Don't stop... believin'... Hold on to that feeling...
- Thread starter UncleBob
- Start date
elprincipe
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 60 (100%)
[quote name='mykevermin']^ 
ruined, body fat % is measured as body fat %. BMI is a whole 'nother monster.[/QUOTE]
True, but the other points he made were fair ones. People have different body types. People are susceptible to different diseases. Life goes on, but there are those who want to penalize people based on what they are born with, and it really reminds me of a shameful past (strange that much of it comes from so-called progressives).
ruined, body fat % is measured as body fat %. BMI is a whole 'nother monster.[/QUOTE]
True, but the other points he made were fair ones. People have different body types. People are susceptible to different diseases. Life goes on, but there are those who want to penalize people based on what they are born with, and it really reminds me of a shameful past (strange that much of it comes from so-called progressives).
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='elprincipe']True, but the other points he made were fair ones. People have different body types. People are susceptible to different diseases. Life goes on, but there are those who want to penalize people based on what they are born with, and it really reminds me of a shameful past (strange that much of it comes from so-called progressives).[/QUOTE]
Are you equating risk-based analysis with slavery? You're un-
ing-real.
I'm not advocate of this concept of deep risk measurement. But if folks want to discuss it, that's fine. My post was to correct a point that was wrong. If you're going to have a conversation, you don't want to tsee that folks are making things up.
Are you equating risk-based analysis with slavery? You're un-
ing-real.I'm not advocate of this concept of deep risk measurement. But if folks want to discuss it, that's fine. My post was to correct a point that was wrong. If you're going to have a conversation, you don't want to tsee that folks are making things up.
elprincipe
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 60 (100%)
[quote name='mykevermin']Are you equating risk-based analysis with slavery? You're un-ing-real.
I'm not advocate of this concept of deep risk measurement. But if folks want to discuss it, that's fine. My post was to correct a point that was wrong. If you're going to have a conversation, you don't want to tsee that folks are making things up.[/QUOTE]
I'm not equating anything, just saying it reminds me of the same mind-set.
ing-real.I'm not advocate of this concept of deep risk measurement. But if folks want to discuss it, that's fine. My post was to correct a point that was wrong. If you're going to have a conversation, you don't want to tsee that folks are making things up.[/QUOTE]
I'm not equating anything, just saying it reminds me of the same mind-set.
elprincipe
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 60 (100%)
[quote name='IRHari']I thought the thing was to penalize bad behavior (eating twinkies, smoking, etc.) as opposed to just 'being fat' or some shit. At least thats what I thought they were doing.[/QUOTE]
I'm very curious as to how you propose doing this. A tax on twinkies? Government monitoring of your trash?
I'm very curious as to how you propose doing this. A tax on twinkies? Government monitoring of your trash?
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='elprincipe']I'm not equating anything, just saying it reminds me of the same mind-set.[/QUOTE]
That's positively ridiculous. I expect as much from some of the posters here, just not you.
You're overlooking the very *idea* of insurance. You sort people according to risk factors - whether fat percentage, or gender, or quality of eyesight, tobacco user, employed as a lion tamer or a stamp licker. And those risk factors correspond to differing likelihoods of needing care.
I spend the bulk of my day sitting and reading, for example. My risk of losing a finger on the job is significantly lower compared to a woodworker like my father-in-law.
So the idea that identifying factors that correspond to risk is a "same mind-set" as those who belived, FALSELY, in inherent biological/physiological/intellectual/metaphysical differences between blacks and whites is absurd. ESPECIALLY in the context of a public commodity (health care) that, by virtue of insurance existing, is a necessarily collective good.
Now, you can abandon this absurd comparison and recognize that part of running an effective insurance program and proper health care planning involves assessing and being prepared for the outcomes of those risk factors (a high BMI population needs more heart doctors, for instance). Risk assessment is not bigotry.
Or you can continue to claim that parsing out categories of those who need differential care is a form of bigotry. I'm fine with that, as the logical end of an unwillingness to treat people differently is a single-payer system (no two ways about it).
McDonald's restaurants increase their orders of filet-o-fish sammiches this time of year, and slightly decreases how many burger patties they order. Why? Lent, Catholics, no meat but Fish on Fridays. If they did not display this "bigotry," they'd be unprepared to handle their consumer demand for those dreadful fish sandwiches. One part of bigotry is predicting and meeting consumer demands. Health care being a consumer good, well, they have to do the same.
That's positively ridiculous. I expect as much from some of the posters here, just not you.
You're overlooking the very *idea* of insurance. You sort people according to risk factors - whether fat percentage, or gender, or quality of eyesight, tobacco user, employed as a lion tamer or a stamp licker. And those risk factors correspond to differing likelihoods of needing care.
I spend the bulk of my day sitting and reading, for example. My risk of losing a finger on the job is significantly lower compared to a woodworker like my father-in-law.
So the idea that identifying factors that correspond to risk is a "same mind-set" as those who belived, FALSELY, in inherent biological/physiological/intellectual/metaphysical differences between blacks and whites is absurd. ESPECIALLY in the context of a public commodity (health care) that, by virtue of insurance existing, is a necessarily collective good.
Now, you can abandon this absurd comparison and recognize that part of running an effective insurance program and proper health care planning involves assessing and being prepared for the outcomes of those risk factors (a high BMI population needs more heart doctors, for instance). Risk assessment is not bigotry.
Or you can continue to claim that parsing out categories of those who need differential care is a form of bigotry. I'm fine with that, as the logical end of an unwillingness to treat people differently is a single-payer system (no two ways about it).
McDonald's restaurants increase their orders of filet-o-fish sammiches this time of year, and slightly decreases how many burger patties they order. Why? Lent, Catholics, no meat but Fish on Fridays. If they did not display this "bigotry," they'd be unprepared to handle their consumer demand for those dreadful fish sandwiches. One part of bigotry is predicting and meeting consumer demands. Health care being a consumer good, well, they have to do the same.
[quote name='mykevermin']You're overlooking the very *idea* of insurance. You sort people according to risk factors - whether fat percentage, or gender, or quality of eyesight, tobacco user, employed as a lion tamer or a stamp licker. And those risk factors correspond to differing likelihoods of needing care.
Now, you can abandon this absurd comparison and recognize that part of running an effective insurance program and proper health care planning involves assessing and being prepared for the outcomes of those risk factors (a high BMI population needs more heart doctors, for instance). Risk assessment is not bigotry.
[/QUOTE]
Based on your logic, lets say if one lives in an area with a high crimerate (i.e. inner city), that should then be an element of putting someone in a "high risk" category due to the increased likelihood of being shot/mugged/victim of violent crime (which of course would require expensive emergency medical attention), right? So people who live in a city w/ highish crimerate should then pay a higher premium. On the other hand, someone who lives in an area with lower crimerate (i.e. rural/suburban area) should similarly be put in a lower risk category and pay less.
I say if they are going to assess BMI to determine healthcare rates, tax penalties, etc, they better assess everything including environment.
Now, you can abandon this absurd comparison and recognize that part of running an effective insurance program and proper health care planning involves assessing and being prepared for the outcomes of those risk factors (a high BMI population needs more heart doctors, for instance). Risk assessment is not bigotry.
[/QUOTE]
Based on your logic, lets say if one lives in an area with a high crimerate (i.e. inner city), that should then be an element of putting someone in a "high risk" category due to the increased likelihood of being shot/mugged/victim of violent crime (which of course would require expensive emergency medical attention), right? So people who live in a city w/ highish crimerate should then pay a higher premium. On the other hand, someone who lives in an area with lower crimerate (i.e. rural/suburban area) should similarly be put in a lower risk category and pay less.
I say if they are going to assess BMI to determine healthcare rates, tax penalties, etc, they better assess everything including environment.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
nobody's proposing that.
besides, crime rates aren't perfect indicators of crime itself, just those reported, witnessed, or caught. you can't hide your BMI, but you can hide the firmware you flashed your Xbox 360 with.
But let's keep beating this strawman back and forth, k?
besides, crime rates aren't perfect indicators of crime itself, just those reported, witnessed, or caught. you can't hide your BMI, but you can hide the firmware you flashed your Xbox 360 with.
But let's keep beating this strawman back and forth, k?
[quote name='mykevermin']nobody's proposing that.
besides, crime rates aren't perfect indicators of crime itself, just those reported, witnessed, or caught. you can't hide your BMI, but you can hide the firmware you flashed your Xbox 360 with.
But let's keep beating this strawman back and forth, k?[/QUOTE]
Hmm, don't like the slippery slope you're going down now do you once I bring up crime rate (heck make it violent crime rate) in living environment do you? Muscle weighs more than fat and BMI is generally calculated as height vs weight. Therefore if you are going after fat people your BMI indicator is useless. A musclar, ripped person could have identical BMI to an obese person of the same height - one has most of their weight in muscle, the other most in fat.
I mean, I don't get it, your brought up having the occupation of a lion tamer as risky, being fat as risky, why is living in an area where people are regularly shot/mugged/stabbed/raped all of a sudden *NOT* risky? If any of those things happen to you, you are going to need very expensive healthcare. And no, not all fat people die of heart attacks at early age, nor do all lion tamers get eaten by lions. And while not everyone who lives in a city with high violent crime rate is a victim of violent crime, you are going to have your work cut out for your proving that they are not at higher risk of being a victim of one.
So lets see, looks like starting off if you live in any of these aras based on "risk" logic your healthcare premiums should be much higher than elsewhere in the country:
Detroit, MI
Memphis, TN
Miami, FL
Las Vegas, NV
Orlando, FL
Little Rock, AK
Charleston, SC
Nashville, TN
Baltimore, MD
New Orleans, LA
Baton Rouge, LA
West Palm Beach, FL
Charlotte, NC
Philadelphia, PA
Next up, state with highest vehicular fatality healthcare tax. Go risk logic!
besides, crime rates aren't perfect indicators of crime itself, just those reported, witnessed, or caught. you can't hide your BMI, but you can hide the firmware you flashed your Xbox 360 with.
But let's keep beating this strawman back and forth, k?[/QUOTE]
Hmm, don't like the slippery slope you're going down now do you once I bring up crime rate (heck make it violent crime rate) in living environment do you? Muscle weighs more than fat and BMI is generally calculated as height vs weight. Therefore if you are going after fat people your BMI indicator is useless. A musclar, ripped person could have identical BMI to an obese person of the same height - one has most of their weight in muscle, the other most in fat.
I mean, I don't get it, your brought up having the occupation of a lion tamer as risky, being fat as risky, why is living in an area where people are regularly shot/mugged/stabbed/raped all of a sudden *NOT* risky? If any of those things happen to you, you are going to need very expensive healthcare. And no, not all fat people die of heart attacks at early age, nor do all lion tamers get eaten by lions. And while not everyone who lives in a city with high violent crime rate is a victim of violent crime, you are going to have your work cut out for your proving that they are not at higher risk of being a victim of one.
So lets see, looks like starting off if you live in any of these aras based on "risk" logic your healthcare premiums should be much higher than elsewhere in the country:
Detroit, MI
Memphis, TN
Miami, FL
Las Vegas, NV
Orlando, FL
Little Rock, AK
Charleston, SC
Nashville, TN
Baltimore, MD
New Orleans, LA
Baton Rouge, LA
West Palm Beach, FL
Charlotte, NC
Philadelphia, PA
Next up, state with highest vehicular fatality healthcare tax. Go risk logic!
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't think something on that level would be the best idea anyway, a system of taxes and/or subsidies would be a better way to change eating habits without targeting specific individuals. As it stands now there are a lot of unhealthy foods that are cheaper because of subsidies (like corn subsidies), which should probably be drawn down in favor of subsidizing healthier food and/or taxing the unhealthy ones.
The issue would be trying to get people to eat healthier while not putting more of a burden on the poor. Many poorer people eat unhealthy foods now because they're cheaper and/or faster and they have less money and less free time.
The issue would be trying to get people to eat healthier while not putting more of a burden on the poor. Many poorer people eat unhealthy foods now because they're cheaper and/or faster and they have less money and less free time.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
victimization probability varies by region for certain. but victimization probabilities are incredibly low on the whole. so you're trying to place me in a slippery slope by making an argument based on presumptions you have, but no idea the actual probabilities of.
Get off of BMI. Are you sensitive about yours or something? You like to harp about it. Didn't I already say that BMI ≠ body fat % in this thread?
http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6893707&postcount=298
hey, lookit that. sure did. and in response to you, no less.
BMI is regarded as a risk factor. A high BMI is linked with heart disease and shorter lifespan. I know it's a flawed measure because of the variance it masks in a single number (a big lazy fat is not the same as a bodybuilder, right, I get it).
Truth be told, those things probably factor into insurance premiums anyway. We're not truly aware of how individual premiums are calculated, are we? Maybe they do the same thing as those racist banklending redlining practices of the past?
Anyway, let's take this in a direction that's realistic. Put your slippery slopes away, put your strawmen away. Unless you're going for a world record number of logical fallacies in a single thread - just let me know if that's the case. I'll give you a setup for an ad hominem and somethings I'm sure you specialize at making, such as post hoc confirmation and appeals to fear.
Get off of BMI. Are you sensitive about yours or something? You like to harp about it. Didn't I already say that BMI ≠ body fat % in this thread?
http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6893707&postcount=298
hey, lookit that. sure did. and in response to you, no less.
BMI is regarded as a risk factor. A high BMI is linked with heart disease and shorter lifespan. I know it's a flawed measure because of the variance it masks in a single number (a big lazy fat
is not the same as a bodybuilder, right, I get it).Truth be told, those things probably factor into insurance premiums anyway. We're not truly aware of how individual premiums are calculated, are we? Maybe they do the same thing as those racist banklending redlining practices of the past?
Anyway, let's take this in a direction that's realistic. Put your slippery slopes away, put your strawmen away. Unless you're going for a world record number of logical fallacies in a single thread - just let me know if that's the case. I'll give you a setup for an ad hominem and somethings I'm sure you specialize at making, such as post hoc confirmation and appeals to fear.
I've got some other "great" ideas, too.
How about every time you seek treatment for an STD or go to rehab for injectable drugs, you incur "points" on your universal healthcare record much like you would your driver's license at the DMV. Then, you can get surcharged by the government for engaging in risky behaviors (i.e. unprotected sex, iv drug usage) to offset the cost of treatment for possible expensive to treat potential diseases you are at a high risk of obtaining as a result of those behaviors (i.e. AIDS, Hep C). I mean, the choices of having unprotected sex and starting up IV drug usage are much easier to control than the choice of eating a Big Mac or a carrot, right?
Why stop at BMI? The possibilities are limitless. And thats exactly why I think we should NOT start going down this road with BMI or anything else related!
And yes I do have a vested interest - I've worked with people who would score high on the BMI scale largely due to side effects of medication they need to take to continue functioning. Their conditions they were born with are punishing enough, why punish them further - especially when other potential "high risk" groups (if that is what you want to call it) are getting a pass?
How about every time you seek treatment for an STD or go to rehab for injectable drugs, you incur "points" on your universal healthcare record much like you would your driver's license at the DMV. Then, you can get surcharged by the government for engaging in risky behaviors (i.e. unprotected sex, iv drug usage) to offset the cost of treatment for possible expensive to treat potential diseases you are at a high risk of obtaining as a result of those behaviors (i.e. AIDS, Hep C). I mean, the choices of having unprotected sex and starting up IV drug usage are much easier to control than the choice of eating a Big Mac or a carrot, right?
Why stop at BMI? The possibilities are limitless. And thats exactly why I think we should NOT start going down this road with BMI or anything else related!
And yes I do have a vested interest - I've worked with people who would score high on the BMI scale largely due to side effects of medication they need to take to continue functioning. Their conditions they were born with are punishing enough, why punish them further - especially when other potential "high risk" groups (if that is what you want to call it) are getting a pass?
Last edited by a moderator:
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
Alright then, let's ditch the never-gonna-happen-anyway hypotheticals talk and get down to brass tacks.
I asked a question today and I'm pretty sure you read it. I want a real answer to discuss, so please, have at it: http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6897008&postcount=2120
I asked a question today and I'm pretty sure you read it. I want a real answer to discuss, so please, have at it: http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6897008&postcount=2120
elprincipe
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 60 (100%)
[quote name='mykevermin']That's positively ridiculous. I expect as much from some of the posters here, just not you.
You're overlooking the very *idea* of insurance. You sort people according to risk factors - whether fat percentage, or gender, or quality of eyesight, tobacco user, employed as a lion tamer or a stamp licker. And those risk factors correspond to differing likelihoods of needing care.
I spend the bulk of my day sitting and reading, for example. My risk of losing a finger on the job is significantly lower compared to a woodworker like my father-in-law.
So the idea that identifying factors that correspond to risk is a "same mind-set" as those who belived, FALSELY, in inherent biological/physiological/intellectual/metaphysical differences between blacks and whites is absurd. ESPECIALLY in the context of a public commodity (health care) that, by virtue of insurance existing, is a necessarily collective good.
Now, you can abandon this absurd comparison and recognize that part of running an effective insurance program and proper health care planning involves assessing and being prepared for the outcomes of those risk factors (a high BMI population needs more heart doctors, for instance). Risk assessment is not bigotry.
Or you can continue to claim that parsing out categories of those who need differential care is a form of bigotry. I'm fine with that, as the logical end of an unwillingness to treat people differently is a single-payer system (no two ways about it).
McDonald's restaurants increase their orders of filet-o-fish sammiches this time of year, and slightly decreases how many burger patties they order. Why? Lent, Catholics, no meat but Fish on Fridays. If they did not display this "bigotry," they'd be unprepared to handle their consumer demand for those dreadful fish sandwiches. One part of bigotry is predicting and meeting consumer demands. Health care being a consumer good, well, they have to do the same.[/QUOTE]
It's not ridiculous. I'm talking about genetic risk factors. Discrimination in the past (and sometimes in the present) has been based on genes (specifically, the ones which determine what the color of your skin is, or the way your eyes are shaped, or whatever). No, it's not the same, but it's the same mind-set.
It's also strange to hear this coming from the left. I'm sure you're upset that insurance companies won't cover, or will only cover at a very high premium, people with "preexisting conditions." I'm sure you also don't want women to pay more than men, even though women need more health care, and even though men pay more for car insurance based on the fact that we're men, regardless of how flawless we are in our driving.
"Risk percentages" calculated based on what? On fat percentage? On how tall you are? Maybe if you're more likely to get a sunburn? We're getting into dangerous territory.
You're overlooking the very *idea* of insurance. You sort people according to risk factors - whether fat percentage, or gender, or quality of eyesight, tobacco user, employed as a lion tamer or a stamp licker. And those risk factors correspond to differing likelihoods of needing care.
I spend the bulk of my day sitting and reading, for example. My risk of losing a finger on the job is significantly lower compared to a woodworker like my father-in-law.
So the idea that identifying factors that correspond to risk is a "same mind-set" as those who belived, FALSELY, in inherent biological/physiological/intellectual/metaphysical differences between blacks and whites is absurd. ESPECIALLY in the context of a public commodity (health care) that, by virtue of insurance existing, is a necessarily collective good.
Now, you can abandon this absurd comparison and recognize that part of running an effective insurance program and proper health care planning involves assessing and being prepared for the outcomes of those risk factors (a high BMI population needs more heart doctors, for instance). Risk assessment is not bigotry.
Or you can continue to claim that parsing out categories of those who need differential care is a form of bigotry. I'm fine with that, as the logical end of an unwillingness to treat people differently is a single-payer system (no two ways about it).
McDonald's restaurants increase their orders of filet-o-fish sammiches this time of year, and slightly decreases how many burger patties they order. Why? Lent, Catholics, no meat but Fish on Fridays. If they did not display this "bigotry," they'd be unprepared to handle their consumer demand for those dreadful fish sandwiches. One part of bigotry is predicting and meeting consumer demands. Health care being a consumer good, well, they have to do the same.[/QUOTE]
It's not ridiculous. I'm talking about genetic risk factors. Discrimination in the past (and sometimes in the present) has been based on genes (specifically, the ones which determine what the color of your skin is, or the way your eyes are shaped, or whatever). No, it's not the same, but it's the same mind-set.
It's also strange to hear this coming from the left. I'm sure you're upset that insurance companies won't cover, or will only cover at a very high premium, people with "preexisting conditions." I'm sure you also don't want women to pay more than men, even though women need more health care, and even though men pay more for car insurance based on the fact that we're men, regardless of how flawless we are in our driving.
"Risk percentages" calculated based on what? On fat percentage? On how tall you are? Maybe if you're more likely to get a sunburn? We're getting into dangerous territory.
[quote name='mykevermin']Alright then, let's ditch the never-gonna-happen-anyway hypotheticals talk[/quote]
Those things I mentioned might not happen under this administration (which is rapidly losing popularity and hence could be gone before you know it), but if this administration lays the groundwork for it, they could easily happen during a future one. What if Sarah Palin became president w/ conservative majority in house/senate and instituted a yearly abortion surcharge for healthcare - because if you have one it indicates you are having unprotected sex without intention to conceive, putting you in the high risk for deadly STDs category with no productive reason.
I see you shrugged off those with medical & biologically-based psychological illnesses which require drugs that have side effect of weight gain in order to function - or heck just partially disabled/disabled people in general who can't exercise like everyone else. 'em, collateral damage right?
I think you left out a very important part of their platform: abuse/waste of current government-provided healthcare services such as Medicaid. When someone has zero responsibility to pay for their medical care, there are tons of cases where people will abuse the system. i.e. visit the ER multiple times per week for medications their primary care physician/psychiatrist won't give (often due to addictive properties that would be unhealthy for the person based on their addiction history). Likewise, there is no managing of medicaid (not by the govt nor by private insurance companies) thus the government and hence the taxpayers just keep on paying. That is another area where a lot of money could be saved.
Personally I don't know enough about the republican plan to like/dislike it. But I know enough about the various facets of the house/senate/obama plan to believe it is much worse than our current system.
BTW I see as part of your post that you mention people with chronic medical conditions. I know quite a few relatives and friends' relatives who were in a relatively long term care from various cancers, and I can't think of any of them that got screwed by their insurance company. I know that doesn't apply to everyone as some on this forum have had issue, but the current system surely does not screw everyone with a chronic condition.
Those things I mentioned might not happen under this administration (which is rapidly losing popularity and hence could be gone before you know it), but if this administration lays the groundwork for it, they could easily happen during a future one. What if Sarah Palin became president w/ conservative majority in house/senate and instituted a yearly abortion surcharge for healthcare - because if you have one it indicates you are having unprotected sex without intention to conceive, putting you in the high risk for deadly STDs category with no productive reason.
I see you shrugged off those with medical & biologically-based psychological illnesses which require drugs that have side effect of weight gain in order to function - or heck just partially disabled/disabled people in general who can't exercise like everyone else.
'em, collateral damage right?I think you left out a very important part of their platform: abuse/waste of current government-provided healthcare services such as Medicaid. When someone has zero responsibility to pay for their medical care, there are tons of cases where people will abuse the system. i.e. visit the ER multiple times per week for medications their primary care physician/psychiatrist won't give (often due to addictive properties that would be unhealthy for the person based on their addiction history). Likewise, there is no managing of medicaid (not by the govt nor by private insurance companies) thus the government and hence the taxpayers just keep on paying. That is another area where a lot of money could be saved.
Personally I don't know enough about the republican plan to like/dislike it. But I know enough about the various facets of the house/senate/obama plan to believe it is much worse than our current system.
BTW I see as part of your post that you mention people with chronic medical conditions. I know quite a few relatives and friends' relatives who were in a relatively long term care from various cancers, and I can't think of any of them that got screwed by their insurance company. I know that doesn't apply to everyone as some on this forum have had issue, but the current system surely does not screw everyone with a chronic condition.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='Ruined']Those things I mentioned might not happen under this administration (which is rapidly losing popularity and hence could be gone before you know it), but if this administration lays the groundwork for it, they could easily happen during a future one. What if Sarah Palin became president w/ conservative majority in house/senate and instituted a yearly abortion surcharge for healthcare - because if you have one it indicates you are having unprotected sex without intention to conceive, putting you in the high risk for deadly STDs category with no productive reason.[/quote]
The next president might pass a law to make us all become part-robot. Slippery slopes are logical fallacies, get over yourself. Your point isn't half as impressive as you think it is.
No, I see someone saying "hey, BMI is a measure that hides a whole array of variation, so it's useless to base something off of it that neither you nor anyone else is arguing we should base it off of!" And then you bring up residence in a metropolitan area, with no recognition of how that idea mimics the same problems of BMI (unless you want to argue that every block of, say , Philly is equally ripe for victimization). You don't really understand half of what you argue, and the half you do understand doesn't hold water.
Alternately, stop with the strawman. You're goading me into arguing against something I'm not in favor of under the presumption that you keep trying to frame me as someone supportive of it.
Hey, Ruined, why don't you support individual health care insurance policies based upon the risks people take in their lives? If we take your argument to its logical end, it shouldn't matter if a person is a smoker, a body fat % of 35, eats 3 ham hocks at every meal and lives a sedentary lifestyle. So...would that mean you support a single payer system of insurance? Seems like it to me, seeing as how you don't support basing policies on the risks people carry with them.
EDIT: Oh, and take the second half of your post over to the relevant thread. Jesus, I can't imagine how disorganized your house must be.
The next president might pass a law to make us all become part-robot. Slippery slopes are logical fallacies, get over yourself. Your point isn't half as impressive as you think it is.
I see you shrugged off those with medical & biologically-based psychological illnesses which require drugs that have side effect of weight gain in order to function - or heck just partially disabled/disabled people in general who can't exercise like everyone else.
No, I see someone saying "hey, BMI is a measure that hides a whole array of variation, so it's useless to base something off of it that neither you nor anyone else is arguing we should base it off of!" And then you bring up residence in a metropolitan area, with no recognition of how that idea mimics the same problems of BMI (unless you want to argue that every block of, say , Philly is equally ripe for victimization). You don't really understand half of what you argue, and the half you do understand doesn't hold water.
Alternately, stop with the strawman. You're goading me into arguing against something I'm not in favor of under the presumption that you keep trying to frame me as someone supportive of it.
Hey, Ruined, why don't you support individual health care insurance policies based upon the risks people take in their lives? If we take your argument to its logical end, it shouldn't matter if a person is a smoker, a body fat % of 35, eats 3 ham hocks at every meal and lives a sedentary lifestyle. So...would that mean you support a single payer system of insurance? Seems like it to me, seeing as how you don't support basing policies on the risks people carry with them.
See? See how stupid your line of arguing is now that it's used against you? I hope so.
EDIT: Oh, and take the second half of your post over to the relevant thread. Jesus, I can't imagine how disorganized your house must be.
bread's done