Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Rambi who wrote (61948)	4/26/2008 10:19:22 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541933

If actuaries work out that it is a net savings to the federal government to get people healthy, then I say - pay them tax dollars. If you saved 100k for every 5k you paid out to the overweight to lose weight, I say pay them. If it doesn't work out as a savings, then don't. I am not for doing things that statistically don't work. When I suggest things, whenever I suggest things, I'd want the system tested to make sure it did what it was supposed to do. I wouldn't care WHY it did it, only that it did it. I'd want the system to save money, and make people healthier. If the system could do that. I'd say it was tax dollars well spent.

To: Rambi who wrote (61948)	4/27/2008 1:44:20 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541933

I wouldn't be thrilled with using tax dollars, though, to bribe people to be healthy. Think about that. Step back three steps and think about that. What a hoot! People with unhealthy practices cost us too much so we pay them to improve, then pay again when they eventually succumb. How convoluted is that? The straight-forward approach is to let people make their own decisions and gain their own rewards or pay their own penalties based on those decisions. Nah, can't do that. <g>