CPA
Elite Member
- Nov 19, 2001
- 30,322
- 4
- 0
somebody must decide not to support the life of someone else.
What? That makes no sense.
somebody must decide not to support the life of someone else.
What? That makes no sense.
Hmmmm......social welfare or corporate welfare.
I wonder what the Bush administration chose, and what the result of that was. Especially the part where he sends our troops off to war while he's trying really hard to severely cut back the very veteran's health benefits of those that he previously sent to Iraq, to help pay for the wars he started which created ever more veterans with physical and mental handicaps.
Not to mention the millions of jobs lost, the financial crisis that caused it and the resultant need to increase unemployment payouts and other entitlements because of the failed neocon ideology that rewarded the rich only of which Bush pursued with glee.
The little prick, via the people who voted for him, by his own accord created a vastly increased need for social services but refused to pay for it per the conservative ideology of trickle down economics.
Yeah, that worked out really well.
And here we are complaining how badly Obama is doing while completely ignoring how worse things could have been had he not directed resources where he did to fix what the repubs broke.
WTF does bush/gulf war/financial crisis/unemployment/entitlements in the US/Neocon ideology/Obama/Republicans have to do with a fat man in England???
I havent a clue but what you just wrote sounds like the plot of a suspense thriller![]()
Mental issues are medical. But....As I said if you don't see mental issues as medical then we really cant discuss anything after that dividing point.
Yep, research has shown that viral infections can promote obesity, much like other viruses have shown to lead to cancer. It's pretty weird to think that you can catch an increased risk for obesity, but it's been shown pretty frequently. On top of that, genetics dictate your ability to waste calories as heat. Initially, this was a negative trait since wasting a food source that was sparse would lead to starvation. However, nowadays, it's actually viewed as a good thing, keeping people thin.
To a certain extent, especially in America, lack of movement and over-eating do play a role. The problem is that people spotlight those as the only causes, which is completely unfair. That's like saying you got cancer from drinking a can of diet coke. Sure, it probably exacerbated the problem, but the genetic and environmental factors that are meant to stop that process did not. Obesity is a multifactorial issue, but is by no means ONLY caused by laziness.
H&F is lucky to have S.C. and others with their willingness to share their knowledge.So I posted in the health sub forum and this is the response from the main man over there.
So what now?
It wouldnt make any sense if we lived in total anarchy but we live in a modern society. People dont just starve to death. Well I would think the goal is to not have people starve to death.
Free market's gonna take care of him.
