Sure Bring WJ on. I’m game
Us locals here call that "thread hijacking" Quite common ’round these parts. Jest git used to it; ‘fore we sic’ WJ on ‘ya. You don’t want that, do ‘ye??? [8D]
"Bewitched." ? LMAO That’s a great addition to a thread that started in a serious vein. And further more should be of concern to all that read this forum.Or for that matter all who cook for a living. Geeez
Xannie-there you go again making me laugh!![:D][:D][;)][:o)]
don’t blame darrin..
blame larry tate.
..or…instead of engaging in hyperbole, we could all elect to act more responsibly, teach our children better habits, take better care of ourselves, and make this a non-issue.
Ah. The road to Nirvana is continually interrupted by those pesky TV commercials. After all, they speak the truth (smirk). Who knows better than those with advanced degrees in Marketing to tell us how we should appropriate both our lives and wealth. Corporate America; ain’t it great? I think Darrin Stephens is the root of all evil caused by this phenomenon… [:p]
Scorereader my first thought was WHAT? But I read your post several times and in MHO with no disrespect meant, this ‘associative cost’ stuff is bull-hockey; there is no way to measure this type of stuff. Let’s keep it simple; in order to produce empirical evidence, you have to be able to prove your point beyond any rational arguments or contradicting evidence. That simply cannot be done here, (mainly) because
there are too many unknowns.
How can they ‘norm’ medical costs without factoring in the expenses associated with non-compensated health care? By that, I mean, just how much more are we paying to subsidize the people who are treated but can’t/don’t pay their medical bills? And, when they do factor in those expenses, how do they quantify it; do they calculate the cost at the time of service, or based upon a national ‘average’? Do they consider when those losses are recovered by increased prices/fees?
And, when they try to put establish ‘average’ medical costs for smokers/non-smokers, do they ensure that the resource pool used to quantify the data was standardized? What if some of the smokers had underlying health
problems, not associated with smoking, that increased their health care treatments? Surely, not every illness, disease and/or injury afflicting a smoker is correlated to smoking; getting T-boned by a city bus that runs a
stop light can sure as hell raise your medical costs, but that has nothing to do with smoking. And yes, the same scenario could be true for a non-smoker, and that’s my point; if the study isn’t absolutely controlled in
an unbiased manner, the outcome could be easily influenced.
If I wanted to convince people that smoking increases health care costs, with no regard to ethics, I would research the medical expenses of cancer patients that smoke, regardless of the type of cancer they had. Their
medical costs are going to totally warp the ‘curve’, but I can report is as accurate because they are smokers and that is their actual medical costs.
Remember: Figures lie and liars figure, (this not being directed to you personally but to the studies). Now, go smoke a good cigar and get back on target with the food question because they are coming after your favorite foods. In fact on that point I thought this entire group Road Foods would go nuts over this issue since almost every food talked about on Road Foods is on someone s list to be banned or considered unhealthy foods.
Phooey on these studies, all I know is that most, if not all, GROUP health plans, as well as most, if not all, individual health plans invariably add the costs of smokers to the premiums. If that were not the case, then the studies listed previously would mean something. If you smoke, you will pay more for insurance, and rightfully so. When I secured a medical plan for my company a few years ago, we received several hundred thousand dollars in reduced premiums by having non-smokers on the payroll. If you got caught smoking (just like with drug tests), your rates went up – a major incentive to quit and stay quit.
One could go to an illogical conclusion, IMHO, that food-related diseases contribute as well, but more other factors than diet play into the health equation than with smoking. Mostly it’s the crusading trial-lawyers who are looking for the deep pockets who are driving this issue, and government decides to "protect" us from the world out there that we end up paying the price with lo-fat, padded everything, no sharp edges, playgrounds with no equipment, etc. And in the meantime, when more people die each year from malaria because we stopped DDT production. I could go on and on. Give us back our freedom of choices. Darwin’s Law has to help us eliminate the chaff. And pass me a 3 X 3 from In and Out.
Stephen Rushmore Jr.
Economists widely accept that nonsmokers do not subsidize smokers, if calculated over both groups lifetimes. While smokers only partly pay to have their smoking-related diseases treated, they more than compensate in tobacco taxes and by collecting much less in old-age pensions, health care and other public benefits because they die younger.
however, the CBO (congressional budget office) came to its’ own conclusions which take into effect a more comprehensive approach than that of Jan Barendregt’s study which was published in the New England Journal (and is one of the most used studies by smokers as "proof" that smoking does not cost society).
"Life-cycle estimates provide somewhat contradictory evidence on the cost of smoking. Two major studies found that smokers had significantly higher medical costs over their lifetimes than did nonsmokers. A few other studies seem to draw the opposite conclusion, but their results may not be reliable.
"According to a study by Manning and others, the medical costs of a young smoker over his lifetime that are not directly paid for by himself or his family are about 18 percent greater than those of a nonsmoker with the same characteristics. A 1992 study by Hodgson is similar to the Manning group’s study, except that Hodgson focuses on total medical costs rather than only those medical costs that are paid for by persons or programs outside the smoker’s family. As a result, Hodgson’s estimates of the excess medical costs of smokers are higher than Manning’s estimates. Hodgson found that lifetime medical costs were 32 percent higher for male smokers and 24 percent higher for female smokers.
"However, Hodgson’s study, unlike Manning’s, did not account for the different characteristics of smokers and nonsmokers. Manning estimated that about 13 percent of the differences in the medical costs of smokers and nonsmokers were the result of characteristics other than smoking habits. Lowering Hodgson’s estimates by 13 percent leads to lifetime medical costs that are 28 percent higher for male smokers and 21 percent higher for female smokers.
"Hodgson also provided information on sources of funds for the excess health care costs of smokers. According to his study, private health insurance pays for most of the excess costs of smokers, with Medicare and Medicaid paying for 7 percent and 11 percent, respectively, of the excess costs of male smokers. For female smokers, 15 percent of their excess costs are paid for by Medicaid. The estimated Medicare costs of female smokers were actually 3 percent lower than those of nonsmokers.
"In contrast, two studies by Leu and Schaub provide evidence that smokers might have lower lifetime medical costs than nonsmokers. Data on health care costs from a sample of Swiss men showed that smokers in the sample had somewhat fewer physician visits and slightly more hospital days compared with nonsmokers. But those analyses may have limited applicability to the United States, where studies have shown that smokers have more physician visits and hospital days than nonsmokers.
"Another study by Barendregt and others using data from the Netherlands found that lifetime costs were 7 percent lower for male smokers and 4 percent lower for females. Howe,26,232759.033,1,28745,18.104.22.168
232791,232759,232759,2006-09-07 15:29:15,RE: Coming after your favorite foods”
Tony, I don’t believe you are a heartless, soul-less person. The posts you write show a very good person, one that I would like to break bread with.
The social contract that we share seems to allow and promote (or has) the greatest amount of freedom to
the individual, because the individual will find creative ways for the whole to benefit in the pursuit of prosperity and pleasure. The social contract is always in debate on the fringes of change. Morality and
needs have always been in a constant flux of change, evolving or de-evolving depending on your point of view,
thus the social contract is fluid. Once we had slavery, now we see it is evil. Once we steriled those
with mental disabilities, now it is evil. Once eating certain foods would send you to hell, and some religions still believe this.
The social contract varies from time to time, from society to society. It is a fluid agreement that
humans have in order to survive and evolve. Once it becomes so rigid, abusive, and even silly or stupid,
it loses it’s credibility. I would find it hard to live in a society that permits only two children,
especially if they are seeking only male babies, find it hard that tears down statues of one faith because
another faith is in power, find it hard to deny health care because of money, or find it hard to live in
a place that tells me what food to eat or drink to drink. I would find it hard, but others may wish to
create such a social contract.
Again, Tony, I do not think you are a heartless, soul-less person. Living is a daily debate on the borders
of what is good and ethical. Food choices are a part of that debate. We are humans.
So the City of Chicago banned foie gras…then they threatened to ban trans-fats, but decided they can’t force the issue. Now they’re asking restaurants to comply.
Reminds me of how things work around here. First they had "smoke out" days, asking restaurants to comply. Then when enough of them didn’t go "smoke free", they ordered it.
But why didn’t the also attack the Chicago Hot Dog and Chicago Style Pizza ? Those two (Pizza-Hotdogs) would create pandemonium in the streets. Daily s too sharp to fall into this trap, and if the restaurant association negotiates this they are fools. Remember what Pastor Niemoller wrote First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew. Then they came for the Communists and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist. Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me .
*We need an NRA for food. *
The City of Chicago banned foie gras…then they threatened to ban trans-fats, but decided they can’t force the issue. Now they’re asking restaurants to comply. Reminds me of how things work around here. First they had "smoke out" days, asking restaurants to comply. Then when enough of them didn’t go "smoke free", they ordered it.
From the Chicago Sun Times today:
Council tries softer tactic vs. trans fat
September 7, 2006
Chicago aldermen laughed at for banning foie gras are trying to avoid another kitchen-meddling showdown on the issue of trans fats.
Instead of banning the artery-clogging oils, they’re negotiating a compromise with the restaurant industry for voluntary compliance.
License Committee Chairman Eugene Schulter (47th) and Finance Committee Chairman Edward M. Burke (14th) already have met with McDonald’s. Similar meetings are planned over the next three weeks with Burger King, Kentucky Fried Chicken and Pizza Hut.
Next week, Dr. Terry Mason, the city’s health commissioner, will fly to New York City to get a firsthand look at whether Manhattan restaurants have voluntarily agreed to take trans fats off their menu, as city officials there have requested.
Mason’s "status report" will help determine how long Chicago restaurants will be given to comply before the City Council brings the hammer down, Schulter said.
"We’re much better off working with an industry that wants to work with us … rather than banning things. We’re much better off using our position as a bully pulpit," Schulter said.
Illinois Restaurant Association President Colleen McShane said she’s "very optimistic" that a trans fat compromise will be reached.
"The resolution here is just a matter of time, and it’s probably going to be a volunteer program. … We’re already looking at the trans fat issue. It’s just a matter of when," she said.
‘Here we go again’
At a License Committee hearing Wednesday, dietary experts brought in by the national and Illinois restaurant associations argued that restaurants cannot meet the demands of a total ban and that compliance would be virtually impossible to measure.
"There simply is not currently enough oil available for some restaurant chains. It will be a matter of years before the crop supply is adequate to produce enough trans fat-free oils for some restaurant chains," said registered dietitian Sheila Cohn Weiss.
On Wednesday, Mayor Daley took yet another shot at aldermen hell-bent on sticking their noses in their constituents’ lives.
"Here we go again. Foie gras … they’re gonna tell you not to eat ethnic foods. They’re gonna tell you what to eat. They’re gonna go into your living rooms, your dining rooms every day and your kitchen [while you’re] sitting there. We have other things to worry about," Daley said.
The problem is that we also pay an overall higher life insurance because you smoke. We also pay higher health care because there are smokers.
Sorry to disagree but that’s not true. All of the cost studies prove smokers pay dollar for dollar so much more in taxes and increased insurance premiums that it offsets what they drain from life insurance and healthcare.
The problem is that we also pay an overall higher life insurance because you smoke. We also pay higher health care because there are smokers.
Not a good example to compare an unhealthy choice with an affliction such as mental retardedness, autism or blindness. It’s apples and oranges.
However, a tax on unhealthy food is ridiculous. There are plenty of healthy foods that can be nhealthy if you over do it. So, I’m all for government education, such as a bigger campaign in the new eating pyramid, a more visible President’s Council on Sports and Physical Fitness program. Under Reagan, we had constant advertising through t.v., postage stamps, and other media to get the youth in shape. We need to expand this in the schools by enforcing national standards in Physical Education class set out by AAHPERD.
"The national standards demonstrate that physical education has academic standing equal to other subject areas. They describe achievement, show that knowledge and skills matter, and confirm that mere willing participation is not the same as education. In short, national physical education standards bring accountability and rigor to the profession."
By enforcing a level of knowledge and skill, we can begin to help our youths experience the knowledge and skills of a healthy lifestyle.
This way, like someone else mentioned that Julia Child said, the understanding that a little lard today simply means a salad tomorrow.
Stephen Rushmore Jr.
The only point I was trying to make was that people always like to say they should be allowed to do what they want to do because it is their own body, or health, or whatever…but often fail to realize or accept that their actions impact the lives of others. Isn’t irresponsible behavior that adversely impacts others something that violates that "social contract" you speak of?
There are many adversities that can’t be avoided and people need and deserve help when struck by such circumstances, but what if they refuse to help themselves? To use your example of hurricane relief…sure we need to help people impacted by storms…but what if they continue to ignore warnings to evacuate, or insist on rebuilding in harms way? Should society perpetually bear the costs associated with those choices? Near where I live there are ocean front homes that have been rebuilt many times with federal dollars. At what point does it become the burden of that homeowner to take action and move instead of society taking action (by paying again and again) on their behalf?
While it is hard to think about things in terms of dollars and cents, we can’t ignore such factors either. I don’t work for free, and assume you don’t or can’t either. Things cost money. You wrote "Should you force abortions where it is known that the child may develop certain diseases or developmental problems?" There is no easy answer to this, but the reality is that the dollars used to care for this one child could care for the routine needs of many other children. The rising costs of care leave many lower income, working familes without proper care. What can we say about a person’s commitment to the "social contract" when they decide to bring children into the world knowing the care of that child will be very, very costly? The soc,26,232759.026,1,688,22.214.171.124
232784,232759,232759,2006-09-07 12:25:54,RE: Coming after your favorite foods”
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.