Health Care Reform - Universal/Public Option

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by molson

The politicans are encouraging death threats? Link?

Of course not directly. Don't be fatuous, Jeffrey.

But the rhetoric has been harsh, directed at the fringe and designed to inflame the masses and create outrage, the result of which is what we're seeing.

Just a few examples:

“Let’s beat the other side to a pulp!” Rep. Steve King, Republican of Iowa, shouted to the last stand of Tea Partiers on Sunday night. “Let’s chase them down! There’s going to be a reckoning.”

The “baby killer” shout of Rep. Randy Neugebauer.

Rep. John Boehner, the Republican who wants to be the next speaker of the House, predicted “Armageddon,” and shouted “Hell, no!,”

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

Of course not directly. Don't be fatuous, Jeffrey.

But the rhetoric has been harsh, directed at the fringe and designed to inflame the masses and create outrage, the result of which is what we're seeing.

Just a few examples:

“Let’s beat the other side to a pulp!” Rep. Steve King, Republican of Iowa, shouted to the last stand of Tea Partiers on Sunday night. “Let’s chase them down! There’s going to be a reckoning.”

The “baby killer” shout of Rep. Randy Neugebauer.

Rep. John Boehner, the Republican who wants to be the next speaker of the House, predicted “Armageddon,” and shouted “Hell, no!,”

Ummm H_B - that first one certainly sounds like "directly" to me, FWIW.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Everyone saw that the Cantor bullet had a downward trajectory, right?

Police: Richmond Police Investigate Cantor Building Vandalism

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Ummm H_B - that first one certainly sounds like "directly" to me, FWIW.

Good point.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

Everyone saw that the Cantor bullet had a downward trajectory, right?

Police: Richmond Police Investigate Cantor Building Vandalism

A Richmond Police detective was assigned to the case. A preliminary investigation shows that a bullet was fired into the air and struck the window in a downward direction, landing on the floor about a foot from the window. The round struck with enough force to break the windowpane but did not penetrate the window blinds. There was no other damage to the room, which is used occasionally for meetings by the congressman.

Yeahh...that doesn't sound like politically-motivated violence.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

Of course not directly. Don't be fatuous, Jeffrey.

But the rhetoric has been harsh, directed at the fringe and designed to inflame the masses and create outrage, the result of which is what we're seeing.

Just a few examples:

“Let’s beat the other side to a pulp!” Rep. Steve King, Republican of Iowa, shouted to the last stand of Tea Partiers on Sunday night. “Let’s chase them down! There’s going to be a reckoning.”

The “baby killer” shout of Rep. Randy Neugebauer.

Rep. John Boehner, the Republican who wants to be the next speaker of the House, predicted “Armageddon,” and shouted “Hell, no!,”

Don't forget Palin's lovely Facebook page where she tells followers it's time to reload.

[DaddyTorgo]

I left out Palin because I thougth we were talking about sitting Republican government officials. Not people who quit halfway into a term as governor of an oil-rich state, under the spectre of several of ethics investigations.

Plus I kinda figured that if I included her the response would be "she doesn't represent the Republican party!!"

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by molson

It probably depends on where you live. If I don't go out to eat, buy only at Winco, I can easily get buy on $5/day for food, with no junk. (You can buy a lot of food at Winco for $150, easily enough to cover a normal person for a month) There wouldn't be any organic food in there, but it will be a hell of a lot healthier than a fast food diet. If you get really crazy, you can actually pull off $1/day - that was a news/student/blogger project or something around here a few months ago.

There are numerous studies that have concluded that it's costlier to eat healthy than to eat junk food. Start here:

A High Price for Healthy Food - Well Blog - NYTimes.com

and then do your own research. Remember, it's not just the cost of the food, but that healthier food also tends to be perishable, resulting in more waste. Yes, buying your own groceries will be cheaper compared to a big mac. But buying healthy groceries is more expensive than buying not-so-healthy groceries. Buying healthy food out is more expensive than buying junk food out. Those are the correct comparisons, not "buying groceries versus eating at McDs". Hence, it's more costly to eat healthy.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

There are numerous studies that have concluded that it's costlier to eat healthy than to eat junk food. Start here:

A High Price for Healthy Food - Well Blog - NYTimes.com

and then do your own research. Remember, it's not just the cost of the food, but that healthier food also tends to be perishable, resulting in more waste. Yes, buying your own groceries will be cheaper compared to a big mac. But buying healthy groceries is more expensive than buying not-so-healthy groceries. Buying healthy food out is more expensive than buying junk food out. Those are the correct comparisons, not "buying groceries versus eating at McDs". Hence, it's more costly to eat healthy.

At cost per calorie, ya, no doubt fast food wins out, we don't a study for that.

I still don't buy it. If I buy a McDonald's value meal for breakfast, lunch, and dinner, every day, that's going to run me about $6,500/year. (assuming $6 per value meal) You can eat a healthy, filling diet, easily at $200/month from a supermarket, or $2,400/year. Yes, you're going to get much more calories for your buck at McDonalds, which is all that study you link says. But you're also eating about 3X the calories you need per day, or more, on the fast food diet.

And the idea that fat people are more likely to be poor makes no sense, when used to argue that fast food/junk food is cheaper. Obviously they're consuming way more than they need to.

[molson]

"Based on his findings, a 2,000-calorie diet would cost just $3.52 a day if it consisted of junk food, compared with $36.32 a day for a diet of low-energy dense foods."

Really, $36 a day? I guess "lower-energy dense foods" means chocolate truffles?

I'm mostly talking about the fast food as opposed to gas station junk food. I'm sure that I could assemble 2000 calories of junk at a gas station for just a few dollars. That's probably about a tie with what I could manage at the grocery store if I went super-cheap (and it would still be healthier than the junk food).

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

Stuff

Yet I already posted numerous examples on how misleading the caloric content is on what perhaps a normal person would assume is the healthier choice. Sometimes the only option is fast food, especially if you're on the road a lot (like I am). Frankly, I'd love to know what the healthier (it's all relative) fast food options are, just so I could try them. Once I find something I like, then I can watch for that type of establishment and make a better choice.

Originally Posted by JediKooter

So, to make a long story short...my point is: I don't like the mandating of it and since it is being mandated, don't do it half assed.

Politics 101 and the path of least resistance. Its too hard to pass a major mandate without major resistance. Look how much the NY restaurant association is bitching about having to display their sanitation grades!

In my book, it's a step in the right direction. It gives the consumer more information to make a good choice. I also think it will push restaurants to come up with healthier choices if consumers start shying away from that 1,300 calorie triple-grease burger. Someone like McDs will come out with a tasty 500 calorie value meal menu and consumers will probably react pretty positively. For the smart entrepreneur, there's a lot of money to be made off of this.

[panerd]

What's funny is that everyone in this thread is generally pretty rational when it comes to topics outside of politics. (OK, and maybe college basketball )

1) People who commit violence over this fake partisan game are idiots who deserve being caught and punished. And it most definitely is the anti-HCR crowd that is up to it in this go round, the Republicans are not being targeted equally. (I will qualify that I am concerned about violence, a congressman being yelled at invokes no sympathy from me whatsoever)

2) Neither side really cares. Do you think the Republicans (even my beloved Ron Paul) are going to get rid of their taxpayer paid health care? Do you think the Democrats are going to switch to the shit packages that their proposal will be giving to the poor? They don't give a shit about the poor, they actually don't give a shit about the middle class or the rich. Their contributors are big time money and big corporations. Nobody else thinks it weird that all of these big companies contribute to both sides? (Including several companies that even contributed to Bob Barr!!!) Have you ever thought about giving to both Obama and McCain? Of course not! And I am not saying this from a Libertarian perspective. Those guys are crooks too. I am saying this from a 1500 post thread where the Democrats passed a shit bill that will help none of the posters in this thread, while the Republicans would have passed something similar had McCain won with the exact opposite people arguing the same bullshit. The bill sucks and everyone knows it. (Had it been government run health care I wouldn't like it but at least the Democrats would be standing on some sort of principle)

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by molson

I still don't buy it. If I buy a McDonald's value meal for breakfast, lunch, and dinner, every day, that's going to run me about $6,500/year. (assuming $6 per value meal) You can eat a healthy, filling diet, easily at $200/month from a supermarket, or $2,400/year. Yes, you're going to get much more calories for your buck at McDonalds, which is all that study you link says. But you're also eating about 3X the calories you need per day, or more, on the fast food diet.

Come on, you're not that dense.

Eating out is not the same thing as eating in. To compare your $200 above, I can eat for $50-$75/month from Ramen noodles, peanut butter and beanie weanies, but none of that shit is healthy.

Eating in healthy > Eating in crap
Eating out healthy > Eating out crap

Understand?

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Or, as I like to call it, the short definition of Congress

Thanks for the clarification. I think that we are probably not that far apart--just had trouble expressing ourselves the same way.

I think you just nailed it.

You're welcome. Hard to express things in text sometimes when you can't hear the tone of the other person.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by lordscarlet

Jedi, I think you overestimate the intelligence of the average American.

Oh trust me, I definitely understand that, but, other than being a self induced recluse, how hard can it be?

[molson]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

Come on, you're not that dense.

Eating out is not the same thing as eating in. To compare your $200 above, I can eat for $50-$75/month from Ramen noodles, peanut butter and beanie weanies, but none of that shit is healthy.

Eating in healthy > Eating in crap
Eating out healthy > Eating out crap

Understand?

Eating out isn't the same thing as eating in, but that's a meaningless distinction when you have the choice of any of the four options above (except for shut-ins, or people who live within walking distance of McDonald's but not any grocery store). People choose "eating out crap" over "eating in healthy", when the latter is much cheaper.

I don't think the argument that we shouldn't tax junk food because poor people have to live on it very persuasive, but that still makes more sense than not taxing fast food, which is both unhealthy and expensive, compared to other options.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

Yet I already posted numerous examples on how misleading the caloric content is on what perhaps a normal person would assume is the healthier choice. Sometimes the only option is fast food, especially if you're on the road a lot (like I am). Frankly, I'd love to know what the healthier (it's all relative) fast food options are, just so I could try them. Once I find something I like, then I can watch for that type of establishment and make a better choice.

Granted I did not bring up the accuracy part of it, but, it would fall in line with not doing it half assed. I'm not arguing the availability or choices a person may have. I'm talking about fast food in general and people being aware of it being healthy or not, does it really do any good if you are only posting calorie points with no form of context to it? I agree with you and understand what you are saying, but, the issue I have is about throwing up a bunch of numbers on a menu with no explanation.

Politics 101 and the path of least resistance. Its too hard to pass a major mandate without major resistance. Look how much the NY restaurant association is bitching about having to display their sanitation grades!

In my book, it's a step in the right direction. It gives the consumer more information to make a good choice. I also think it will push restaurants to come up with healthier choices if consumers start shying away from that 1,300 calorie triple-grease burger. Someone like McDs will come out with a tasty 500 calorie value meal menu and consumers will probably react pretty positively. For the smart entrepreneur, there's a lot of money to be made off of this.

Yup, politics as usual unfortunately. Didn't know they didn't have to post the grades there in New York. I guess I'm used to seeing it here in California. Even then though (I'm assuming in NY they want an A, B, C type system?) they have it here in California, with no context, it would be no different than just putting up a random letter. Yes, an 'A' sounds great, but, what are the minimum standards to get that 'A'? If you see what I'm getting at.

Honestly, I just think that after the 50 or 60 years or so that fast food places have been around, I just don't think there should be much surprise that these fast food places aren't the bastions of healthy menus. Now if these places want to try and sell things that are healthier, great. If they are lying about it and saying their menu is healthier when it's not, that isn't cool. Subway is kind of tricky with their advertising when it comes to this. You just have to read small print.

Yes, the minute some smart person or company comes out with something that is only 500 calories but tastes just as good as the 1400 calorie version, I will be in line for that.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

Oh trust me, I definitely understand that, but, other than being a self induced recluse, how hard can it be?

The problem imho isn't intelligence its linking cause and effect which is the issue in LOTS of destructive behaviour for individuals.

For instance eating ONE Big-Mac won't make you obese - its repeating that act too often and not excercising etc. which causes the problem.

As its a gradual effect people slip into unhealthyness without warning signs of the 'cause and effect' until a pattern of behaviour has already been established and for many people once thats the case, its extremely hard to change it - especially if that pattern is enjoyable (which lets face it eating junk food is ).

[Marc Vaughan]

One other thing to bear in mind is simply that often specific geographical areas cater to their expected audience - that is if you live in an upscale area then heatlhy food will be more easily available than it might be in a poorer area.

If you doubt this try going to a Walmart in a poor part of town, then go to a Walmart in a wealthier area - you'll most likely see a large difference in both the types of goods stocked but also the way in which they're promoted.

As such its partially a 'self-fulfilling prophecy' ... tell someone that poor people eat junk food, then make it easier for them to acquire that than healthy food and you know what .... they'll eat junk food

Similar oddities can be found which exploit the less well off in other ways - often in poorer areas prices are 'jacked up' comparatively to richer areas - on the verge of run-down areas in most countries you'll find convenience stores, liquor stores and suchlike which have prices far above the equivalent products in Walmart. These stores rely on the fact that poorer people don't tend to buy in bulk as much as better off people, as such economically its not worthwhile for them to drive 'x' miles to Walmart to purchase just a handful of goods - hence they end up paying a higher price despite having a smaller disposable income.

(I've some economics books around here somewhere containing studies on this sort of thing if anyones interested I'll try and rummage them up - they're fairly 'light' reading)

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

The problem imho isn't intelligence its linking cause and effect which is the issue in LOTS of destructive behaviour for individuals.

For instance eating ONE Big-Mac won't make you obese - its repeating that act too often and not excercising etc. which causes the problem.

As its a gradual effect people slip into unhealthyness without warning signs of the 'cause and effect' until a pattern of behaviour has already been established and for many people once thats the case, its extremely hard to change it - especially if that pattern is enjoyable (which lets face it eating junk food is ).

Very very true. I honestly wish I wasn't so lazy when it comes to eating better. I hate the clean up after cooking and going to the store. America is definitely the land of convenience and those patterns are a hard thing to break. If they just made carrots taste like cupcakes instead of dirt, I'd be a lot less fat than I am now.

[SportsDino]

Originally Posted by sabotai

Prior to...Nixon I think it was, the federal government paid farmers to limit the amount of food they grew. That way they would keep prices artificially high, increasing the amount of money the farmers made.

Nixon's Secretary of Agriculture reversed that. They started paying farmers $Y dollars per "unit" (bushel, or whatever they use) they grew (as long as they grew the right crop). Corn farmers, if you don't account for subsidies, work for a lose. The cost to grow corn is higher than the price that corn is sold for. The corn farmer's profits are 100% federal (and maybe state) subsidies.

Without the subsidies, it would seem the market would have to respond by raising the price that corn is bought for, or else corn would simply not be grown anymore. In other words, subsidies is keeping the price of corn low because the people who buy the corn know that the farmers make a pretty good profit on subsidies alone.

A really good documentary on the subject is King Corn. Two people bought an acre of farmland, grew corn on it and followed the money and the corn.

Wow, I didn't know that. I thought they were buying corn at price $X and so the market, in order to get any corn whatsoever (since what farmer would sell for less if they can get $X for sure), would have to buy at price $X. The way the government is doing it just encourages massive waste from a really perverse incentive system.

I didn't think i could possibly be more against subsidies, but now I'm even more livid than usual.

-----

Also I see panerd's point about this bill, I'm reasonably sure if this was a couple years ago, we'd see the exact same bill (bought by the same folks) argued by the Republican side, with the Dem's saying it is terrible.

It reads like a bill written by an insurance company. The weight of the heavy hand of the government bitchslap is aimed at individuals and businesses, whereas it gives a teeny hand slap and a giant back rub to insurers.

----

Anyway, I've been wanting to go through the protections section, so here we go:

Page 16 Sec 102.a.2
Grandfathered plans (which would be just about everything in existence today) may not change terms, conditions, benefits or cost-sharing (copays, deductible, etc).

However it includes exceptions for paragraph 3 (premium increases are allowed as long as they are done across a risk class, which they almost always would be....) and changes required by law.

On the surface, this little bit seems good, no changing policies willy nilly, not sure how common it is in the industry, if its anything like credit cards they switch the terms on you faster than you change your underwear, so limits sound great to me.

During the 5 year grace period these plans are considered acceptable coverage. This means if your company has a plan already, it can enroll new employees under those terms for 5 years. Arguably you could say this is a backdoor for grandfathering more people, but I say its reasonable for the sake of efficiency. I can see it be abused to some degree, but it would be foolish to have every company run two plans in order to hire new employees!

-----

Page 19 Sec 111
This is a big one, pre-existing condition exclusions!!!!!!!!

Directly it reads as 'may not impose', so that sounds good. Sec 112 (page 20) however mentions rescissions in cases of fraud. This is a rather broad definition where 'intentional misrepresentation of material fact' has been used repeatedly by insurance companies to kill policies that are about to pay out for patients.

So, as it reads so far, no, this bill does not stop them from doing what they have been all along... because they still have the mechanism they have been using reliably for years to screw us.

This is the protection we gave up a mandate for everyone in the country to be penalized if they don't get insurance for....... and its worthless as written. All Sec 111 buys us is that they can no longer do 'pre-existing condition exclusion' of particular coverages anymore... something they could only do BEFORE THIS BILL in a set of limited circumstances anyway (a condition within some window of time of enrollment if you read the Public Health Service Act).

Primary weapon number 1 is still in the private insurer's arsenal, and I can guarantee you they will continue to use it like a machine gun to mow down the sick patients that don't have letter perfect paperwork.

I'm still looking for where they redefine fraud to be something more detailed in order to avoid the existing case law that considers just about any mistake an 'intentional misrepresentation'... can't find it, maybe one of you Dems on the board can?

This alone is enough for me to want to torpedo the bill. Do we want to avoid outright fraud of insurers, sure we do... but as it is now they can cast a pretty wide net on 'fraud' and do massive damage to people whose crime is essentially forgetting anything on their medical history that can be later discovered through a database search by the insurance company.

That they go out of the way to mention wonderful 2712(b)(2) is a telltale sign the insurance company wrote this... cause if they forgot it the burden would rest on the insurance company filing a case of fraud in order to get a rescission (harder to do, have to actually get in a court room rather than hit a button in your office). Its not like without this clause the insurers would be completely defenseless against fraud, as far as I know that is not the design of the legal system, otherwise every frickin law would be written of the form of: 'this is hereby how it shall be, except for fraud, murder, sheep-screwing, .... repeat ad infinitum'.

-----

Sec 113, Page 20:
Some highlights:
1. Okay to discrimate based on age, as long as old people are not charged twice as much as young people (guess that is progress)
2. If you live in a certain neighborhood, you can be charged differently.
3. Oooh, they are going to do a study about employers struggling with this bullshit, I feel so safe now, ooh a study, yay! Bah.


------

Sec 116 Page 24:
May be reading this wrong, but it seems if they don't spend enough on medical losses in a year (according to a ratio) that they have to give rebates to enrollees. Seems kind of meddlesome to me, in an ideal world some years you might have fairly low medical losses and all those premiums get invested in some manner such that in a bad year there are reserves. This may be the pure economist in me being baffled though.

I generally prefer if we found ways to decrease medical losses each year (without rescissioning people to death, literally!) even if premiums stayed fairly constant. I think we ultimately are ending up with socialist style economy, we just are giving an additional overhead cut to insurers, which is plain stupid. One more vote for public option.

-------

Page 27, starts some detailed things that must be covered, interesting if you want to know what a 'qualified plan' is supposed to be. Also here is where the caps are mentioned, which actually don't seem to out of whack for once... I suspect they conform to what most of the industry already does, although removing lifetime caps is a bonus.

-----

Page 37, Subtitle D: Additional Consumer Protections:

Apparently an External Review Process, with expedited reviews in urgent claims for denials. Could be useful if it has teeth and isn't a lapdog (as in only uses teeth on poor patients). Lacks specifics though, which means it is highly likely to result in a lapdog. Hopefully it won't be biblically laughable like the SEC (finance, not sports... although... na I don't wanna get boxed).

I like Page 38 though, forcing transparent data of how often an insurer denies claims and disenrolls people. Too bad it won't effect people on employer plans (most employers seem to have a mentality of 'fuck the employees'), but it could make individual plan shopping more fun. I'd love to go up to an insurer, "well I'd love to give you thousands of dollars a year, but you fucktards denied thousands of people last year. I'll take my chances somewhere else you scummy jerks!". Granted most companies don't seem to give a rat's ass about customer opinions, they know they got the sheep who only see the discounted walmart price and walk in like lemmings.


-----

Okay i ranted enough i guess, I've tried to point out positives or potential in the bill, as well as the points where I thought they were skullhumping me in the ear. Feel free to take apart, and if you know for a fact laws that close up holes I'm seeing please point them out, I WANT people to be protected... that is why I generally hate this bill as an EPIC FAIL.

[SportsDino]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

One other thing to bear in mind is simply that often specific geographical areas cater to their expected audience - that is if you live in an upscale area then heatlhy food will be more easily available than it might be in a poorer area.

If you doubt this try going to a Walmart in a poor part of town, then go to a Walmart in a wealthier area - you'll most likely see a large difference in both the types of goods stocked but also the way in which they're promoted.

As such its partially a 'self-fulfilling prophecy' ... tell someone that poor people eat junk food, then make it easier for them to acquire that than healthy food and you know what .... they'll eat junk food

Similar oddities can be found which exploit the less well off in other ways - often in poorer areas prices are 'jacked up' comparatively to richer areas - on the verge of run-down areas in most countries you'll find convenience stores, liquor stores and suchlike which have prices far above the equivalent products in Walmart. These stores rely on the fact that poorer people don't tend to buy in bulk as much as better off people, as such economically its not worthwhile for them to drive 'x' miles to Walmart to purchase just a handful of goods - hence they end up paying a higher price despite having a smaller disposable income.

(I've some economics books around here somewhere containing studies on this sort of thing if anyones interested I'll try and rummage them up - they're fairly 'light' reading)

Ya, its pretty basic that people pay the price that is available to them, not really the 'optimal price'. A simple game, assume you got a massive collection of little agents in a space station ( ) and there is the same exact convenience store with the same goods, but geographically located in different spots to different wealth classes, and on a transportation network of varying travel speeds based on availability of vehicles (cars for rich, walking for the dirt poor, maybe some public transport for in between).

All you need to demonstrate the effect you describe is to give the agents a money value of time. Transport time than gets factored into the equation and what you would see in this simulation is that regardless of other factors, the poor basically pay the price for goods for whatever is closest. In fact, as the value of time increases you see all wealth classes preferring geographic cost over good cost.

What you also see is that for higher cost goods with a greater marginal spread, high wealth classes will be more likely to make use of their more expensive transport network to optimize their wealth. So the rich essentially hop in the car in order to go make a bulk purchase and save 50-100 bucks net on the bundle. Poorer transport networks they have to carry the goods, so the bundle size goes down, hence the cost savings they can realize relative to transport cost is fairly small, so they go to the convenience store and buy a bag of groceries.

Its my assumption that the implicity valuation of time, across all wealth classes, is higher than most people give credit to. When i was broke or rich, I hate going cross town. I always bought my pop at double price at the corner store. Now that I got a car, I still buy it at double price at the corner store about 30% of the time, and remember to buy bulk about 70% of the time... is it stupid... no its net optimal given that about 30% of the time I don't have pop and I don't feel like driving.

Its not like the poor choose to be poor, there are just paths of least resistance in the economy. Fast food is one of them... its not necessarilly cheaper, it is EASIER in ways that play to some psychologies, hence sub-optimal in terms of dollars being the norm rather than the exception. Not seeing the full equation as I like to say.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

One other thing to bear in mind is simply that often specific geographical areas cater to their expected audience - that is if you live in an upscale area then heatlhy food will be more easily available than it might be in a poorer area.

If you doubt this try going to a Walmart in a poor part of town, then go to a Walmart in a wealthier area - you'll most likely see a large difference in both the types of goods stocked but also the way in which they're promoted.

Eh, my experience with Wal-Mart (both as a customer as well as working with clients who have products in their stores on issues including shelf space for various products) is that they are not as prone to the obvious differences between locations as a lot of other big boxes, grocery chains in particular.

Don't get me wrong, they do it & treat it as a cross between science and holy writ, I'm just saying that they are not as pronounced about it as a number of other places. Major crosstown differences are not the norm with W-M, whereas they're quite common with Kroger.

Similar oddities can be found which exploit the less well off in other ways - often in poorer areas prices are 'jacked up' comparatively to richer areas - on the verge of run-down areas in most countries you'll find convenience stores, liquor stores and suchlike which have prices far above the equivalent products in Walmart. These stores rely on the fact that poorer people don't tend to buy in bulk as much as better off people, as such economically its not worthwhile for them to drive 'x' miles to Walmart to purchase just a handful of goods - hence they end up paying a higher price despite having a smaller disposable income.

True enough, but you're also overlooking the price those stores are paying for those goods compared to major big box retailers. There are additional factors that play into the selling price for those goods, I realize that you know that, I'm just highlighting the point.

And again here, don't get me wrong, I've even noted the pricing differences from one neighborhood to the next in previous threads (most expensive gas in Athens? Poorest neighborhood. most expensive cigarettes in Athens? Poorest neighborhood. Most expensive 2-liter soda in Athens? Poorest neighborhood. Most expensive fast food meal? Wealthiest neighborhood).

[SportsDino]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

The thing is, I agree with you on probably 90% of the above. This is a squishy, moderate, non-controversial bill that doesn't do everything that is needed to do. But I still support it, because I'm of the belief it's still better than the status quo and at the end of the day, it was either pass this bill or do nothing for another 10-15 years. Now, we have this bill as a foundation to improve and build upon.

I know that is the mantra of the left, any victory is a victory... but to me, I still got TARP fresh in my mind. I already am seeing them trying to paint it as a heroic effort by Bernanke when I know in my models that we basically made the economy worst (in ten years the rest of the world will catch up with me). You don't pass half measures, for one, if the half measures cripple you without at least giving you as much in benefits... then really its a bill hostile to the hope of health care reform, since they just wanted to extract more money out of us and that was the only reason they passed it. Secondly, the passage of this bill I think lets them crow songs about how awesome they are, and gets them off the hook for passing real reform for another decade. When the shitake hits the fan this bill will be remembered as less than a speed bump along the path to disaster, when we needed a damn wall.

I guess we can judge who is closer to right by timing when the next health care related bill is. If this bill is a first step, we should see something sooner rather than later. If it is as I say, health care fades off the radar until some crisis moment causes it to explode. By fade I mean it will still be used as a posturing piece, but you will see a suspicious lack of new actions going through Congress.... the show war between the Republicrats and the Democans will of course be fully hyped on CNN still.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by molson

Eating out isn't the same thing as eating in, but that's a meaningless distinction when you have the choice of any of the four options above (except for shut-ins, or people who live within walking distance of McDonald's but not any grocery store). People choose "eating out crap" over "eating in healthy", when the latter is much cheaper.

I don't think the argument that we shouldn't tax junk food because poor people have to live on it very persuasive, but that still makes more sense than not taxing fast food, which is both unhealthy and expensive, compared to other options.

Can you please lay-out a week's menu on this $200/month diet?

[lynchjm24]

The idea that fast food is 'cheaper' because of opportunity cost might be the fucking stupidest thing I've ever read on this board. If you die YEARS earlier do you really think you 'saved' anything.

Oh look, I ate in 19 minutes today instead of 26. So what if I died in 2027 instead of 2041.

[lynchjm24]

Originally Posted by SportsDino

Lynchjim seems to think there is an average of 3-4K a year in medical expenses per person related to that... I somehow doubt it, and if he really was interested in proving us wrong he would show us a fancy table of itemized cost of medical service and supplies in the US side by side with a similar chart of another countries costs for the same itemized list.

I was given those numbers in person yesterday by someone who has testified in front of Congress about HCR.

Are they exactly correct? I don't know. I do know that chronic illness drives the medical costs in this country so the exact percentages don't really matter.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by lynchjm24

The idea that fast food is 'cheaper' because of opportunity cost might be the fucking stupidest thing I've ever read on this board. If you die YEARS earlier do you really think you 'saved' anything.

Oh look, I ate in 19 minutes today instead of 26. So what if I died in 2027 instead of 2041.

Epic fail on those reading comprehension skills. Fast food is cheaper because it's less expensive. Duh.

[DaddyTorgo]

hxxp://www.treehugger.com/files/2010/03/mcdonalds-happy-meals-invincible.php

[Galaril]

Originally Posted by molson

The politicans are encouraging death threats? Link?

No worse they are encouraging violence and intimidation what is this fucking Iran? Iraq? Afghanistan? Geez get a grip people.

[Greyroofoo]

I think these examples of "encouraging/inciting violence" are really stretching it.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Greyroofoo

I think these examples of "encouraging/inciting violence" are really stretching it.

i think you're in full-on denial. look at the widely-reported instance of Representative Steve King, outright calling for it.

[molson]

Originally Posted by wade moore

Can you please lay-out a week's menu on this $200/month diet?

I do have to go to Winco this weekend - I'll post my receipt. I'll spend around $100, get plenty of food for the next two weeks (even some beer).

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by wade moore

Can you please lay-out a week's menu on this $200/month diet?

It can be done if you're real frugal. And it can be done in a somewhat healthy manner.

Breakfast
Eggs, Toast, Oatmeal, Fruit, Milk

Lunch/Dinner
Sandwiches (some meat and some PB&J)
Frozen Veggies
Rice
Chicken (buy the bulk frozen bags)
Bread
Potatoes
Meat (whatever is on sale in bulk)
Pasta, Pasta, and more Pasta

I lived on something that was probably pretty close to that at some point in my life. It does suck, but it can be done. You basically have to cut out all the extras and be very disciplined.

You also have to put effort in to your shopping. Look for the best deals. I used to buy the big bags of frozen chicken breasts which would end up being real cheap. A local convenient store (Kwik Trip) would sell loaves of bread for $0.39. Mix a loaf of bread with a jar of peanut butter and jelly and you got yourself 15 sandwiches for around $7. A lot of grocery stores have amazing sales on their generic products. I used to be able to buy generic Mac & Cheese 3 for $1 or the Totinos frozen pizzas for 5 for $5.99.

I do think the argument that the poor have to eat unhealthy is a bit of a stretch. As I mentioned, veggies, oatmeal, eggs, and a slew of other healthy foods can be found for next to nothing and can be really filling. It's more a matter of convenience and time. If you have two kids, both parents working full time jobs, it's sometimes easier to just pick up some McDonalds on the way home then spending 45 minutes cooking a healthy meal. Pouring a bowl of cereal in the morning takes much less time than making a healthy warm breakfast.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by lynchjm24

The idea that fast food is 'cheaper' because of opportunity cost might be the fucking stupidest thing I've ever read on this board. If you die YEARS earlier do you really think you 'saved' anything.

Absolutely, I saved myself from a life of eating stuff that tastes like dirt.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

What the hell is wrong with some of these idiots on the fringes of the political parties? Death threats and coffins in yards of Democrats? Shots fired at a Republican congressman's campaign office?

People are just dumb. It's a brutal law, but it doesn't warrant this behavior by the party wackos.

It's the repurcussions of the hate that has been spewed by "pundits". People like Hannity, Olbemann, O'Reilly, and Malkin (I could spend all night listing all the pundits/blogs/websites) are nothing more than hate-mongerers. Swap out the words liberal/conservative with blacks and it's the same stuff you saw 50+ years ago. It's just hate speech masked as politics. These are the same people who would have been burning crosses or blowing up military recruiting stations a few decades ago. They've now just found a way to make some money off of it.

And unfortunately, there is an element of society that clings to hate. It's how ruthless dictators have gotten support in their time. They create a common enemy to hate on.

The proliferation of the internet and other media venues has brought these people out from the underbelly of our society and into area where they are given credibility. A guy like Glenn Beck would have been subjected to writing newsletters to his 13 subscribers and protesting outside of the local courthouse where people would laugh. Now he's seen as a leader in a political movement.

I don't think this leads to anything major in our country. I still believe that while people may enjoy discussing politics, most don't ultimately give a shit at the end of the day. Most of us have real lives to deal with that include families, jobs, and other responsibilities.

But I do think it is dangerous. There is a small percent of people with low intelligence who will use the rhetoric from these people as justification to commit an act of terrorism. The next Timothy McVeigh is probably listening to some radio show that is telling him the country is dissolving right now.

[Edward64]

Added a poll

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

The politicans are encouraging death threats? Link?

Not directly, they aren't that dumb. But politicians have always had a wink and a nod relationship with these lunatics.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

It's the repurcussions of the hate that has been spewed by "pundits".

At the risk of repeating myself (from discussions past), you've got this backwards. We don't despise the left because pundits exist, pundits exist because we despise the left.

There is a small percent of people with low intelligence who will use the rhetoric from these people as justification to commit an act of terrorism.

Or acts of patriotism. The distinction is usually drawn by the victors, just ask the British.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

It can be done if you're real frugal. And it can be done in a somewhat healthy manner.

Breakfast
Eggs, Toast, Oatmeal, Fruit, Milk

Lunch/Dinner
Sandwiches (some meat and some PB&J)
Frozen Veggies
Rice
Chicken (buy the bulk frozen bags)
Bread
Potatoes
Meat (whatever is on sale in bulk)
Pasta, Pasta, and more Pasta

I lived on something that was probably pretty close to that at some point in my life. It does suck, but it can be done. You basically have to cut out all the extras and be very disciplined.

You also have to put effort in to your shopping. Look for the best deals. I used to buy the big bags of frozen chicken breasts which would end up being real cheap. A local convenient store (Kwik Trip) would sell loaves of bread for $0.39. Mix a loaf of bread with a jar of peanut butter and jelly and you got yourself 15 sandwiches for around $7. A lot of grocery stores have amazing sales on their generic products. I used to be able to buy generic Mac & Cheese 3 for $1 or the Totinos frozen pizzas for 5 for $5.99.

I do think the argument that the poor have to eat unhealthy is a bit of a stretch. As I mentioned, veggies, oatmeal, eggs, and a slew of other healthy foods can be found for next to nothing and can be really filling. It's more a matter of convenience and time. If you have two kids, both parents working full time jobs, it's sometimes easier to just pick up some McDonalds on the way home then spending 45 minutes cooking a healthy meal. Pouring a bowl of cereal in the morning takes much less time than making a healthy warm breakfast.

So what you're saying is, you're going to dodge the direct question by again using vague statements with lack of detail. Got it.

If I have time later I'll try to lay out what I think is a relatively healthy, budget-friendly family menu.

I'm pretty confident that to get any sort of variety and nutrition, it will be more expensive than McDonald's. We'll have to see.

[wade moore]

I'm a dolt - that was RM, not molson. Molson still has a chance for redemption .

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I do think the argument that the poor have to eat unhealthy is a bit of a stretch.

I'll take the numerous scientific studies that determined eating healthy costs more over your anecdotal "evidence".

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by molson

Sure, that too. I'm just saying being poor isn't an excuse to eat fast food. For a $6 value meal at Burger King, you can get a day's worth of healthy food at a supermarket.

I'm way behind here, but basically healthy calories = expensive calories.

Excellent read on this: Food - Supermarkets - Obesity - Nutrition - Calories - Farmers - Agriculture - New York Times

Partial excerpt:

Drewnowski gave himself a hypothetical dollar to spend, using it to purchase as many calories as he possibly could. He discovered that he could buy the most calories per dollar in the middle aisles of the supermarket, among the towering canyons of processed food and soft drink. (In the typical American supermarket, the fresh foods — dairy, meat, fish and produce — line the perimeter walls, while the imperishable packaged goods dominate the center.) Drewnowski found that a dollar could buy 1,200 calories of cookies or potato chips but only 250 calories of carrots. Looking for something to wash down those chips, he discovered that his dollar bought 875 calories of soda but only 170 calories of orange juice.

As a rule, processed foods are more “energy dense” than fresh foods: they contain less water and fiber but more added fat and sugar, which makes them both less filling and more fattening. These particular calories also happen to be the least healthful ones in the marketplace, which is why we call the foods that contain them “junk.” Drewnowski concluded that the rules of the food game in America are organized in such a way that if you are eating on a budget, the most rational economic strategy is to eat badly — and get fat.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Greyroofoo

I think these examples of "encouraging/inciting violence" are really stretching it.

Really?

This:

“Let’s beat the other side to a pulp!” Rep. Steve King, Republican of Iowa, shouted to the last stand of Tea Partiers on Sunday night. “Let’s chase them down! There’s going to be a reckoning.”

is "stretching it"?

Chase them down? Beat them to a pulp? A reckoning?

[SportsDino]

Originally Posted by lynchjm24

The idea that fast food is 'cheaper' because of opportunity cost might be the fucking stupidest thing I've ever read on this board. If you die YEARS earlier do you really think you 'saved' anything.

Oh look, I ate in 19 minutes today instead of 26. So what if I died in 2027 instead of 2041.

My opportunity cost argument is to explain a phenonmenon of why prices are higher near poor neighborhoods for some types of stores. I do think the 'cheaper argument' is weak and a fairly stupid part of this thread, as I pretty much said before people are not thinking about their budgets all that often when it comes to fast food, they are thinking convenience of various sorts.

Also I think that on average most people do not think about long term optimization of their lifespan very often, there is a lot of evidence of numerous forms that individuals are short term oriented for the most part. I must be honest, even though I should know better I have a number of health habits that are quite likely to shorten my lifespan. I would say that indeed I'm choosing 30 minutes today versus potentially years down the road simply by my lack of exercise. And my motivations for increasing my exercise are generally not about what happens in 2040, but rather my interest in running that much faster in my next soccer game.

Anyway, my basic point is we shouldn't make too many assumptions that humans are attempting to maximize their long term 'costs'. If you want to call people idiots for their health practices, well I could probably take apart your daily routine and tell you all the idiocy you are making from a financial perspective. Just because health is your business you can't assume everyone else is thinking about it with the same level of energy or intelligence. With our sheep like populace, I'd rather assume the opposite

-----

As for the figures on chronic illness.... if chronic illness is the primary cost facing our country, then there is even more likelyhood that the chart of prices for basic coverages would be identical to foreign countries. If we prove that for the most part we spend the same per unit of healthcare than another country, than I would immediately buy your argument that 'Americans are fatasses' (paraphrasing horribly I know) is the essential cause of us paying 7K+ per capita instead of 4K.

It also would start suggesting an answer, if the biggest problem statistically is our fat asses, we should invest in the reduction of said asses as our primary long term goal of a solvent health care system. We probably should anyway as part of any plan (I'd love to get more weight incentives in my health care if i actually paid for it, shucks I don't, but if I did I'd like 20% off the top if I can hit a body mass goal)... but I am arguing that it will be a drop in the bucket compared to looking at our wild pricing in the US.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Absolutely, I saved myself from a life of eating stuff that tastes like dirt.

+1

[Greyroofoo]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

Really?

This:

“Let’s beat the other side to a pulp!” Rep. Steve King, Republican of Iowa, shouted to the last stand of Tea Partiers on Sunday night. “Let’s chase them down! There’s going to be a reckoning.”

is "stretching it"?

Chase them down? Beat them to a pulp? A reckoning?

Is that all he said? Or are you choosing a few select clips out of context. You know, like Al Gore's "I created the internet" quote.

[Greyroofoo]

dola,

CNN was quoting Rush as saying "wipe them out" to Democrats. Sounds likes Rush is saying we should kill all liberals right? But if you listened to the rest of Rush's rant, he clearly meant at the ballot box.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Greyroofoo

Is that all he said? Or are you choosing a few select clips out of context. You know, like Al Gore's "I created the internet" quote.

Here's your full quote. Sounds like a little like his floating the idea of secession and a little of the ole, chase them down and beat them to a pulp/reckoning.

“You are the awesome American people,” said King. “If I could start a country with a bunch of people, they’d be the folks who were standing with us the last few days. Let’s hope we don’t have to do that! Let’s beat that other side to a pulp! Let’s chase them down. There’s going to be a reckoning!”

Whenever you say or write something, your are held accountable for any reasonable interpretation of your words. Based on the above, I don't think his statement could be reasonably interpreted as inciting/encouraging violence.

So, again, not really stretching it here.

[molson]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

I'm way behind here, but basically healthy calories = expensive calories.

Excellent read on this: Food - Supermarkets - Obesity - Nutrition - Calories - Farmers - Agriculture - New York Times

Partial excerpt:

Again, that's all about calorie density. Fast Food/Junk food give you more calorie for you dollar, that's 100% obvious. But you don't need to eat 6,000 calories a day.