You are absolutely right - there are things (wanting to be taller) you can’t chnage and have nothing to do with your health, and if you seriously get depressed because of it, then i would say you suffer from body image issues as well.
As for smoking, of course it is ultimately based on one’s discretion. There are still LOADS of smokers in Japan (not nearly as many as a decade ago), and i always think “why they would want to sacrifice their health for marginal fun right now?” But i wouldn’t force people to quit, just like i wouldn’t force people to exercise.
I agree that it’s up to an individual to make own health choices.
I detest smoking as well, and unfortunately have been exposed to a lot of secondary smoking in my teen years in Russia.
However, when it comes to the issue of taxpayers paying for smokers (through public insurance), I think it’s a slippery slope to try to impose our own beliefs on them. It is the way to limit people’s freedom I think. Same with overweight people: I think it’s more efficient to promote healthy eating habits/lifestyle and tax fast food places at higher rates, than openly dictate what people should or should not eat.
That said, I fully support Bloomberg prohibiting smoking in public places and his attempt at soda drinks rule.
I’m gonna have to disagree with you on all of this.
First–why should taxpayers have to pay for fat people’s or smoker’s insurance? Is there any reason why anybody should have to pay for anybody else’s insurance? And IF (this is a big big IF) taxpayers have to pick up the bill, then shouldn’t they have a right to impose their beliefs on others?
I have this theory on life–he who gives me money has the right to tell me what to do. And if I pay for your insurance, I am effectively giving you money. Therefore, I should have the right to tell you to stop smoking.
And I strongly detest the idea that he can ban all soft drinks over 32 ounces. Since we’re all getting what we want willy-nilly, I think we should ban politicians from serving more than 32 months in offce, or ban people in public service (like mayors) from having more than 32 million dollars. (You know–all for the public’s good, of course.)
I support banning 32 oz drinks. Not because it will do anything, but just to annoy the hell out of people.
Plus, let’s be serious, it’s not like people can take care of themselves and eat right and exercise anyways. At some point Mr. State has to say, “No more cookies for you”.
Well, that’s a more slippery slope than you think. Once you start saying, why should we pay for treatment for smokers and people who eat too much, the next question is why should we pay for heart attack treatments from people who chose to work in high paying stressful jobs? Why should we pay for injuries for people who go running tor do other sports to stay in shape? These people all made choices that didn’t go well, and if you can trace any decision that contributed to it since the time they turned 18, well, that’s a reason to deny coverage. That will most likely mean nothing is covered at all, which of course is what people who make those arguments tend to prefer anyway.
Of course, most of the time, the alternative attitude is “well, everyone pays for whatever happens to their health,” which naturally means that people who can’t find a job that pays better and have to work at Starbucks will just have to do without health care at all, which is great for both those guys who end up sneezing all over and serving you the food you eat, as well as you who have to eat it.
If Al Qaida wanted to to do a smallpox attack or some communicable disease, the obvious thing would be to go to a major metropolitan area like New York and wander around infecting people in the poorest neighborhoods… they wouldn’t go to the doctor with early symptoms because they can’t afford to pay doctors or take time off from work, and so by the time the first cases are detected, large portions of the middle and upper classes are already exposed and infected.
The real issue of health care is how to deal with the massive cost of end-of-life care and what “heroic interventions” are going to be publicly supported or not. it gets caught up in the discussion of “death panels.” But the truth is that most of us just need not-to-expensive routine care and checkups, plus insurance over accidents and occasional illnesses. I think we could go a long ways by having basic routine care be widely available at low cost or publicly supported and we have a separate discussion about how to handle end of life care and chronic illnesses.
Of course, the retirement of the baby boomers doesn’t allow us to forget the chronic illnesses part, because they are about to live the part of their lives most affected by them. So we are basically slaves to the appetites of the boomers, pretty much as we always were.
Given the choice between banning unhealthy things and taxing unhealthy things more, I would definitely choose the later. That’s mainly because banning unhealthy things would have the same effect as a tax of infinity%. So then we would just be disagreeing on what the appropriate tax rate is. My problem is more than there already is a tax on consuming unhealthy things, it’s called dying earlier. I would rather make my own choices between tasty good stuff and life expectancy than paternalists who think they know the trade-off better than I do.
The most amazing thing is when I hear people going from being pro-choice one moment to saying the government should ban people from consuming X or Y or Z.
To bchad’s point, I think we can all agree that the healthcare system in this country is beyond nuts and public choice considerations mean it is likely never going to be fixed (no matter what you or I think fixed means).
That being said, I think we go to very dangerous grounds when we have a failure in one area of government and make decisions about other aspects of society based on those failures. That health insurance is costly for fat people (smokers really aren’t as much of a burden on programs like Medicare because they die earlier) is a failure of the health insurance system and a reason to change that. It’s NOT a reason to change policies unrelated to health insurance.
However, all this really says is that in a world threatened by biological warfare, a decent health-care system isn’t just about not letting fellow citizens die or become morbid for silly reasons, it’s also about national security.
And for the record, heels are a must if I am going on a date with a woman. I even tell her that before the date (in a playful manner of course, no blackmail). I make it known I find heels very sexy and feminine.
I LOOOVE heels, but heels are getting taller and taller these days, so some men are very intimidated by them (or very tall girls). Perhaps you are very tall and you are okay with it.
My heels (ones that i bought in the last 3 years, and they are for going out and not for work) are roughly 12cm tall.
I hate heels on my women. It slows them up, you have to watch out for drainage or its your fault you didnt warn them of the upcoming drain, and it ruins a girls foot. I’d much rather have my girl dressed in running shoes and some lulu appeal than red bottoms and some dress. On a diff note, heels, lingerie, and dstyle make me happy.
Some random knowledge, heels were invented to slow women down from running away from a potential rape. The mastermind behind that has never claimed their undue respect.
I like proportion, and I also like women in heels (one reason latin dancing is awesome). However, I understand that heels can be very uncomfortable, so if a woman just wants to wear them for special ocasions and to spice up sexytime, I’m ok with that. However, if she wears them with me, it does not go unappreciated.
I don’t see the need for enormously large heels. Two and a half or three inches is fine. I don’t really like much over four inches, and I really don’t go for platform shoes, because I think it makes women’s feet look like giant mallets and therefore not very feminine. Wedges are ok, though, provided that the toes aren’t lifted several inches off the ground.
Also, I’m tall, and like it when a woman is closer to my height (but not so much as to change my mind on platform shoes).
