Sam Kass appointed "Health food czar"

[Hoss]

Sigh.  I'm not a socialist, a communist, or a fascist.  And "common good," is, you know, in the good of the nation.  It's one of those concepts that we ourselves pioneered.   

It's amazing what different person's views on certain phrases can relate to their ideological alignments.

[Conan71]

Thanks for the correction regarding McDonald's beef source. It doesn't change my point at all. Once again, my point is simply that if the costs of a particular choice are priced into the product, it removes a distortion on the market and brings simple economics to bear on whatever previously externalized costs existed.

I'm not advocating any particular method of doing that, and increased Medicaid outlays was but one example of how McDonald's externalizes some of their cost. McDonald's isn't even my point, though. Substitute coal mines, if you prefer.

Price is something we all understand. With real costs priced in, however that may come to be, we will make better decisions.

Here's where you and I will continue to differ.  You see the additional Medicaid outlays as being a result of McDonalds making a faulty product.  I see the problem as the product being abused by individuals who can and do know better.  Tobacco or alcohol used in moderation as well as prescription drugs all have useful benefits.  Problem is: people abuse them from their intended benefit but I don't see how that is the fault nor the responsibility of McDonalds to pay the freight for their customer's carelessness.

Where do you stop such madness in regulation then?  I can walk into Reasors and buy 20 cans of Pringles or 20 bags of Chips Ahoy, or 20 gallons of butter milk and eat like that every day until I've become 100 pounds overweight, diabetic, and have incipient heart disease.  Should Reasor's make me whole?  What about Borden Dairy for making such a high fat product like butter milk, or General Mills for making foods with HFCS and saturated fats?

Perhaps you've looked at the example of the smoking settlements with the feds and states.  All that seems to have done is pass off individual rights on torts and transferred that money to states to administer smoking cessation and health programs.  It's also raised the price of tobacco to the $4 to $5 a pack range, yet people still smoke.  I thought this was supposed to be a deterrent to unhealthy behavior.  I'd be curious to see how much of the taxes and settlement money have been spent specfically on smoking programs and whether or not people with lung cancer who cannot afford treatment are getting it as a result of such programs.  If they are not, it helps prove my point that the government simply imposes fees on responsible parties to fund more irresponsible government.

[RecycleMichael]

I can walk into Reasors and buy 20 bags of Chips Ahoy...

I wanted to be a Chippendale dancer...I turned out to be a Chips Ahoy dancer.

[Conan71]

I wanted to be a Chippendale dancer...I turned out to be a Chips Ahoy dancer.

Glad to see you are back to your funny old self again.

[nathanm]

Here's where you and I will continue to differ.  You see the additional Medicaid outlays as being a result of McDonalds making a faulty product.  I see the problem as the product being abused by individuals who can and do know better.  Tobacco or alcohol used in moderation as well as prescription drugs all have useful benefits.  Problem is: people abuse them from their intended benefit but I don't see how that is the fault nor the responsibility of McDonalds to pay the freight for their customer's carelessness.

Where do you stop such madness in regulation then?  I can walk into Reasors and buy 20 cans of Pringles or 20 bags of Chips Ahoy, or 20 gallons of butter milk and eat like that every day until I've become 100 pounds overweight, diabetic, and have incipient heart disease.  Should Reasor's make me whole?  What about Borden Dairy for making such a high fat product like butter milk, or General Mills for making foods with HFCS and saturated fats?

Perhaps you've looked at the example of the smoking settlements with the feds and states.  All that seems to have done is pass off individual rights on torts and transferred that money to states to administer smoking cessation and health programs.  It's also raised the price of tobacco to the $4 to $5 a pack range, yet people still smoke.  I thought this was supposed to be a deterrent to unhealthy behavior.  I'd be curious to see how much of the taxes and settlement money have been spent specfically on smoking programs and whether or not people with lung cancer who cannot afford treatment are getting it as a result of such programs.  If they are not, it helps prove my point that the government simply imposes fees on responsible parties to fund more irresponsible government.

You're getting hung up on implementation details. I'm just saying that, ideally, the price of any particular good or service would reflect all its costs. Fault is irrelevant. I'm not attempting to lay blame. It doesn't matter whether McDonald's is eeevul for selling their "food," or if the consumers of said "food" are to blame. (I actually think the latter, insofar as they are informed, anyway)

Surely you can agree that the concept is sound, even if neither of us can think of a workable way to build the externalized costs into the price of a good.

[Conan71]

You're getting hung up on implementation details. I'm just saying that, ideally, the price of any particular good or service would reflect all its costs. Fault is irrelevant. I'm not attempting to lay blame. It doesn't matter whether McDonald's is eeevul for selling their "food," or if the consumers of said "food" are to blame. (I actually think the latter, insofar as they are informed, anyway)

Surely you can agree that the concept is sound, even if neither of us can think of a workable way to build the externalized costs into the price of a good.

As a libertarian thinker, I don't think it's sound whatsoever. 

It means more government over-reaching and government determining a fair market value for a product they don't produce.  As far as defining the profit of the good to the actual manufacturer and seller, all manufacturing costs are met.  You could wind up starving the world if you worried about compensating for all the cow farts and CO2 emissions in transporting the beef, processing it, cooking it, oh and the emissions of all the workers in the process getting back and forth to work.

I don't know why, but I've managed to use this as somewhat of an inflation barometer for as long as I can remember.  I bought a dorm refrigerator back in 1984 for $99.  I noticed you can buy one today with a dry erase board on the door at Target for $89.  Consumers demand cheap products.  If they were okay with paying for the higher standard of living of the American worker and American regulations no doubt they would pay it, but they don't.  That's why so many consumer goods are made in China, and why so many former American factory jobs are in Mexico and China.

This is the disconnect most people have with taxation.  They figure as long as they get a check back every April their taxes are low enough.  If they had to write a check or suddenly they were faced with higher cost of goods they need due to increased "fees" imposed on the sellers and manufacturers, they might finally start to get a feel for how much their earning power is diminished by the government's thirst for cash.

[nathanm]

Who said the government determines the cost or gets the cash? It's got nothing to do with government; I'm talking economic theory here.

A price reflecting the entire cost of the good would promote market efficiency or it wouldn't.

[Conan71]

Who said the government determines the cost or gets the cash? It's got nothing to do with government; I'm talking economic theory here.

A price reflecting the entire cost of the good would promote market efficiency or it wouldn't.

Who does the manufacturer pay the enviro and health impact costs to then? Does it go into a vacuum? As an economic principal, I think it sucks.

[nathanm]

Who does the manufacturer pay the enviro and health impact costs to then? Does it go into a vacuum? As an economic principal, I think it sucks.

Do you think it sucks because it's unworkable in reality, because the fundamental concept of price reflecting cost is unsound, or for some other reason?

[rwarn17588]

I'm also a huge believer in individual responsibility who is tired of everyone running to the government to solve all their problems and to protect them from their own compulsions.

If you're a big believer in responsibility, then I guess you shouldn't complain if your insurer hikes your health rates in a big way. That's because cyclists have death rates that are three times minimum and 10 or 11 times maximum on roads than the rates of people in cars. And you sure know the injury rates are going to be much higher, also.

Let's face it ... you're engaging in risky behavior with your cycling (and even worse if you're on a motorcycle). It doesn't take a genius to figure out that if you collide with a truck, you're hamburger. So, by that logic, your health insurance rates should be at least three times higher than the average guy's.

[Conan71]

If you're a big believer in responsibility, then I guess you shouldn't complain if your insurer hikes your health rates in a big way. That's because cyclists have death rates that are three times minimum and 10 or 11 times maximum on roads than the rates of people in cars. And you sure know the injury rates are going to be much higher, also.

Let's face it ... you're engaging in risky behavior with your cycling (and even worse if you're on a motorcycle). It doesn't take a genius to figure out that if you collide with a truck, you're hamburger. So, by that logic, your health insurance rates should be at least three times higher than the average guy's.

Thanks for the lecture.  Must be some petty jealousy or were you PWI last night?  

I'm quite well aware of the risks vs. benefits of what I do.  I don't ride for purely selfish reasons.  I can also do some good with my riding as I also take that risk to raise money for MS research, cancer research, and multiple other good causes every year like the Baptist Children's Home in OKC.  

700 to 800 cyclists die on US roads every year out of 45,000 or so overall traffic deaths.  What your stats don't take into account is people who are hit riding the wrong way in traffic, children darting out from between cars, people riding after dark or early in the morning without proper lighting, riding with ear buds in, or engaging in other risky behavior.  Although cyclists have a higher risk per 10mm miles traveled (1.1 deaths per 10mm vs. .1 or so for cars) the raw numbers are against motorists.

And since you are quoting death statistics, that would make your argument about health insurance moot if I'm scooped up into a body bag.  That would fall under life insurance, but I digress.  I have a great job which pays 100% of my health insurance premium so I'm fortunate in that regard.  I have supplimental accident insurance via USAC which covers me at sanctioned criterium and road race events.  I also have an AD&D policy.  Back to health insurance rates: actuaries take into account people get into accidents and they also take into account a certain number of people who don't take good care of themselves.  I'm quite certain my health insurance premiums reflect that.  I'll be riding tonight with a friend who is an actuary for BCBS and I'll be sure to quiz him about it.

I'll still take my odds over your sedentary lifestyle.  I'll be sure to ride up to the hospital in my Spandex to see you when you have that quadruple bypass.  Chances are far greater you will be a bigger burden on your health insurer than I will.  I'm quite certain I'm far less of a risk to my health insurer than I was 5 1/2 years ago when I was still smoking, eating drive through food, and about 20-25 pounds overweight.

"Regular exercisers have lower rates of cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, cancer, high blood pressure, obesity and osteoporosis, according to background information in the article. "A sedentary lifestyle increases the propensity to aging-related disease and premature death," the authors write. "Inactivity may diminish life expectancy not only by predisposing to aging-related diseases but also because it may influence the aging process itself."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080128165734.htm

[Gaspar]

I'm going to hit Brewberger today and exercise my rights while I still can.

After the red-meat and salt bans of 2014 we will have to get our burgers on the black market.  Cows will be smuggled over the border from Mexico and the FDA will be waging a multi-billion dollar meat war.

Sure, it's just ground beef, but it's a gateway food.  Next thing you know you're exhibiting the tell-tale signs of addiction.  Your finger-tips are orange from Cheeto abuse, and you can't start the day without an omelet. 

Your family attempts an intervention, but it's too late because you've been picked up for possession of bacon.  Your life is ruined.

[rwarn17588]

Thanks for the lecture.  Must be some petty jealousy or were you PWI last night?  

I'm quite well aware of the risks vs. benefits of what I do.  I don't ride for purely selfish reasons.  I can also do some good with my riding as I also take that risk to raise money for MS research, cancer research, and multiple other good causes every year like the Baptist Children's Home in OKC.  

700 to 800 cyclists die on US roads every year out of 45,000 or so overall traffic deaths.  What your stats don't take into account is people who are hit riding the wrong way in traffic, children darting out from between cars, people riding after dark or early in the morning without proper lighting, riding with ear buds in, or engaging in other risky behavior.  Although cyclists have a higher risk per 10mm miles traveled (1.1 deaths per 10mm vs. .1 or so for cars) the raw numbers are against motorists.

And since you are quoting death statistics, that would make your argument about health insurance moot if I'm scooped up into a body bag.  That would fall under life insurance, but I digress.  I have a great job which pays 100% of my health insurance premium so I'm fortunate in that regard.  I have supplimental accident insurance via USAC which covers me at sanctioned criterium and road race events.  I also have an AD&D policy.  Back to health insurance rates: actuaries take into account people get into accidents and they also take into account a certain number of people who don't take good care of themselves.  I'm quite certain my health insurance premiums reflect that.  I'll be riding tonight with a friend who is an actuary for BCBS and I'll be sure to quiz him about it.

I'll still take my odds over your sedentary lifestyle.  I'll be sure to ride up to the hospital in my Spandex to see you when you have that quadruple bypass.  Chances are far greater you will be a bigger burden on your health insurer than I will.  I'm quite certain I'm far less of a risk to my health insurer than I was 5 1/2 years ago when I was still smoking, eating drive through food, and about 20-25 pounds overweight.

"Regular exercisers have lower rates of cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, cancer, high blood pressure, obesity and osteoporosis, according to background information in the article. "A sedentary lifestyle increases the propensity to aging-related disease and premature death," the authors write. "Inactivity may diminish life expectancy not only by predisposing to aging-related diseases but also because it may influence the aging process itself."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080128165734.htm

Methinks I struck a nerve.  

No jealousy ... no PWI last night. No booze at all, in fact, and it wasn't even my bedtime. And I get plenty of regular exercise without zipping around at 40 mph. So the "sedentary" swipe doesn't apply.

But considering, by your own admission, that bicyclists are 10 times more likely to die on roads, it's hardly a stretch to see the serious-injury rate would be higher as well. Because motorists and others are often at fault doesn't change these cold, hard facts. Or that your "taking responsibility for yourself" mantra seems to be obviously contradicted by taking up a transportation hobby that is much riskier.

[nathanm]

I just want to point out that our health problems are not entirely due to our (as in, the "typical" American) sedentary lifestyle. Stress is also a significant factor in cardiovascular problems. In some ways, it's even worse than poor diet, because it keeps your blood pressure high even when you eat well, making the fat deposits even more likely to kill you.

Stress also is a strong contributor to poor diet, both just from plain lack of time and because crappy food produces a stronger dopamine response in the brain.

So really, if we want to make our insurance companies happy, we should all demand fewer working hours and more vacation! 

[Conan71]

Methinks I struck a nerve.  

No jealousy ... no PWI last night. No booze at all, in fact, and it wasn't even my bedtime. And I get plenty of regular exercise without zipping around at 40 mph. So the "sedentary" swipe doesn't apply.

But considering, by your own admission, that bicyclists are 10 times more likely to die on roads, it's hardly a stretch to see the serious-injury rate would be higher as well. Because motorists and others are often at fault doesn't change these cold, hard facts. Or that your "taking responsibility for yourself" mantra seems to be obviously contradicted by taking up a transportation hobby that is much riskier.

You were the one who started the swiping talking about my cycling.  Tapping on a keyboard and 22 oz curls don't count as exercize, buddy.

Everything's a risk RW, I live my life the way I want to without fear and mange risk the best I can.  I've raced sprint cars and motorcycles, owned and flown small aircraft, I row in prairie river water, hike, ski, ride motorcycles, etc.  I do take responsibility for myself and accept the consequences of my activities good and bad.  I also do whatever I can to mitigate the risks associated with any activity I do.  Insurers take these things into account when they set insurance rates and they are far more worried about paying out claims for tobacco users and people with heart disease and type II diabetes than they are bicyclists.  Regardless, my fair share is paid on my behalf in my insurance premiums.

Methinks you're just being petty.  Don't you have some Marine buddies to go regale about how their sacrifice is no more important or significant than people with other risky jobs?