Think again. Take a look at this: :eek:

The Worlds Heaviest People (http://www.dimensionsmagazine.com/dimtext/kjn/people/heaviest.htm)

Talk about crazy. :spaz:

I just have one question... how could those people afford the food it took to gain and maintain that much weight?!

Excellent point Justin....but if you really htink about it....food that is terrible for the system is 1. easily accessible...and 2. cheap...Processed carbs are the cheapest product at the supermarket....and stick to you if you don't exericse.

1600 lbs? I don't think I could ever reach 1600 lbs, even if I tried!

Typically, the poorer the person the more chance they run to be overweight and obese. Think about if you calculated the dollar per calorie of a McDonalds meal versus something more healthy, its a lot cheaper than anything else.

The people in the story probably can't eat without other people's help. I wonder why the people who take care of them give them so much food? I'd imagine they live in dysfunctional homes.

Typically, the poorer the person the more chance they run to be overweight and obese. Think about if you calculated the dollar per calorie of a McDonalds meal versus something more healthy, its a lot cheaper than anything else.

We were talking about this in my anthropology class the other week. With the industrial revolution and modernisation its the poor that are suffering from obesity these days whereas traditionally it was the rich who were stereotyped as being obese. Thats what Capitalism and mass production does for ya.

Marcus :cool:

We were talking about this in my anthropology class the other week. With the industrial revolution and modernisation its the poor that are suffering from obesity these days whereas traditionally it was the rich who were stereotyped as being obese. Thats what Capitalism and mass production does for ya.

Marcus :cool:

No, that's what lack of self-control does for ya.

I kind of wonder if ya'll really sympathize for these people. One of the poor little boys was 156 by the age 7, some of this can be helped, but some cannot. - One lady ran 7 miles 3 times a week and still gained, very sad - my heart goes out to people like that. :d_frown:

No, that's what lack of self-control does for ya.

Mate you are way off the mark.

I wasnt referring to those whales linked to above. I was talking about lower class people (people who generate income by selling their labour) who can only afford food like McDonalds that is full of cheap Carbos and fat. Its these financially poor people that are now dying of obesity related diseases, not rich people who stuff their faces at banquets like it used to be. Its this problem of inequality created by capitalism and the mass produced, cheap, nutritionally empty food produced in the name of profit thats causing this problem, not people with no will power!

There are studies linking severe obesity to genetics, hormonal imbalances, etc.

Don't always jump to the conclusion that the extremely obese lack self control.

My God! I probably weigh less than half of the calf of the women on top there :d_eek:

Mate you are way off the mark.

I wasnt referring to those whales linked to above. I was talking about lower class people (people who generate income by selling their labour) who can only afford food like McDonalds that is full of cheap Carbos and fat. Its these financially poor people that are now dying of obesity related diseases, not rich people who stuff their faces at banquets like it used to be. Its this problem of inequality created by capitalism and the mass produced, cheap, nutritionally empty food produced in the name of profit thats causing this problem, not people with no will power!

I must disagree. McDonald's does not make one fat. Cheap carbs and fat do not make one fat. Eating a LOT of them is what makes one fat. Besides, did you notice just how much some of these people were eating?



Michael liked to start the day with four bowls of cereal, toast, waffles, cake, and a quart of soda, and end it with a whole pizza with the works for a bedtime snack.

That speaks for itself.


Mother and son tried every new diet that came along, &quotbut after a few days, we'd reward ourselves with a chocolate cake. Then we'd call for a pizza and that would be it."


Apparently, they tried every new diet all at the same time. No, I don't have sympathy for these people, but if any of them, or anyone in such a situation, were to ask me for help, I would gladly give it, knowing that my hard work and knowledge gained could help others even more than it helped me. I know what it's like being overweight from eating Burger King, Wendys, and Pizza Hut. I used to polish off a whole medium pizza. But that was a whole meal (albeit a large one), not a "bedtime snack". Getting that large is a full-time job taking a tremendous amount of effort.

I'm sorry if that sounds cold. But I didn't make excuses when I was fat. I knew I was and though I wanted to do something about it, I was often lazy. But even though I wasn't eating healthy and ultimately consumed more calories than I burned, I was not stuffing myself during all waking hours.

Don't be blaming capitalism for these peoples' excesses. Yes cheap, calorie-dense, nutrititionally empty foods exist in abundance, but those foods are profitable because enough people want them. People want quick, cheap, and easy, first in their food, then in their weight loss. If more people wanted clean, healthy, organic food, then such foods would be commonplace and a fraction of their current costs.

Its this problem of inequality created by capitalism and the mass produced, cheap, nutritionally empty food produced in the name of profit thats causing this problem, not people with no will power!
I'm going to have to disagree with you, Marcus. Correllation is not the same as causation. Plus, poor people do not have to eat McDonald's. It is not inexpensive compared to regular canned food at the grocery store. By far.

The people who are more likely to eat McDonald's everyday are also going to be people who are more likely to be poor. I know a lot of poor people. Some of them are very responsible and still find ways to save money--they will not always be poor. Others waste money on fast food, cigarettes, alcohol, and other garbage--they will probably be relatively poor for the rest of their lives.

There are studies linking severe obesity to genetics, hormonal imbalances, etc.

Don't always jump to the conclusion that the extremely obese lack self control.

True, genetics can be a significant factor in weight gain and difficulty in weight loss. But no amount of bad genetics can account for the excesses these people reach in their food intake. Again, just look at the way some of these people would eat. I couldn't eat so much without making myself violently ill.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/edmonds/edmonds129.html

I couldn't eat so much without making myself violently ill.


Which supports the argument that something else is going wrong within the super-obese person besides self-control...

Of course, I'm not talking about the garden variety, fat American who indulges. I mean the mega-obese folks. They're not to blame for their condition. They're ill, and I seriously doubt you could help them by telling them about your healthy diet.

Don't be blaming capitalism for these peoples' excesses. Yes cheap, calorie-dense, nutrititionally empty foods exist in abundance, but those foods are profitable because enough people want them. People want quick, cheap, and easy, first in their food, then in their weight loss. If more people wanted clean, healthy, organic food, then such foods would be commonplace and a fraction of their current costs.

I agree, some people are obese simply because they eat to excess with they knowledge that they are doing themselves harm. I also dont have any sympathy for these people.

In relation to the above quote, many poor people see fast food as their only option. There may be better options but many people still get fast food. Why? I dont believe its because they are hedonists or pigs (some are) but they have been influenced by advertising and mislead by their lack of knowledge of health. To them, its cheap and its tasty. Is it really their fault for buying it. Maybe its up to governments to educate more people about health and assist in providing healthier, cheaper alternatives. These are pretty extreme views so I'm more brainstorming here than expressing my concrete opinion. In truth I'm not sure.

Marcus :tucool:

I'm going to have to disagree with you, Marcus. Correllation is not the same as causation. Plus, poor people do not have to eat McDonald's. It is not inexpensive compared to regular canned food at the grocery store. By far.

The people who are more likely to eat McDonald's everyday are also going to be people who are more likely to be poor. I know a lot of poor people. Some of them are very responsible and still find ways to save money--they will not always be poor. Others waste money on fast food, cigarettes, alcohol, and other garbage--they will probably be relatively poor for the rest of their lives.

Your right in that Capitalism is not all to blame. I believe that Capitalism contributes to this problem but I dont think that Capitalism is 'evil'. It has faults and problems but it is still a very good economic system in comparison to others from the past.

The people who are more likely to eat McDonald's everyday are also going to be people who are more likely to be poor.

Why is this? This is what we need to address. I kind of addressed this in my reply to Justin. Is McDonalds to blame? Do they unfairly use the tool of advertising to influence people to eat their food? Are the people to blame? Are they hopeless pigs? This is a complicated issue and I certainly wont come up with an answer. I can theorise though. I think that people are to blame to some extent but they are also influenced by smothering advertising campaigns, financial restrictions and lack of education. If this is the case, they cannot dig themselves out of this problem, the problem needs to be addressed at the population level.

So many questions and so few answers all behind a thick cloud of fog. My brain is sore :p :)

Marcus :tucool:

I've got to agree that there must be something different about these uber-obese people... I get fat because I prefer nutritional sparse food-types (junk food) and I've noticed that I will eat until I get that uncomfortable "full" feeling... which is of course past the point where my body has had enough. The feeling can stay with me for up to five or six hours, and I won't eat anything until it goes.

What I'm saying is, I can eat a lot, I'm naturally greedy. But there's no way on God's green earth I could EVER become that fat. It would be physically impossible for me to eat past the point I feel full. I mean... geez, 1600lbs!? You could eat up to 16,000Kcals a day and STILL LOOSE WEIGHT.

So I say again, something really freaky is going on there.

Wow, that was just crazy. I couldn't believe some of the photos. I'm not sure how to feel about people in this condition. Just like there are those people who can eat whatever they want and not gain, there must be people who are the exact opposite and always gain weight regardless. There are some genetics there when you are born at 11 lbs (poor mother!). But then you look at the amount of food that these people are being fed by other people and it's just rediculous. I mean there is the food that would feed the rest of the family for a week and it's the same food you would feed this single person in a day. How can they justify this from a money standpoint?

For one person, their size was the pride of the town. so in that case they didn't see anything wrong with the size.

However I can only see how the slow metabolism, genetics factor could explain the first few hundred pounds, the rest has to be accelerated by the link between happiness and eating. The pleasure derived from food. The spiralling depression these people must feel seems to be satisfied only by the pleasure of eating. If pleasure and eating were not linked like this, I imagine we would never have people this big. I can only imagine that the families kept feeding these people because they were complaining of hunger all the time, and all's they were eating were fast carbs. I do feel bad for them. But I believe it is more of a severe mental disorder that accelerates the effect of the bad genetics. Rather than all genetics.

I agree w/Marcus.

You can buy a 2 liter of pop for 2x less than orange juice - same goes with white and wheat bread, and just about every other situation. Not to mention add the stress of just being poor in itself, let alone how much calories you consume a day... no wonder 8 jillion people are overweight. :mad:

In relation to the above quote, many poor people see fast food as their only option. There may be better options but many people still get fast food. Why? I dont believe its because they are hedonists or pigs (some are) but they have been influenced by advertising and mislead by their lack of knowledge of health. To them, its cheap and its tasty. Is it really their fault for buying it. Maybe its up to governments to educate more people about health and assist in providing healthier, cheaper alternatives. These are pretty extreme views so I'm more brainstorming here than expressing my concrete opinion. In truth I'm not sure.

Marcus :tucool:


Even if fast food is someone's only option, simply eating fast food every day will not cause these type of weight gains. Much fast food contains high amounts of protein and fat which will cause that feeling of fullness and prevent a person from eating massive amounts. So I can certainly see a person getting to 300+ pounds on daily fast food, including the huge amounts of carbs in sodas and fries, but beyond that (depending on the person's body type). So there may be more of a genetic factor than I initally allowed for, but it seems to me that there would be other lifestyle factors (income, family, etc.) that would place a cap on how heavy a person could get. Then again, maybe some people just have bottomless stomachs. I'm not saying that in a mean way, just that some people may be able to eat more without getting full as quickly.
Come to think of it, soda is definitely a factor since its so easy to pack in the calories with thin, sugary liquids.

Your right in that Capitalism is not all to blame. I believe that Capitalism contributes to this problem but I dont think that Capitalism is 'evil'. It has faults and problems but it is still a very good economic system in comparison to others from the past.



Why is this? This is what we need to address. I kind of addressed this in my reply to Justin. Is McDonalds to blame? Do they unfairly use the tool of advertising to influence people to eat their food? Are the people to blame? Are they hopeless pigs? This is a complicated issue and I certainly wont come up with an answer. I can theorise though. I think that people are to blame to some extent but they are also influenced by smothering advertising campaigns, financial restrictions and lack of education. If this is the case, they cannot dig themselves out of this problem, the problem needs to be addressed at the population level.

So many questions and so few answers all behind a thick cloud of fog. My brain is sore :p :)

Marcus :tucool:

I don't want to get off on a rant here, so I'll be mercifully brief. ;)

Many of the reasons for people being poor are bad government policies. I could rattle off a huge list of these, but I feel that if I were to do so, people would attack one (e.g. welfare) without understanding how the others in the list interact with that one (e.g. minimum wage leading to unemployment leading to welfare...), leading to a death spiral. It's an ugly, complex web.

Now, I'm not saying that govt is the sole reason people are poor. Many people just suck at managing their money.

They aren't fat, they're just in the bulking stage :p

McDonalds is NOT to blame at all. Everyone knows at this point that most fast food is not healthly and never was. You are responsible for what you buy and shove in your mouth.

The only people not responsible for what they eat are young children and its up to the parents to teach them correct eating habits. Fat parents often create fat kids because of bad habits. I see it all the time. And no, its not all genetics in my opinion.

I wonder if what you eat early on helps determine your "genetics" for later in life. For example, if you eat really bad as a child then you may end up having a tough time being a normal weight your whole adult life.

Something else just occurred to me. I mentioned early on in this thread that the cost is generally large for all of the food needed to gain so much weight, even with the low cost of crappy food. But... these people get so large they can't even move, meaning SOMEONE IS HAULING IN TRUCKLOADS OF MORE CRAPPY FOOD FOR THESE PEOPLE TO EAT!

:mad:

So I can certainly see a person getting to 300+ pounds on daily fast food, including the huge amounts of carbs in sodas and fries,

These are the kinds of people I'm referring to. I'm not talking about morbidly obese people like the ones linked to in this thread. I'm talking about everyday people you see in the street who are overweight and obese. Many of us are or used to be obese but we certainly dont weight 900+ pounds. These people that are obese yet under 300 lbs are dying from diseases related to their obesity and this is putting an enourmous strain on the health system.

This is the pattern I am talking about: lets take an uneduacated person, who sells their labour for income and is in the lower classes. As a result of being 'poor' they resort to cheap, easy food sources like McDonalds because they dont see the need in spending extra money they dont have on expensive healthier products when McDonalds fills them up and leaves them satisfied. As a result they become overweight or obese to the point where they might weight 300lbs. They then devlop an early form of heart disease and seek treatment and place a strain on health services. In many cases this could have been avoided. Some blame rests on the individual but some also rests on the system.

Marcus :tucool:

In relation to the above quote, many poor people see fast food as their only option. There may be better options but many people still get fast food. Why? I dont believe its because they are hedonists or pigs (some are) but they have been influenced by advertising and mislead by their lack of knowledge of health. To them, its cheap and its tasty.
Then the issue is one of education, not economics. Healthy food is no more expensive than unhealthy food. Eating fast food every day is NOT cheaper than buying healthy whole foods at your local supermarket. So the idea that "poor" people are somehow forced into obesity by capitalism and the availability of high-fat fast food is rediculous. The people who eat like that regularly are people who a) don't know any better; b) don't care about their health or c) know and care, but lack the discipline to make a change. Incidentally, as Freemason mentioned, people with these qualities also tend to have other bad habits that keep them in a state of poor health, both physically and economically. And her quote is right on: correlation does not equal causation. Poor does not cause Fat. Ingorant, Apathetic and Lazy causes Poor, Fat and Unhealthy.

Is it really their fault for buying it. Maybe its up to governments to educate more people about health and assist in providing healthier, cheaper alternatives. These are pretty extreme views so I'm more brainstorming here than expressing my concrete opinion. In truth I'm not sure.
Yes, it absolutely is their fault for buying it. Look, the government here in the US spends millions every year in an attempt to educate people about eating healthy. This information is free and equally available to everyone, regardless of economic status. The Food Guide Pyramid is on every loaf of bread. Growing up in public school, I remember seeing it on my milk carton every day at lunch and on a big poster in the cafeteria. The FDA requires nutrient information labels on everything we buy. There are surgeon general's warnings on tobacco and alcohol products. Additional nutrition information is available for free at your public library if you choose to go look for it.

The bottom line is that it is not the government's or anyone else's responsibility to force people to take care of themselves. People need to stop looking for someone else to blame and start taking responsibility and control of their own situations. THAT's the kind of education I'd like to see.

I don't want to get off on a rant here, so I'll be mercifully brief. ;)

Many of the reasons for people being poor are bad government policies. I could rattle off a huge list of these, but I feel that if I were to do so, people would attack one (e.g. welfare) without understanding how the others in the list interact with that one (e.g. minimum wage leading to unemployment leading to welfare...), leading to a death spiral. It's an ugly, complex web.

Now, I'm not saying that govt is the sole reason people are poor. Many people just suck at managing their money.

Bad Government policies do contibute to increasing inequality but I think that some degree of inequality is inevitable, especially under capitalism. Therefore we need to accept that some people are always going to be poor but we can also try and at least help them maintain an acceptable standard of living. In relation to this issue, it would mean educating them on health (because some people dont realise how bad fast food is) and trying to make healthy foods as accessable as fast food.

Marcus :tucool:

...and trying to make healthy foods as accessable as fast food.
What? Please explain to me how fast food is more accessible than healthy food? In my neighborhood (and most towns in this country), there is a McDonald's, a Wendy's, a Dairy Queen and a Taco Bell. There are also three or four supermarkets where I shop and get all the healthy food I eat. All of these businesses are within easy walking distance of one another. How is healthy food not as available as fast food?

Then the issue is one of education, not economics. Healthy food is no more expensive than unhealthy food. Eating fast food every day is NOT cheaper than buying healthy whole foods at your local supermarket. So the idea that "poor" people are somehow forced into obesity by capitalism and the availability of high-fat fast food is rediculous. The people who eat like that regularly are people who a) don't know any better; b) don't care about their health or c) know and care, but lack the discipline to make a change. Incidentally, as Freemason mentioned, people with these qualities also tend to have other bad habits that keep them in a state of poor health, both physically and economically. And her quote is right on: correlation does not equal causation. Poor does not cause Fat. Ingorant, Apathetic and Lazy causes Poor, Fat and Unhealthy.


Yes, it absolutely is their fault for buying it. Look, the government here in the US spends millions every year in an attempt to educate people about eating healthy. This information is free and equally available to everyone, regardless of economic status. The Food Guide Pyramid is on every loaf of bread. Growing up in public school, I remember seeing it on my milk carton every day at lunch and on a big poster in the cafeteria. The FDA requires nutrient information labels on everything we buy. There are surgeon general's warnings on tobacco and alcohol products. Additional nutrition information is available for free at your public library if you choose to go look for it.

The bottom line is that it is not the government's or anyone else's responsibility to force people to take care of themselves. People need to stop looking for someone else to blame and start taking responsibility and control of their own situations. THAT's the kind of education I'd like to see.

I'm not trying to critisize you here so please dont take offence but if the Governments and NGOs (Non-Gov Orgs) of the world had your attitute this widespread problem of obesity would never get solved. The fault does not just lie in the hands of the people, there are also problems in the system. If the world just said "its these poor peoples own fault, let them sort it out themselves" nothing would get solved.

The bottom line is that it is not the government's or anyone else's responsibility to force people to take care of themselves. People need to stop looking for someone else to blame and start taking responsibility and control of their own situations.

This is not going to happen. These people will continue to get fat and hence get sick, costing the world trillions on healthcare that could have been prevented.

You have to put your self in the shoes of these people and develop some compassion. There are reasons why they always revert to fast food. Sure it may be cheaper to buy wholefoods from the supermarket but these people obviously dont know that because they dont do it. They dont just eat at MacDonalds because they like stuffing their faces.

Also, if there is so much education availiable to people, why are so many obviously uneducated about health? This must mean there is some fault in the system.

I could go on forever so I'm gonna stop. I'm enjoying this though, its making me think about things I never really considered before.

marcus :tucool:

You should check out the supermarkets in badly depressed neighborhoods. They're terrible. I live in NYC, and let me tell you, there are huge areas of the boroughs where it's a major challenge to find enough good healthy food to live on day after day. The produce sections would make you weep. It's the wealthy parts of town that have the good food. (and now I wait for someone to kick poor people again by saying they should travel farther than well-off people to buy their food.)

I guess you can tell that I don't dig all this "poor fat people" stuff. Dick Cheney is a big fatso, so I guess rich Republican jerks are also the problem! :D

What? Please explain to me how fast food is more accessible than healthy food? In my neighborhood (and most towns in this country), there is a McDonald's, a Wendy's, a Dairy Queen and a Taco Bell. There are also three or four supermarkets where I shop and get all the healthy food I eat. All of these businesses are within easy walking distance of one another. How is healthy food not as available as fast food?

To get healthy food at a supermarket you have to go in, pick what you need, you then have to cook it and prepare it, all of which takes effort and knowledge. It may not seem that hard to you, but to many used to fasr food it is. A McDonalds is more accesable because its cheap (not as cheap as a supermarket but many dont know this) and you have your food ready to eat within minutes, it fills you up and tastes good.

From my own experience I am a uni student on a budget. I go to the Cafeteria and I can get 2 slices of pizza for 2$ each (aussie dollars) yet a healthy sandwich will cost around $6-8. Its cheaper and easier to get pizza but I of course dont because I know the consequences of the fast food diet.

Marcus

Bad Government policies do contibute to increasing inequality but I think that some degree of inequality is inevitable, especially under capitalism. Therefore we need to accept that some people are always going to be poor but we can also try and at least help them maintain an acceptable standard of living. In relation to this issue, it would mean educating them on health (because some people dont realise how bad fast food is) and trying to make healthy foods as accessable as fast food.

Marcus :tucool:

I agree, inequality will always exist and there is nothing wrong with that. But poor is a relative term. I'm poor compared to my company's CEO, but I'm well-enough off to comfortably take care of myself (assuming I don't get laid off). I'd venture that most truly poor people are actually much better off than truly poor people from decades ago were. But actually, poor is a state of mind, broke is a state of wallet. Poor people stay poor because that is what they're conditioned to.

We certainly do have the option of helping people who need help, but that help should not be forced. That's not charity, its theft, no matter the intent. Muggers are usually poor and are hence in need, but I'm sure you'd disagree with their methods.

But poor is a relative term.

Whoah, thats a whole new debate. How do we define poor? Maybe we should save this one for another day because I'm rather tired. Its 5am here, maybe I should get to bed :p

Marcus :cool:

Mate you are way off the mark.

I wasnt referring to those whales linked to above. I was talking about lower class people (people who generate income by selling their labour) who can only afford food like McDonalds that is full of cheap Carbos and fat. Its these financially poor people that are now dying of obesity related diseases, not rich people who stuff their faces at banquets like it used to be. Its this problem of inequality created by capitalism and the mass produced, cheap, nutritionally empty food produced in the name of profit thats causing this problem, not people with no will power!

I don't know about Australia, but McDonalds isn't 'cheap' here. No fast food is. REAL 'cheap' food (beans and rice, oatmeal, etc) is healthy and cheap. Fast food is unhealthy and expensive. SUPER high quality food is very healthy and VERY expensive.

-Allen

Eat more beans.

Whoah, thats a whole new debate. How do we define poor? Maybe we should save this one for another day because I'm rather tired. Its 5am here, maybe I should get to bed :p

Marcus :cool:

I agree. I almost didn't post that much as it felt like threadjacking. ;)

Hmm, maybe I should get back to doing some work, seeing as how they're paying me...

Poor people stay poor because that is what they're conditioned to.


I don't want to threadjack either, but I can't believe you just wrote this. I just have to call BS on this.

I agree. I almost didn't post that much as it felt like threadjacking. ;)

Hmm, maybe I should get back to doing some work, seeing as how they're paying me...

I think we threadjacked this thread quite a while ago :) It was fun though, forums really are a catalyst for critical thinking :nod:

Marcus :tucool:

I don't want to threadjack either, but I can't believe you just wrote this. I just have to call BS on this.

http://www.google.com/u/Mises?hl=en&q=poor&sa=Go%21

Ok, this is my last post on the matter. If anyone wants to discuss the topic, feel free to email or message me. :)

I'm not trying to critisize you here so please dont take offence but if the Governments and NGOs (Non-Gov Orgs) of the world had your attitute this widespread problem of obesity would never get solved. The fault does not just lie in the hands of the people, there are also problems in the system. If the world just said "its these poor peoples own fault, let them sort it out themselves" nothing would get solved.
No offense taken. I'm not trying to criticize you either, but the governments and NGO's of the world seem to have the "it's not your fault" attitude now. Is that solving the obesity problem? No, in fact it's getting much worse at an alarming rate. Maybe what we need is an attitude change.

This is not going to happen. These people will continue to get fat and hence get sick, costing the world trillions on healthcare that could have been prevented.
I realize I'm asking for a lot. We have multi-billion dollar industries built on convincing people that they are not responsible for their situtation. "It's not your fault, it's the government's fault. It's your parent's fault. It's anyone's fault but yours. Buy our pill/book/videotape and your 'disease' will be cured."

What I would like to see, in terms of government attention to these issues, is better "self-sufficiency" education in public schools, to instill in kids the idea that they ARE responsible for the way they live their lives. This should include everything from health and nutrition to how to balance a checkbook and create a household budget. Treat the cause of the problem, instead of the symptoms.

There are reasons why they always revert to fast food. Sure it may be cheaper to buy wholefoods from the supermarket but these people obviously dont know that because they dont do it.

Also, if there is so much education availiable to people, why are so many obviously uneducated about health? This must mean there is some fault in the system.

As I said before, the reasons they revert to fast food are:
1) they don't know better (ingnorance),
2) they don't care (apathy) or
3) they know and care, but choose not to do anything about it

I'm all for addressing reason #1 through increased education. I don't know how to address the other two, nor do I think it's the government's responsibility to do so.

You have to put your self in the shoes of these people and develop some compassion.
I am very compassionate. I'm compassionate toward people who show a willingness to make an effort to improve their situation. I'm compassionate toward people who demonstrate an understanding that they are responsible for their behavior and they way they live, regardless of where they came from. For these people I will donate my time, money, sweat and tears to help. But to me, "compassion" does not mean trying to force people to take care of themselves when they clearly don't want to, or deluding them with ideas that they aren't responsible for their own lives. For me to want to help you, you have to show an interest in helping yourself.

http://www.google.com/u/Mises?hl=en&q=poor&sa=Go%21

Ok, this is my last post on the matter. If anyone wants to discuss the topic, feel free to email or message me. :)
Me too. Let's either start a new thread or continue it in PM's.

Me too. Let's either start a new thread or continue it in PM's.

PMs. It's not relevant to the site.

PMs. It's not relevant to the site.
Maybe in the General Discusson forum? I think it's relevant to the site, since a lot of people on here are passionate about health, fitness and related topics. I'd say this is a related topic.

Maybe in the General Discusson forum? I think it's relevant to the site, since a lot of people on here are passionate about health, fitness and related topics. I'd say this is a related topic.

Well, we're talking about the comments about poor people, not the original health/weight topic (sorry, Paradigm :o )

Ok, to the Batforum... er, Off-Topic forum. (But later for me, I've got work to finish.)

Poor does not cause Fat. Ingorant, Apathetic and Lazy causes Poor, Fat and Unhealthy.



Ruppert, is this really true? Ignorance, apathy and laziness are traits that people in all economic levels of society can have. whether your homeless, lower, middle or upper class. These traits don't determine how much money you have. Your families wealth before you were born has a much larger effect on whether you are poor or not. Ignorance, laziness, and apathy will certainly affect how much a person will change the original wealth of the family they come into. these traits will influence the economic situation over many generations. But when you are poor, it is just hard to get out of it no matter how determined or smart you are. and when you are rich it is easy to stay rich no matter how lazy or ignorant you are. although there are those success stories where people start with nothing and then build up their families wealth and achieve the american dream, this is really rare. And I don't think that it is fare to say that all of the other poor people have not yet acheived the american dream because they are ignorant, lazy, and apathetic.

Although this pretty off-topic now, I just thought that statement was a little too simplified and downright not correct.

Dude there all dead, that just makes me want to push on even further.

I'm going to have to disagree with you, Marcus. Correllation is not the same as causation. Plus, poor people do not have to eat McDonald's. It is not inexpensive compared to regular canned food at the grocery store. By far.

The people who are more likely to eat McDonald's everyday are also going to be people who are more likely to be poor. I know a lot of poor people. Some of them are very responsible and still find ways to save money--they will not always be poor. Others waste money on fast food, cigarettes, alcohol, and other garbage--they will probably be relatively poor for the rest of their lives.

Very well said. :tucool:

I think people are taking too extreme a viewpoint on obesity and fast food. In one camp you have the bleeding hearts who feel that all the mistakes people make in this world are the fault of large institutions and wealthy money changers. On the other side is the people who think that people bring everything on themselves and that really obese people are obviously lazy and weak.

The truth is somewhere in the middle. No one makes us go to McDonald's and eat their food. But this company and the others that dominate the American food industry are not exactly admirable in the way they conduct their business- from their marketing to children, market manipulation of their suppliers, and total control over the business of beef, chicken and potatoes.

It seems like America is at a turning point. More and more people are rising up and breaking the shackles of fast food, only to realize that no one had been pointing a gun to their head-they just weren't paying attention to what went in their bodies. This message board is full of formerly fatties finding that they're actual fitness finatics. :p

I would guess that anyone weighing over 1,000 lbs both eats a lot of food AND has a slow metabolism, fluid retention and other genetic problems, but don't take the stance that it's one or the other! Of course the diets weren't working! Diets by themselves aren't worth shit in the long term without a good exercise program.

Obesity(loosely defined) is set to be the number 1 killer of Americans next year. Inactivity in general is the true cause of aging-people should focus more on the fact that these people laid in bed all day than just their nutrition.

My take on the extreme fatties of the world? Get in the f*cking gym :db: no matter how big you are and move. Or go outside and do it. Or at least sit up during the day. But if you're horizontal all day eating in bed wondering whether you'll ever not be obese, then I have no sympathy for you. :(

Not a single person in this thread has said that anyone is forcing anyone to eat fast food. :rolleyes:

However, the way we keep putting fast food in school cafeterias is another matter, and should be talked about. I mean, what would you do as a kid, eat the Pizza Hut they offer or the pathetic, tasteless cafeteria green beans that come in a little plastic cup? THERE'S a case where you could argue that people are (nearly) being forced to eat bad food. And there's where obesity, somewhat like poverty, starts: when you're too young to know better and don't have the self-discipline and knowledge you need.

although there are those success stories where people start with nothing and then build up their families wealth and achieve the american dream, this is really rare.

I disagree. It is statistically incorrect in America. It is quite true in most parts of the world though.

An economic study was done (don't remember my sources) and it was determined that over a long period of time-I think 20 yrs- that of the people making up the top 20% of annual earners, less than half were in that group at the end of the period. They were replaced by people who were in one of the other quintiles. The amazing thing is that the new top 20% were very equally divided among the bottom four quintiles.

My parents grew up with nothing, and now they are well off. But they're not giving me anything-so as a consequence I'm now worth negative $50,000 (less than the average homeless person for sure), but I'm confident I'll get to where I want to be. Yes my education helped-but it was all public schools in middle class neighborhoods. It was really all the attitude of my parents during the formative years. Rich or poor, parenting during the first decade is what determines the motivation of a child to learn and improve as a person. A poor person isn't disadvantaged when it comes to teaching his child to read and write. It's easy to sit back and be jealous of people who inherit money, but this is not one of the primary methods that people use to get rich. It's just what you see in the media. The average wealthy person is an entrepreneur or an educated professional who has gradually built up their net worth through intelligent investment and tax planning.

Think again. Take a look at this: :eek:

The Worlds Heaviest People (http://www.dimensionsmagazine.com/dimtext/kjn/people/heaviest.htm)

Talk about crazy. :spaz:

Having a laugh at someone's expense is generaly a pretty rotten thing to do. I'm sure you all have something to say about these people, but I don't think these forums are really the place for it.

If it makes you feel good to laugh at others defeats, you have problems that weightlifting isn't going to fix. </lecture>

i've just read the first few.
Why the hell where these people put on such low calorie diets?
FIVE HUNDRED A DAY? even 1200 a day is stupid beyond belief.
As someone said before, they could eat thousands of calories a day and still lose weight. but a 500 or even 1200 diet probably killed them in the end.

I kind of wonder if ya'll really sympathize for these people. One of the poor little boys was 156 by the age 7, some of this can be helped, but some cannot. - One lady ran 7 miles 3 times a week and still gained, very sad - my heart goes out to people like that. :d_frown:

I agree that it is sad. Whether it is partially thier own fault or not it is just terrible. There must be something seriously wrong with most of them to begin with. It said that some of them retained as much as 200+ pounds of water. How is that even possible? I don't think most people could get that big no matter how hard they tried.

Having a laugh at someone's expense is generaly a pretty rotten thing to do. I'm sure you all have something to say about these people, but I don't think these forums are really the place for it.

If it makes you feel good to laugh at others defeats, you have problems that weightlifting isn't going to fix. </lecture>

I don't think there was really any laughing. Most of the thread revolved around the implications of being massively overweight. IMHO it was a good, heated discussion that did digress a bit, and yes, I admit I was part of that. I don't believe anyone here had the intent of being mean towards those people. Some comments probably came off that way, hence your reaction, but a few of us did admit our opinions seem cold.

This post may be a bit incoherent, but then, so am I right now. I'm just groggy because it's past my bedtime. :(

Mate you are way off the mark.

I wasnt referring to those whales linked to above. I was talking about lower class people (people who generate income by selling their labour) who can only afford food like McDonalds that is full of cheap Carbos and fat. Its these financially poor people that are now dying of obesity related diseases, not rich people who stuff their faces at banquets like it used to be. Its this problem of inequality created by capitalism and the mass produced, cheap, nutritionally empty food produced in the name of profit thats causing this problem, not people with no will power!


You said; "Its this problem of inequality created by capitalism"

If that is the problem then what would you suggest?

How about the opposite of capitalism, Socialism
An economic and political system in which private property is abolished and the means of production (i.e., capital and land) are collectively owned and operated by the community as a whole in order to advance the interests of all. In Marxist ideology, socialism is considered an intermediate stage in the inevitable transformation of capitalism into communism. A socialist society is envisioned as being characterized by the dictatorship of the proletariat; the existence of a high degree of cooperation and equality; and the absence of discrimination, poverty, exploitation, and war. With the non-existence of private ownership, the private profit motive is eliminated from economic life. Consequently, market forces do not play a role in organizing the process of production. Instead, large-scale government planning is employed to ensure the harmonious operation of the process of production.

How about Fascism

Political philosophy that became predominant in Italy and then Germany during the 1920s and 1930s; attacked weakness of democracy, corruption of capitalism; promised vigorous foreign and military programs; undertook state control of economy to reduce social friction.

You see you can't just attack capitalism without giving me an alternative way of life. I agree the fast food industry is selling millions of americans crap for nutrition but try taking a box of krispy kreams out of the hands of some fat persons hands after they have waited in line for an hour or try telling people at the funnel cake booth that that stuff may not be good for you. I think people make bad choices rich and poor alike don't blame it on capitalism blame it on hollywood or the actors guild or frekin baseball or football, have you seen what these people eat when they watch a game? It's unreal! Hmmm don't these people do any labor? as you said "people who generate income by selling their labour" Gosh those football players make millions and millions and still they want me to help their owners who are millionares also to help them build a stadium so they can make millions more, what's that all about?

I know lots of people that sell there labor to me actually and they are paid very good money drive new cars and eat at fancy restraunts they even work more than 40 hours a week sometimes so they can make even more money and we pay them 50% more when they do! Ya gotta love capitalism everyone gets a fair chance to become a millionare. I'm still workin at it though.

You said; "Its this problem of inequality created by capitalism"

If that is the problem then what would you suggest?

How about the opposite of capitalism, Socialism
An economic and political system in which private property is abolished and the means of production (i.e., capital and land) are collectively owned and operated by the community as a whole in order to advance the interests of all. In Marxist ideology, socialism is considered an intermediate stage in the inevitable transformation of capitalism into communism. A socialist society is envisioned as being characterized by the dictatorship of the proletariat; the existence of a high degree of cooperation and equality; and the absence of discrimination, poverty, exploitation, and war. With the non-existence of private ownership, the private profit motive is eliminated from economic life. Consequently, market forces do not play a role in organizing the process of production. Instead, large-scale government planning is employed to ensure the harmonious operation of the process of production.

How about Fascism

Political philosophy that became predominant in Italy and then Germany during the 1920s and 1930s; attacked weakness of democracy, corruption of capitalism; promised vigorous foreign and military programs; undertook state control of economy to reduce social friction.

You see you can't just attack capitalism without giving me an alternative way of life. I agree the fast food industry is selling millions of americans crap for nutrition but try taking a box of krispy kreams out of the hands of some fat persons hands after they have waited in line for an hour or try telling people at the funnel cake booth that that stuff may not be good for you. I think people make bad choices rich and poor alike don't blame it on capitalism blame it on hollywood or the actors guild or frekin baseball or football, have you seen what these people eat when they watch a game? It's unreal! Hmmm don't these people do any labor? as you said "people who generate income by selling their labour" Gosh those football players make millions and millions and still they want me to help their owners who are millionares also to help them build a stadium so they can make millions more, what's that all about?

I know lots of people that sell there labor to me actually and they are paid very good money drive new cars and eat at fancy restraunts they even work more than 40 hours a week sometimes so they can make even more money and we pay them 50% more when they do! Ya gotta love capitalism everyone gets a fair chance to become a millionare. I'm still workin at it though.

This is rather annoying, if you had bothered to have read all of my posts you would have seen me say this:

I believe that Capitalism contributes to this problem but I dont think that Capitalism is 'evil'. It has faults and problems but it is still a very good economic system in comparison to others from the past.

So dont go lecturing me on Socialism and Facism. Of course I cant come up with a better economic system, the best economists in the world cant. Are you trying to tell me that Capitalism is perfect? Of course its not. Capitalism creates an enourmous degree of inequality which is a factor in the problem of obesity in the lower classes. Capitalism also encourages corporations like MCDonanlds to mass produce cheap, unhealthy food becuase it makes a profit.

Now I am not saying that Capitalism is all to blame. I'm saying that it is a contributing factor that needs to be considered. Of course people are somewhat to blame as are Governments and they all must be taken into account to take steps to reducing obesity. We dont need to abandon Capitalism and revert to Socialism, we jsut need to recognise its faults and try to find methods to offset these negatives. Something which I certainly cant find an answer to, only time will tell.

Yyyyuuuuuuuuuuccccccccckkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk!

ok i can say only one thing. whoever is reading the forums and thinks that he/she is fat should feel good about himeself that atleast they are not like those people and that atleast they are making some efforts to do something about that extra weight.

Whoa, this site is scary. It was shocking how many of them died young and how many Americans were there amongst them.

I am sorry but we can try to blame genetics or hormones or anything for these guys to get this incredibly fat but one thing is certain, physics works the same way for everyone.

If you take in more calories than you burn, you will gain weight. Also you won't gain 10+lbs overnight, it will be a slow and steady process. If you and your family does not realize that something is wrong when you need new clothes the N-th time (say N > 2) because you cannot fit in the old ones anymore, there is something seriously wrong with you and your family.

When these guys cannot even turn around in bed and someone is still bringing them 3 large pizzas for dinner, I mean come one, wake up!

I personally completely blame the whalesize person and his immediate environment for their condition.

About McD, yes it is cheaper than most other restaurants but it is not cheaper than going to the supermarket and buying something much healthier. So I think it is much more of a question of laziness/convenience than it is of money.

Why is this? This is what we need to address... Is McDonalds to blame? Do they unfairly use the tool of advertising to influence people to eat their food? Are the people to blame? Are they hopeless pigs? This is a complicated issue and I certainly wont come up with an answer. I can theorise though. I think that people are to blame to some extent but they are also influenced by smothering advertising campaigns, financial restrictions and lack of education. If this is the case, they cannot dig themselves out of this problem, the problem needs to be addressed at the population level.
I went out of town for a week and missed the whole discussion! :p Oh well.

I think that people have to be held accountable for their own actions. I think that if we had a society that really did that, people would be much more responsible. So many people seem to feel that they're owed. And I can completely understand the urge to coddle people along, but I think that in the long run, treating adults like children who can't make their own decisions only makes adults act more like children.

That said, I would like it if you got nutritional info with your meal. But the little mom and pop restaurants are protesting about that idea saying it would be too hard for them. (Though I have trouble understanding what makes it so hard to add up the nutritional info for the ingredients in each recipe. I could probably do this for the 12 page menu of my favorite Chinese restaurant in one single day.)

Very interesting stuff. :)

I think that people have to be held accountable for their own actions. I think that if we had a society that really did that, people would be much more responsible. So many people seem to feel that they're owed. And I can completely understand the urge to coddle people along, but I think that in the long run, treating adults like children who can't make their own decisions only makes adults act more like children.



I completely agree, in a perfect world people should take full responsibility for their actions. However in reality this is not going to happen. We, the members of this forum are the few that have on our own decided to make a change for the better. I know quite a few people ranging from overweight to morbidly obese and they know what they eat is bad, they know they are causing themselves healh problems that will probably lead to an early death but they dont change their ways, why? Even when they are trying they still cant do it. The point is, its proven that very few can actually, by themselves, turn their lifestyle around, eat healthy and exercise for the sake of their health.

Now lets assume we are the Government of the US. We could say, who cares let the bastards die early deaths. However what about the enormous burden these obsese people put on the health system. This is costing us (the Gov and the taxpayers) Billions upon billions providing healthcare for these people, when it all could be prevented. There are that many diseases associated with obesity its shocking. Also if these obese people were healthier they would probably lead more producitive lives (less sickies, longer working lives, more motivation, increased self-esteem) and hence contribute more to economic growth instead of weighing down the system. So as the Government it is in our best interests to improve the health of these people eventhough morally they should be able to do it themselves.

Now even with Government assistance 5 times the amount given at present the problem may not be solved. Solutions to these problems are hard to find but I think it worth addressing instead of ignoring, if not because we care about these poor, obsese people, but at least for the economy.

There may be some faults in this reasoning but I think it's a more plausable solution than turning a blind eye.

Marcus :tucool:

Good points Marcus.

So the Government could pass a law that would allow the health insurance companies to start charging more for insurance for people who willingly ruin their health. So if you smoke or go above 30 BMI, you will pay much more for insurance.

If they did this, they would have to be really careful, because - in my opinion - it is absolutely crucial that they don't start "punishing" people for their genetic heritage. So they should not be able to charge more for anything that you have no control over. Also they should not be able to charge more for any actual disease. (That would kinda defeat the purpose of the insurance anyway.) But if they charge for things that people do to themselves willingly and knowingly that it will hurt them, I would have no problem with that.

Similar to if you go buy life insurance, most companies will ask if you smoke and charge you more. Also if you are a rock climber you are in a higher risk factor of suddenly dying and probably would have to pay more for insurance.

Mind you I think the fact that young, single people are getting charged much more for car insurance is much worse than this would be. It is noone's fault that they are still < 25 years old and they still get "punished" for that with the higher cost.

Good points Marcus.

So the Government could pass a law that would allow the health insurance companies to start charging more for insurance for people who willingly ruin their health. So if you smoke or go above 30 BMI, you will pay much more for insurance.

I don't think a law for this would be necessary...unless there already is one preventing such "discrimination" that would need to be repealed. But both you are Marcus are correct. This is an excellent, market-driven process. Many people would have to decide if being excessively overweight is worth the increased premiums.


If they did this, they would have to be really careful, because - in my opinion - it is absolutely crucial that they don't start "punishing" people for their genetic heritage. So they should not be able to charge more for anything that you have no control over. Also they should not be able to charge more for any actual disease. (That would kinda defeat the purpose of the insurance anyway.) But if they charge for things that people do to themselves willingly and knowingly that it will hurt them, I would have no problem with that.

Similar to if you go buy life insurance, most companies will ask if you smoke and charge you more. Also if you are a rock climber you are in a higher risk factor of suddenly dying and probably would have to pay more for insurance.

I agree with you on the genetics issue to a degree. This is a good case of where genetic screening would be very useful. However, people who are genetically-inclined towards being overweight may very well be statistically more likely to require insurance payouts, thus forcing insurance companies to charge higher premiums. I imagine these companies could differentiate between genetics vs. willfulness.


Mind you I think the fact that young, single people are getting charged much more for car insurance is much worse than this would be. It is noone's fault that they are still < 25 years old and they still get "punished" for that with the higher cost.

It may not be a person's fault that they fall into a category of people who statistically have more accidents (typically younger people are less-experienced, more agressive drivers), but insurance companies are not in business to make payouts.

So being less than 25 years old or being a smoker is a pretty black and white decision for insurance companies. "Are you a smoker? Yes, you get higher rates." That is a really easy assesment.

There is no grey area. Where as deciding whether someone is being irresponisible with their weight is pretty hairy. Separating the genetic issue from the I'm just lazy issue and don't care issue would be subjective. Is there a consistent way to do this?

And how do you separate genetics from learned behavior? Yes their parents may be fat, so you could say they are genetically predisposed to be fat. But they just could have learned to eat a lot or crap because their parents always did it.

Actually it may work if everyone who is obese to a certain degree gets higher rates, regardless of whether it is genetics. I mean everyone under 25 gets a higher rate regardless of whether they drive well. I mean from an insurance point of view, they want to charge people based on the chance they will have problems, and that chance increases if you are obsese, regardless of the reason. Oh, that just sounds so evil though.

There is no grey area. Where as deciding whether someone is being irresponisible with their weight is pretty hairy. Separating the genetic issue from the I'm just lazy issue and don't care issue would be subjective. Is there a consistent way to do this?

Who says there has to be only one way? The insurance industry would probably want to come up with some baseline, but there is no reason why Allstate would have to use the same analytical process that State Farm does. And if a customer finds they can get better rates from Allstate than State Farm, they'll switch. Again, people vote with their feet and their wallets.


And how do you separate genetics from learned behavior? Yes their parents may be fat, so you could say they are genetically predisposed to be fat. But they just could have learned to eat a lot or crap because their parents always did it.

I don't know that it would matter to the insurance companies, unless there is a scientific/statistical reason to differentiate. Is a person just as likely to suffer medical problems due to being overweight if that weight is caused by genetic predisposition or by lack of restraint and exercise? I don't know, but you can be darn sure the companies would spend millions on finding out.


Actually it may work if everyone who is obese to a certain degree gets higher rates, regardless of whether it is genetics. I mean everyone under 25 gets a higher rate regardless of whether they drive well. I mean from an insurance point of view, they want to charge people based on the chance they will have problems, and that chance increases if you are obsese, regardless of the reason. Oh, that just sounds so evil though.

Evil is in intent. These companies are not out to get you. No one is forced to buy health/life insurance. You may not like their methods, but as I said before, these companies are in business to make money. If enough people agree with you, the companies will have to change or else go out of business.

I think a lot of people here are missing out on something. Preference.

Fast food is tastier, it's more appealing.
An example using my friends:
One friend asked me how to go on a diet, and loose a bit of weight, I told him how and what to do, how to workout and such, and he started, about 2 weeks later he gave up because clean food was unintresting, he prefered to eat crisps than tuna and veg/fruit. Who wouldn't ?

A carton of 5 Slices of turkey costs £1.50+
A packet of 10 or more crisps costs the same price.
A 2ltr bottle of Coca Cola costs as low as £2 by one get one free nowdays, A carton of Fruit juice, costs at least £2.50. It's these small things that matter to people.
They aren't forced to eat junk, they prefere it. I did too, I hated clean food at first untill I found creative ways to make the food, make it intresting, make it as nice as junk food and so on. It's not the economy, it's preference.

The morbidly obese people in that website, are being fed by other people, but if they where to eat that many calories in clean food, that's going into 2 weeks worth of shopping isnt it? Junk food is much much cheaper to buy in bulk like they eat in the first place, that's my guess on it. I'm not justifying it though, it's disgusting thinking about that much food, I love eating and even I couldn't do that if I tried, nor would I want too.

Mc donalds, KFC, Burger king, and other fast food companies are not to blame, they are running a business, a company, and will try and get money whatever way possible. Education isn't the problem either, people know full well that fast food isn't good for you. I'm sure there are plenty of people who know about nutrition, and are overweight still. That doesn't take a brainstorming, but a burger is cheaper than a chicken breast.

You guys are bringing up some good points.

So we have looked at possible ways of how people became fat (genetics, lifestyle) in relation to health insurance rates. We also need to consider: regardless of how they became fat, can they with the simple plan of exercise and a balanced diet (nothing too financially or time restrictive) actually get back down to a healthy weight range. When I say healthy weight range I think most of us here are aiming below that. Off the top of my head I think its 20-20% BF for women and 15-20% for men.

If they can achieve this, by following for example published Government guidelines, and prove it then they should be rewarded with lower health insurance rates as they get closer to a healthier weight range. I believe 95% of people can achieve this. Perhaps those with disabilities and long term injuries can be excluded and also the elderly may find it more difficult.

We also have to consider the fact that this is not enough of a motivation for some people. They may be faced with high rates so they simply dont get health insurance and this leads to other problems.

Also we must look at this from a Governments point of view. How will the people react to this? We might be policy makers working with researchers on possible solutions and we put together a plan similar to what we have discussed in this thread. The Government is going to look at it and say: "yes it might work, but the public are going to resent us for it, we have an election coming up this year and we cant afford to lose popularity in the polls. Half of our population is overweight and they dont want to pay more for health insurance".

Basically they will be telling us to come up with the most effective yet least restricitive solution. How would Governments respond to policy allowing high health insurance rates to discourage obesity. Maybe there can be some kind of incentive program. Its difficult because you cant restrict people too much because this would be impinging on their liberties. I wish I were a Dictator, and I would simply give people no choice, lose weight or I feed you to the pigs to at least get some use out of you :)

Marcus :cool:

Couple of quick points:

Let the government do as little as possible. (That is true in general also ;) ) If there is a legal ban on discrimination on fat/smoker people in terms of health insurance rates, just get rid of that ban.

What would happen first is nothing would change. Then one insurance company would probably come up with a policy, smokers pay extra 30%, people with BMI over 30 would pay extra 30%, people with BMI over 25 would pay extra 15%. So the companies would very quickly put all these extra costs on the employees. (How would it be fair, that the company pays more for your insurance (more benefits) just because you are fat.)

So then the effected people would either change insurance companies or pay or after this wake up call, change their life around.

If lots of "high cost" people move to other companies, they would have to somehow raise prices also. Let's say that one of these companies just raises premiums across the board. Now all the "healthy lifestyle" people would jump ship and go to the first company, which offered the better rates for healthy individuals.

I think that after some turmoil the system would balance out. And there would be lots of people who are fat/smoker and are forced to pay more. It is very surprising but even a little money can be a very good motivator, I believe that some of them would change their life around to save money.

/agree Bunko (Especially on the part about letting the government do as little as possible. ;) )

Seems like you guys are on the right track to me. Insurance companies should just charge fat people more. Makes sense.

Doesn't matter if it's genetic or not. If I have a serious heart condition that is genetic, my insurance is going to cost more. Why should it be different if I'm fat?

Well then with that logic obesity shouldn't be considered at all for insurance. One or two of the cases in the link in the original post was about someone who's cholesterol was at normal levels, and other than his weight was fine.

It would make the most sense if insurance rates were partially based on a health risk rating assigned by one or two doctors based on a number of things. The vast majority of obeses people would have significant health risks and pay more, but it would be because of blood pressure, cholesterol, etc, not specifically because of obesity. That would solve the genetics/life choice issue as well as possibly avoid the charges of discrimination that would follow if they would specifically highlight weight.

That is exacly what I argued against.

If they look at actual diseases, like high blood pressure, etc and calculate that into the insurance premium, then what is the point of insurance? Just save your money and pay for the doc when you have something bad going on.

The point is that insurance companies should only be allowed to discriminate on things that you do by choice. You can choose to not smoke, you can choose to not eat yourself fat. Most of the time you cannot choose to not get a heart attack, to not get cancer, etc.

These well known "by choice" risk factors are the only ones that can be helped anyway if you change your lifestyle so these are the ones that you want to encourage people to change. That's why raising the premium on these (and only these) might motivate people to change their life around.

If I have cancer and you raise my premium because of that, what can I do? Suddenly decide to not have it? If I smoke and suddenly I have to pay $200 more a month because of that, I might decide to kick the habit to save money.

That is exacly what I argued against.

If they look at actual diseases, like high blood pressure, etc and calculate that into the insurance premium, then what is the point of insurance? Just save your money and pay for the doc when you have something bad going on.

This is a very good idea. And check out Simple Care (http://www.simplecare.com).

The point is that insurance companies should only be allowed to discriminate on things that you do by choice. You can choose to not smoke, you can choose to not eat yourself fat. Most of the time you cannot choose to not get a heart attack, to not get cancer, etc.

Be allowed? :mad:

Anyway, by forcing insurance companies to cover people they find too risky, or by preventing them from charging such people more due to the added risk, the companies' costs go up, which they then pass on to all customers. So higher premiums for everyone, ergo socialized medicine. Look how well that's worked. :rolleyes: :(

These well known "by choice" risk factors are the only ones that can be helped anyway if you change your lifestyle so these are the ones that you want to encourage people to change. That's why raising the premium on these (and only these) might motivate people to change their life around.

Again, it doesn't matter whether risk factors are by choice. Some people are, for whatever reasons, statistically more likely to file claims. It certainly does suck for people who can't escape some risk factors, but that does not justify such intrusions into business decisions.


If I have cancer and you raise my premium because of that, what can I do? Suddenly decide to not have it? If I smoke and suddenly I have to pay $200 more a month because of that, I might decide to kick the habit to save money.

If I raise your premium, it's nothing personal. I have to cover costs. If you get cancer, the risk to me of having to pay out increases, thereby increasing my costs and the likelihood of closing down my business, which is bad for the rest of my customers, too. So which choice do you think I'll make? What would you do if you owned an insurance company?

Be allowed? :mad:

Yes, be allowed and then they - the insurance companies - can figure out if they want to do it or not. Believe in the free market, it will work ;)

Anyway, by forcing insurance companies to cover people they find too risky, or by preventing them from charging such people more due to the added risk, the companies' costs go up, which they then pass on to all customers. So higher premiums for everyone, ergo socialized medicine. Look how well that's worked. :rolleyes: :(


Well, that is how insurance generally works. You figure out the expected payout and then you establish the premiums by dividing down the cost by the number of participants (plus of course you calculate some profit in). This is exactly why typically smaller companies have higher premiums, with a small group, even 1 person getting really sick can have a devastating effect on the payouts so they keep a higher premium to protect themselves.

Also, unlike the majority of people I do think that health care works pretty well in the US, so far I could always go to the doctor and get some remedy when I needed and get it quickly. Also, the technology, the science and all the "things" are "all there" to give you good care. The only thing I think they should think about fixing is that if you lose your job, you lose your coverage. I can predict that the more the government gets involved in the healtcare business, the worse it is going to get.

It certainly does suck for people who can't escape some risk factors, but that does not justify such intrusions into business decisions.

What you're talking about is essentially Gattaca. When you are born, they draw your blood, figure out what genetic problems you have and now you will pay based on that. I just think that there is something fundamentally wrong with discriminating against people based on something they have no control over. (That's why I think that the under 25 car insurance rates are also BS.) Like I said, I have no problem with discrimination against something I have control over, because then I can change it.

If I raise your premium, it's nothing personal. I have to cover costs. If you get cancer, the risk to me of having to pay out increases, thereby increasing my costs and the likelihood of closing down my business, which is bad for the rest of my customers, too. So which choice do you think I'll make? What would you do if you owned an insurance company?

Well, let me tell you, this is pure mathematics. They do know that they make money on 95% of their customers and lose a lot on the 5%. Somehow they don't seem to be going bankrupt because of people getting sick. Like I said at the top of my post, this is exactly the "insurance game", I prepay for the chance of needing a payback later. If it was not a profitable game for them, they would not do it.

Yes, be allowed and then they - the insurance companies - can figure out if they want to do it or not. Believe in the free market, it will work ;)

Sorry, misunderstanding. My anger was directed at the phrase "be allowed" because it implies requiring permission, like if I were to say to you "I will allow you to sell hamburgers." Since when did you have to ask my permission? How would I stop you, even if I wanted to?

Well, that is how insurance generally works. You figure out the expected payout and then you establish the premiums by dividing down the cost by the number of participants (plus of course you calculate some profit in). This is exactly why typically smaller companies have higher premiums, with a small group, even 1 person getting really sick can have a devastating effect on the payouts so they keep a higher premium to protect themselves.

No argument here.

Also, unlike the majority of people I do think that health care works pretty well in the US, so far I could always go to the doctor and get some remedy when I needed and get it quickly. Also, the technology, the science and all the "things" are "all there" to give you good care. The only thing I think they should think about fixing is that if you lose your job, you lose your coverage. I can predict that the more the government gets involved in the healtcare business, the worse it is going to get.

It does work pretty well relative to other countries. It is still heavily regulated, however, which drives up prices of prescription drugs, office visits, hospital stays, etc. So we're pretty much in agreement here, too.

What you're talking about is essentially Gattaca. When you are born, they draw your blood, figure out what genetic problems you have and now you will pay based on that. I just think that there is something fundamentally wrong with discriminating against people based on something they have no control over. (That's why I think that the under 25 car insurance rates are also BS.) Like I said, I have no problem with discrimination against something I have control over, because then I can change it.

Never seen the movie, but I know the gist of it. First of all, being able to screen for genetic problems can be of huge benefit to everyone. I have no problem, however, with the judicious use of discrimination. That word has a very strong negative connotation, but remember that discrimination is just the ability to make fine distinctions, e.g. a discriminating wine connoisseur. So discriminating in itself is not a bad thing. But discriminating based on something irrelevant to the matter at hand, like against a black person applying for a job as a computer programmer, where skin color has nothing to do with ability, is a bad thing. And if a company doesn't want to hire me for some reason I can't change, is that a company I would really want to work for? Their loss. When Company A misses out on good people for dumb reasons, and their competitor Company B pick those people up, so much the better for B. Maybe they'll put A out of business.

On the other hand, being under a certain age can certainly have relevance. Look at it another way. Say that, statistically, blue-eyed people are responsible for 95% of all car crashes. Then insurance companies would probably want to charge higher premiums for people with blue eyes. Fair to those people? Not really. But something about having blue eyes correlates to a person having a higher chance of causing a crash, so they are more of a risk to insure and, even though they can't control that factor, the fact remains that they do present a higher risk than people without blue eyes.


Well, let me tell you, this is pure mathematics. They do know that they make money on 95% of their customers and lose a lot on the 5%. Somehow they don't seem to be going bankrupt because of people getting sick. Like I said at the top of my post, this is exactly the "insurance game", I prepay for the chance of needing a payback later. If it was not a profitable game for them, they would not do it.

Absolutely. I guess our disagreement is simply on the "fairness" of being born a certain way. No it's not fair, but then, neither is life, and no matter how much you or I hate that, it will not change.

I have a story that relates to this.

I work at In-n-Out burger, and I was working as a cashier/order taker when a family came in and prepared to order. They were clearly low on funds for the day, as they all had the nervous look about them of one who doesn't have enough money for what they want to order. The mother ordered seperately (the children were both in their teens/twenties) and ordered a simple cheeseburger, where as her kids, clearly woried about getting enough food to hold them over, ordered shakes instead. Now, this may seem insignificant to some, but a cheeseburger there has 300ish calories and some decent nutritional contents including essential amino acids, whereas the shake is 600 calories of limited nutritional value (admittedly some essential aminos from the diary ingredients). That was the first time I was really confronted with the social structure of our society as it relates to food consumption.

I agree with those who say that our society is making the poor fat. This can be clearly traced to education. As it was, nothing in my high-school education properly informed me how to eat right and maintain any given weight. I'm sure that a study that analyzed the connection between education and obesity would discover a clear trend, and since education and financial well-being tend to be directly linked, they would also find a connection between income and obesity.

Hmm, I wonder what their body fat% is? ;/

But in all honesty, how can they not lose weight? Even 1 lb of fat burns aprox 2 calories a day, so what do you do? Well, I would assume they must have some muscle hauling around their lazy butts all day so ..

Hmm put em on a 2500 calorie diet and watch the weight go down, sure it would take aprox 60 years to do but hey ><

Overall, I think its dumb, its not hard to change liftstyles early on where the problems start, I mean once they broke 300 lbs or something just force them to exercise or some shit I mean is it really that hard?

(Also, it sorta makes you cringe since I was on the same path as some of those people since I was 270 lbs at age 13 and now im 190 at age 14) :P

So discriminating in itself is not a bad thing.

Ok, no argument there. I meant it in the "negative discrimination" way. (Like when you have to pay more than others.)

But discriminating based on something irrelevant to the matter at hand, like against a black person applying for a job as a computer programmer, where skin color has nothing to do with ability, is a bad thing.

Absolutely. But how about the fact that for example sickle cell anemia is much more likely to occur in the African race than in Caucasians. Do you think that it would be ok to charge more insurance premium for blacks just because they are more likely to get this disease. (Please forget about the actual disease and focus on the fact that lots of diseases are very closely linked to race or sex.)

My argument is that it would be very wrong if we started to punish people for their genetics. Maybe genetically I am a luckly one and less likely to get lots of diseases than others. Even if I knew this for sure, I would be more than happy to pay some extra premium to compensate for the genetically less fortunate ones. I am however not that happy to pay extra for the people who smoke by choice and eat themselves to unhealthy fat by choice.

And if a company doesn't want to hire me for some reason I can't change, is that a company I would really want to work for?

Well, it is not that easy. What if 95% of the companies do not want to hire you? Would you still say that it is ok, I will just work for the 5%, or would you want the congress to do something about negative racial discrimination?

Say that, statistically, blue-eyed people are responsible for 95% of all car crashes. Then insurance companies would probably want to charge higher premiums for people with blue eyes. Fair to those people? Not really. But something about having blue eyes correlates to a person having a higher chance of causing a crash, so they are more of a risk to insure and, even though they can't control that factor, the fact remains that they do present a higher risk than people without blue eyes.

See in my ideal world, the insurance company would be allowed to charge me much more if I already caused an accident but just because I have blue eyes, they would not be able to. It may not seem to be such a big deal but remember again, what if it turns out that men cause more accidents than women? It is ok to charge all men because of this? What if white people are more likely to get into an accident? White blue eyed males would be really screwed then.

Absolutely. I guess our disagreement is simply on the "fairness" of being born a certain way. No it's not fair, but then, neither is life, and no matter how much you or I hate that, it will not change.

Well, based on that logic, we could even throw away the Bill of Rights, because life is not fair so why should the laws be.

It may not seem to be such a big deal but remember again, what if it turns out that men cause more accidents than women? It is ok to charge all men because of this? What if white people are more likely to get into an accident? White blue eyed males would be really screwed then.

Isn't that already true that men have higher rates then women? Every girl I have known has always had a lower rate than me, at least for under 25 anyway.


Well after reading the debate between Justin and Bunko, it seems as though Justin is arguing from the point of view of the insurance companies, while Bunko is arguing from the view of disadvantaged citizens who are paying more because of no fault of their own. Wouldn't it be a better world if companies such as insurance could operate in a manner that doesn't discriminate against people for things out of their control (age, genetics) and still make a profit? The sad thing is that, even if that was possible, it is besides the point because companies care about making the most profit.

Suppose (in oversimplified and made up and world) that there was a salary cap for all people.... All money made after a certain $ amount was distributed throughout the world to people who were unable to make that much money because of reasons out of their control... and because of this there were no starving countries/people. Would people be happy? The ones who were in need of food would be, but the ones who have a salary cap are not. Its too bad that the world isn't a more caring place, and I agree with Justin about how life is not fair.

Suppose (in oversimplified and made up and world) that there was a salary cap for all people.... All money made after a certain $ amount was distributed throughout the world to people who were unable to make that much money because of reasons out of their control... and because of this there were no starving countries/people. Would people be happy? The ones who were in need of food would be, but the ones who have a salary cap are not. Its too bad that the world isn't a more caring place, and I agree with Justin about how life is not fair.

Thats sounds a bit like Communism :confused: :)

I agree though, I wish it could be that way (universal equality) but eventhough I like the idea, I dont support systems like communism because they simply don't work in practice. Forcefully redistributing wealth simply has too many negative implications. Capitalism may favour inequality but it sill has a lot of benefits. I think its just a matter of altering Capitalism by trying to narrow the gap while maintaining a free market economy.

I'm studying this at the moment (global problems and capiltalism) so I'm still learning and hence can't really put foward an opinion yet.

Marcus :cool:

Thats sounds a bit like Communism :confused: :)

Yeah... I never thought about that! :p

I agree though, I wish it could be that way (universal equality) but eventhough I like the idea, I dont support systems like communism because they simply don't work in practice. Forcefully redistributing wealth simply has too many negative implications. Capitalism may favour inequality but it sill has a lot of benefits. I think its just a matter of altering Capitalism by trying to narrow the gap while maintaining a free market economy.

I actually agree with you. :tu: In would not work in our society. I guess I just wished we lived in a more perfect world.

I found this essay that I think is kind of relevant to the discussion here. I found it really interesting and thought provoking. Tell me what you guys think.

Precapitalist theory and textual deappropriation

John Dahmus
Department of English, University of California, Berkeley
Wilhelm O. de Selby
Department of English, University of Illinois

1. Smith and neodialectic discourse
The main theme of Geoffrey's[1] analysis of dialectic desituationism is not sublimation, as textual deappropriation suggests, but neosublimation. Derrida suggests the use of prematerial socialism to deconstruct class divisions. It could be said that Sontag uses the term 'dialectic desituationism' to denote a mythopoetical reality.

"Sexual identity is a legal fiction," says Debord; however, according to de Selby[2] , it is not so much sexual identity that is a legal fiction, but rather the meaninglessness, and subsequent stasis, of sexual identity. If the cultural paradigm of consensus holds, the works of Burroughs are an example of self-fulfilling feminism. Thus, Lyotard uses the term 'textual deappropriation' to denote the fatal flaw, and eventually the meaninglessness, of neocapitalist class.

If one examines modern subcapitalist theory, one is faced with a choice: either accept textual deappropriation or conclude that language may be used to entrench capitalism. Any number of discourses concerning precapitalist theory exist. It could be said that the subject is contextualised into a textual deappropriation that includes sexuality as a totality.

In Port of Saints, Burroughs denies deconstructivist rationalism; in Junky, although, he examines precapitalist theory. However, the subject is interpolated into a Debordist image that includes language as a whole.

Lacan uses the term 'textual deappropriation' to denote not situationism, but postsituationism. Therefore, the premise of dialectic desituationism implies that narrative comes from communication.

The characteristic theme of the works of Burroughs is a mythopoetical totality. Thus, a number of discourses concerning the economy, and subsequent defining characteristic, of neocultural narrativity may be found.

Derrida uses the term 'textual deappropriation' to denote not appropriation, as Sartre would have it, but preappropriation. It could be said that the primary theme of Finnis's[3] critique of Batailleist `powerful communication' is the role of the artist as observer.

2. Consensuses of stasis
The main theme of the works of Burroughs is the failure of postconceptualist society. The defining characteristic, and thus the rubicon, of dialectic desituationism which is a central theme of Burroughs's The Last Words of Dutch Schultz emerges again in Nova Express. But the characteristic theme of Scuglia's[4] model of precapitalist theory is the role of the poet as artist.

In the works of Burroughs, a predominant concept is the concept of neodialectic sexuality. Hanfkopf[5] suggests that we have to choose between the textual paradigm of expression and subsemiotic situationism. Therefore, any number of narratives concerning precapitalist theory exist.

"Reality is intrinsically meaningless," says Foucault; however, according to de Selby[6] , it is not so much reality that is intrinsically meaningless, but rather the meaninglessness, and eventually the absurdity, of reality. Marxist capitalism states that language is used to exploit the proletariat, but only if Debord's analysis of dialectic desituationism is valid; if that is not the case, we can assume that context is created by the masses. In a sense, the primary theme of the works of Burroughs is a self-justifying whole.

In the works of Burroughs, a predominant concept is the distinction between opening and closing. An abundance of theories concerning the role of the poet as writer may be discovered. Thus, the characteristic theme of Hamburger's[7] essay on precapitalist theory is a postcapitalist totality.

Bataille uses the term 'textual predialectic theory' to denote the paradigm of patriarchial class. Therefore, if textual deappropriation holds, we have to choose between subsemanticist narrative and capitalist theory.

Sartre promotes the use of textual deappropriation to read society. In a sense, Lacan uses the term 'precapitalist theory' to denote the common ground between class and society. McElwaine[8] holds that we have to choose between textual deappropriation and patriarchial postsemioticist theory. However, in The Heights, Spelling analyses dialectic desituationism; in Charmed he affirms precapitalist theory.

Several discourses concerning conceptual dedeconstructivism exist. Therefore, the subject is contextualised into a precapitalist theory that includes sexuality as a paradox.

If textual deappropriation holds, we have to choose between subtextual Marxism and Sontagist camp. In a sense, Sartre uses the term 'textual deappropriation' to denote a mythopoetical totality.

Von Ludwig[9] states that the works of Spelling are postmodern. It could be said that the premise of the textual paradigm of expression implies that reality serves to reinforce hierarchy, given that consciousness is equal to culture.

3. Spelling and precapitalist theory
If one examines dialectic desituationism, one is faced with a choice: either reject precapitalist theory or conclude that class has objective value. If textual deappropriation holds, we have to choose between precapitalist theory and predeconstructivist deappropriation. Thus, the subject is interpolated into a dialectic desituationism that includes art as a reality.

In the works of Spelling, a predominant concept is the concept of dialectic narrativity. An abundance of discourses concerning the futility, and subsequent meaninglessness, of postcultural society may be revealed. However, the example of textual deappropriation prevalent in Spelling's The Heights is also evident in Models, Inc., although in a more self-sufficient sense.

Marx uses the term 'dialectic desituationism' to denote a mythopoetical totality. But in Melrose Place, Spelling reiterates textual deappropriation; in Models, Inc., however, he examines dialectic subcultural theory.

Precapitalist theory holds that the State is part of the rubicon of sexuality, but only if the premise of textual deappropriation is invalid; otherwise, narrative comes from communication. Therefore, de Selby[10] implies that we have to choose between precapitalist theory and structural narrative. Lyotard uses the term 'dialectic desituationism' to denote the role of the reader as artist. In a sense, if the postmodernist paradigm of reality holds, we have to choose between precapitalist theory and Batailleist `powerful communication'.

Textual deappropriation holds that class, surprisingly, has intrinsic meaning, given that truth is interchangeable with sexuality. However, many dematerialisms concerning material socialism exist.

4. Contexts of failure
"Sexual identity is fundamentally impossible," says Sontag; however, according to la Tournier[11] , it is not so much sexual identity that is fundamentally impossible, but rather the paradigm, and therefore the economy, of sexual identity. The main theme of the works of Pynchon is the difference between class and truth. Thus, Debord's analysis of textual deappropriation suggests that consensus is created by the masses.

"Society is dead," says Marx. The subject is contextualised into a precapitalist theory that includes sexuality as a reality. But Sartre suggests the use of textual deappropriation to challenge capitalism.

Sontag uses the term 'material sublimation' to denote a self-fulfilling totality. Thus, a number of desituationisms concerning the bridge between class and society may be discovered.

Lyotard uses the term 'precapitalist theory' to denote a mythopoetical whole. It could be said that the without/within distinction which is a central theme of Pynchon's V emerges again in The Crying of Lot 49. McElwaine[12] holds that we have to choose between postsemioticist theory and capitalist subtextual theory. Thus, Sontag uses the term 'precapitalist theory' to denote the role of the reader as participant.

Baudrillard promotes the use of textual deappropriation to modify and analyse sexual identity. But Lacan uses the term 'precapitalist theory' to denote not, in fact, discourse, but postdiscourse.

5. The cultural paradigm of context and neotextual dialectic theory
In the works of Madonna, a predominant concept is the distinction between opening and closing. If neotextual dialectic theory holds, the works of Madonna are empowering. Therefore, Hubbard[13] suggests that we have to choose between precapitalist theory and the subcultural paradigm of expression.

The characteristic theme of Pickett's[14] model of dialectic postconstructive theory is the paradigm, and some would say the collapse, of textual class. Sartre uses the term 'textual deappropriation' to denote a self-sufficient totality. But Lyotard suggests the use of precapitalist theory to deconstruct sexism.

Sartre uses the term 'neocapitalist theory' to denote the difference between art and sexual identity. It could be said that the primary theme of the works of Stone is not narrative per se, but prenarrative.

Any number of discourses concerning neotextual dialectic theory exist. However, the main theme of la Fournier's[15] critique of textual deappropriation is the role of the reader as participant.

The subject is interpolated into a neotextual dialectic theory that includes consciousness as a paradox. But presemioticist discourse holds that society has objective value.

6. Consensuses of genre
"Sexual identity is intrinsically elitist," says Debord. The characteristic theme of the works of Stone is a textual reality. Thus, if neotextual dialectic theory holds, we have to choose between precapitalist theory and postcultural theory.

If one examines neotextual dialectic theory, one is faced with a choice: either accept precapitalist theory or conclude that context is a product of the collective unconscious. Sartre's model of textual deappropriation implies that art may be used to oppress the underprivileged, but only if precapitalist theory is valid; if that is not the case, Sontag's model of neotextual dialectic theory is one of "constructive narrative", and hence part of the paradigm of truth. Therefore, Lacan promotes the use of precapitalist theory to challenge class.

The premise of subsemioticist dialectic theory holds that sexual identity, somewhat paradoxically, has intrinsic meaning. It could be said that an abundance of discourses concerning the role of the writer as artist may be revealed.

Sartre suggests the use of textual deappropriation to deconstruct colonialist perceptions of reality. But Prinn[16] states that we have to choose between neotextual theory and cultural discourse. The subject is contextualised into a textual deappropriation that includes language as a whole. Thus, Debord uses the term 'neotextual dialectic theory' to denote the rubicon, and subsequent defining characteristic, of posttextual class.

The main theme of Drucker's[17] analysis of precapitalist theory is a mythopoetical totality. But in Mona Lisa Overdrive, Gibson affirms textual deappropriation; in Neuromancer, although, he reiterates neotextual dialectic theory.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Geoffrey, H. N. (1984) The Discourse of Genre: Textual deappropriation and precapitalist theory. Loompanics
2. de Selby, G. ed. (1991) Precapitalist theory in the works of Burroughs. University of California Press

3. Finnis, R. O. (1982) Deconstructing Surrealism: Precapitalist theory and textual deappropriation. Oxford University Press

4. Scuglia, E. H. U. ed. (1990) Precapitalist theory, capitalist theory and objectivism. And/Or Press

5. Hanfkopf, K. V. (1988) The Genre of Sexual identity: Textual deappropriation and precapitalist theory. Cambridge University Press

6. de Selby, O. S. O. ed. (1973) Precapitalist theory and textual deappropriation. University of Oregon Press

7. Hamburger, N. P. (1991) Forgetting Lyotard: Textual deappropriation in the works of Spelling. And/Or Press

8. McElwaine, O. ed. (1970) Textual deappropriation and precapitalist theory. Schlangekraft

9. von Ludwig, K. J. (1987) The Forgotten Key: Precapitalist theory and textual deappropriation. Loompanics

10. de Selby, P. A. B. ed. (1971) Precapitalist theory in the works of Pynchon. Panic Button Books

11. la Tournier, S. W. (1990) The Stasis of Reality: Textual deappropriation and precapitalist theory. O'Reilly & Associates

12. McElwaine, P. D. Q. ed. (1981) Precapitalist theory in the works of Madonna. Panic Button Books

13. Hubbard, H. M. (1995) Reassessing Constructivism: Textual deappropriation in the works of Burroughs. Loompanics

14. Pickett, Y. ed. (1970) Precapitalist theory in the works of Stone. Panic Button Books

15. la Fournier, R. H. (1984) Structuralist Theories: Precapitalist theory and textual deappropriation. O'Reilly & Associates

16. Prinn, Z. ed. (1970) Precapitalist theory in the works of Gibson. University of Georgia Press

17. Drucker, D. L. (1986) The Rubicon of Culture: Textual deappropriation and precapitalist theory. Schlangek

Actually, that was just a meaningless, random, confusing essay generated by The Postmodernism Generator.

http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/community/postmodern.html

I gave a similar essay to some people I know at uni who are of the illusion that they are extremely smart and they enjoy telling people this. They actually pretended to understand it and werent pleased when I informed them of the source. I know its cruel, but I just cant stand people like that.

If anyone on this forum managed to read through the whole thing I commend your perseverance. I was confused at the title and gave up straight away. :)

Marcus :cool:

LOL, i think i'll just keep refreshing that page until i find my dissertation, i'm sure there's one in there somewhere, lol

Greeno

Those picture are just disgusting.

My argument is that it would be very wrong if we started to punish people for their genetics.
I don't think this has anything to do with punishment. Insurance is a service. It costs different amounts for different people all based on correlation statistics. You either buy the service or you don't buy it. It's not the insurance company's fault that, for example, teenage boys get into more car accidents than teenage girls. They just take the statistics and set up premiums so that they can come out with a profit overall. If you think it's overpriced, you can open a medical savings account and put away money for emergencies and maybe just buy insurance coverage for disasters.

As for spreading the cost among other people, is that really fair? If I have low risk for a disease, why should have to pay for someone else's high risk? Sure, that would be nice of me to do that, but why should it be required? Are we required to be nice?

There are plenty of unfair things in this world that have a cost. People who are more attractive have better salaries overall than people who are less attractive. Should attractive people be sending out checks to their less attractive neighbors? Genetics have determined that I don't have a great singing voice, so I can't make the money of whoever the latest pop star is. . . should that star be subsidizing my income since it's not my fault that I can't be a pop star? Should higher IQ people make payouts to lower IQ people? Should darker skinned people who don't sunburn as easily be required to help pay for the expense of sunblock for very fair-skinned people?

I like the way my electric company does it. . . each month you have the option to pay more than the amount on your bill to help cover the cost of poor people's electric bills. So if you choose that helping people is a priority for you, you can help, but it's not required. It's your choice.
Well, based on that logic, we could even throw away the Bill of Rights, because life is not fair so why should the laws be.
I don't think this is applicable to the discussion as I do not think that health insurance is a right. Plus, life really isn't fair. Life is different for everyone. That has no relevance to whether or not the laws should be fair.

I read most of this thread and want to inject a little of the bigger picture here. I absolutely agree that insurace companies have every right to raise premiums on high-risk behaviors. And screening for genetic predispositions is a deeply troubling ethical question. It's interesting that people who think (or know, or somehow "believe") that they have no disease time-bombs in their genes have no problem with screening. It's a nice case of "not my problem" that would change in a flash if said people suddenly were informed that they do indeed have a high chance of getting some disease.

But the bigger picture I want to interject is about forming a productive, stable society. Sometimes you have to pony up a little of your hard-earned cash to contribute to making the country stronger. Some of the logic in this thread could be applied to the public education system and destroy it. "why should I be forced to pay for the education of other people. some people can't afford private eductation, but life isn't fair, and why should I pay to make it fair". I don't think anyone would agree that we should move toward a society where only the people with money can get education or a bare minimum of health care. If the whole country was "pay as you go", we'd be in deep trouble, with more than half the country barely getting by, and a certain percentage absolutely screwed. At that point, the revolution would be forthcoming. (I know that sounds dramatic, but that's what history has shown: "let them eat cake"). nations achieve greatness by taking a small portion of socialism and implementing it to prevent mass groups from sliding into abject poverty. This applies to insurance coverage as well. Someone asked, "what would you do if you owned an insurance company?" Well, if you're a pure capitalist, you would treat every insurance claim as fraud, and threaten to take claimants to court to prevent them from getting their claims. You'd merge insurance companies to prevent competition between carriers, and lobby Washington to abolish regulation. Your house burns down, you're the first to be suspected of arson. In many cases, you have to wait for weeks while the insurance company "investigates" (as it's in their interest to delay all payments), which, in turn, can ruin many lower-income people. Not fair? Sure. but also a case where capitalism, when applied purely in the self-interest of those who are "fine", can hurt society. We're always walking the tightrope on these issues, but the bigger picture must always be looked at carefully. As the administration likes to say when they ask for money for Iraq, "a civil society is expensive"

It's a nice case of "not my problem" that would change in a flash if said people suddenly were informed that they do indeed have a high chance of getting some disease.
I would like to give my posts some perspective. I have to pay a lot of extra money for insurance coverage due to past genetic medical problems unrelated to chosen behaviors. For a while, I couldn't even get coverage. However, I think that that's my problem, not someone else's.

Some of the logic in this thread could be applied to the public education system and destroy it.
Except that we're not talking about children. I think that all children should have medical coverage regardless of circumstance. Children are an entirely different story as they are entirely financially dependent beings.
(I know that sounds dramatic, but that's what history has shown: "let them eat cake").
I would like to point out that a monarchy where kings and queens steal money from the people through taxes is completely different from a capitalist republic.
Nations achieve greatness by taking a small portion of socialism and implementing it to prevent mass groups from sliding into abject poverty.
This is arguable. I certainly don't believe that this is what makes nations great. I do believe in having a safety net. But, abject poverty is very different from simply being poor and a world away from whether or not someone has health insurance coverage.

This applies to insurance coverage as well. Someone asked, "what would you do if you owned an insurance company?" Well, if you're a pure capitalist, you would treat every insurance claim as fraud, and threaten to take claimants to court to prevent them from getting their claims. You'd merge insurance companies to prevent competition between carriers, and lobby Washington to abolish regulation. Your house burns down, you're the first to be suspected of arson. In many cases, you have to wait for weeks while the insurance company "investigates" (as it's in their interest to delay all payments), which, in turn, can ruin many lower-income people.
Entirely farcical. First of all, you seem to associate capitalism with lying and being generally evil and morally bankrupt. Trying to use the courts to wriggle out of contracts is not capitalist, it's just wrong. One of the foundations of capitalism and property rights is making contracts and keeping them. One of the functions of government is to ensure that people adhere to the contracts they make.

Plus, if you treated customers that way, they would all leave and you'd be bankrupt. Not good capitalist sense. Also, if you go around showing consistent intent to break contracts like that, someone is going to sue you out of business. Secondly, you mention that a captialist would merge insurance companies to prevent competition. Yes, companies do buy other companies, but it's not as easy as you make it out to be. First, you would need to money to buy the other insurance companies. Even if the guy buys every insurance company out there, there's going to be a market correction because there's going to be high demand for a new insurance company that is decent. So somebody else will come along and start one, not because that someone is a nice person, but because she knows that a good insurance company is in demand and will be profitable.

Being a capitalist does not mean being an amoral beast.

I would like to point out that a monarchy where kings and queens steal money from the people through taxes is completely different from a capitalist republic.

Let them eat cake, as an expression, is not limited only to critiquing monarchies. I'm using it to refer to an attitude which assumes that all possess the resources in equal share.

Entirely farcical. First of all, you seem to associate capitalism with lying and being generally evil and morally bankrupt. Trying to use the courts to wriggle out of contracts is not capitalist, it's just wrong.

Nothing farcical about what I said at all. Pointing out abuses is not the same as taking the capitalist system to task. Sometimes, wrong things are done. And I'm not talking about breaking contracts, I'm talking about perfectly legal foot-dragging. There are a lot of perfectly legal gambits that are not good for the general public. It may sound like a farce because it just doesn't sound like the right thing to do, it sounds wrong, it's repellant, but it's done.

Plus, if you treated customers that way, they would all leave and you'd be bankrupt.

Instantly? Later that day? What does that do for the people who have already been harmed? I think you're confusing abuse with 100% all the time, flat out corruption. Civil action lawsuits take years. In the case of insurance companies, what the customer wants (to receive compensation on a claim quickly) and what the company needs to do (limit compensation) are directly at odds. Each customer may receive different service. Affordable premiums often equal lower service. And I'm not talking about absolutes, wherein every customer every time is treated badly, and when every customer rises up together to bring down a company. That's exceedinly rare.

Also, if you go around showing consistent intent to break contracts like that, someone is going to sue you out of business.

Yes, that's true, only if they win in court. But again, it can be too late. To go a little off topic, look at Enron. They were eventually stopped, and they went out of business, true, but that doesn't undo what was done.


First, you would need to money to buy the other insurance companies. Even if the guy buys every insurance company out there, there's going to be a market correction because there's going to be high demand for a new insurance company that is decent. So somebody else will come along and start one, not because that someone is a nice person, but because she knows that a good insurance company is in demand and will be profitable.

First, you would need money to start another company. And second, you would need a heck of a lot of money to start a new company that can compete with entrenched companies that have high market share, the ability to fend off occasional lawsuits, and name recognition. Comcast is enjoying a similar situation right now. It's well known that most radio is substandard, but how do you compete when the other guy owns most of the stations and media outlets? You're simplifying it when you assume that market corrections are swift and efficient. We can go through long periods of low choice even in our dynamic capitalistic system.

Being a capitalist does not mean being an amoral beast.

Being a capitalist does not mean being a moral beast, either. Capitalism is an amoral beast. It's just a system. People have to put limits on its applications. Faith in markets correcting themselves is simply not enough for me. I believe in capitalism and think it's the best system we have, but when paired with laissez faire government, the risks for abuse are just too high.

Let them eat cake, as an expression, is not limited only to critiquing monarchies. I'm using it to refer to an attitude which assumes that all possess the resources in equal share.
So far in this discussion I have not seen this attitude espoused. Care to point it out?
Nothing farcical about what I said at all. Pointing out abuses is not the same as taking the capitalist system to task.
What you said was absolutely farcical. Your exact wording was "Well, if you're a pure capitalist..." Then you went on to describe grotesque abuse of contracts. Your farcical point is that capitalism is synonymous with abuse, contract breaking, and moral bankruptcy.

I don't think anyone would argue that there are not abuses in this world. There are abuses committed by individuals, by companies, by governments. Government having the greatest ability to abuse in that it has the greatest power.

I think you're confusing abuse with 100% all the time, flat out corruption.
I am not confusing anything. You claimed that pure capitalism would result in pure abuse by your hypothetical. I'm saying that's ridiculous.

Civil action lawsuits take years.
Yes, it does. Even for all the idiots who are trying to sue people because they've allowed themselves to become fat.

I know how insurance works. However, your contention that they are directly at odds is untrue. An insurance companies wants more customers to collect more premium payments. Therefore the company has a vested interest in being a decent insurance company.

All of this stuff about bad things that insurance companies can do is irrelevant to this discussion. If you want to have good insurance, you'd better investigate.

Our discussion is about whether or not fat people should pay higher insurance premiums.

It's well known that most radio is substandard, but how do you compete when the other guy owns most of the stations and media outlets? You're simplifying it when you assume that market corrections are swift and efficient. We can go through long periods of low choice even in our dynamic capitalistic system.
The radio does suck. That's why I don't listen to it.

I never typed nor did I assume that market corrections were swift and efficient. One of the things that makes them much less swift and efficient is government and government collusion with certain companies to make regulations that favor those companies and prevent competition.

Being a capitalist does not mean being a moral beast, either.
Being a capitalist won't make you moral. That's up to your free will. Capitalism is, however, a moral system.

I'm also not advocating laissez faire government. (Though I think we have *FAR* too much government as it is.) I do, however, think that insurance is not a right. And that is the whole point here. Whether or not some insurance companies are run by bastards is beside the point altogether.

There is so much I want to say in regards to Sheldon's posts, however Freemason is doing an excellent job. Unfortunately I just don't have the energy right now. I will, however, recommend reading Murray Rothbard's For a New Liberty (http://www.mises.org/rothbard/newliberty.asp), or even better, Man, Economy, & State (http://www.mises.org/rothbard/mes.asp) (if you have a lot of free time).

I will say one thing, though. Many of Sheldon's points are relevant, including lawsuits, corruption, and "pure capitalism". However, what we have is not pure capitalism (market economy), but a hampered market economy with numerous elements of neo-mercantilism (http://www.mises.org/fullarticle.asp?control=155&id=67) and fascism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism). It is such government interference in the market processes that cause so many problems.

That's all I'll say.

I will say one thing, though. Many of Sheldon's points are relevant, including lawsuits, corruption, and "pure capitalism". However, what we have is not pure capitalism (market economy), but a hampered market economy with numerous elements of neo-mercantilism (http://www.mises.org/fullarticle.asp?control=155&id=67) and fascism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism). It is such government interference in the market processes that cause so many problems.

/agree with Justin completely

Insurance is a service. It costs different amounts for different people all based on correlation statistics. You either buy the service or you don't buy it.

Yes, this is very nice as long as we talk about insuring your jet ski or even your car. When it is about your health, I don't think it is a far stretch to say that people should (almost willing to say must) have an affordable option to purchase good medical services. Try to get *any* medical stuff done without insurance and then we we'll talk about how health insurance is a service and you can just not buy it. (I do have a friend whose child got sick and they did not have insurance, they had to pay $500 for a simple flu. Now imagine someone with a child who has cancer.)

It's not the insurance company's fault that, for example, teenage boys get into more car accidents than teenage girls. They just take the statistics and set up premiums so that they can come out with a profit overall.

Oh, of course they can do whatever they want (and the laws permit). What I am unhappy about it that they do put you in an unfair disadvantage purely because of conditions you have no control over. If they started charging much more AFTER you caused an accident, I would have no problem with it.

If you think it's overpriced, you can open a medical savings account and put away money for emergencies and maybe just buy insurance coverage for disasters.

Sorry, but this must be a joke. Medical saving only gives you pretax deductions that you lose at the end of the year if you miscalculate. It also has a max. Cancer treatment can run up in the tens of thousands. Compare that to couple of hundred a month for a full converage for the whole family.

As for spreading the cost among other people, is that really fair? If I have low risk for a disease, why should have to pay for someone else's high risk? Sure, that would be nice of me to do that, but why should it be required? Are we required to be nice?

This cost splitting is exactly what insurance companies do. If you work with someone who is (or whose kids are) sick a lot, guess what, chances are you are paying for their treatment. It is not about nice, it is about pure mathematics and free market. If noone wanted these "shared cost" type insurance products, the insurance companies would do something else. It just turns out that the "price difference" between healthy and being really sick is so huge that most people are willing to subsidize other's medical costs even when they are healthy just in case they will need money later for their own treatment.

Should attractive people be sending out checks to their less attractive neighbors?

If they want, sure, if not, of course not. But it is not about me being sorry because I will never run on the beach wearing a red swimsuit looking like David Hasselhoff and getting payed millions on Baywatch. What I was talking about is insurance companies charging more for higher risk when and only when the insured has control over that behavior.

I don't think this is applicable to the discussion as I do not think that health insurance is a right. Plus, life really isn't fair.

Well, tell it to people who cannot get coverage for their sick kids.
But - again - that was not my point. I started out with saying that insurance companies should be able to charge more for risk factors you have control over. And then I added that in my - maybe utopistic - ideology they should NOT be able to charge more for stuff you have no control over.

Plus, if you treated customers that way, they would all leave and you'd be bankrupt. Not good capitalist sense. Also, if you go around showing consistent intent to break contracts like that, someone is going to sue you out of business. Secondly, you mention that a captialist would merge insurance companies to prevent competition. Yes, companies do buy other companies, but it's not as easy as you make it out to be. First, you would need to money to buy the other insurance companies. Even if the guy buys every insurance company out there, there's going to be a market correction because there's going to be high demand for a new insurance company that is decent. So somebody else will come along and start one, not because that someone is a nice person, but because she knows that a good insurance company is in demand and will be profitable

I thought I had the utopistic world desire here. If a company gets close to being a monopoly, all the free market, regular capitalistic rules break. This is exacly why you do need laws regulating this. In your above paragraph you could almost replace "you" with Microsoft (or a handful of other companies) and see all these bad things right here in the US today.

When it is about your health, I don't think it is a far stretch to say that people should (almost willing to say must) have an affordable option to purchase good medical services.
We'll have to agree to disagree here. I think people have the right to very very basic care. For example, I think it's right that a hospital cannot turn someone away in an emergency. Above and beyond that you can either pay the insurance or ask for and depend on the generosity of your community. I don't think you have the right to *force* other people to provide care for you.
Try to get *any* medical stuff done without insurance and then we we'll talk about how health insurance is a service and you can just not buy it.
I had to go for quite a while without coverage, so I have paid for plenty of medical stuff without insurance. I never had to pay $500 for the flu, but regardless, it helps to shop around.

As far as your friend's child goes, I already said that I think all children should have health coverage because they are not responsible for themselves. Adults, however, are responsible for themselves.

Oh, of course they can do whatever they want (and the laws permit). What I am unhappy about it that they do put you in an unfair disadvantage purely because of conditions you have no control over. If they started charging much more AFTER you caused an accident, I would have no problem with it.
I still fail to see how this is unfair. How would it be more fair to *force* other people to subsidize your coverage? How would it be more fair to *force* a doctor or insurance company to give you service? No person should be the slave of another person. Ever. In any sense.
Sorry, but this must be a joke. Medical saving only gives you pretax deductions that you lose at the end of the year if you miscalculate. It also has a max.
It's not a joke. It may not be as good as private health insurance, but it's an option. You also mentioned health insurance being a couple hundred per month for the entire family. How much do you think it will be if insurance companies decide to practice equality across the board? It will not be $200 per month anymore. . .
This cost splitting is exactly what insurance companies do.
I know that, but that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about whether or not people have the right to private health insurance coverage and whether or not an insurance company should be able to charge different premiums for different people. I would switch insurance carriers if my rates suddenly doubled because the insurance company decided that it wouldn't discriminate against any type of medical condition not proven to result only from choice.

Also, just to point out, not all insurance is like that. I used to have an individual private insurance plan. There was no cost sharing involved in that. Premiums were based entirely on individual medical history.
What I was talking about is insurance companies charging more for higher risk when and only when the insured has control over that behavior.
And I'm saying that that doesn't make sense. Sure, it would be nice. But it doesn't make any sense. How are you going to differentiate between people who have conditions due to choice and conditions due to genetic factors? You're not going to be able to. The waters are too muddy. Your insurance would go even further through the roof due to all the people flooding their offices with requests to have their conditions classified as genetic.
Well, tell it to people who cannot get coverage for their sick kids.
I'll say it again. I'm not referring to kids. All kids should have coverage regardless.
And then I added that in my - maybe utopistic - ideology they should NOT be able to charge more for stuff you have no control over.
I'm just saying that I wouldn't consider it utopistic for the government to *force* a private company to change its fee structure in order to make it nicer and more fair.

I fully believe in having a government safety net for people. (ie Medicare, Medicaid, etc.) But I don't believe forcing a private company to be that safety net.

We'll have to agree to disagree here. I think people have the right to very very basic care.

Like you said, since we just see these things differently, there is no sense in me writing down the same thing the N-th time, where N is already pretty big :)

I still fail to see how this is unfair. How would it be more fair to *force* other people to subsidize your coverage?

All I was saying is that I personally would feel more confortable for paying extra for someone who has a genetic condition rather than paying extra for smokers who do it to themselves willingly. The point of my original post was NOT to make a free health care for everyone who does not have coverage now.

So in light of getting back to my original point, do you think it would be ok for insurance companies to start charging more for smokers and overly obese people?

How much do you think it will be if insurance companies decide to practice equality across the board? It will not be $200 per month anymore. . .

Well, if you get your coverage through your workplace then *most* of the time two things happen. The company pays a lot for your coverage, usually much more than your cost. Also you are already paying based on equality, the insurance company will determine the premiums based on your company as a whole and then they just divide up the cost and for every employee the premiums are the same for the same coverage.

Now what I said about the motivation factor of raising the premium for the obese is that the companies would immediately push that extra cost onto the employee. Then it might force these people to think about if it is worth for them to spend twice as much as the others for the same coverage just because of their weight.

How are you going to differentiate between people who have conditions due to choice and conditions due to genetic factors?

Like I said before the companies would discriminate NOT on the actual diseases but on the "lifestyle". If you smoke or if you are obese they would charge you more because there is a much higher probability that your medical costs will be significantly higher in the future.

Well! I think the battle lines have been drawn. I don't have anything to add right now, other than to note, like others have, that we have some ideological differences. It'll be fun to debate more in the future, when another topic comes up. I propose that we don't use the slightly nerve-hitting terms like "farcical" and "joke" when and if we debate each other in the future. It just gets a little too close to baiting emotions for my taste.

I'm dropping out of this one because I feel we're all in agreement on the primary issue, which is raising premiums on risky behavior. Looking forward to the next round....

Farce
4 b : MOCKERY <the enforcement of this law became a farce>

I would say that claiming pure capitalism is the same as pure corruption is a mockery of the word "capitalism."

Wasn't baiting you. :)

Yes, I think there are definitely ideological differences here. :p Will definitely make for good future discussion.

Just for context: I used to be completely on the other side of the ideological fence.

Just for context: I used to be completely on the other side of the ideological fence.

This is funny but so did I. Maybe there is an ideological law that the total number of people on either side has to be constant so people have to switch sides in pairs :)