d2jsp
Log InRegister
d2jsp Forums > Off-Topic > General Chat > Political & Religious Debate > Coronavirus Thread
Prev1744745746747748910Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll
Member
Posts: 22,442
Joined: Mar 3 2007
Gold: 76.11
Nov 2 2020 12:47pm
Quote (balrog66 @ Nov 2 2020 10:20am)
Oh yeah I know you guys are still doing better in terms of ICU than us. But relatively to the spring peak, you guys are doing worse.


Quote (ofthevoid @ Nov 2 2020 10:45am)
I'm generally against invasive government but these things actually work. It worked very well with taxes on cigarettes in NY. I don't know how you'd implement such changes though. Like I like to have some cheesecake or a nice burger now and then so to ban some of these things wouldn't be realistic and would be too big brother and you wouldn't be able to set like a per month quota or whatever limit system. Simultaneously if you tax the shit out of some of these things you'd end up with cries that you're essentially pricing out poor people out of enjoyable foods. You really have to be surgical with whatever laws you come up with.


wtf both of your English skills are so goddamn good.
Member
Posts: 41,270
Joined: Apr 14 2006
Gold: 1,788.71
Nov 2 2020 12:48pm
I would be in total support of fast food and soda taxes
Member
Posts: 54,191
Joined: May 26 2005
Gold: 4,945.67
Nov 2 2020 01:14pm
Quote (ofthevoid @ 2 Nov 2020 19:38)
We closed down restaurants because we don't want to spread germs, meanwhile we don't really do anything to stop restaurants or food companies from selling trash food that results in a higher death count.

Funny how we've been conditioned to arbitrarily set these lines in the sand of what's an acceptable killer and what's not. Some preventable deaths are okay but others are not.


A shitty diet is not infectious, it doesnt negatively affect others, only yourself. Interfering with entrepreneurial freedom is just not justifiable in these cases because people are only risking their own health by the choices they make.
Member
Posts: 64,763
Joined: Oct 25 2006
Gold: 0.00
Nov 2 2020 01:17pm
Quote (ofthevoid @ Nov 2 2020 12:38pm)
You can however implement draconian measures to significantly reduce heart disease. We closed down restaurants because we don't want to spread germs, meanwhile we don't really do anything to stop restaurants or food companies from selling trash food that results in a higher death count.

Funny how we've been conditioned to arbitrarily set these lines in the sand of what's an acceptable killer and what's not. Some preventable deaths are okay but others are not.


The reason is pretty obvious.

There's money to be made in selling shitty food and then selling the treatments for the resulting illnesses through our garbage for-profit healthcare system.

Similarly, there's lots of money to be lost by allowing a virus to ravage the population, and we gave huge stimulus to large companies to help them weather the storm.
Member
Posts: 28,886
Joined: Aug 11 2013
Gold: 10,712.00
Nov 2 2020 02:29pm
Quote (Black XistenZ @ Nov 2 2020 02:14pm)
A shitty diet is not infectious, it doesnt negatively affect others, only yourself. Interfering with entrepreneurial freedom is just not justifiable in these cases because people are only risking their own health by the choices they make.


It kind of does though. Imagine if our morbidly obese rate went down by 70% and the astronomic amount of savings in healthcare costs. I feel like the affordable healthcare debate would disappear over night. They're a disproportionate weight on that cost no pun intended lol.
Member
Posts: 54,191
Joined: May 26 2005
Gold: 4,945.67
Nov 2 2020 02:38pm
Quote (ofthevoid @ 2 Nov 2020 21:29)
It kind of does though. Imagine if our morbidly obese rate went down by 70% and the astronomic amount of savings in healthcare costs. I feel like the affordable healthcare debate would disappear over night. They're a disproportionate weight on that cost no pun intended lol.


Those morbidly obese tend to die younger though. Who's causing the bigger financial burden for society? Is it the fatty fat who causes more healthcare costs, but dies at age 70, shortly after retiring - or is it the healthy guy who lives to age 95 and spends the last 12 years of his life in a nursing home? Those who live unhealthy and die young(er) cause higher healthcare costs over the span of their life, but take less money out of the pension system.


A couple of years ago, we had this discussion about exploding costs for the elderly here in Germany. One of the experts introduced a callous term which was later chosen for the "ugliest word of the year award". The term roughly translates to "'socially advantageous early demise".

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Nov 2 2020 02:43pm
Member
Posts: 27,048
Joined: Dec 21 2007
Gold: 14,569.69
Nov 2 2020 02:39pm
Red State Idaho that has politicized and denied virus protocols.
Wants to send their excess COVID ICU patients to WA.. big fucking surprise.
That is freedom is what they wanted right? The D states are the enemy according to the R base right?
I'm sure we will help them out.. Maybe WA shouldn't?

Member
Posts: 64,763
Joined: Oct 25 2006
Gold: 0.00
Nov 2 2020 02:45pm
Quote (ofthevoid @ Nov 2 2020 02:29pm)
It kind of does though. Imagine if our morbidly obese rate went down by 70% and the astronomic amount of savings in healthcare costs. I feel like the affordable healthcare debate would disappear over night. They're a disproportionate weight on that cost no pun intended lol.


Why would anybody want that when the healthcare system is for profit?

The system is functioning exactly how it is intended.
Member
Posts: 28,886
Joined: Aug 11 2013
Gold: 10,712.00
Nov 2 2020 02:47pm
Quote (Black XistenZ @ Nov 2 2020 03:38pm)
Those morbidly obese tend to die younger though. Who's causing the bigger financial burden for society? Is it the fatty fat who causes more healthcare costs, but dies at age 70, shortly after retiring - or is it the healthy guy who lives to age 95 and spends the last 12 years of his life in a nursing home? Those who live unhealthy and die young(er) cause higher healthcare costs over the span of their life, but take less money out of the pension system.


A couple of years ago, we had this discussion about exploding costs for the elderly here in Germany. One of the experts introduced a callous term which was later chosen for the "ugliest word of the year award". The term which roughly translates to "'socially advantageous early demise".


Lmao.

Ze Germans notorious for these type of utilitarian statements.

If there was one country that I think would pioneer soylent green I feel Germany is easily a top 3 pick.
Member
Posts: 54,191
Joined: May 26 2005
Gold: 4,945.67
Nov 2 2020 02:59pm
Quote (ofthevoid @ 2 Nov 2020 21:47)
Lmao.

Ze Germans notorious for these type of utilitarian statements.

If there was one country that I think would pioneer soylent green I feel Germany is easily a top 3 pick.


No, there was an outcry over this term. Also note that it was coined by the president of a medical association. He used it in the context of the radical, cost-cutting healthcare reform the government was discussing at the time, and the intention was to illustrate, in drastic words, what these plans would mean for patients/society.
Go Back To Political & Religious Debate Topic List
Prev1744745746747748910Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll