Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-17-2019, 09:04 PM
 
Location: Arizona
6,137 posts, read 3,866,449 times
Reputation: 4900

Advertisements

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/o...e-obesity-laws

39% of American adults are obese according to the CDC, while only 3% of Japanese are obese.

They could likely have "Medicare for All" but healthcare rationing would be a reality, physicians and nurses would have to take massive paycuts to the point it would be a volunteer position almost with a small stipend and obesity rates would have to go way down with massive amounts of food policing that most processed food manufacturing companies would not agree to.

Another reason why Medicare for all won't work is because the American diet is toxic. I went out to eat for the first time in a very long time and I have to say I could feel the difference after what I typical make for my meals.

Democrats Medicare for All will bankrupt the country if they implement it without policies to police the American food supply to get the obesity rates down to Japan or South Korea levels.

Most Americans, including myself would not want food police dictating what we can and can not eat.

Medicare for All would also require massive amounts of health-care rationing which a vast majority of American's would not approve.

Doctors, nurses and surgeons would have to have massive pay cuts also which would never happen. Doctors in Hungary only make about 700 dollars a month.

Nurses, doctors and surgeons would have to nearly volunteer their skills with paychecks a fraction of what they make now if the Democrats successfully implemented "Medicare for All"

https://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/adult.html

https://mic.com/articles/84521/japan...ica#.WcHsLqsOc
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-17-2019, 11:13 PM
 
28,122 posts, read 12,608,522 times
Reputation: 15341
Quote:
Originally Posted by lovecrowds View Post
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/o...e-obesity-laws

39% of American adults are obese according to the CDC, while only 3% of Japanese are obese.

They could likely have "Medicare for All" but healthcare rationing would be a reality, physicians and nurses would have to take massive paycuts to the point it would be a volunteer position almost with a small stipend and obesity rates would have to go way down with massive amounts of food policing that most processed food manufacturing companies would not agree to.

Another reason why Medicare for all won't work is because the American diet is toxic. I went out to eat for the first time in a very long time and I have to say I could feel the difference after what I typical make for my meals.

Democrats Medicare for All will bankrupt the country if they implement it without policies to police the American food supply to get the obesity rates down to Japan or South Korea levels.

Most Americans, including myself would not want food police dictating what we can and can not eat.

Medicare for All would also require massive amounts of health-care rationing which a vast majority of American's would not approve.

Doctors, nurses and surgeons would have to have massive pay cuts also which would never happen. Doctors in Hungary only make about 700 dollars a month.

Nurses, doctors and surgeons would have to nearly volunteer their skills with paychecks a fraction of what they make now if the Democrats successfully implemented "Medicare for All"

https://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/adult.html

https://mic.com/articles/84521/japan...ica#.WcHsLqsOc
Im not sure about that, majority of people seem to support Govt when it steps in to regulate or restrict access to other dangerous products or drugs.


At one time people could buy all the Ephedrine pills they wanted at gas stations and convenience stores, they were marketed as diet and energy pills, but many people were using them to make meth and useing them like speed, Govt stepped in and restricted access to these once they started becoming a problem, NO one is complaining or saying those laws should be redacted.


Same thing with bath salts, they could also be bought at convenience stores and gas stations, but once health problems started, Govt stepped in and restricted access, for public health and safety reasons, again, no one complaining about that.


Why would people complain if Govt did the same thing with junk or fast food, when they have generally supported eveything else Govt has restricted access to (due to health or safety concerns)?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-17-2019, 11:20 PM
 
6,348 posts, read 2,901,596 times
Reputation: 7290
It would collapse within 2 years. Government is far too incompetent to run a system that big and complicated.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-17-2019, 11:29 PM
 
Location: near bears but at least no snakes
26,655 posts, read 28,703,315 times
Reputation: 50536
All scare tactics.

Most people would welcome better quality food. No more artificial colorings and other fake ingredients so that the food companies can rip us off. They would have to sell us real food for our hard earned money. Wouldn't that be something new!

It's not "food police" to have the FDA get a little bit more helpful in banning more of the junk that gets into our foods.

Physicians and nurses would be volunteer positions? What a joke. Are we scared enough yet?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-18-2019, 12:20 AM
Status: "Moldy Tater Gangrene, even before Moscow Marge." (set 4 days ago)
 
Location: Dallas, TX
5,790 posts, read 3,602,372 times
Reputation: 5697
It would require laws against extreme sports and other obviously immediately life-threatening recreation too (skydiving, rock climbing, bungee jumping, and such). In fact, there's already a conceptual precedent: a lot of insurance companies won't cover those activities, at least not without taking out an add-on to your policy). You can probably add highly physical "big ticket" sports too - especially football and boxing, given those athletes have high rates of dementia later in life. Maybe highly competitive gymnastics, too. BUT, I suppose those activities are too visually appealing to ban, so give them a free pass, no?

Result: You can use economic arguments all you want, but unless you want to ban "sexy" dangerous activities alongside obesity, you simply don't have a case. You can add clumsiness, too. The economic argument is just a smokescreen for aesthetic / image bigotry.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-18-2019, 01:14 AM
 
Location: Central Washington
1,663 posts, read 877,303 times
Reputation: 2941
Quote:
Originally Posted by in_newengland View Post
All scare tactics.

Most people would welcome better quality food. No more artificial colorings and other fake ingredients so that the food companies can rip us off. They would have to sell us real food for our hard earned money. Wouldn't that be something new!

It's not "food police" to have the FDA get a little bit more helpful in banning more of the junk that gets into our foods.

Physicians and nurses would be volunteer positions? What a joke. Are we scared enough yet?
Why don't you buy good quality food now? It's not like it doesn't exist.

From an analysis of crazy Bernie's medicare plan.

Quote:
M4A would markedly increase the demand for healthcare services while simultaneously cutting payments to provid*ers by more than 40 percent relative to private insurance rates, reducing payments to levels that are lower on average than providers’ current costs of providing care.
https://www.mercatus.org/publication...lthcare-system

What makes you think the government is capable of running such a massive program when they have proven they can't even run the VA?

Here's how the British version of "Medicare for all" is working.

Quote:
NHS doctors routinely conceal from patients information about innovative new therapies that the NHS doesn’t pay for, so as to not “distress, upset or confuse†them.
Quote:
Terminally ill patients are incorrectly classified as “close to death†so as to allow the withdrawal of expensive life support.

NHS expert guidelines on the management of high cholesterol are intentionally out of date, putting patients at serious risk, in order to save money.

When the government approved an innovative new treatment for elderly blindness, the NHS initially decided to reimburse for the treatment only after patients were already blind in one eye — using the logic that a person blind in one eye can still see, and is therefore not that badly off.

While most NHS patients expect to wait five months for a hip operation or knee surgery, leaving them immobile and disabled in the meantime, the actual waiting times are even worse: 11 months for hips and 12 months for knees. (This compares to a wait of 3 to 4 weeks for such procedures in the United States.)

Britons diagnosed with cancer or heart attacks are more likely to die, and more quickly, than those of most other developed nations. Britain’s survival rates or these diseases are “little better than [those] of former Communist countries.â€

One in four Britons with cancer is denied treatment with the latest drugs proven to extend life.

Those who seek to pay for such drugs on their own are expelled from the NHS system, for making the government look bad, and are forced to pay for the entirety of their own care for the rest of their lives.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2016/09/04/british-government-hospitals-to-ban-smokers-the-obese-from-surgery-due-to-budget-constraints/#224c6d803b99

Quote:
The NHS has a death rate four times higher than the U.S. following major surgeries. According to a study conducted by University College London and Columbia University, a little less than "ten percent of British patients died in hospital afterwards compared to 2.5 percent in America."
Quote:
In January an elderly woman died from cardiac arrest after waiting 35 hours on a trolley because there was a shortage in hospital beds. A 73-year-old man also died from an aneurysm in the same hospital as he languished in the waiting room.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/14470...-aaron-bandler
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-18-2019, 01:21 AM
 
Location: Stillwater, Oklahoma
30,976 posts, read 21,650,795 times
Reputation: 9676
Quote:
Originally Posted by mascoma View Post
It would collapse within 2 years. Government is far too incompetent to run a system that big and complicated.
But the government is okay with Medicare as it is now?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-18-2019, 07:01 AM
 
Location: Proxima Centauri
5,772 posts, read 3,225,043 times
Reputation: 6115
Default Is The Time Right For Medicare For All?

Many democrats are calling for Medicare for all. When a fifth circuit judge from Texas can declare Obamacare unconstitutional, do we dare to scrap laws that are beyond review for a new law that may be challenged relentlessly. I favor a law that piggy backs on Medicare which allows a buy in to Medicare by those who cannot find jobs between 55 and 65 and those who are 55, working, but uninsured.


Medicare for all will not be viable until we have a Democratic majority in the Senate for at least a generation. We are the only nation among Western Nations without national health insurance.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-18-2019, 07:03 AM
 
Location: Just transplanted to FL from the N GA mountains
3,997 posts, read 4,145,129 times
Reputation: 2677
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tonyafd View Post
Many democrats are calling for Medicare for all. When a fifth circuit judge from Texas can declare Obamacare unconstitutional, do we dare to scrap laws that are beyond review for a new law that may be challenged relentlessly. I favor a law that piggy backs on Medicare which allows a buy in to Medicare by those who cannot find jobs between 55 and 65 and those who are 55, working, but uninsured.


Medicare for all will not be viable until we have a Democratic majority in the Senate for at least a generation. We are the only nation among Western Nations without national health insurance.
No
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-18-2019, 07:05 AM
 
Location: Santa Monica
36,853 posts, read 17,373,891 times
Reputation: 14459
I'll never understand why you folks want/enjoy statism.

Having said that I'll also never understand why if you want statism you don't simultaneously want medicare for all. If you're going to be enslaved might as well get all your shots like a newborn Boston Terrier.

Weirdos.

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:15 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top