2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session arts arts and culture author ballot measures basketball bomb books boy scouts budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal college courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana marriage media medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes technology terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

You are correct - obesity disproportionately effects the disadvantaged. Unfortunately, ignoring the problem will only increase the poverty cycle. One takes grandparents out of communities that need them. Kids learn their eating habits from their parents so by ignoring the problem, we also condemn their children to an early death. 

Would you be more comfortable rewarding those who engage in healthy behavior? 

Your comment "Why in the world would the same crowd that is worried about overpopulation want to increase the life expectancy of anyone?" paints all those who disagree with you as death mongers. This is not true. Generalizations like that are foolish at best. 

posted 3 years, 7 months ago
view in context

Everyone who is overweight has the ability to lose it. Suggesting it is impossible is insulting and keeps those with the condition hopeless and helpless. 

The countries that have national health plans and have been effected by the obesity epidemic all take obesity very seriously. They have developed programs to help the obese lose weight. They also encourage people to protect themselves from skin cancer by using protective clothing, shade, sunscreen, hats. They encourage people to wear UV protective eyeglasses to prevent cataracts. Do you object to those incentives? They still support those unfortunates who, despite good behavior are afflicted with disease, but they control costs by encouraging responsible behavior. 

Your oversimplification of a complex movement into your narrow, ignorant view, conveniently lumping all who disagree with you into a simple categories of hypocrite or fool, is stupid. 

There are devout catholics who believe all sex should be for the purpose of procreation who also believe that respecting the sanctity of life means treating your body well. Just as there are atheists who believe that failing to take care of your body is a really bad idea. There are Republicans & Democrats who believe fat people should take better care of themselves. 

There may be population control people who, as you suggest, believe the obese should just die out, but I sure haven't met any. Most of the population control movement I've heard about seems be about getting women education and opportunities because women with education and opportunities tend to have only as many children as their bodies, resources and communities can support. 

posted 3 years, 7 months ago
view in context

Scottmill, do you really think providing support and incentives to women and minorities to do something that increases their life expectancy by about 1/3rd does wrong by them? Really? 

The obesity epidemic is new. Our genetics have not changed, our behavior did. Tackling this health issue requires fixing our behavior. 

And while we're on the subject, the UK is changing their prescription for depression from pills to exercise. Study after study support exercise as the single most effective anti-depressant. Those people who you think need an excuse to be fat because they're depressed would be better served by getting some activity in their lives. Two birds with one stone. How's that for efficient?  

And get your stats right - It's college age women that lead the population in per capita new cases of HIV. And yes, they should also be changing their behavior to prevent that disease. Or are you too worried that reminding them to use a condom will hurt their feelings? 

posted 3 years, 7 months ago
view in context

Being obese puts more than doubles one's risk of:

• developing heart disease, 
• type 2 diabetes, 
• depression,
• cancer, 
• having a stroke, 
• having high cholesterol, 
• suffering from PMS (assuming you're female), 
• sleep apnea 

among others. It causes skin problems. It causes joint problems. These are expensive to treat. 

Safeway estimates 70% of their health care costs were related to behavior before they started offering incentives to employees to maintain a healthy weight and not smoke. 

Those who refuse to take responsibility for their health deserve to pay more. 

posted 3 years, 7 months ago
view in context

People keep comparing mandatory health insurance to mandatory car insurance but ignore that we overpay for car insurance as well. 

In many countries, the cost of automotive 3rd party liability insurance is covered by one's vehicle registration. If one wants additional insurance, one can purchase it separately. This meant while in Australia my premiums and registration for similar levels of coverage on a similar vehicle about 30% lower than they are in the US despite getting a 'good driver' discount in the US. 

We created a mandate that every car owner speak with a sales person - no wonder our premiums are higher!

We should also expect the same or worse from mandatory health insurance...

posted 3 years, 7 months ago
view in context

Lame and second rate is right. How is it that all of those other countries that pay so much less per person and have better health outcomes than the US achieve this? Oh, yes, they have a government plan that covers everyone. 

They also have a tort system that doesn't encourage people to try to get rich over an honest mistake. They ban advertising medication because it encourages people to get medication they don't need. And finally, they give doctors incentives for keeping their patients healthy - not just paying them per procedure. 

This new plan does none of that. It is placebo reform. 

posted 3 years, 7 months ago
view in context

I also want to know if all these folks who are calling for his resignation also called for the resignation of Bill Clinton and Gavin Newsom. Monica was a direct report - Beau was not. Gavin went for a woman who was an employee and who's husband was also an employee.

posted 4 years, 3 months ago
view in context

Does anyone else think this is just an excuse to talk about the sex life of a gay man? To me, a straight woman, this looks like the sudden vehement protests against Will & Grace when they finally had a scene of romantic affection between two men there were protests and masses of press coverage. To much of the American Public, gay men are fine - unless they actually have sex.

The idea that Portland will damage the potential of a talented politician because he lied in response to inappropriate questions about his sex life. It's not like we have a plethora of talent and can therefore waste this one.

posted 4 years, 3 months ago
view in context

When you say Native, do you mean that you're a member of the tribes who settled here? Or do you mean that you were born here because your parents, or their parents, or whatever moved in and screwed with a place that was once more pristine than you now brag of it as being? If the latter, as I strongly suspect:
1) What gives you the right to say who can and can not live here?
2) What makes an Oregonian who is naive of the joys of living anywhere else a better Oregonian than one who saw other places and chose to live here?

posted 4 years, 5 months ago
view in context

You're really suggesting that Oregon housing prices are lower than Urban California and parts of the East Coast because Oregon provides less public assistance? Seriously!? For a hit about the real reason prices are lower, you might want to take an economics course.

I'd heard Oregon k-12 schools were in trouble, but I had no idea how bad it was!

posted 4 years, 5 months ago
view in context

Pull your head in, mate... I never said the answer was to salt the roads. I merely challenged your suggestion that there aren't significant hills back east. Really, they're out there. There are 14 states on the east coast. There are even a couple of mountain ranges. There are areas with steeper grades, with twistier roads, often narrower roads.

I also think the relative infrequency of these types of events makes it difficult to justify a massive investment required for an the type of response a city in the North East or Midwest would offer.

posted 4 years, 5 months ago
view in context

Rather than a constructive response talking about the reasons not to salt the roads, you launch into a rant like a xenophobic prat. It is people like you that make me ashamed of my adopted city sometimes.

I do agree that salting is a bad idea because of the environmental impact discussed above. I agree snow doesn't happen here often enough to merit major investment in response equipment.

posted 4 years, 5 months ago
view in context

I get tired of folks like this who don't realize that there are 'these types of hills' back East. Do you not realize there are mountains there? That there's all kinds of geological features in the very large area that constitutes the East Coast? Or are you defining 'Back East' as a single flat area you're familiar with?

Unless you define 'these types of hills' as having to be in the west side of Portland, you'll find 'em in many other places.

posted 4 years, 5 months ago
view in context

I spent several winters in Pittsburgh which had much more significant hills than Portland and had more frequent snow and drove frequently in worse conditions. I agree with KrazyEmu110 that education about how to drive in snow makes a major difference. In addition to the two pet bad habits of that poster, I would add: 3) drivers who start to hydroplane and jerk the steering wheel; and 4) drivers who no longer see pedestrians and pedestrian crossings - did they become invisible?

posted 4 years, 5 months ago
view in context

Perhaps if you parented your children so they have the required respect for their teachers so your kids actually learn, the teachers might be better able to teach your kids.

posted 4 years, 5 months ago
view in context

That too many people may believe the likely sarcastic comment is why sarcasm is important - it points out how stupid that mentality is.

posted 4 years, 5 months ago
view in context

1. Schools are funded largely through income tax, not property tax.
2. Property tax covers renters as their landlords pay property tax which is typically a cost they recover in rent.
3. Do you really propose taxing people outside of the US? I don't think that one is enforceable. However, foreign workers in the US DO pay income taxes in the US.

posted 4 years, 5 months ago
view in context

Do you also advocate for some of the practices that make it possible for Singapore teachers to have a class of 50 students like corporal punishment in the class? And changing the economy of the state of Oregon so that everyone is solidly middle or upper class? Comparing teaching 50 students in Singapore to 50 students in the US is silly if one doesn't also make the other changes.

posted 4 years, 5 months ago
view in context

Seriously, no taxes, but we want to keep as many people in prison as possible and dedicate what few taxes we're willing to pay toward keeping them there, rather than educating them so they aren't as likely to end up in prison.

Perhaps if we simply made it illegal to be under 18 and over 3 with a sentence of education we might improve our education system.

posted 4 years, 5 months ago
view in context

To the first point, toy makers are regulated regardless of size. They must take precautions to ensure that their products are safe, comply with safety standards and so on. They are already regulated - this regulation screws small manufacturers (see other people's posts). This said, however, regulation really helped the giant agribusiness and hurt small farms which helped our food production to shift to the agribusiness.

As for the '$450 is not too much to spend - even if it just protects one child!' comment: First, pulling the number $450 out of what I can only presume is close to where you sit with no collaborative evidence is just silly. Second, we're not talking about $450 to protect one child. We're talking about however much per site times all sites. Let's suggested $450 in the math problem. Let's say there are 500,000 small toy maker sites in the US. Would you spend $225 million to protect no children? And, best of all, this does nothing to protect the children who make these toys overseas.

posted 4 years, 5 months ago
view in context