Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
People want the government to guarantee health insurance because their employers dumped coverage? Why did employers dump coverage? it's too expensive. Why do people want the government to guarantee health insurance? it's too expensive. What makes us think that universal coverage is going to magically make it cheaper? Seems to me it's more likely to hide the cost.
What guarantee are you talking about? The affordable health care act doesn't involve a guarantee. Perhaps you're talking about the outlawing of denial of service for pre-existing conditions?
Nobody is suggest that universal coverage is going to magically make things cheaper, rather they are suggesting that universal coverage will lower costs because it will increase the size of the risk pool. Insurance rates are based on the underlying risk profile of the pool, if you increase the pool (especially by including the young and healthy) the aggregate risk of the pool decreases and hence the cost of insurance will decrease. No magic at all, just mathematics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mysticaltyger
We need to come up with some other kind of business model that, at the very least, gives consumers direct incentives to do the right things.
You mean like making sure that preventive services are free?
Oh, I didn't mean it that way....I meant that instead of answering the question from the original post, many posters turn the thread into a political discussion, when they could just post their comments on the Politics and other Controversies Forum. I now see what you mean about the OP not re-entering the discussion.
Sheesh. I only started the thread on 2/3. You guys make it sound like I started it 2 weeks ago or something.
Can't you kids play nice for 5 minutes without me having to come in & break up the fight????
I'm thiking maybe HMOs like Kaiser Permanente should have supermarkets on site that have only health foods. I'm thinking people shoud be required to go to a nutritionist if they're diabetic. Maybe people should be required to participate in healthy eating support groups in order to retain their Kaiser memberships.
Kaiser isn't a HMO, it is a company that provides both health insurance and runs hospitals.
Anyhow, are you under the impression that doctors don't talk to their diabetic patients about diet? Additionally, many people develop diabetes for reasons that are independent of their diet, should they participate as well? How exactly do you distinguish which is which? I always find it odd how people that are fit like to pretend that others that are over-weight just need to sit in some class to solve their problems. If it was that easy we wouldn't have an obesity problem.
After being told I wasn't likely to survive several misadventures in my life (a few violent and one disease) I became a health-neurotic, which, as neuroses go, ain't a bad one to struggle with ... and I'll say you're all jousting about limits to human-nature (again) ... no matter how much you give people factual, obvious, in-your-face information about how life-style choices impact health - you'll never overcome the weakness in 98% of folks for burgers, fries, washed down with a soda, and, of course, a couple of cigarettes in between. Tastes good going down -- feels like sh8t only minutes later and destroys all well-being. And the answer to feeling bad is: take a handful of [theoretically] compensatory medicines (that are also destructive to true health) so that the consumption-craving monster inside can satiate guilt and desire with: -- a jelly-doughnut! for dessert (what's a good meal without dessert?) -- and then a farm pond sized mug of booze to "feel better" ... "comfort food"?
And yes, while there are other causes for diabetes, nearly ALL of the modern surge in diabetes is 'type-2' directly related to diet and [sedentary] lifestyle.
And this is why political-based health-care solutions will never address the real problem ... and why sociopathic profiteers will continue to get richer and richer on humanity's self-inflicted miseries.
If it's something you could find/catch while running around naked with a sharp stick, you can probably eat it and benefit. Everything else that's processed, skip it. Have a nice salad, shred some turkey or chicken in it to fill you up with protein and sense of satisfaction ... then take a walk. You needn't be an extremist -- just a couple miles around the neighborhood will do. Or, if you're the type who always needs a challenge, here, try this hike:
And yes, while there are other causes for diabetes, nearly ALL of the modern surge in diabetes is 'type-2' directly related to diet and [sedentary] lifestyle.
Sure, but the causation isn't so simple, genetics plays an very important rule. There are tons of people that junk their whole lives and never get diabetes and then there are people that eat fairly modestly than develop it. Anyhow, it is the complex interaction between genetics and diet that matters, hence "one side fits all" solutions are not going to be effective.
It seems that this thread is really about life-style, and not preventive health care. Preventive health-care is getting cancer screenings, getting your blood checked, getting eye exams, going to the dentist for check-ups, etc. The affordable health care act does promote preventive care, hence the question in the OP is a bit odd. Like the OP never bothered to read about the affordable health care act, or should I say the "Job killing health care act"?
Sure, but the causation isn't so simple, genetics plays an very important rule. There are tons of people that junk their whole lives and never get diabetes and then there are people that eat fairly modestly than develop it. Anyhow, it is the complex interaction between genetics and diet that matters, hence "one side fits all" solutions are not going to be effective.
Absolutely correct.
Nevertheless, junk-food and sedentary lifestyle has a [seriously] deleterious effect on everyone, regardless of diabetes and even the best genetics. Furthermore, most propensity toward cancers is also seriously affected by lifestyle choices -- as are heart-disease, respiratory-disease, arthritis, and allergies. While no one gets out alive, or even unscathed, the first and biggest steps toward good health are always diet and avoidance of toxins -- and then, secondarily, physical activity. That some are fated by genetics to suffer more than others doesn't change the foundations for enjoying the best health possible.
Furthermore, most propensity toward cancers is also seriously affected by lifestyle choices -- as are heart-disease, respiratory-disease, arthritis, and allergies. While no one gets out alive, or even unscathed, the first and biggest steps toward good health are always diet and avoidance of toxins -- and then, secondarily, physical activity. That some are fated by genetics to suffer more than others doesn't change the foundations for enjoying the best health possible.
Saturated fat, sugar, etc aren't toxins. The main problem is simply over eating, which we have a genetic propensity to do. Physical activity is important...to a point. You don't need to exercise daily to be healthy.
Regardless, it is still the interaction between one's genetics and environment that are important, hence support groups, general guidelines, etc all aren't that helpful. In fact, they are likely to frustrate many people. Anyhow, what you're talking about are lifestyle choices, these are largely developed in the home. The government already goes to great effort to help people with their lifestyle choices, but it doesn't force people to act particular ways.
Saturated fat, sugar, etc aren't toxins. The main problem is simply over eating, which we have a genetic propensity to do. Physical activity is important...to a point. You don't need to exercise daily to be healthy.
Regardless, it is still the interaction between one's genetics and environment that are important, hence support groups, general guidelines, etc all aren't that helpful. In fact, they are likely to frustrate many people. Anyhow, what you're talking about are lifestyle choices, these are largely developed in the home. The government already goes to great effort to help people with their lifestyle choices, but it doesn't force people to act particular ways.
Once again, I agree, almost entirely, with your statements (don't know if you think I am arguing against you -- not) ... But I will go a bit further with your claim that saturated fats and sugars aren't toxins: most anything is toxic if over-consumed -- or consumed in wrongful combination with other, non-complimentary, "stuff" -- or when consumed by a non-complimentary genetic body ... even too much pure, clean water can kill a person.
Overeating is a primary danger ... and there is some "natural" propensity to to so -- I wouldn't use the term "genetic" in this case, because it is pretty much natural to all the species to consume indulgently in times of plenty. -- But consider that even this is not quite as simple as a "fated" function: bears are a good example because their seasonal behaviors are so well known by most people that watch tv ... when berries are is season: the bears gorge on those ... when the salmon are running: the bears gorge on those ... when the honey is running over: the bears gorge. The tendency to overeat is a seasonal function, at root (so to speak ) ... the way we humans do it in modern times is a blatant perversion of the natural urge to maximize nature's cycles. Bears do not continue to gorge all the non-hibernating seasons ... they gorge with natural opportunity, and to fatten before, and recover from, hibernation. Humanity has, in the "developed" world removed itself from living the natural cycles we evolved in and were "designed" to live.
Therefore, to tie this all back, to achieve the best health possible, individuals need to study how the animal homo-sapien was designed to function ... and that is: without processed foods and the proliferate toxins of a technological infrastructure. Eating fresh, seasonal, non-processed foods that are local to where you are living will never harm you -- and eating them even indulgently will not add unhealthy weight beyond one's natural body-type. A person living so within natural cycles will never gain and retain burdensome, toxic fats. Which is not to say that "fat" is unhealthy. It isn't. Nor is it even unsightly. Bears are gorgeous and supremely healthy, strong, quick and clever ... People who live on doughnuts, soda, booze, transfat-fast-foods, etc. exhibit none of those qualities.
As for exercise: I also agree it is the least important component of good health. Where exercise becomes particularly advantageous, however, is in helping regulate body rhythms and cycles, and in force-flushing our system of toxicities that otherwise build up faster with sedentary habits.
Bottom line relative to a gov't mandated health system: doesn't make any difference what system is instituted: people will not become healthy living in society as we have made it. Since ours is a "profit-driven consumer capitalist" society, and there is so much profit in processed foods, and in compensatory medicines,-- and comparatively little, relative to the effort to produce, in naturally grown produce and meats -- well, there you have it ... y'all enjoy your treats now ... I just came in from an exhilarating 3-mile hike with my dogs and it's time for my lunch salad
Nobody is suggest that universal coverage is going to magically make things cheaper, rather they are suggesting that universal coverage will lower costs because it will increase the size of the risk pool. Insurance rates are based on the underlying risk profile of the pool, if you increase the pool (especially by including the young and healthy) the aggregate risk of the pool decreases and hence the cost of insurance will decrease.
Exactly. This should be obvious, but I guess it isn't to many.
I guess my thought on a lot of 'preventive care' is that much of it isn't truly preventive. True preventive care means you don't need to visit the doctor for so many tests & treatments in the first place. In that sense, I guess liberals are pusshing preventive care. I suspect the movement toward grocery stores like Whole Foods was because of liberals.
Are you serious?
Preventive care means things like covering immunizations so the child doesn't develop, say, Whooping Cough (Pertussis), which is much more expensive to treat. It means covering birth control pills so insurance doesn't end up paying for the much more expensive unintended pregnancy. It means covering mammograms so the patient doesn't develop breast cancer, which can involve astronomical health care expenses. It means covering a colonoscopy so the patient doesn't develop colon cancer, etc, etc.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
... when berries are is season: the bears gorge on those ... when the salmon are running: the bears gorge on those ... when the honey is running over: the bears gorge. The tendency to overeat is a seasonal function, at root (so to speak 
... People who live on doughnuts, soda, booze, transfat-fast-foods, etc. exhibit none of those qualities.
