Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
http://www.stonehearthnewsletters.c...osts-according-to-new-cornell-data/nutrition/
Who would have thunk it?
Who would have thunk it?
Health care costs
- Thread starter Cancel 2016.2
- Start date
I seem to remember somebody here noticing that... I think they're username may have been Superfreaky a little...
I wonder why we're more obese than ever. There is so much emphasis on exercise, eating right, reducing fats, etc. Plus, the Hollywood-model is ultra thin.
Reduce obesity, reduce litigation. Drill as much as possible domestically, and do a moon-shot thing on alternatives. Privatize Social Security. Cut the military by at least a third.
Budget problems solved. It seems so easy.
Reduce obesity, reduce litigation. Drill as much as possible domestically, and do a moon-shot thing on alternatives. Privatize Social Security. Cut the military by at least a third.
Budget problems solved. It seems so easy.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
I don't think the government can regulate exercise or diet. What they can do is stop the nonsense that everyone should pay the same for health care. Make obese people pay more and my guess is that they will find a way to lose weight.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Because there is no accountability. There is no penalty (other than bad health) for being obese. As we shifted towards group health plans, the obesity rate began to climb. Make it hit their wallets and they will get the message.
It is that easy. Unfortunately the idiots in DC are more concerned with trying to sabotage the opponent than with actually trying to address the problems we face.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Could you pull your head out of your ass long enough to take in some fresh air... your nonsense is getting pretty stale.
your doctor will recommend your RFID should be set to disallow you to purchase fatty foods.
I'd vote for that. The problem is nobody offers it.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
suddenly the scalia statement of being forced to buy broccoli becomes a little clearer.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
easily done, if people were serious about it.
Well, what if it were found that it was costing us too much to cover everybody and the broccoli amendment would "solve" that, couldn't they then say that we must pay a "fee" or eat the broccoli?
They could just create a broccoli tax that everyone had to pay except people who ate broccoli and it would unquestionably pass constitutional muster.
So long as they didn't make a centralized list of "broccoli providers" that you had to deal with and make it a fine not to buy the broccoli.
What kind of evidence would they need that you actually ate it?
SmarterthanYou
rebel
how so? what part of the constitution covers paying a fee if you don't eat broccoli?
That would likely pass muster under the commerce clause while the tax would be OK under the taxing power.
I think you are taking the analogy a bit too seriously here.
What's the "limiting principal" on the taxing power? Near as I can tell, there ain't one.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
the limiting principal is that it provide revenue. any other purpose of a tax is unconstitutional.
United States v. Rock Island Armory (1991)[7] - United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois ruling one cannot be prosecuted for 1934 National Firearms Act violations for machine guns produced after 1986:
"...since enactment of 18 U.S.C. § 922(o), the Secretary has refused to accept any tax payments to make or transfer a machine gun made after May 19, 1986, to approve any such making or transfer, or to register any such machine gun. As applied to machine guns made and possessed after May 19, 1986, the registration and other requirements of the National Firearms Act, Chapter 53 of the Internal Revenue Code, no longer serve any revenue purpose, and are impliedly repealed or are unconstitutional."