Qwark28
Joker waiting room
I am only replying to his point, not the general idea behind it. 99% of the point you actually do have the time to spare.
I am only replying to his point, not the general idea behind it. 99% of the point you actually do have the time to spare.
Well the other option is what Pig posted in the OP, which is dropping their coverage so they get too foot their own medical bills on their own, or as I've suggested raising premiums. I've got to ask you though, we've known smoking causes cancer for years now, so I really have to ask, why should anyone pay for someone that gets lung cancer as a result of smoking? Maybe we should refuse to treat them. In a country where you are free to live however you like, shouldn't that freedom also mean you accept the consequences of your actions, instead of expecting others to clean up after you?
When people refer to entitlements they are referring to government programs that give something for nothing. When I retire and start getting my social security retirement benefits, that's not entitlement because I've been paying into that every paycheck since I started working at 17. I pay into it (as does my employer), its supposed to earn interest, and then I start getting it back when I retire. Which is exactly how my 401(k) works, which is also not an entitlement. You also have to earn work credits to get it, you don't just get it because you exist in America. Medicare works the same way.
Premiums are higher for the employee that adds their spouse / family to their insurance, so I'm not sure you can argue single people subsidize families.
That's fine, but don't expect others to pay when you end up with a heart attack. I'm all for letting people do what they please as long as they are also the only ones that need to suffer the consequences.
Fair enough. Just because I personally would choose not to work out doesn't mean I'm automatically a fat slob who smokes a carton a day.
You don't know what it's like to live in poverty as a single mother of 3. Taking care of sick family members. Or whatever other obstacles are in the way. Some people slave at work, get their kids ready for school, and pass out just to get 4 hours of sleep.
Didn't mean to imply you smoke or are fat, but even if you're thin if you are sedentary its still really bad for your health. My post wasn't really targeted to you specifically, just addressing the responsibility that comes with freedom.
They may be higher, but they are no 100% higher per each individual covered and this is because they spread the cost over to those that do not have families. In essence single people pay more than they would if spouses or children were not covered.
Which is why I said 99% of the time on my other post. Of course there are people like that who really don't have any time whatsoever, I know that first hand actually.
I do weight machines twice a week in the park, and hand weights and pushups in my room. I walk to/from/between buses at least an hour a day. Do you think I'm out of the inactive classification?
Its not quite as simple as that either, they might believe single people engage in more risky behavior than families, it also depends on the makeup of the company. for example, a startup I worked for had mostly young single healthy employees and so we got a lower rate than a company that had a different mix.
Been there done that but thanx anyway...
$4 gets me 4 double cheeseburgers dude. How much food can I get with that at Trader Joes?
Alright my bad. But hey, I'm changing my habits just this past summer. I stopped eating mcdonald's all together. A direct result of that one change is that I end up preparing and making more food for myself. I know I'm not the healthiest person, but I think its a step in the right direction. (I may be unhealthy on the other side of the spectrum, being barely above underweight on the bmi. heh)
Depends on duration.
Actually you'd be surprised at how many people get fired every year because they have cancer. It's a completely heartless thing to do but companies still do it.
Super interesting
One of the high schools I went to had a class like that, but it wasn't mandatory.
IMO it should 100% be required, how do you let people into adulthood without giving them the knowledge of what to eat?
Exactly. Unhealthy people make the wheels of business go round and round. Imagine the damage to the economy if everyone ate well and stayed in shape. I'm certain Big Pharma wouldn't be too pleased either. They would no doubt rather have people be gluttonous lazy slobs and take their pills.
Requiring people to take an active role in their health in order to maintain health insurance wouldn't resolve the root of the problem (outlined well by @deathblooms2k4), but in a time when the 'rules of the game' are created and altered in ways that solely support the top of the pyramid (insurance companies, corporations) opposed to the individual, I would applaud a corporation that put something in place in an attempt to get their employees striving towards a healthier lifestyle. There would be a lot of moving parts to this - it couldn't be so simple as "go to the gym 3x per week" or anything along those lines - the company would most definitely need to hire a certified personal trainer and/or nutritionist to assist employees. Doing this would need to be balanced against the potential cost to the company as well - i.e. is the CPT/nutritionist + the time it takes to educate/outline a plan for employees worth it (financially, perhaps also morally) to the company over time? If yes, it could work (at least in theory).
Trader joes is a rip off, just go to a normal grocery store.
Health is a required class in most U.S. schools(at least it is in Texas).