Obamanuts: Are you happy about the Obamacare delay?

[Flopper]

More up-to-date than the first source, but neither breaks down the reasons for negative feelings.

It's been pointed out many times in the past that if one looked at the reasons why people disapproved of "Obamacare", it would show that a subset of them didn't like it because it didn't go far enough in the direction of single-payer. Couple that with those who approve of the ACA and you actually have a majority that don't agree with the Republican view of it. I'm gonna go out on a limb, too, and say I don't believe a lot of those who disapprove of it because it's not "socialist" enough want to go backwards and repeal it.

I think you're right. There is something for just about everyone to hate in the ACA, employer mandates, employee mandates, lack of single payer, lack of true universal coverage, more government regulations, fear of higher premiums, fear of doctor shortage, fear of rising cost, and more profits for insurance companies. However, I seriously doubt that very many people really want to return to 2008 with 50 million people without health insurance and the number rising yearly, people being denied coverage for pre-existing converge, and insurance companies refusing to pay because you got too sick.

Just repealing the ACA is nearly impossible. If it was repealed, it would have to be replaced and that would be the problem. The Republican Healthcare plan was a plan to transition form the 2008 healthcare system. A Republican replacement plan could not ignore the ACA. It would have to transition from the ACA to a replacement plan which would be much harder than going from the 2008 system.

I do believe the ACA is going to be amended. There are things that are not going to work, and things that are going have to be changed plus there's going to be needed enhancements that will become obvious. This is what happened with Social Security and Medicare and it will happen with the ACA.

I believe those things are more than just 'fears'.
There practically assured.
That's why there shouldn't be a "however" after that kind of list.

It's just plain out scary

What is assured is that the GOP will try to create enough fear, so the public will elect enough Republican congressmen to overturn ACA before it becomes fully implemented. Once it's fully implemented repeal will be impossible because the huge expectation of failure will prove to be false.

Since the day, the ACA passed the GOP has tried to bulldoze the law, first by endless legal appeals, red states refusal to implement the Medicare extension, passing repeals in the House, and refusal to fund sections of the law. The GOP must convince the public that the law is a failure before it is given a chance to work.

 

[Oldstyle]

Just out of curiousity...

Can the House of Representatives DE-FUND the damned thing, or elements of it, in order to de-rail it?

Nobody amongst the couple of dozen folks that I've spoken with on this subject in recent months, wants anything to do with this piece-of-shit healthcare nightmare...

No. Those crybaby pussy republicans can go to hell and need to grow up. The affordable care act is the law of the land. Deal with it.

Hmmm...you speak about the "law of the land" and dealing with it...yet part of that law of the land is a regulation that the mandate HAD to go into effect on a proscribed date. The Obama Administration has chosen to ignore THAT law of the land. So tell me how this works, Black...when laws are passed by Congress does Barack Obama get to decide which parts of those laws he will follow and which he won't? The truth of the matter is that Barry never wanted the mandate in the first place. That was only written into the Affordable Care Act to get the votes of middle of the road Democrats. THEY were the ones who insisted on the mandate.

 

[Oldstyle]

I think you're right. There is something for just about everyone to hate in the ACA, employer mandates, employee mandates, lack of single payer, lack of true universal coverage, more government regulations, fear of higher premiums, fear of doctor shortage, fear of rising cost, and more profits for insurance companies. However, I seriously doubt that very many people really want to return to 2008 with 50 million people without health insurance and the number rising yearly, people being denied coverage for pre-existing converge, and insurance companies refusing to pay because you got too sick.

Just repealing the ACA is nearly impossible. If it was repealed, it would have to be replaced and that would be the problem. The Republican Healthcare plan was a plan to transition form the 2008 healthcare system. A Republican replacement plan could not ignore the ACA. It would have to transition from the ACA to a replacement plan which would be much harder than going from the 2008 system.

I do believe the ACA is going to be amended. There are things that are not going to work, and things that are going have to be changed plus there's going to be needed enhancements that will become obvious. This is what happened with Social Security and Medicare and it will happen with the ACA.

I believe those things are more than just 'fears'.
There practically assured.
That's why there shouldn't be a "however" after that kind of list.

It's just plain out scary

What is assured is that the GOP will try to create enough fear, so the public will elect enough Republican congressmen to overturn ACA before it becomes fully implemented. Once it's fully implemented repeal will be impossible because the huge expectation of failure will prove to be false.

Since the day, the ACA passed the GOP has tried to bulldoze the law, first by endless legal appeals, red states refusal to implement the Medicare extension, passing repeals in the House, and refusal to fund sections of the law. The GOP must convince the public that the law is a failure before it is given a chance to work.

Here's the problem with THAT notion, Flopper! This was a bill that was passed by people who lied to the American people about what it would do to their health care and how much it would ultimately cost. With each passing year, the damage that this badly written legislation will have on our health care system will become more and more apparent. THAT is why this was pushed back until AFTER the mid-term elections...it has NOTHING to do with the GOP!

 

[Flopper]

I believe those things are more than just 'fears'.
There practically assured.
That's why there shouldn't be a "however" after that kind of list.

It's just plain out scary

What is assured is that the GOP will try to create enough fear, so the public will elect enough Republican congressmen to overturn ACA before it becomes fully implemented. Once it's fully implemented repeal will be impossible because the huge expectation of failure will prove to be false.

Since the day, the ACA passed the GOP has tried to bulldoze the law, first by endless legal appeals, red states refusal to implement the Medicare extension, passing repeals in the House, and refusal to fund sections of the law. The GOP must convince the public that the law is a failure before it is given a chance to work.

Here's the problem with THAT notion, Flopper! This was a bill that was passed by people who lied to the American people about what it would do to their health care and how much it would ultimately cost. With each passing year, the damage that this badly written legislation will have on our health care system will become more and more apparent. THAT is why this was pushed back until AFTER the mid-term elections...it has NOTHING to do with the GOP!

Until the law has been fully implemented for a couple of years we will not know what the effects are on the cost of group or individual health insurance policies, nor will know what the effect is on the cost of healthcare service, nor the utilization of those service, nor the change in the number of uninsured.

As far as the future cost and quality of healthcare, it is totally irrelevant as to who lied about what. The only thing of importance is what the effect of the law will have on healthcare and it's cost and we won't know that for several years. At that time we should make whatever changes needed based on facts not projections and guesses and distortions.

All I'm saying is law has passed and we need to give it a chance to see what works and what doesn't.

 

[ScienceRocks]

The big question being 1. is it sustainable 2. Does it improve care and innovation.

If yes to both of those=a win!

 

[Flopper]

The big question being 1. is it sustainable 2. Does it improve care and innovation.

If yes to both of those=a win!

Time will tell

 

[Oldstyle]

What is assured is that the GOP will try to create enough fear, so the public will elect enough Republican congressmen to overturn ACA before it becomes fully implemented. Once it's fully implemented repeal will be impossible because the huge expectation of failure will prove to be false.

Since the day, the ACA passed the GOP has tried to bulldoze the law, first by endless legal appeals, red states refusal to implement the Medicare extension, passing repeals in the House, and refusal to fund sections of the law. The GOP must convince the public that the law is a failure before it is given a chance to work.

Here's the problem with THAT notion, Flopper! This was a bill that was passed by people who lied to the American people about what it would do to their health care and how much it would ultimately cost. With each passing year, the damage that this badly written legislation will have on our health care system will become more and more apparent. THAT is why this was pushed back until AFTER the mid-term elections...it has NOTHING to do with the GOP!

Until the law has been fully implemented for a couple of years we will not know what the effects are on the cost of group or individual health insurance policies, nor will know what the effect is on the cost of healthcare service, nor the utilization of those service, nor the change in the number of uninsured.

As far as the future cost and quality of healthcare, it is totally irrelevant as to who lied about what. The only thing of importance is what the effect of the law will have on healthcare and it's cost and we won't know that for several years. At that time we should make whatever changes needed based on facts not projections and guesses and distortions.

All I'm saying is law has passed and we need to give it a chance to see what works and what doesn't.

LOL...it doesn't matter who lied about what? Really? It matters to me, Flopper...because I don't like being lied to by my elected officials. They work for me. When I catch them lying to me I do everything I can to make sure that they DON'T work for me any more.

The truth is...the progressives that rammed ObamaCare down our throats before the newly elected Congress could stop it...lied repeatedly about both the costs of the program and it's effect on our health care. They couldn't get it passed if they told us the truth about it...so they told us a bunch of lies.

Now you're saying that four years later we still don't know what this law is but that we should simply shut up and "trust" those same people who lied to us about it in the first place to fix it now?

 

[Stephanie]

Time will tell

well that's frikken comforting..my gawd people you were hoodwinked by this administration..
how does it feel?

 

[Flopper]

Here's the problem with THAT notion, Flopper! This was a bill that was passed by people who lied to the American people about what it would do to their health care and how much it would ultimately cost. With each passing year, the damage that this badly written legislation will have on our health care system will become more and more apparent. THAT is why this was pushed back until AFTER the mid-term elections...it has NOTHING to do with the GOP!

Until the law has been fully implemented for a couple of years we will not know what the effects are on the cost of group or individual health insurance policies, nor will know what the effect is on the cost of healthcare service, nor the utilization of those service, nor the change in the number of uninsured.

As far as the future cost and quality of healthcare, it is totally irrelevant as to who lied about what. The only thing of importance is what the effect of the law will have on healthcare and it's cost and we won't know that for several years. At that time we should make whatever changes needed based on facts not projections and guesses and distortions.

All I'm saying is law has passed and we need to give it a chance to see what works and what doesn't.

LOL...it doesn't matter who lied about what? Really? It matters to me, Flopper...because I don't like being lied to by my elected officials. They work for me. When I catch them lying to me I do everything I can to make sure that they DON'T work for me any more.

The truth is...the progressives that rammed ObamaCare down our throats before the newly elected Congress could stop it...lied repeatedly about both the costs of the program and it's effect on our health care. They couldn't get it passed if they told us the truth about it...so they told us a bunch of lies.

Now you're saying that four years later we still don't know what this law is but that we should simply shut up and "trust" those same people who lied to us about it in the first place to fix it now?

If the politicians lied about the law then that's a reflection on their character and their leadership but it has nothing at all to do with the law's effect on healthcare.

No, we do not know the effect the law will have on healthcare because the most important parts of law have not gone into effect such as the requirements to have healthcare coverage, the healthcare market place exchanges, the Medicaid extension, tax credits to help pay the cost of health insurance premiums, prohibition of discrimination due to pre-existing conditions or gender, eliminating of annual limits on insurance coverage, and the small business tax credit. All of these will go into effect in 2014 and 2015.

Almost everything that has been published about the law's effect on the cost and quality of healthcare are projections, guesses, and distortions by those on both sides of the issue. It will be at least 2 years before we have a complete picture. I'm quite sure some parts of the law will be very successful and some will not.

 

[thereisnospoon]

I think you're right. There is something for just about everyone to hate in the ACA, employer mandates, employee mandates, lack of single payer, lack of true universal coverage, more government regulations, fear of higher premiums, fear of doctor shortage, fear of rising cost, and more profits for insurance companies. However, I seriously doubt that very many people really want to return to 2008 with 50 million people without health insurance and the number rising yearly, people being denied coverage for pre-existing converge, and insurance companies refusing to pay because you got too sick.

Just repealing the ACA is nearly impossible. If it was repealed, it would have to be replaced and that would be the problem. The Republican Healthcare plan was a plan to transition form the 2008 healthcare system. A Republican replacement plan could not ignore the ACA. It would have to transition from the ACA to a replacement plan which would be much harder than going from the 2008 system.

I do believe the ACA is going to be amended. There are things that are not going to work, and things that are going have to be changed plus there's going to be needed enhancements that will become obvious. This is what happened with Social Security and Medicare and it will happen with the ACA.

I believe those things are more than just 'fears'.
There practically assured.
That's why there shouldn't be a "however" after that kind of list.

It's just plain out scary

What is assured is that the GOP will try to create enough fear, so the public will elect enough Republican congressmen to overturn ACA before it becomes fully implemented. Once it's fully implemented repeal will be impossible because the huge expectation of failure will prove to be false.

Since the day, the ACA passed the GOP has tried to bulldoze the law, first by endless legal appeals, red states refusal to implement the Medicare extension, passing repeals in the House, and refusal to fund sections of the law. The GOP must convince the public that the law is a failure before it is given a chance to work.

By Obama's own decision, to extend the employer mandate deadline to 2015, he admits the law has great flaws.
It's a cacophony of bad policy.
2500 pages of no one seems to know topped off with 16,000 new IRS agents plus absolute control and policy decisions to the Secretary of Health and Human Services...A person accountable only to the office of POTUS..

 

[thereisnospoon]

What is assured is that the GOP will try to create enough fear, so the public will elect enough Republican congressmen to overturn ACA before it becomes fully implemented. Once it's fully implemented repeal will be impossible because the huge expectation of failure will prove to be false.

Since the day, the ACA passed the GOP has tried to bulldoze the law, first by endless legal appeals, red states refusal to implement the Medicare extension, passing repeals in the House, and refusal to fund sections of the law. The GOP must convince the public that the law is a failure before it is given a chance to work.

Here's the problem with THAT notion, Flopper! This was a bill that was passed by people who lied to the American people about what it would do to their health care and how much it would ultimately cost. With each passing year, the damage that this badly written legislation will have on our health care system will become more and more apparent. THAT is why this was pushed back until AFTER the mid-term elections...it has NOTHING to do with the GOP!

Until the law has been fully implemented for a couple of years we will not know what the effects are on the cost of group or individual health insurance policies, nor will know what the effect is on the cost of healthcare service, nor the utilization of those service, nor the change in the number of uninsured.

As far as the future cost and quality of healthcare, it is totally irrelevant as to who lied about what. The only thing of importance is what the effect of the law will have on healthcare and it's cost and we won't know that for several years. At that time we should make whatever changes needed based on facts not projections and guesses and distortions.

All I'm saying is law has passed and we need to give it a chance to see what works and what doesn't.

"Give it a chance".....Right.
The former mayor of New Orleans gave Hurricane Katrina "a chance" to veer off in a different direction before ordering evacuations of threatened areas..That worked out well.

 

[Flopper]

I believe those things are more than just 'fears'.
There practically assured.
That's why there shouldn't be a "however" after that kind of list.

It's just plain out scary

What is assured is that the GOP will try to create enough fear, so the public will elect enough Republican congressmen to overturn ACA before it becomes fully implemented. Once it's fully implemented repeal will be impossible because the huge expectation of failure will prove to be false.

Since the day, the ACA passed the GOP has tried to bulldoze the law, first by endless legal appeals, red states refusal to implement the Medicare extension, passing repeals in the House, and refusal to fund sections of the law. The GOP must convince the public that the law is a failure before it is given a chance to work.

By Obama's own decision, to extend the employer mandate deadline to 2015, he admits the law has great flaws.
It's a cacophony of bad policy.
2500 pages of no one seems to know topped off with 16,000 new IRS agents plus absolute control and policy decisions to the Secretary of Health and Human Services...A person accountable only to the office of POTUS..

Why do you insist on claiming that the ACA is 2500 pages long? The actual size of the law according to the US Government Printing Office is 906 pages.
Is 'Obamacare' really that long? - Leader-Telegram: Tom Giffey
Public Law*111 - 148 - Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

The 16,000 new irs agents is just as bogus as your claim that the law is 906 pages long. according to FactCheck.ORG:

Q: Will the IRS hire 16,500 new agents to enforce the health care law?

A: No. The law requires the IRS mostly to hand out tax credits, not collect penalties. The claim of 16,500 new agents stems from a partisan analysis based on guesswork and false assumptions, and compounded by outright misrepresentation.
FactCheck.org : IRS Expansion

What additional misinformation do you have for us?

 

[hortysir]

I think you're right. There is something for just about everyone to hate in the ACA, employer mandates, employee mandates, lack of single payer, lack of true universal coverage, more government regulations, fear of higher premiums, fear of doctor shortage, fear of rising cost, and more profits for insurance companies. However, I seriously doubt that very many people really want to return to 2008 with 50 million people without health insurance and the number rising yearly, people being denied coverage for pre-existing converge, and insurance companies refusing to pay because you got too sick.

Just repealing the ACA is nearly impossible. If it was repealed, it would have to be replaced and that would be the problem. The Republican Healthcare plan was a plan to transition form the 2008 healthcare system. A Republican replacement plan could not ignore the ACA. It would have to transition from the ACA to a replacement plan which would be much harder than going from the 2008 system.

I do believe the ACA is going to be amended. There are things that are not going to work, and things that are going have to be changed plus there's going to be needed enhancements that will become obvious. This is what happened with Social Security and Medicare and it will happen with the ACA.

I believe those things are more than just 'fears'.
There practically assured.
That's why there shouldn't be a "however" after that kind of list.

It's just plain out scary

What is assured is that the GOP will try to create enough fear, so the public will elect enough Republican congressmen to overturn ACA before it becomes fully implemented. Once it's fully implemented repeal will be impossible because the huge expectation of failure will prove to be false.

Since the day, the ACA passed the GOP has tried to bulldoze the law, first by endless legal appeals, red states refusal to implement the Medicare extension, passing repeals in the House, and refusal to fund sections of the law. The GOP must convince the public that the law is a failure before it is given a chance to work.

We don't need to generate any fear.
The ACA Bill does a fine job by itself

Not even the NFL has a 700 page rulebook

 

[dblack]

If the politicians lied about the law then that's a reflection on their character and their leadership but it has nothing at all to do with the law's effect on healthcare.

Does it have any effect on the validity of the law? If lawmakers voted on the law based on the claim, from the president and the authors of the legislation, that the individual mandate was NOT a tax (for example) then their votes were based on a fraudulent claim, right?

 

[thereisnospoon]

What is assured is that the GOP will try to create enough fear, so the public will elect enough Republican congressmen to overturn ACA before it becomes fully implemented. Once it's fully implemented repeal will be impossible because the huge expectation of failure will prove to be false.

Since the day, the ACA passed the GOP has tried to bulldoze the law, first by endless legal appeals, red states refusal to implement the Medicare extension, passing repeals in the House, and refusal to fund sections of the law. The GOP must convince the public that the law is a failure before it is given a chance to work.

By Obama's own decision, to extend the employer mandate deadline to 2015, he admits the law has great flaws.
It's a cacophony of bad policy.
2500 pages of no one seems to know topped off with 16,000 new IRS agents plus absolute control and policy decisions to the Secretary of Health and Human Services...A person accountable only to the office of POTUS..

Why do you insist on claiming that the ACA is 2500 pages long? The actual size of the law according to the US Government Printing Office is 906 pages.
Is 'Obamacare' really that long? - Leader-Telegram: Tom Giffey
Public Law*111 - 148 - Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

The 16,000 new irs agents is just as bogus as your claim that the law is 906 pages long. according to FactCheck.ORG:

Q: Will the IRS hire 16,500 new agents to enforce the health care law?

A: No. The law requires the IRS mostly to hand out tax credits, not collect penalties. The claim of 16,500 new agents stems from a partisan analysis based on guesswork and false assumptions, and compounded by outright misrepresentation.
FactCheck.org : IRS Expansion

What additional misinformation do you have for us?

Bulllshit..it's The ACA part is 905 pages. The entirety of the legislation is 2500 pages.
It's huge dog pile that few in Congress have a clue what it is written in the law.
Full text of The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
And here's a little FYI...The IRS is also an enforcement agency.
Don't even think you can pull the wool over the eyes of the people by claiming the IRS isn't there to administer penalties for non-compliance?
Oh here's a list of new taxes we can to which we may look forward...
Full List of Obamacare Tax Hikes | Congressman Jeff Duncan
Members of certain unions are pissed off as well
Some Unions Angry With Obamacare's Unintended Consequences
Bad Medicine | Cato Institute
Holy shit....You and Obama think alike. You both think the American people are stupid.

 

[Oddball]

If the politicians lied about the law then that's a reflection on their character and their leadership but it has nothing at all to do with the law's effect on healthcare.

That's the stupidest, most intellectually incoherent shit I've read on this forum in quite some time...And we have rderp and truthdontmatter to draw stupidity from.

 

[Synthaholic]

Holy shit....You and Obama think alike. You both think the American people are stupid.

The American people are stupid.

 

[thewanderer]

Insurance makes sense as a hedge against risk. But as a means of financing the regular expenses of life it's not rational and not sustainable. It distorts consumer demand and fuels inflation in the markets where it operates, and adds unnecessary overhead to every transaction it touches. Yet we have propped up and subsidized this practice in the health care market with misguided public policy for many decades.

Even with such support, the group health insurance business model is ultimately dysfunctional and doomed.

This is an excellent post. As a health care provider who is now moving in the direction of getting involved with corporate wellness, my experience and research have led me to several conclusions:

1. Private health insurance is not a sustainable system for the masses for the reasons given above. That doesn't mean it couldn't have a place in the health care arena like private schools do in the education arena, but it isn't sustainable in it's current form for most people.

2. Single payer care is the only way to effectively guarantee that health care is available for anywhere near 100% of Americans. However, it will come at the price of reduced services provided or reduced quality of services provided, or both. Public single payer care could also be a part of the HC landscape, just like public schools are part of the education landscape.

3. We have never had a singularly important national conversation in the U.S. in which we state clearly whether we as a civil society feel obligated to make sure that all citizens have access to health care. We very badly need to have this conversation, as in the absence of it we have one side who assumes that the answer is "yes," and the other who assumes the answer is "no," but who, for political reasons will not say so.

4. There are three aspects to health care:

1. Quality
2. Quantity
3. Cost

There is no way to increase quantity without also increasing cost or decreasing quality or both. It's a fantasy to think that there is. Those who favor an exclusive government system will not admit this.

5. Those who argue that a cash system would tame health care costs are correct. However, what they don't seem to understand is that it would also reduce the amount of money available for high technology in medicine. Places that might be able to afford an MRI machine, for example, for a million and a half dollars with insurance reimbursement coming in will no longer be able to afford the equipment and facilities, let alone the staff. A cash system would work and it would effectively reduce costs, but the landscape would look very different than the wise access to technological resources we have now.

6. The biggest problem we have is not any of this. These are all problems, but they're not the biggest problem we have. The biggest problem we have is that Americans are too unhealthy (and getting worse) and need too damn much health care, period. If we don't do something about that I truly believe that none of the rest of this stuff will matter.

 

[lynn63]

Insurance makes sense as a hedge against risk. But as a means of financing the regular expenses of life it's not rational and not sustainable. It distorts consumer demand and fuels inflation in the markets where it operates, and adds unnecessary overhead to every transaction it touches. Yet we have propped up and subsidized this practice in the health care market with misguided public policy for many decades.

Even with such support, the group health insurance business model is ultimately dysfunctional and doomed.

This is an excellent post. As a health care provider who is now moving in the direction of getting involved with corporate wellness, my experience and research have led me to several conclusions:

1. Private health insurance is not a sustainable system for the masses for the reasons given above. That doesn't mean it couldn't have a place in the health care arena like private schools do in the education arena, but it isn't sustainable in it's current form for most people.

2. Single payer care is the only way to effectively guarantee that health care is available for anywhere near 100% of Americans. However, it will come at the price of reduced services provided or reduced quality of services provided, or both. Public single payer care could also be a part of the HC landscape, just like public schools are part of the education landscape.

3. We have never had a singularly important national conversation in the U.S. in which we state clearly whether we as a civil society feel obligated to make sure that all citizens have access to health care. We very badly need to have this conversation, as in the absence of it we have one side who assumes that the answer is "yes," and the other who assumes the answer is "no," but who, for political reasons will not say so.

4. There are three aspects to health care:

1. Quality
2. Quantity
3. Cost

There is no way to increase quantity without also increasing cost or decreasing quality or both. It's a fantasy to think that there is. Those who favor an exclusive government system will not admit this.

5. Those who argue that a cash system would tame health care costs are correct. However, what they don't seem to understand is that it would also reduce the amount of money available for high technology in medicine. Places that might be able to afford an MRI machine, for example, for a million and a half dollars with insurance reimbursement coming in will no longer be able to afford the equipment and facilities, let alone the staff. A cash system would work and it would effectively reduce costs, but the landscape would look very different than the wise access to technological resources we have now.

6. The biggest problem we have is not any of this. These are all problems, but they're not the biggest problem we have. The biggest problem we have is that Americans are too unhealthy (and getting worse) and need too damn much health care, period. If we don't do something about that I truly believe that none of the rest of this stuff will matter.

Of course you think that Americans are too unhealthy when you as a provider of care only see unhealthy people. If the majority of Americans were that unhealthy, the system we have now could not manage all those people.

 

[thewanderer]

Of course you think that Americans are too unhealthy when you as a provider of care only see unhealthy people. If the majority of Americans were that unhealthy, the system we have now could not manage all those people.

The system we have can't manage our population. That's the whole point, isn't it?

I have to say that of all the anticipated responses to my post, I am surprised that the first was someone disputing our health trend. I truly didn't even realize that anyone would seriously debate that.

You realize that 2/3 of American adults are now overweight or obese, right (a recent Johns Hopkins study projected that if we maintain our current trajectory that percentage would increase to 100% by 2048)? And that that percentage has doubled in adults since 1980 and tripled for children, right? And that obesity increases the risk of heart disease, cancer, diabetes, and stroke, not to mention debilitating but non-fatal diseases such as musculoskeletal pain and depression?

Just on those three facts alone, how can you seriously dispute the trend?