No pop for you! Bloomberg to ban Big Gulps.

[UtahDan]

I don't like it either, but it's no different than regulating the sale of alcohol in principle.

[Indy Coug]

I don't like it either, but it's no different than regulating the sale of alcohol in principle.

Unlike alcohol, pop intake doesn't result in a significant number of deaths for people who weren't drinking pop themselves.

[Jacob]

Basically, what's being proposed is a "fat tax". I shouldn't have to point out that the whole purpose of health insurance is for the "healthy" to subsidize the "unhealthy".

I think that is wrong. The whole point of health insurance is to insure one's self against the possibility of becoming unhealthy and inuring significant health costs. Not at all what you say.

Maybe Niku's having a rough day.


I think inactivity is a huge contributor to obesity. Even more than too much food. In line with banning large sodas, we should also do the following:

I think you are wrong on that. People like to say that it is 80% diet, 20% exercise. I think 80% diet might be underestimating it.

You doubt it. I don't. I think you're wrong, as usual, which is fine because i expect you reciprocate. Also, and please take your time to get back to me on this, how many thin and healthy people do you think drink sugary or even other sodas and in what quantities when compared to obese people? Please consider your answer in light of the apparent fact that soda comprises a larger percentage of the American diet, as measured by calories, than any other food, and the general overall weight of the population.

If that last statement is true (and depending on what it means, precisely), then maybe I'm wrong. I haven't seen the data, but it seems unlikely to me that soda is contributing more than other diet choices. I'd wager that the large majority of obese people who switch to diet soda, don't see a significant decrease in obesity.

But I'm against the law on principle. We should not be banning consumer choice. Let them eat and drink what they want and let them suffer the consequences of their choices, if any.

And I'm off to buy a diet soda...and 6 donuts.

[Moliere]

Maybe Niku's having a rough day.


I think inactivity is a huge contributor to obesity. Even more than too much food. In line with banning large sodas, we should also do the following:

Install treadmills in every obese person's home, and force them to log 1-6 hours a day, or throw em in jail.
Outlaw busses and cars. Everyone can walk.
Outlaw all elevators. Take the stairs.
Institute a poll tax of $1 per pound. Paid annually.
No benches or chairs in public places. Everyone can squat or stand.

We create machines that make life easier (escalators) and then we created machines to simulate the hard thing that was taken away (stair steppers). I guess you could also use cars and treadmills.

[Coach McGuirk]

Maybe Niku's having a rough day.


I think inactivity is a huge contributor to obesity. Even more than too much food. In line with banning large sodas, we should also do the following:

Install treadmills in every obese person's home, and force them to log 1-6 hours a day, or throw em in jail.
Outlaw busses and cars. Everyone can walk.
Outlaw all elevators. Take the stairs.
Institute a poll tax of $1 per pound. Paid annually.
No benches or chairs in public places. Everyone can squat or stand.

You can't outrun a bad diet.

[UtahDan]

Unlike alcohol, pop intake doesn't result in a significant number of deaths for people who weren't drinking pop themselves.

Neither do cigarettes.

[Indy Coug]

Neither do cigarettes.

Depends which 2nd hand smoke study you subscribe to.

[Maximus]

Neither do cigarettes.

Except for the whole second hand smoke thing. Drinking pop also doesnt smell or affect others in any way.

[UtahDan]

Depends which 2nd hand smoke study you subscribe to.

I guess I am now acclimated to smoking in public places being illegal. It doesn't change the larger point that the government regulates and sometimes prohibits all sorts of substances it deems to be harmful. If it is truly the case that diabetes is the epidemic it seems to be, we will all be paying for it one day. Like I say, I'm not a fan but there are lots of things like this already.

[Paperback Writer]

I shouldn't have to point out that the whole purpose of health insurance is for the "healthy" to subsidize the "unhealthy".

I think that is wrong. The whole point of health insurance is to insure one's self against the possibility of becoming unhealthy and inuring significant health costs. Not at all what you say.

From the point of view of the insured, you are correct. From the point of view of those providing insurance, it is how I described. Just look at auto insurance. The individual driver is insuring against an accident. The insurance company is providing insurance to drivers knowing that few will have accidents. The good or fortunate drivers are subsidizing the poor or unfortunate drivers. Again, that's the purpose of insurance - to become a member of an insured group where the risk is spread out. Those who do not have claims always subsidize those who do.

[Indy Coug]

I shouldn't have to point out that the whole purpose of health insurance is for the "healthy" to subsidize the "unhealthy".

Depends how you are defining "healthy". The purpose of insurance is protecting yourself against devastating financial loss.

[Paperback Writer]

Depends how you are defining "healthy". The purpose of insurance is protecting yourself against devastating financial loss.

And how is that accomplished in a population group? I'm not looking at this as "just buy a policy" but more how does insurance work for a group of people? Risk is transferred from an individual to a group, correct? You have to know this much better than I.

[FMCoug]

Basically, what's being proposed is a "fat tax". I shouldn't have to point out that the whole purpose of health insurance is for the "healthy" to subsidize the "unhealthy". Rather than just single out the obese, why not require genetic profiles so that higher insurance rates can be charged not only to the obese but to those who are genetically unlucky. It's also known that women and children spend more health care dollars than others so why shouldn't they pay more?

You're thinking like an employee with a big group policy through an employer.

Health Insurance for individuals or the self-employed works exactly like a "fat tax" or "health risk tax".

In fact, I am uninsurable as of now. I had to go with the HIPUtah pool once my COBRA ran out.

[Jacob]

From the point of view of the insured, you are correct. From the point of view of those providing insurance, it is how I described. Just look at auto insurance. The individual driver is insuring against an accident. The insurance company is providing insurance to drivers knowing that few will have accidents. The good or fortunate drivers are subsidizing the poor or unfortunate drivers. Again, that's the purpose of insurance - to become a member of an insured group where the risk is spread out. Those who do not have claims always subsidize those who do.

Disagree. From the insurer's perspective, he doesn't know who will and will not become ill and create a claimed loss. He doesn't charge the healthy more to subsidize the unhealthy, he charges each individual based on the likelihood that such individual might become ill and file a claim in the future. Subsidy is a poor word choice to use in this way.

[Indy Coug]

And how is that accomplished in a population group? I'm not looking at this as "just buy a policy" but more how does insurance work for a group of people? Risk is transferred from an individual to a group, correct? You have to know this much better than I.

As an individual, I could have a health claim ranging anywhere from a $50 office visit to over $1,000,000 from a catastrophic chronic condition. Even though I might "expect" to pay under $2,000 a year for my personal health expenses, my premiums won't be anywhere near as low as $2,000 because there is a high variability in what I MIGHT incur in the future.

The Law of Large Numbers allows insurers to predict the level of claims with more confidence because the variance of the claims decrease. As the level of variance decreases, the premiums charged are closer to the actual claims expected. A large insurance pool allows individuals to leverage their size into lower premiums.