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.
Problem is, what would such a system be? Universal health coverage is a wonderful thing but not in a country that isn't set up to have it. Sure it would be great if people lived a more active lifestyle but in a country where we can live how we want, how much of a reality is that at this point? We can continue down the same road we've been on but...like...really?
At this point, what would be the solution?
I do agree with you, the US is not a country that is well set up for universal health coverage.
Well, I don't think there's any ONE solution. I think it's more like a whole bunch of solutions...such as:
--Banning drive through restaurants (as San Luis Obispo has done)
--Giving insurance discounts for certain behaviors (EG employers who don't have vending machines and who serve only healthy food might qualify for a discount)
--Making sure subsidized school lunches are not serving slop to kids.
--Not allowing people to buy soda & other processed foods wih food stamps
--No vending machines serving soda/snacks in the schools.
--Zoning laws that ban fast food restaurants from being too close to schools.
--Cities and towns that are more bike and pedestrian friendly (traffic calming measures, more bike lanes & sidewalks, more development that doesn't require getting in a car for every trip, etc).
--Penalizing or incentivizing health care providers to focus on preventing disease.(EG---paying for each treatment is not working. Paying to maintain wellness would work better in the long run).
I'm a consevative, but I think a lot of the solutions I've listed actually fit more into the 'liberal' box. I'm mostly in agreement with liberals that the whole way we do our transportation and development is unhealthy for humans as well as our environment.
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.
But prevention also meants promoting health eating so that that if that person doesn't get a colonosopy, it's not going to matter, because healthy eating is part of everyone's life.
The diseases that are most expensive to treat are: heart disease, cancer, diabetes, & high blood pressure. All of these are highly preventable, as already outlined in the article in my original post (that no one seems to have read).
This has nothing to do with Progressives. It's about Western medicine than anything else. Pills for everything and reduced emphasis on preventative care is all Amurrican, it isn't a right/left thing.
We are free to eat nothing but fast food for breakfast, lunch, and dinner, wind up becoming ill and then demand free healthcare in the name of human rights. Sad, but true. This is our "freedom."
Yes, in most respects, I agree with you. That is why I wish we just paid the doctor directly in cash like we used to before World War 2. Health care costs were 5% of GDP back then. Now, they are 18% and the quality is mediocre and uneven at best.
I think if people saw the true cost of what they're doing to themselves, they'd wake up and some people would change...and that change would have a ripple effect.
Overeating and eating a lot of processed foods are related. Processed foods usually have very little dietery fiber. Dietary fiber makes peope feel full. Processed foods don't.
Sure, some processed foods seem to cause overeating. But its the excess caloric intake that is causing the weight gain, not the processed foods in themselves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mysticaltyger
Processed foods tend to have a lot more calories than natural foods in the first place.
I don't believe this is really true. Some of the highest calorie foods are natural foods and there are many processed foods that are low calories.
Regardless, I'm not trying to claim that processed foods are good for you, instead that you can easily get fat off "natural foods". Eating natural foods doesn't mean you have a healthy diet. Traditionally the Inuit ate "all natural foods", yet their diet was poor and they had short lifespans.
I'm using the standard notion of the term "toxic", which is essentially a dangerous substance that should be avoided. Sugar and saturated fat aren't toxic in this sense.
The standard notion for what's toxic is outdated. It's long overdue for an update. It seems Eastern medicins, especially Yoga talk alout more about toxins than Western medicine.
... at this point I have to wonder if you are simply being argumentative because that is your style or mood? I have enjoyed a number of your posts on other subjects in the past, though.
Yes, userID likes being argumentative for some reason. He's done it in other threads that are completely different from this one.
The standard notion for what's toxic is outdated. It's long overdue for an update. It seems Eastern medicins, especially Yoga talk alout more about toxins than Western medicine.
Sorry, I'm only interested in actual science not pseud-science. If any ideas from the east are legitimate then there is no reason they can't be subjected to scientific methodology.
Also, to what degree I'm "argumentative" is irrelevant. This is just to distract from the fact that what is being said is not accurate, you've yet to respond to much in this thread. For example, you are conflating "preventive medical care" with life-style choices and completely ignore the fact that the recently passed health care bill (which was wholly rejected by Republicans) pushes for more preventive medical care. Hence the answer to your question would be "they have and did".
Sorry, I'm only interested in actual science not pseud-science. If any ideas from the east are legitimate then there is no reason they can't be subjected to scientific methodology.
Also, to what degree I'm "argumentative" is irrelevant. This is just to distract from the fact that what is being said is not accurate, you've yet to respond to much in this thread. For example, you are conflating "preventive medical care" with life-style choices and completely ignore the fact that the recently passed health care bill (which was wholly rejected by Republicans) pushes for more preventive medical care. Hence the answer to your question would be "they have and did".
First off, I would like to compliment you on your ability to selectively seize upon arguable points and turn them to support your position. You are a natural debater, and this has been a good exchange in that you force me to be more careful in how I explain my own position. You remind me of my [late] brother in this respect. He could turn any subject into a lively exchange and would willingly take positions he didn’t even agree with just to argue and prove his ability to debate. Unfortunately, he passed of a brutal, self-inflicted, disease (lung-cancer) at age 54. He used to poke fun at me mercilessly for my health habits -- but I miss him truly and deeply.
Secondly, eastern medicine has been increasingly subjected to western scientific methodology -- as if that were the only benchmark worth considering -- with increasing interest. Much has been adapted into western medicine already -- and the work continues. Acupuncture in its own right and as anesthesiology, is an example; also recognition of many herbs as ameliorative and curative for many conditions. The idea that only western laboratory-contrived compounds affect the workings of the body is clearly absurd. It is also obviously true, throughout history, that many modern medicines are based directly on plant and mineral effects on biology -- this includes many from the "east", and even from witch-doctors in the Amazon.
Thirdly, to what degree you are simply argumentative is highly relevant, as it goes directly to the validity of your statements, given your debating skills. This same principle is precisely what is in play constantly in all politics that presents [selective] positions and then is unable to produce results.
Finally, there is no unreasonable conflation of "preventive medical care" with life-style choices here ... the definitions and meanings and applications of preventive medical care is entirely reasonable to debate, and lifestyle choices have not been seriously addressed in that national debate.
Secondly, eastern medicine has been increasingly subjected to western scientific methodology -- as if that were the only benchmark worth considering -- with increasing interest.
I can't care about the source of the ideas, what matters is that they have been subjected to a rigorously methodology (i.e., science) and not cultural based superstitions. Making a division between "western" and "eastern" medicine makes little sense, the west has dropped its superstitions years ago, yet people want to believe eastern superstition has some sort of validity. Today western medicine = science, no more phrenology, no more bloodletting, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nullgeo
Thirdly, to what degree you are simply argumentative is highly relevant, as it goes directly to the validity of your statements, given your debating skills.
My personality type has nothing to do with the validity of my arguments, again just another ad hominem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nullgeo
Finally, there is no unreasonable conflation of "preventive medical care" with life-style choices here ... the definitions and meanings and applications of preventive medical care is entirely reasonable to debate, and lifestyle choices have not been seriously addressed in that national debate.
I never asserted there is a conflict, instead noted that they are two different things. The government already makes efforts to improve life-style choices via education, what more can it do without restricting personal liberties? Can any of you answer this question?
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.
