Obama Obeseonomics

This is very cool

http://rawfoodsos.com/2010/09/08/brand-spankin-new-study-are-low-carb-meat-eaters-in-trouble/

Agree or disagree with Mr. Obvious (and actually, I disagree), you have to respect his consistency and willingness to construct a rational argument.

Well done, good sir.

[I disagree with the premise that you never cease to employ, namely the idea that the individual and his free and unencumbered choice is the fundamental starting point of social analysis. I believe that the fundamental starting point ought to be the interaction between individuals and their environments. This is a conversation for a different day.]

french fries please wrote:

what do you mean by "solution?"

I mean, there is currently a problem. When the ceases to be a problem, we will have found a solution.

As to the OP, why should the government not be allowed to decide what types of food their employees sell inside buildings they own?

I'm not certain that taxation is theft, that's another argument, but you've got halfway in your argument (even though you haven't managed to actually quantify how much EMTALA is actually 'stealing' from you).

Now you need to demonstrate how the repeal of EMTALA will cost you less - remembering that we agree that it's repeal will reduce (by an as yet unspecified amount) your direct tax bill - but taking into account indirect costs, such as the cost of lost productivity to be borne by businesses, which in turn will be obliged to pass this cost onto you, the consumer?

That's just one example, I'm certain you can come up with loads more indirect costs, since you have obviously taken all factors into account before coming to your conclusion?

It is probably best that you do - contrary to Deleuze's opinion, you haven't managed to put together a rational defence of your position (simply repeating your opinion ad nauseam in the face of questioning doesn't qualify as a rational argument). Best you run away and leave the grown-ups to do the grown-up talking.

Mr. Obvious wrote:I have not said anything about Ayn Rand. As we have moved away from the original questions I am going to stop posting to this thread. I hope you have a Merry Christmas, Soltice, Happy Channukah, Merry Kwanzaa, or whatever religious celebration you choose.

Except of course the uninsured are a minor problem in the whole health insurance scheme so 2 does pretty much nothing to reduce the medicare health care crisis that is coming up in a couple of years. It would have minimal effects on private health insurance (the uninsured are not the reason premiums are going up 7% a year).Single payer (or any of the other government run/funded health systems) could be 30-40% more efficient than our current one but it turns out that the idea is unlikely to have enough popular support in the near term.

TK1451 wrote:

There are two possible solutions to the issue of health care costs.

1. Ensure that everyone is able to pay, either by mandating health insurance or instituting a single-payer system

or

2. Refuse to treat people until verifying they can pay. That means when Mr. Jones goes through his car windshield and is bleeding to death on the sidewalk, the EMT's don't move to help until they verify he either has health insurance or sufficient resources. If he doesn't, walk away and let him die. If he dies during the delay for verification, tough cookie.

Thank you for stating this. I'm not sure single payer is the answer but it is certainly one of the few possible solutions to the problem; the problem being that health care costs for both public and private payers are driving up inexorably and this is going to bankrupt either the government, the individual, or both. Simply put, we can not continue to get the same level of care, through the same system, for the same price. Either we have to accept a new level of care, accept a new system of care, or accept a much higher price. Universal insurance will not save money. It would cost taxpayers far more to insure every uninsured American than it currently costs to give them emergency room care under EMTALA.

How is being against online gambling the same as telling people what they can and can't eat? Really? Where is the equivalence there? For the record I have no problem with online gambling but you really need a reality check. Wake up dude.

[quote]asdfasdfas wrote:

Nah he just runs a business that sells crap to kids and is pissed off the rules are changing on him.

Just remember it is fine to meddle in someones life (i.e. republicans banned online gambling, don't want decent sex ed, and so on) as long as I agree with you. If you do something I disagree with (health insurance for all, healthy food for kids) your a socialist/tolitarian regime that is destroying american.]

TK1451 wrote:

french fries please wrote:

what do you mean by "solution?"

I mean, there is currently a problem. When the ceases to be a problem, we will have found a solution.

But all solutions to "the health care problem" have drawbacks.

There are no solutions that eliminate problems.