[Targo]

As the VT obesity rate is approaching 1/4 of the population and TOBFI [thin outside but fat inside] people who aren't obese but have poor lifestyle choice related health issues grow, the conversation shouldn't be about how to pay for treatment but how to avoid needing it in the first place.

Of course that wouldn't be popular either.

What a shame.

[cgregor]

You certainly touched on a complicated subject! There are several very significant factors involved: 1) A distribution of income which requires over half of the households to have no parent with time to stay at home and prepare nutritious meals; 2) an oligopolistic food supply chain which markets foods on the basis of profitability rather than nutrition; 3) a food processing industry which prepares products meant for the "no time to cook; Dad and I are off to our second jobs" demographic; 4) commercial advertising which influences children to demand unhealthy foods; 5) largely irrelevant (and unfortunately so) home economics programs in the primary and middle school years, rendered so by processed foods; 6) children of the demographic described in 1, who are left to their own devices to prepare breakfast; 7) medical providers who are paid for treating the sick rather than curing them; 8) a regulatory system which cannot assure food quality; 9) school lunch programs which far more often than not depend on low-cost but unhealthy meals to stay within a skimpy budget.

So, who wants to address that can of worms?

[sovertennis]

^^^^^
While I don't disagree with much of what you've written, ultimately people have an obligation to take care of themselves and their dependents. The single/universal/somebody-but-not-me payer crowd ignores the role of each individual to take care of him or herself.

You don't have to smoke, habitually eat processed food or drink to excess. Obviously, healthy living won't solve all health issues, but it has to be integral to any meaningful discussion about health care. My 2c.

[Targo]

Originally Posted by cgregor

you certainly touched on a complicated subject! There are several very significant factors involved: 1) a distribution of income which requires over half of the households to have no parent with time to stay at home and prepare nutritious meals; 2) an oligopolistic food supply chain which markets foods on the basis of profitability rather than nutrition; 3) a food processing industry which prepares products meant for the "no time to cook; dad and i are off to our second jobs" demographic; 4) commercial advertising which influences children to demand unhealthy foods; 5) largely irrelevant (and unfortunately so) home economics programs in the primary and middle school years, rendered so by processed foods; 6) children of the demographic described in 1, who are left to their own devices to prepare breakfast; 7) medical providers who are paid for treating the sick rather than curing them; 8) a regulatory system which cannot assure food quality; 9) school lunch programs which far more often than not depend on low-cost but unhealthy meals to stay within a skimpy budget.

So, who wants to address that can of worms?

1+

[Targo]

Originally Posted by sovertennis

^^^^^
While I don't disagree with much of what you've written, ultimately people have an obligation to take care of themselves and their dependents. The single/universal/somebody-but-not-me payer crowd ignores the role of each individual to take care of him or herself.

You don't have to smoke, habitually eat processed food or drink to excess. Obviously, healthy living won't solve all health issues, but it has to be integral to any meaningful discussion about health care. My 2c.

And IMO the personal responsibility issue is clearly almost impossible for may people today because of physiological and environmental issues.

It's not just a matter of will power. [which by the way is finite]

[domc]

Targo:

Perfect

[BS Walks]

Originally Posted by sovertennis

^^^^^
While I don't disagree with much of what you've written, ultimately people have an obligation to take care of themselves and their dependents. The single/universal/somebody-but-not-me payer crowd ignores the role of each individual to take care of him or herself.

You don't have to smoke, habitually eat processed food or drink to excess. Obviously, healthy living won't solve all health issues, but it has to be integral to any meaningful discussion about health care. My 2c.

Right on. The more we either poo-poo or ignore personal responsibility and self-discipline, the more people dis-empower themselves over the long run. If you're waiting for a big utopian government to swoop down and "save" you, you're surely going to be waiting for a very long time. And yes, healthy living needs to be an integral part of the conservation about healthcare, and it usually isn't. As usual, the hard left ignores the responsibility that individuals hold, in favor of promoting an agenda that basically says that big unwieldy "systems" hold their fate, and only those big "systems" (paid for by people who ARE responsible) can save them. Not true. I'm not arguing that everything relates to will power---especially when it comes to definable afflictions like addiction---but personal choice, self-control and personal responsibility play a huge part in a person's overall health and their overall place in society. Those who downplay this very important piece of human sustainability do nothing but enable people to remain a victim to themselves.

[cgregor]

How does that tie into the fact that my co-pay on the medication which keeps blood clots from forming in my lungs just increased by 300%? How can chronically sick people protect themselves from such arbitrary profit-seeking? There has been nothing in my life style which would have promoted this condition, by the way.

The organization which purports to represent Vermont's retired and within-fifteen-years-of-retirement population, AARP, betrayed them by backing Medicare Part D, which has a prescription "doughnut hole" which brings AARP even more income (to its $600 million a year) by now brokering "doughnut hole" policies. How can individuals protect themselves from that? What counterbalance is there to the AARP?

[Oriz]

Baloney. My wife has several auto immune diseases and she caused none of them to herself. There are many like her and many with other kinds of illnesses. People deserve to be treated for their illness without it costing them an arm and a leg, even if the rest of us have to pitch in for that. And most Vermonters have already said they are willing to pay more in taxes in order for their neighbors to be able to get affordable and accessible health care. Even the libertarian in me has no problem with that one. Maybe I'm biased cause of my wife but I don't think so.

[Lily6271]

Originally Posted by Oriz

Maybe I'm biased cause of my wife but I don't think so.

That's not bias. That's experience. The ones who are biased are those who haven't had the experience--yet.

And, by the way, I'm really tired of standing in line at Walmart or Walgreen's only to see the white-haired lady or gentleman decline their prescription because they can't afford it. One old man was told he'd have to pay $300. He thought they made a mistake and failed to run it through his insurance. Nope. That was his copay. He shook his head, turned, and left empty-handed. We need a single-payor system that includes prescriptions.