Head-to-head: Fat tax

  1. Elite Member
    yeahright's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    6,368
    Rep Power
    10346
    Level
    52
    Lv. Percent
    98.26%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting ProPosting Authority

  2. Snuggle Club™ mascot
    bpmartyr's Avatar
    Stats
    5'9"  175 lbs.
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Age
    41
    Posts
    4,443
    Rep Power
    27398
    Level
    45
    Lv. Percent
    88.51%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    If they use the BMI, alot of us with athletic builds are in for some taxing. BF% would be the way to go.
    Recent log:http://anabolicminds.com/forum/supplement-reviews-logs/213350-lean-efx-refined.html
  3. Elite Member
    yeahright's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    6,368
    Rep Power
    10346
    Level
    52
    Lv. Percent
    98.26%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting ProPosting Authority

    Quote Originally Posted by bpmartyr
    If they use the BMI, alot of us with athletic builds are in for some taxing. BF% would be the way to go.
    LOL, yep. They should probably just look at taxing unhealthy food items the way alcohol and tobacco are taxed.....earmark those tax revenues for health education and healthcare costs.
    •   
       

  4. Banned
    Brent's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Age
    28
    Posts
    939
    Rep Power
    0
    Level
    23
    Lv. Percent
    75.4%

    Quote Originally Posted by yeahright
    LOL, yep. They should probably just look at taxing unhealthy food items the way alcohol and tobacco are taxed.....earmark those tax revenues for health education and healthcare costs.

    Unhealthy foods are the cheapest kind of food anyway, there is room to tax them.
  5. Registered User
    rocketscientist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Age
    46
    Posts
    227
    Rep Power
    219
    Level
    12
    Lv. Percent
    72.12%

    Quote Originally Posted by yeahright
    LOL, yep. They should probably just look at taxing unhealthy food items the way alcohol and tobacco are taxed.....earmark those tax revenues for health education and healthcare costs.
    Yes!!! How cool would that be... it just makes sense. I've never even thought about that. You're a genious, man...
  6. Registered User
    Ziricote's Avatar
    Stats
    5'11"  187 lbs.
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Age
    28
    Posts
    2,430
    Rep Power
    1389
    Level
    35
    Lv. Percent
    38.04%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    I'm not too keen on being taxed for my own BMI but I'd welcome tax on crappy foods.
  7. Board Supporter
    snakebyte05's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    1,538
    Rep Power
    901
    Level
    30
    Lv. Percent
    85.05%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    ditto to the tax on bad foods. I think even healthy people should have that tax than, its bad food, you want it, pay for it. Plus its not like there would be a $1 increase on this, it would probably be like 5-10 cents, such a small amount on a personal level but a large amount of money for the government to rake in.
  8. New Member
    bms0lsc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Age
    32
    Posts
    295
    Rep Power
    261
    Level
    14
    Lv. Percent
    16.4%

    I live in England so I pay taxes that go towards funding the NHS, but I can't remember the last time I used an NHS service. It annoys me that I take care of myself but have to pay for those that don't. I don't know how it works in the US, but I believe you all have private health insurance and (in some respects) I think that'd work better than the NHS.

    Off the top of my head, poor diet/exercise habits cost our government £6 billion, whilst smoking related diseases cost us £2 billion. I'd definitely be in favour of a bad food tax; BMI doesn't always relate well to overall health IMO.
  9. Board Supporter
    snakebyte05's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    1,538
    Rep Power
    901
    Level
    30
    Lv. Percent
    85.05%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by bms0lsc
    I live in England so I pay taxes that go towards funding the NHS, but I can't remember the last time I used an NHS service. It annoys me that I take care of myself but have to pay for those that don't. I don't know how it works in the US, but I believe you all have private health insurance and (in some respects) I think that'd work better than the NHS.

    Off the top of my head, poor diet/exercise habits cost our government £6 billion, whilst smoking related diseases cost us £2 billion. I'd definitely be in favour of a bad food tax; BMI doesn't always relate well to overall health IMO.
    Yea we have private insurance, but it still has its problems. Everyones health insurance is raised because of those that dont take care of themselves regardless if we are adding new stuff to our insurance. For some reason the companies just dont think its a good idea to tax fat people, smokers and what not who all use their insurance way too much from it.
  10. Elite Member
    yeahright's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    6,368
    Rep Power
    10346
    Level
    52
    Lv. Percent
    98.26%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting ProPosting Authority

    Quote Originally Posted by bms0lsc
    I don't know how it works in the US, but I believe you all have private health insurance and (in some respects) I think that'd work better than the NHS.
    It doesn't. Currently 45 million Americans don't have ANY health coverage at all. Many Americans have health coverage but cannot afford to pay for their treatments and medicines. The NHS rations healthcare based upon medical need, in the US healthcare is rationed based upon ability to pay.
  11. Registered User
    Ziricote's Avatar
    Stats
    5'11"  187 lbs.
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Age
    28
    Posts
    2,430
    Rep Power
    1389
    Level
    35
    Lv. Percent
    38.04%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by bms0lsc
    I live in England so I pay taxes that go towards funding the NHS, but I can't remember the last time I used an NHS service. It annoys me that I take care of myself but have to pay for those that don't. I don't know how it works in the US, but I believe you all have private health insurance and (in some respects) I think that'd work better than the NHS.

    Off the top of my head, poor diet/exercise habits cost our government £6 billion, whilst smoking related diseases cost us £2 billion. I'd definitely be in favour of a bad food tax; BMI doesn't always relate well to overall health IMO.
    I really hate this aswell, things like NHS funded heroin clinics for addicts (I believe that was what it was anyway) so that they reduce risk of hiv, ect. It's just rediculous.
  12. Banned
    jomi822's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Age
    33
    Posts
    2,419
    Rep Power
    0
    Level
    35
    Lv. Percent
    52.43%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    We should absolutely not have a fat tax. that is absurd. it is your body and by all means if you want to be a repulsive piece of fat **** then you have that prerogative. we here at anabolicminds should understand more than most that laws should be kept off our bodies.

    also there is no way such a thing could be enforced. Many of us here on bulking diets pound down a ton of unhealthy foods, and what about that ectomorph that decides he wants to have his once a week small sized bag of lays potatoe chips, should he be taxed? absolutely not.

    The way i would handle this situation is by changing the way we handle the medical emergencies of obese individuals. if a 400 pounds man is driven to the hospital with a heart attack at the same time as a 180lb man that is not declared medically obese....then we need to have laws that force the doctors to care for the 180lb man first and not the repulsive drain on society's resources.

    i am sorry but these disgusting people need to either change their lifestyles or deal with some consquences.
  13. Board Supporter
    snakebyte05's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    1,538
    Rep Power
    901
    Level
    30
    Lv. Percent
    85.05%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by jomi822
    We should absolutely not have a fat tax. that is absurd. it is your body and by all means if you want to be a repulsive piece of fat **** then you have that prerogative. we here at anabolicminds should understand more than most that laws should be kept off our bodies.

    also there is no way such a thing could be enforced. Many of us here on bulking diets pound down a ton of unhealthy foods, and what about that ectomorph that decides he wants to have his once a week small sized bag of lays potatoe chips, should he be taxed? absolutely not.

    The way i would handle this situation is by changing the way we handle the medical emergencies of obese individuals. if a 400 pounds man is driven to the hospital with a heart attack at the same time as a 180lb man that is not declared medically obese....then we need to have laws that force the doctors to care for the 180lb man first and not the repulsive drain on society's resources.

    i am sorry but these disgusting people need to either change their lifestyles or deal with some consquences.

    I think the medical example you said is worse than a fat tax and more of an unfair law based on body weight than say taxing some junk food. We are not talking about a large tax, 5-10cents on bad food (potato chips, not small things like candy bars, taxx would be proportional to the amount of food/fat in it). In reality I think this is very fair, you have a choice if you want to get taxed or not. It is different comparing weight lifting and healthy lifestyles to unhealthy ones. Steroid users are not a drain on our society like obese people are, I dont believe you could argue that they are.
  14. Banned
    jomi822's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Age
    33
    Posts
    2,419
    Rep Power
    0
    Level
    35
    Lv. Percent
    52.43%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by snakebyte05
    I think the medical example you said is worse than a fat tax and more of an unfair law based on body weight than say taxing some junk food. We are not talking about a large tax, 5-10cents on bad food (potato chips, not small things like candy bars, taxx would be proportional to the amount of food/fat in it). In reality I think this is very fair, you have a choice if you want to get taxed or not. It is different comparing weight lifting and healthy lifestyles to unhealthy ones. Steroid users are not a drain on our society like obese people are, I dont believe you could argue that they are.
    steroid users are by no means a drain on society, and fat people certainly are. why should they recieve equal medical care when they are a complete burden on the system, THROUGH THEIR OWN FAULT.

    i peronally enjoy eating a bag of potatoe chips every once in awhile and i cant see any damn reason why i should be taxed for it. i am also averse to the idea that we should tax everything that seems socially unacceptable. that is known as oppression, furthermore it is a very broad and nonspecific oppression, affecting people that fat tax isnt meant to target.

    no, i believe that not bailing out these repulsively overweight people when their disgusting lifestyle finally gives them a heart attack/stroke/etc. would be the best way of turning some lifestyles around. of course this would never happen because it might offend some people, and politicians will jump all over any idea for new taxes. the problem will never be solved, not that i thinkt he government should be getting its slimy hands involved in the first place.
  15. Board Supporter
    snakebyte05's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    1,538
    Rep Power
    901
    Level
    30
    Lv. Percent
    85.05%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by jomi822
    steroid users are by no means a drain on society, and fat people certainly are. why should they recieve equal medical care when they are a complete burden on the system, THROUGH THEIR OWN FAULT.

    i peronally enjoy eating a bag of potatoe chips every once in awhile and i cant see any damn reason why i should be taxed for it. i am also averse to the idea that we should tax everything that seems socially unacceptable. that is known as oppression, furthermore it is a very broad and nonspecific oppression, affecting people that fat tax isnt meant to target.

    no, i believe that not bailing out these repulsively overweight people when their disgusting lifestyle finally gives them a heart attack/stroke/etc. would be the best way of turning some lifestyles around. of course this would never happen because it might offend some people, and politicians will jump all over any idea for new taxes. the problem will never be solved, not that i thinkt he government should be getting its slimy hands involved in the first place.

    I understand what you mean with the tax, but I just cant see just letting someone die in a situation like you mentioned due to being fat, that just seems very harsh. This will just always be a problem that seems to have no solution (except making it socially acceptable to make fun of them, instead of acting like its alright and adverting our eyes). I have no beef with someone who is a little over weight, **** happens, everyone at some point will probably get 20lbs or so over weight, but its those that refuse to do anything about, act like its not their fault and and say that they have a disease that I cant stand.
    Last edited by snakebyte05; 06-13-2006 at 08:46 AM.
  16. Diamond Member
    Jayhawkk's Avatar
    Stats
    5'8"  230 lbs.
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Age
    39
    Posts
    12,790
    Rep Power
    11681
    Level
    67
    Lv. Percent
    47.74%
    Achievements Activity AuthorityActivity ProPosting ProPosting AuthorityPosting Veteran

    I'm one of the eople who pay hundred(s) a month insurance and can barely afford to pay for my share of any exames. I just had to pay 300 bucks for an MRI. Health care sucks.
  17. New Member
    bms0lsc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Age
    32
    Posts
    295
    Rep Power
    261
    Level
    14
    Lv. Percent
    16.4%

    Quote Originally Posted by jomi822
    steroid users are by no means a drain on society, and fat people certainly are. why should they recieve equal medical care when they are a complete burden on the system, THROUGH THEIR OWN FAULT.

    i peronally enjoy eating a bag of potatoe chips every once in awhile and i cant see any damn reason why i should be taxed for it. i am also averse to the idea that we should tax everything that seems socially unacceptable. that is known as oppression, furthermore it is a very broad and nonspecific oppression, affecting people that fat tax isnt meant to target.

    no, i believe that not bailing out these repulsively overweight people when their disgusting lifestyle finally gives them a heart attack/stroke/etc. would be the best way of turning some lifestyles around. of course this would never happen because it might offend some people, and politicians will jump all over any idea for new taxes. the problem will never be solved, not that i thinkt he government should be getting its slimy hands involved in the first place.
    After thinking about it, I don't think a tax on unhealthy foods would work. Would a few cents extra on a chocoloate bar or a packet of crisps stop these people from eating them, day in and day out? No. They would just 'absorb' the extra cost, which wouldn't be too significant to them anyway

    Sure, the financial burden these people place on healthcare could be covered, but this is just papering over the cracks. A wholesale change in attitude to food and exercise is needed.

    To do this I think we have to be cruel to be kind. Fat people SHOULD be taxed individually; maybe seeing 'fat tax' as a deduction on their wage slip would help it hit home. Healthier, leaner people should get preferential treatment in a triage situation (400lbs compared to 200, not 210 to 200), etc.

    If people want to be fat, then fine; but there should be consequences, financial and otherwise.
  18. Registered User
    Ziricote's Avatar
    Stats
    5'11"  187 lbs.
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Age
    28
    Posts
    2,430
    Rep Power
    1389
    Level
    35
    Lv. Percent
    38.04%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Keep in mind guys that this is the UK that's considering it, not the US...tbh it won't happen, at least not the 'BMI' method anyway, added tax on foods are more likely and tbh if it only affects 'dirty' foods then I welcome it. I'm tired of fat people moaning about their bad hearts etc and getting medical care for it.
  19. Board Supporter
    BUCKNUTS's Avatar
    Stats
    6'0"  200 lbs.
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Age
    46
    Posts
    1,230
    Rep Power
    4887
    Level
    26
    Lv. Percent
    49.27%
    Achievements Posting Pro

    this thread is crazy this is just what we need more govt. intrusion into our lives if an employer wanted to make obese employees or those who smoke pay more of a premium for health benefits fine but the idea of the govt. enforcing this doesn't sit well with me this isn't China
  20. Elite Member
    yeahright's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    6,368
    Rep Power
    10346
    Level
    52
    Lv. Percent
    98.26%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting ProPosting Authority

    Quote Originally Posted by bms0lsc
    After thinking about it, I don't think a tax on unhealthy foods would work. Would a few cents extra on a chocoloate bar or a packet of crisps stop these people from eating them, day in and day out? No. They would just 'absorb' the extra cost, which wouldn't be too significant to them anyway
    Well, all such taxing schemes have yield curves. In most states, they've found the tax rate for tobacco that is enough to make smoking prohibitive for those who aren't gainfully employed (teenagers) and you can chart the reduction in teen tobacco use. Highly targeted taxes that are calibrated to achieve social goals are used all the time.

    The key here would be to identify the goals, and then to calibrate the appropriate tax rate. In this case, I would suggest the goal should be to equalize the costs of healthy versus unhealthy food.....so that consumers wouldn't choose the unhealthy food for economic reasons (they would be free to choose it for other reasons but they wouldn't default to the crappy packaged food because they can get more meals out of it).
  21. Board Supporter
    BUCKNUTS's Avatar
    Stats
    6'0"  200 lbs.
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Age
    46
    Posts
    1,230
    Rep Power
    4887
    Level
    26
    Lv. Percent
    49.27%
    Achievements Posting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by yeahright
    Well, all such taxing schemes have yield curves. In most states, they've found the tax rate for tobacco that is enough to make smoking prohibitive for those who aren't gainfully employed (teenagers) and you can chart the reduction in teen tobacco use. Highly targeted taxes that are calibrated to achieve social goals are used all the time.

    The key here would be to identify the goals, and then to calibrate the appropriate tax rate. In this case, I would suggest the goal should be to equalize the costs of healthy versus unhealthy food.....so that consumers wouldn't choose the unhealthy food for economic reasons (they would be free to choose it for other reasons but they wouldn't default to the crappy packaged food because they can get more meals out of it).
    sounds a bit like socialism to me i thought we had a democracy or democratic republic anyways
  22. Elite Member
    yeahright's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    6,368
    Rep Power
    10346
    Level
    52
    Lv. Percent
    98.26%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting ProPosting Authority

    Quote Originally Posted by BUCKNUTS
    sounds a bit like socialism to me i thought we had a democracy or democratic republic anyways
    Political and economic systems are not the same thing.

    You can have capitalist dictatorships and socialist democracies.

    In point of fact, the most successful nations during the 20th and 21st centuries (measuring success by life expectancy, access to education, housing, medical care, and freedom to engage in the political life of the country) usually describe themselves as socialist democracies.

    In this case, we're talking about how to use the taxing power of the state to influence behavior rather than simply imposing it (ex. banning tobacco).
  23. Board Supporter
    BUCKNUTS's Avatar
    Stats
    6'0"  200 lbs.
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Age
    46
    Posts
    1,230
    Rep Power
    4887
    Level
    26
    Lv. Percent
    49.27%
    Achievements Posting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by yeahright
    Political and economic systems are not the same thing.

    You can have capitalist dictatorships and socialist democracies.

    In point of fact, the most successful nations during the 20th and 21st centuries (measuring success by life expectancy, access to education, housing, medical care, and freedom to engage in the political life of the country) usually describe themselves as socialist democracies.

    In this case, we're talking about how to use the taxing power of the state to influence behavior rather than simply imposing it (ex. banning tobacco).
    socialists use economics to push thier agendas,taxes are one of the major ways that they accomplish this.
  24. Elite Member
    yeahright's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    6,368
    Rep Power
    10346
    Level
    52
    Lv. Percent
    98.26%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting ProPosting Authority

    Quote Originally Posted by BUCKNUTS
    socialists use economics to push thier agendas,taxes are one of the major ways that they accomplish this.
    All political persuasions use taxes to push their agendas. It's one of the tools of state power. It's usually one of the milder forms of state power when you view it in the context of the other tools states use (violence, censorship, imprisonment).

    Consumption taxes (such as being discussed here) are milder still because citizens are free to avoid them by not consuming the taxed product.
  25. Board Supporter
    BUCKNUTS's Avatar
    Stats
    6'0"  200 lbs.
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Age
    46
    Posts
    1,230
    Rep Power
    4887
    Level
    26
    Lv. Percent
    49.27%
    Achievements Posting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by yeahright
    All political persuasions use taxes to push their agendas. It's one of the tools of state power. It's usually one of the milder forms of state power when you view it in the context of the other tools states use (violence, censorship, imprisonment).

    Consumption taxes (such as being discussed here) are milder still because citizens are free to avoid them by not consuming the taxed product.
    you are right and I agree they do all use taxes I'm just not a fan of big govt. and socialists (or democrats as we call them here in America) love huge govt. and use taxes as a means of socially redistributing wealth which to me is completely un-American.I hate so called consumption or sin taxes most of all and I don't smoke and I rarely drink or eat junk food. These taxes are just failed attempts at modifying unhealthy behavior and they don't work, cigarettes are 4-5 dollars a pack now and I don't know anyone who quit because of how much they cost and the overweight will not stop eating doritos and twinkies because the cost goes up a little either. I know people will respond to this by saying well at least then these taxes can be used to offset the cost of treatment which could be true but isn't because our govt. is so completely devoid of fiscal responsibilty that the money would be spent on everything but.As an example of this I give you the great state of Ohio,when Ohio started having state sanctioned gambling all the proceeds were to go to education and billions of dollars have been generated in this way in Ohio, yet nearly every school system here is broke and constantly asking tax payers for more because they don't see the money from the gambling.
  26. Registered User
    spatch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    878
    Rep Power
    598
    Level
    24
    Lv. Percent
    43.85%

    Althought I think it would open peoples eyes to fitness, motivate them to get in shape, and be damned funny, I think taxing someone for being fat is against the constitution.
  27. Elite Member
    yeahright's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    6,368
    Rep Power
    10346
    Level
    52
    Lv. Percent
    98.26%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting ProPosting Authority

    Quote Originally Posted by BUCKNUTS
    These taxes are just failed attempts at modifying unhealthy behavior and they don't work, cigarettes are 4-5 dollars a pack now and I don't know anyone who quit because of how much they cost and the overweight will not stop eating doritos and twinkies because the cost goes up a little either.
    You don't have to agree that they are good policy (reasonable people can differ) but they do work. In fact, you can chart it out quite neatly wherever tobacco taxes have been levied:

    The World Bank has concluded that raising tobacco taxes is the single most important step that governments can take to reduce cigarette smoking among both adults and young people, particularly in lower socio-economic groups. On average, a 10 per cent increase in the price of cigarettes results in a 4 per cent reduction in cigarette smoking by adults and a 16 per cent reduction in smoking cigarettes by children, reducing overall cigarette smoking but increasing tobacco tax revenue.

    # World Bank. Curbing the epidemic: governments and the economics of tobacco control.1999, Washington: World Bank.
    # Jha P, Chaloupka FJ. The economics of global tobacco control BMJ 2000; 321:358-361.
  28. Registered User
    kwyckemynd00's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"   lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Age
    31
    Posts
    5,324
    Rep Power
    2849
    Level
    52
    Lv. Percent
    88.82%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting ProPosting Authority

    would take the square root of the Body Mass Index, so you get a nice curving graph so you can apply it in a proportional way.

    I would then divide it by 100 and multiply it by your tax liability.
    That's scary...what a bunch of idiots. Why don't they just use bodyfat level?
  29. New Member
    bms0lsc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Age
    32
    Posts
    295
    Rep Power
    261
    Level
    14
    Lv. Percent
    16.4%

    Quote Originally Posted by kwyckemynd00
    That's scary...what a bunch of idiots. Why don't they just use bodyfat level?
    Would that work? I know a few rugby players who are around 20% bf but can do the 100m in about 15secs and can get a score in the 'teens on the bleep test i.e they keep themselves fit. There are lots of PL'ers with a high bf but aren't necessarily 'unhealthy'.

    Maybe blood tests/physicals would be a better indicator but that would be expensive and time consuming, so perhaps not workable.
  30. New Member
    Override's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Age
    31
    Posts
    14
    Rep Power
    110
    Level
    3
    Lv. Percent
    81.75%

    I have been told that NHS such as Canada's work ok, but the downfall is that the doctors don't stay in the country that is set up that way, they want to move to a place where they can charge a higher price. Greed drives us all in some form or another if its not money, its sex, or food. I have also heard that the doctors will give sub-par care aswell, I don't know if there is any truth to this but I would hope not.
  31. Elite Member
    yeahright's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    6,368
    Rep Power
    10346
    Level
    52
    Lv. Percent
    98.26%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting ProPosting Authority

    Quote Originally Posted by Override
    I have been told that NHS such as Canada's work ok, but the downfall is that the doctors don't stay in the country that is set up that way, they want to move to a place where they can charge a higher price. Greed drives us all in some form or another if its not money, its sex, or food. I have also heard that the doctors will give sub-par care aswell, I don't know if there is any truth to this but I would hope not.
    To answer this question, you have to clarify what you're measuring.

    If you're measuring number of expensive machines per potential patient, then the US tends to come out on top.

    If you're measuring actual access to those machines, then countries with national health insurance come out on top.

    All countries ration health care. In the US, healthcare is rationed by ability to pay. In countries with national health services, healthcare tends to be rationed by medical need.

    If you're measuring health outcomes, then countries with national health services come out way on top.
  

  
 

Similar Forum Threads

  1. Replies: 22
    Last Post: 01-30-2009, 06:42 PM
  2. Boberino Petrino Headed to the ATL Falcons....
    By jmh80 in forum Sports Talk
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 01-09-2007, 10:14 AM
  3. Head to the Contests Forum and VOTE!! 1 Hour left!!
    By Jayhawkk in forum Supplements
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 09-16-2006, 01:39 PM
  4. Head to the Contests Forum and VOTE!! 1 Hour left!!
    By Jayhawkk in forum General Chat
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 09-16-2006, 01:39 PM
  5. heading to gym, how's this chest wo look?
    By jeff33333 in forum Training Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-14-2006, 12:28 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Log in
Log in