make.
  • 2

#65 DevsMan84

DevsMan84

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,875 posts

Posted 28 June 2012 - 04:13 PM

It's gone down across the country, but I'm sure moreso in places like NY or places that are better educated. That's kinda what I'm talking about when it comes to incentives to live healthy. It's the reverse of that, but works the same. If someone so chooses to live their life in a way that runs the risk of letting themselves become a burden to society by becoming seriously ill, then they should be taxed to provide monies to cover those costs. Absolutely ok with that. And I smoke so it's not just me not caring because it doesn't affect me.



NY and a lot of those other places are are better educated also have some of the highest cigarette taxes in the US. Most smokers I know who want to quit do it for the financial reason as the main one and the health affects are just a bonus according to them.
  • 0

#66 Chuck the Duck

Chuck the Duck

    All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,535 posts

Posted 28 June 2012 - 05:26 PM

Carp - I'm neither a liberal, nor a conservative. I've voted both Democrat and Republican in past elections. I'm pretty much somewhere in the middle, economically conservative and socially liberal.

That being said, how are our roads and bridges looking with all those tax dollars and government oversight right about now? I know your argument will be, there's not enough tax dollars to pay for repairs, so tax the 1%. It's the liberal answer to everything - tax and spend. Problem with that is, unless you control your costs, eventually you have nothing left to tax. And there is a difference between enforcing clean air and water laws, and mandating someone purchase a product from a for-profit private institution. That is what I have a problem with. There are very good elements of the law, like barring insurance company from declining coverage for pre-existing conditions, allowing children to stay on their parents policy until age 26, etc. But the individual mandate is wrong in my eyes.

If you knew how to read you would have understood that I was providing an "extreme" example to make a point. If you knew anything about politics or law you would understand how decisions like this open the door for the government to continue to erode individual rights and personal liberties down the road...it's called precedent. That was my point, this decision is dangerous in what it represents as far as judicial interpretation, not necessarily what it represents with respect to this particular statute.

Edited by Chuck the Duck, 28 June 2012 - 05:30 PM.

  • 0
Posted Image

#67 NCDevsFan

NCDevsFan

    Assistant Coach

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,515 posts

Posted 28 June 2012 - 07:50 PM

That's why I would rather see it go more towards subsidies for healthy foods than taxes on junk food. Make healthy stuff cheaper not crap more expensive. Although a slight increase in cost of junk food via removing subsidies would be acceptable to me.


[/quote]


Slippery Slope. The Definition of Junk Food would soon exapnd to everything except vegetables. Removing the Corn Subsidies would increase the price of all food and possibly other products as well, not just junk food. Corn is mostly used in Feed (Cows, chickens, etc), Ethanol and exports. Only a small percentage is used for high Fructose Corn Syrup and its cousins.

If less corn was grown because it wasnt subsidized, farmers would have to switch to other crops at very high expense. If "healthy" food was cheaper, there would be a bigger demand for it, increasing the cost to comsumers.

Im not saying Im for the subsidy, just noting that things do not happen in a vacuum and there are always unintended consequences when the govt gets involved.
  • 0
It's the whiskey talking.

#68 Daniel

Daniel

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,676 posts

Posted 28 June 2012 - 08:34 PM

It's gone down across the country, but I'm sure moreso in places like NY or places that are better educated. That's kinda what I'm talking about when it comes to incentives to live healthy. It's the reverse of that, but works the same. If someone so chooses to live their life in a way that runs the risk of letting themselves become a burden to society by becoming seriously ill, then they should be taxed to provide monies to cover those costs. Absolutely ok with that. And I smoke so it's not just me not caring because it doesn't affect me.



That's why I would rather see it go more towards subsidies for healthy foods than taxes on junk food. Make healthy stuff cheaper not crap more expensive. Although a slight increase in cost of junk food via removing subsidies would be acceptable to me.

If the gov't is gonna subsidize stuff, it might as well be something that will repay us through lower healthcare costs, right?



Healthy food is cheap and readily available despite the nonsense about food deserts we're often told about. You can get a healthy salad at McDonalds and veggies at Walmart. You can buy Lean Cuisines for a few bucks at any bodega or drug store. People just like the Big Mac better.

Employees at my wife's former company were given subsidized Weight Watchers programs. A few morbidly obese women tried it and failed. Occasional success was eating half a pizza instead of a whole one for dinner.

There's a reason why most people who attempt to go on diets ultimately fail and why most gym memberships don't get used after a few months. Somehow I don't have my hopes up that Nancy Pelosi can come up with a law to change that, even if she took the time to actually read the bill.
  • 0
Posted Image
I collect spores, molds and fungus.
Hello fellow American. This you should vote me. I leave power. Good. Thank you, thank you. If you vote me, I'm hot. What? Taxes, they'll be lower... son. The Democratic vote is the right thing to do Philadelphia, so do.
How do you spot risk? How do you avoid risk? And what makes it so risky?

#69 Satans Hockey

Satans Hockey

    A Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,991 posts

Posted 28 June 2012 - 08:51 PM

Healthy food is cheap and readily available despite the nonsense about food deserts we're often told about. You can get a healthy salad at McDonalds and veggies at Walmart. You can buy Lean Cuisines for a few bucks at any bodega or drug store. People just like the Big Mac better.

Employees at my wife's former company were given subsidized Weight Watchers programs. A few morbidly obese women tried it and failed. Occasional success was eating half a pizza instead of a whole one for dinner.

There's a reason why most people who attempt to go on diets ultimately fail and why most gym memberships don't get used after a few months. Somehow I don't have my hopes up that Nancy Pelosi can come up with a law to change that, even if she took the time to actually read the bill.


Thing is though there are plenty of healthy people out there who do exercise and eat right and they still drop dead in their 40s and 50s.

When it's your time to go, it's your time to go.
  • 0

#70 Onddeck

Onddeck

    Assistant Coach

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,887 posts

Posted 28 June 2012 - 11:36 PM

I totally understand that. For some it will go up, some down. Although, the idea with the younger people not currently buying insurance, $1 is an increase from $0, right? Older people value health insurance more than the young and healthy, for obvious reasons. My point was that, on the whole, the cost of healthcare SHOULD go down. This, however, is contingent on the insurance companies not gouging us people and simultaneously bringing down their administrative costs. The research shows that country's with a universal healthcare policy, pay less as a % of GDP for healthcare, and that's just a FACT, not opinion.



You realize these things are called tariffs, right? It's not at all odd to have a tax on foreign goods to give an advantage to domestic products.

Right yea I understand that. But the the argument would just be, well in general young people have less money too
  • 0

Somebody's gotta be the hero... Why not me?


#71 Jerrydevil

Jerrydevil

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,901 posts

Posted 29 June 2012 - 09:36 AM

You can't cherrypick the bad and leave out the good here. Greece and Spain were fvcked not because of healthcare, but rather the ridiculous austerity measures put in place.


Seriously? Good god.
  • 0

#72 DevsMan84

DevsMan84

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,875 posts

Posted 29 June 2012 - 09:48 AM

Seriously? Good god.



lol apparently controlling the spending that got these countries in this mess is what are killing them according to socialists and liberals.

Makes zero sense.
  • 0

#73 Daniel

Daniel

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,676 posts

Posted 29 June 2012 - 10:17 AM

Austerity appears to have helped in Estonia.

I'm coming to the conclusion though that whether it works will be cultural thing. In very recent memory, Estonia was a dirt-poor communist country, so much of the population is used to deprivation. There are also hungry entrepenuers there (Skype was invented in Estonia).

From all accounts though, Greeks, at least the ones that are still there, are lazy and have grown dependent on their government goodies while refusing to pay their taxes. Austerity or no austerity, they're up sh!ts creek.
  • 0
Posted Image
I collect spores, molds and fungus.
Hello fellow American. This you should vote me. I leave power. Good. Thank you, thank you. If you vote me, I'm hot. What? Taxes, they'll be lower... son. The Democratic vote is the right thing to do Philadelphia, so do.
How do you spot risk? How do you avoid risk? And what makes it so risky?

#74 ATLL765

ATLL765

    Assistant Coach

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,186 posts

Posted 29 June 2012 - 12:17 PM

Slippery Slope. The Definition of Junk Food would soon exapnd to everything except vegetables. Removing the Corn Subsidies would increase the price of all food and possibly other products as well, not just junk food. Corn is mostly used in Feed (Cows, chickens, etc), Ethanol and exports. Only a small percentage is used for high Fructose Corn Syrup and its cousins.

If less corn was grown because it wasnt subsidized, farmers would have to switch to other crops at very high expense. If "healthy" food was cheaper, there would be a bigger demand for it, increasing the cost to comsumers.

Im not saying Im for the subsidy, just noting that things do not happen in a vacuum and there are always unintended consequences when the govt gets involved.


So, just drop the subsidy for when corn is sold for synthesis or extraction of sugars or other substances. Done. And I'm not so against the price of beef going up a bit because the feed is minimally more expensive. Red meat is too cheap, again, this causes an health issue. Red meat is ok, but not at every meal. America eats a ton of red meat, so I think if the price of beef went up 50 cents per pound, it wouldn't kill anyone. People might eat more leaner meats instead. I understand the ripple effects of what taking away that subsidy could do. I'm in favor of defunding these super corporations that run the agriculture industry right now. I'd rather have farmers deciding how to farm, not Kraft, not Monsanto, not ConAgra. It's silly that farmers can't even keep the seed of their corn because it's owned by Monsanto since it's a genetically modified seed and therefore is patented by them. Insanity. We just don't need to aid industry that would do fine on it's own.


Healthy food is cheap and readily available despite the nonsense about food deserts we're often told about. You can get a healthy salad at McDonalds and veggies at Walmart. You can buy Lean Cuisines for a few bucks at any bodega or drug store. People just like the Big Mac better.

Employees at my wife's former company were given subsidized Weight Watchers programs. A few morbidly obese women tried it and failed. Occasional success was eating half a pizza instead of a whole one for dinner.

There's a reason why most people who attempt to go on diets ultimately fail and why most gym memberships don't get used after a few months. Somehow I don't have my hopes up that Nancy Pelosi can come up with a law to change that, even if she took the time to actually read the bill.


You obviously don't live in a city.

Mcd's salads are nothing but trickery to make you think you're eating healthier. The minute you put dressing or chicken on it, you're racking up the calories and fat.

When I lived in Baltimore, you could not walk to a Wal-Mart, there was a grocery store, but I was in a decent area and even then it was the only larger store for in the area. If you go into the less than nice neighborhoods in Baltimore, there's not any grocery stores. There's tons of available fast food, some 7-11s bodegas, etc. Nothing that would carry any vegetables. These areas do exist, period.
  • 0

#75 Chuck the Duck

Chuck the Duck

    All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,535 posts

Posted 29 June 2012 - 12:51 PM

When I lived in Baltimore, you could not walk to a Wal-Mart, there was a grocery store, but I was in a decent area and even then it was the only larger store for in the area. If you go into the less than nice neighborhoods in Baltimore, there's not any grocery stores. There's tons of available fast food, some 7-11s bodegas, etc. Nothing that would carry any vegetables. These areas do exist, period.


If that's the case, then who wants to open a Whole Foods in Baltimore, MD? Anyone with me?
  • 0
Posted Image

#76 Daniel

Daniel

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,676 posts

Posted 29 June 2012 - 01:26 PM

So, just drop the subsidy for when corn is sold for synthesis or extraction of sugars or other substances. Done. And I'm not so against the price of beef going up a bit because the feed is minimally more expensive. Red meat is too cheap, again, this causes an health issue. Red meat is ok, but not at every meal. America eats a ton of red meat, so I think if the price of beef went up 50 cents per pound, it wouldn't kill anyone. People might eat more leaner meats instead. I understand the ripple effects of what taking away that subsidy could do. I'm in favor of defunding these super corporations that run the agriculture industry right now. I'd rather have farmers deciding how to farm, not Kraft, not Monsanto, not ConAgra. It's silly that farmers can't even keep the seed of their corn because it's owned by Monsanto since it's a genetically modified seed and therefore is patented by them. Insanity. We just don't need to aid industry that would do fine on it's own.




You obviously don't live in a city.

Mcd's salads are nothing but trickery to make you think you're eating healthier. The minute you put dressing or chicken on it, you're racking up the calories and fat.

When I lived in Baltimore, you could not walk to a Wal-Mart, there was a grocery store, but I was in a decent area and even then it was the only larger store for in the area. If you go into the less than nice neighborhoods in Baltimore, there's not any grocery stores. There's tons of available fast food, some 7-11s bodegas, etc. Nothing that would carry any vegetables. These areas do exist, period.


I can't speak to Baltimore, but there have been several proposals to open up Walmarts in New York City and Chicago, and they're always voted down by city councils. In any event, Walmart is one of the biggest companies in the world. It didn't get that way by being out of the reach of vast segments of the population.

In NYC there are three Trader Joe's and Mortons supermarkets all over the place.

No one forces you to put salad dressing or chicken on your salad. Or you can buy low fat salad dressing at any grocery store for a lot less than you would get charged at McDonalds per serving.

I'm sorry, this claim healthy alternatives are not available at a price that virtually everyone can afford is crap. It's an excuse to blame someone else for people's own eating and exercise (or lack thereof) habits. It's an excuse for government busy bodies to stick their snouts ever so more into our lives.

We're biologically disposed to eat as much as our stomachs can hold and get as many calories as possible. It takes a lot of discipline to resist that, discipline that most people don't have, or at least have to varying degrees. It's human nature. To engineer us to do otherwise, through subsidies or eliminating subsidies, educational programs, PSAs, or whatever will be as successful as campaigns to get people to stop drinking, abstain from sex, watching pornography or whatever.
  • 0
Posted Image
I collect spores, molds and fungus.
Hello fellow American. This you should vote me. I leave power. Good. Thank you, thank you. If you vote me, I'm hot. What? Taxes, they'll be lower... son. The Democratic vote is the right thing to do Philadelphia, so do.
How do you spot risk? How do you avoid risk? And what makes it so risky?

#77 ATLL765

ATLL765

    Assistant Coach

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,186 posts

Posted 09 July 2012 - 07:25 PM

I can't speak to Baltimore, but there have been several proposals to open up Walmarts in New York City and Chicago, and they're always voted down by city councils. In any event, Walmart is one of the biggest companies in the world. It didn't get that way by being out of the reach of vast segments of the population.

In NYC there are three Trader Joe's and Mortons supermarkets all over the place.

No one forces you to put salad dressing or chicken on your salad. Or you can buy low fat salad dressing at any grocery store for a lot less than you would get charged at McDonalds per serving.

I'm sorry, this claim healthy alternatives are not available at a price that virtually everyone can afford is crap. It's an excuse to blame someone else for people's own eating and exercise (or lack thereof) habits. It's an excuse for government busy bodies to stick their snouts ever so more into our lives.

We're biologically disposed to eat as much as our stomachs can hold and get as many calories as possible. It takes a lot of discipline to resist that, discipline that most people don't have, or at least have to varying degrees. It's human nature. To engineer us to do otherwise, through subsidies or eliminating subsidies, educational programs, PSAs, or whatever will be as successful as campaigns to get people to stop drinking, abstain from sex, watching pornography or whatever.


So you're saying there's a clear correlation between wealth and ability to control yourself from eating garbage? Because there was a study done on the healthiest counties in NJ. Take a guess which one topped the list....Hunterdon county, a place where the average household income is $90+k. That's no coincidence.

It's not just a matter of controlling yourself, it can also be a matter of time management. What's faster, McDonald's or cooking a healthy meal at home? Obviously McDonald's. So if you're a single parent who is struggling to get by and you work from 8am-8pm and don't get home until close 9pm, are you gonna want to take the time to drive/walk/take public transit to a grocery store and then go home and cook? Hell no. You just want to buy a pizza, chinese food, wtv that's nearby and quick. You don't have the time to get to a store, think of a meal, get what you need, drive home, cook, help change diapers, do homework, etc. So instead, you do what you can. You see what I'm getting at?

If healthy options are as cheap or cheaper than non-healthy items, chains will take notice and cut costs where they think they can. Then you might end up with a place that actually has some healthier options. Even chain restaurants like Chili's, TGI Fridays is guilty too, they all serve high calorie garbage, but they're close, convenient and offer take out. I think a big difference could be made if it was easier to make money on healthier food options.

Edited by ATLL765, 09 July 2012 - 07:26 PM.

  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users