U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Vermont
 [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 01-12-2015, 01:05 PM
 
130 posts, read 241,058 times
Reputation: 148

Advertisements

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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-12-2015, 07:47 PM
 
809 posts, read 679,806 times
Reputation: 1333
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?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-13-2015, 07:41 AM
 
150 posts, read 177,734 times
Reputation: 415
^^^^^
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-13-2015, 07:47 AM
 
130 posts, read 241,058 times
Reputation: 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by cgregor View Post
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+
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-13-2015, 07:52 AM
 
130 posts, read 241,058 times
Reputation: 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by sovertennis View Post
^^^^^
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]
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-13-2015, 08:43 AM
 
68 posts, read 60,211 times
Reputation: 232
Targo:

Perfect
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-18-2015, 07:11 AM
 
30 posts, read 34,301 times
Reputation: 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by sovertennis View Post
^^^^^
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.

Last edited by BS Walks; 01-18-2015 at 07:45 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-18-2015, 04:19 PM
 
809 posts, read 679,806 times
Reputation: 1333
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?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-18-2015, 08:27 PM
 
221 posts, read 266,691 times
Reputation: 375
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-18-2015, 09:26 PM
 
46 posts, read 46,001 times
Reputation: 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oriz View Post
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.
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:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

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 > U.S. Forums > Vermont
View detailed profiles of:
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:05 AM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - 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 - Top