Why don't proegressives push for a more prevention oriented health care model? (drug, solution)

[ZhugeLiang]

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."

[stan4]

Originally Posted by TimC2462

I don't think there is any law that can force people to change their lifestyle. Take a look at the current lifestyle we have in America. We are the cornerstone of fast foods restaurants, relying on transportation by cars, and the least active physically when we are compared to other industrialized countries. We continue to consume large amount of meat and while eating less vegetables and fruits. On top of all that, we consume the chemicals and preservatives that we can't even pronounce.

On the other hand, I don't want the government to dictate what we can or cannot eat, much like the bay area banning McDonald's Happy Meals when the parents should be the ones to make that decision.

This is exactly right.

We will never be able to sustain any kind of public healthcare while people live lifestyles with no concern to how they treat their bodies.

True preventive care starts at home...not at the doctor's office.

[CA4Now]

Originally Posted by nullgeo

As for exercise: I also agree it is the least important component of good health.

I don't agree with you on that one. I think it helps prevent many illnesses.
"If you had to pick one thing that came closest to the fountain of youth, it would have to be exercise."
-James Fries, M.D., expert on aging, Stanford University

[user_id]

Originally Posted by nullgeo

But I will go a bit further with your claim that saturated fats and sugars aren't toxins....

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.

Originally Posted by nullgeo

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.

I don't follow. The fact that other animals exhibit similar behaviors doesn't change the fact that it is the result of our genes.

Originally Posted by nullgeo

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.

Huh? You just discussed how people have the propensity to over consume, yet if they eat "fresh, non-processed foods" that propensity magically goes away? I hate to break it to you, but the natural world is filled with plenty of fatty and high sugar foods. If I hunt an animal does its fat content magically disappear? Processed foods are usually cheaper, but they aren't necessarily lower in calories, fat, sugar, etc than natural counterparts.

Originally Posted by nullgeo

I just came in from an exhilarating 3-mile hike with my dogs and it's time for my lunch salad

Good for you, I see that you're a health freak.

[user_id]

Originally Posted by CA4Now

I don't agree with you on that one. I think it helps prevent many illnesses.
"If you had to pick one thing that came closest to the fountain of youth, it would have to be exercise."
-James Fries, M.D., expert on aging, Stanford University

Being physical active matters, whether this falls under what most people consider "exercise" doesn't matter. But equating exercise with the fountain of youth is dangerous, I know a few people that have essentially exercised themselves to death. They are horrible sickly now because they have abused their bodies. Of course, the average America is very far from this sort of situation, but for some it becomes an addiction.

[nullgeo]

Originally Posted by CA4Now

I don't agree with you on that one. I think it helps prevent many illnesses.
"If you had to pick one thing that came closest to the fountain of youth, it would have to be exercise."
-James Fries, M.D., expert on aging, Stanford University

Your quote makes a correlation between "exercise" and "youth" ... not between "good health" and "youth" ... or between "good health and "exercise" ... considerable distinctions there I spoke of good health -- not "youth".

I am very pro-exercise, as well ... I didn't say I dis-valued it, at all ... I said it is "the least important component" of good health -- compared to good diet and avoidance of toxins. That said, I'm not sure exercise, in itself, is much of a prophylactic against illness. It can do a very great deal to support good health -- but more ancillary than primary. Many people live in wheelchairs or with other confinements that restrict exercise and yet remain healthy against disease.

[nullgeo]

Originally Posted by user_id

Good for you, I see that you're a health freak.

I certainly am Unapologetically. Got here the hard way, too.

Originally Posted by user_id

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.

Toxic is toxic. Ordinary compounds, non-toxic in small amounts, become toxic in concentrations. Many natural substances act relatively inert until combined with certain other substances, at which point they react with vigor and destruction. Ordinary chemistry, often beneficial or benign, becomes toxic all the time.

Originally Posted by user_id

I don't follow. The fact that other animals exhibit similar behaviors doesn't change the fact that it is the result of our genes.

Didn't argue the generalization. Pointed out that natural indulgence is universal -- but only to a point. To say we are genetically predisposed to overeat is to oversimplify the underlying principle. Claiming genetic programming infers that a negative result to the behavior is "designed". Nature doesn't design "broken". We are not born "broken". We are not "designed" to overeat in the manner we do. We, like all living things, are opportunistic ... but the "design" of this opportunism was created out of a relationship to cycles we no longer live by.

Originally Posted by user_id

Huh? You just discussed how people have the propensity to over consume, yet if they eat "fresh, non-processed foods" that propensity magically goes away? I hate to break it to you, but the natural world is filled with plenty of fatty and high sugar foods. If I hunt an animal does its fat content magically disappear? Processed foods are usually cheaper, but they aren't necessarily lower in calories, fat, sugar, etc than natural counterparts.

I did not say people have a propensity to "over-consume" -- I used the word "indulgent[ly]". And, I didn't say the propensity goes away with "fresh, non-processed foods" ... and I definitely didn't say anything about "magically". Your sarcasm is based on your mis-readings.

The natural world is filled with fatty and high sugar foods ... and I also never said those things were bad -- in their various natural forms. Humans are omnivores. We can eat lots and lots of fats and sugars. Nothing at all wrong with eating fat, especially. Eating animal and vegetable fat does not convert such to human-fat ... we make our own fat ... furthermore, there's nothing wrong with human fat ... it is basically energy storage, often quite appropriate. The problems are all to be found in the forms, timing, amounts, and combinations, in which the foods are consumed. There are, in processed foods, many additives and chemically altered chemistries that, combined with over-consumption (often due to titillating recipes that beg sensory excitement), and bad-timing are highly incompatible with our evolved biology. This is hardly alternative, "new-age" propaganda -- it is commonly mainstream medical / biological science.

And I also don't know what you are responding to when you write: "... Processed foods are usually cheaper, but they aren't necessarily lower in calories, fat, sugar, etc than natural counterparts..." I didn't write anything about calories ... and calories in and of themselves are not nutrition anyway. Calories are a measure of potential energy. The word calorie is even used in identifying heat from fuel oil ... (which I don't consume regardless of how much energy it offers )

... 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.

[.highnlite]

Toxic is toxic. Ordinary compounds, non-toxic in small amounts, become toxic in concentrations. Many natural substances act relatively inert until combined with certain other substances, at which point they react with vigor and destruction. Ordinary chemistry, often beneficial or benign, becomes toxic all the time.

Dihydrous Oxide is very toxic in sufficient quantities, and kills hundreds if not thousands of people a year, yet it is consumed in less than toxic quantities by nearly everyone every day.

I think maybe User_id smokes and does not exercise and eats terribly and hates to have his nose rubbed in it, of course, I could be wrong.

[user_id]

Originally Posted by nullgeo

I certainly am Unapologetically. Got here the hard way, too.

You didn't get their the "hard way", its fairly common for people to become health freaks after a major health issue. Psychologically it gives them a sense of control, but it often develops into a obsession. The fact that you irrelevantly stated what you ate and did this morning and speak about bad diet so emotionally leads me to believe it may be pathological. Mental health is just as important as physical health.

Originally Posted by nullgeo

To say we are genetically predisposed to overeat is to oversimplify the underlying principle. Claiming genetic programming infers that a negative result to the behavior is "designed". Nature doesn't design "broken".

I never claimed that "genetic programming" infers that negative result to the behavior is designed, we have a propensity to eat high sugar and high fat foods because this was a successful mechanism in the past. In today's environment this adaptation is somewhat negative.

Originally Posted by nullgeo

The natural world is filled with fatty and high sugar foods ... and I also never said those things were bad -- in their various natural forms. Humans are omnivores. We can eat lots and lots of fats and sugars. Nothing at all wrong with eating fat, especially. Eating animal and vegetable fat does not convert such to human-fat ... we make our own fat ... furthermore, there's nothing wrong with human fat ... it is basically energy storage, often quite appropriate.

You stated that:

"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."

This statement is ridiculous, eating "fresh, seasonal non-processed foods" can most certainly lead to unhealthy weight gain. As you just discussed above, "fresh, seasonal and non-processed foods" can contain high amounts of fat, sugar, etc, so why in the world could indulgence in them not cause unhealthy weight gain?

The "will never harm you" assertion is bizarre as well, didn't you after all just discuss that even water can harm you? I can tell you, some "fresh, seasonal, non-processed" foods can certainly harm me as I'm allergic to them.

Originally Posted by nullgeo

And I also don't know what you are responding to when you write: "... Processed foods are usually cheaper, but they aren't necessarily lower in calories, fat, sugar, etc than natural counterparts..." I didn't write anything about calories ... and calories in and of themselves are not nutrition anyway.

I'm responding to you. You are asserting that indulgence in "fresh, seasonal, etc" foods won't cause unhealthy weight gain, but apparently indulgence in "non-seasonal, processed, etc" foods does. Here the caloric content of the foods is critical, you gain weight by eating excess calories not by eating processed foods. Now, some processed foods may have bad effects on your cholesterol, encourage over eating, etc but they don't magically create fat, here the total caloric content of the food is the critical issue. Again, this was a response to "and eating them even indulgently will not add unhealthy weight beyond one's natural body-type".

[user_id]

Originally Posted by .highnlite

I think maybe User_id smokes and does not exercise and eats terribly and hates to have his nose rubbed in it, of course, I could be wrong.

Don't smoke, but I'm pretty sure most would (especially health freaks) consider my diet "terrible". Its very high in saturated fat. I don't mind discusses about diet though, I'm use it, I have numerous health freaks in my family. When one is comfortable with their choices in life, rubbing your nose it doesn't matter. Keep the butter coming!

Regardless, health freaks have a sense of pride about their eating, I know it all to well from my family. But the idea that the nation is going to become a nation of overly health focused consumers is entirely unrealistic. The best way to increase health is to strength the doctor-patient relationship, it is only here that one can receive good individual advice driven by lab results, etc, therefore the focus should be on preventive health-care and not life-style choices. Targeting the latter is far too problematic, without restricting people's freedoms. America society can hardly tolerate the government trying to control the ownership of killing machines, they aren't going allow the government to come into their home and control what they eat. Lastly, improved life-style choices will not change the fact that every one of us is going to age and ultimately die, when we do its going to be costly regardless of how you lived your life. Improved life-style choices by Americans would have a very moderate effect on the costs of health care.