Summations Only

I agree that there's plenty of room for improvement and I'm not opposed to universal healthcare. If you add up the populations of all those countries you just mentioned, its still less than half of the amount of people than in the U.S. Norway and Sweden have like 2% of our population. It just doesn't look like much of a meaningful comparison to me.

France: 65 million
Germany: 81 million
Japan: 127 million
UK: 62 millionThose countries have way more than 2% of our population and have universal health coverage that works.

Can you not read? Go back to my Message 274 and then look at your responses. I cite preventative measures as an advantage of public healthcare and you kick-off on one about 'the government'.Do you think giving young children eye tests and dental checks as a proactive preventative health measure is a good thing or a bad thing? Then why do you keep on ranting about government involvement? Read your responses CS. I didn't write them for you. But where do you get the idea that this is what anybody here is advocating. You've built your own little strawman haven't you? If your arguments about personal responsibility are true then those countries with the most comprehensive public healthcare should have the citizens who act least responsibly when it comes to health issues.Similarly if your arguments about personal responsibility are correct then those countries with the least comprehensive public healthcare should have the citizens who act most responsibly when it comes to health issues.Do you think the evidence is in accordance with your claims about public healthcare acting as a deterrent to personal responsibility? I can see how you have decided to look at it. But I am questioning the basis on which you have drawn that conclusion.On what basis do you conclude that public healthcare will result in a lack of personal responsibility towards health issues? On what basis do you conclude that the existing US system of private insurance which should, according to your thinking, result in increased personal responsibility has done so?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

I think it is at the utmost height of hypocrisy for opponents of the ACA (Obamacare) to decry the mandated enrollment in Health Care while also at the same time admonishing us all here in the USA to focus on personal responsibility. Hello? The uninsured are costing the average family medical insurance premiums some $1000.00 extra per year already. Personal responsibility indeed.Upon simple review & analysis, the only people that would want to repeal the ACA are those who would lose their current egregious smelly profits on the backs of the citizens.To paraphrase Nancy Pelosi, when fully enacted, the ACA will finally eliminate the notion that being born female is a pre-existing medical defect.

That's not my position. That is your spin on it.People will happily poison themselves, that is a fact, they do it everyday for breakfast, lunch and dinner. And snacks, lets not forget the snacks!Not all health problems of course, there is genetics and old age. But as I've shown reducing obesity will result in lower cost of healthcare per capita equal to that of countries with public healthcare.You can't tell people to do this, or ignore such things. All the government would have to do is render the sale of poison illegal. Me? I suggest yelling at the fatties. I don't see how it can be the answer to the problem when your country and those around you have an ever rising obesity rate.You have said public healthcare and even you guys can't stop the increase of obesity in your own population. So what you're suggesting we adopt is clearly failing you. Not much of a good example. Sure that's fine. A government entity that tackles the problem. Hmmm, we already have that. There is already an agency that's supposed to do that.You see, we already have functioning systems, they've just failed us. So rather than fix them, the argument shifts to public healthcare as though that will be the savior. There is no accountability. It's just on to the next program.But as we can see for your contries that do have public healthcare, you guys can't stop the obesity rate either. And why have you guys increased in obesity? Because of fast food. Yes. And the fat tax has also failed in your countries to solve the ever increasing obesity rate.Any other suggestions? Yes, I'm asking the already existing government agency that does this to do their fucking job. But they don't listen.- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

Well have fun with that. Poison in this context being....? What exactly? Fat? Sugar? What? Firstly - We don't have such a thing here. Secondly - Even if a fat tax doesn't solve the obesity problem it can help generate the money required to deal with the effects of the problem. Thirdly - There is some evidence available on this that suggests it might well change people's behaviour.

quote:

---

Taxing soft drinks and pizza can decrease the amount of calories that people consume from these foods. The study found that a 10 percent tax on soda led to a 7 percent reduction in calories from soft drinks, and a 10 percent tax on pizza led to a 12 percent reduction in calories from pizza. These researchers believe that an 18 percent tax on these foods could cut daily intake by 56 calories per person, resulting in a weight loss of 5 pounds (2 kg) per person per year. The study followed 5,115 young adults ages 18 to 30 from 1985 to 2006

---

Wiki on Fat TaxCould you be more specific about which government agency it is you mean and exactly what it is you think they are failing to do?

We have a for profit system that has no incentive to lower prices so that everyone can afford health care. That is not a functioning system. The reason that the health care system is failing is because of the fundamentals of the current health care system.We are not paying 100% more than other countries because we have more fatties. The obesity rate in the US is 30% while the obesity rate in the UK is 23% (source). In 2009 the per capita cost for health care was 7,900 in the US and 3.400 in the UKsource). You are trying to claim that we are spending more than twice as much because of 7% more fatties? Sorry, not buying it.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

I would but then you'd call it a hate crime. Haven't you heard what's in fast food? Fat and sugar are good for you, but those things as a natural product do NOT exist in fast food. It's processed garbage, with zero nutritional value. There's hydrogenated vegetable oil, saturated fats, gums, sugar substitutes, monosodium glutamate, high fructose corn syrup, hormone fed processed beef and eggs, hormone fed chicken, food coloring, preservatives, trans fats, etc.Just look at the ingredients for eggs at Mc Donalds. You would think it's just eggs, right?

quote:

---

Their pasteurized whole eggs have sodium acid pyrophosphate, citric acid, and monosodium phosphate (all added to preserve color), and nisin, a preservative. To top it off, the eggs are prepared with liquid margarine: liquid soybean oil, water, partially hydrogenated cottonseed and soybean oils (trans fats), salt, hydrogenated cottonseed oil (trans fat), soy lecithin, mono- and diglycerides, sodium benzoate, potassium sorbate (preservatives), artificial flavor, citric acid, vitamin A palmitate, and beta carotene (color).

---

It's a poisonous cocktail. I've read plenty to suggest it hasn't and ends up simply hurting the poor. US Food and Drug AdministrationAs their moto goes: Protecting and Promoting Your HealthYeahhhh riggghhhhttttt!!!- Oni

Of course it's for profit... they profit from an unhealthy population. Where is the most unhealthy population in the world? The US is the most obese and has the most health problems. So then where would it make sense to have a for profit healthcare system? In the US if you're a business man.If the population began to get healthier, then there is less to profit from. At that point it would make sense to have a public healthcare system that is supported with taxes. Yes we are. As a whole the more obese, unhealthy people, who then grow old - living longer, unhealthier lives due to medicine (which is profited from) - make the system easy to profit from and a target for those looking to exploit it.- Oni

OK. So what exactly is it that you want to make illegal? All of the things you list above? Obviously that depends how it is implemented. The revenue gained from fat tax could be used to subsidise healthier foods for example. Exactly. The health of the poor is suffering because of the prevalence of cheap shitty food but you resist a fat-tax because you think the poor will suffer by making cheap shitty food more expensive.Surely the whole idea that we can both agree upon here is to reduce the consumption of fast food. Right? OK. So what exactly is it that you propose they do?

If you think a private healthcare system actively promotes bad health as a means to profit isn't that in and of itself an argument in favour of not-for-profit (i.e. public) health provision?If you are anyone but a US businessman.......

Probably sub-Saharan Africa where the infant mortality rate is extremely high, malaria is rampant, and HIV continues to spread. I wouldn't be surprised if the average life span in some of these areas is below 50 years.Nonetheless, you still didn't address my point. No matter how healthy or unhealthy our country is the for profit nature of the health care system will still drive up prices since there is no incentive to make health care affordable for everyone. Makes sense to whom? Those that profit from health care or those who need health care? I just showed you the numbers, and you did not address them. In the US we have an obesity rate of 30% and spend $8,000 per person. In the UK they have an obesity rate of 23% and only spend $3,500 per person. Fatties are not the cause.

Do you have any evidence for this affirmation? It seems you're doing a lot of rambling in this thread without evidences to back your position.
As for the evidence for the matter of added cost due to the increased prevalence of obesity:
CDC - Page Not Found 30% obesity would result in an increase in cost of $147 billions for healthcare, meaning that 23% obesity would result in an added cost $112.7 billons and US increased obesity of 7% compared to the UK would account for a $34.3 billions difference in cost (if both countries had the same population).
Compare that to the total cost of Healthcare in the US:
--> --> -->National Health Expenditure Data | CMS
Which would amount to around $2.3 trillions (at best) in cost for healthcare, with the added cost due to the added obesity representing less than 2% of this amount.Now Onifire, explain to us how does the increase in obesity account for a doubling in cost per capita for healthcare in the US?Edited by Son, : No reason given.Edited by Son, : No reason given.Edited by Son, : No reason given.

How many times do I have to be right around here? Fatty Fat Fats are at it again, ruining the healthcare in the US like I said they would. God damn fatbodies.Let me quote it:

quote:

---

The fastest growing public health challange for the US.

---

Coming soon to a Europe near you.I hate to say I told you so, but I told you so. I'll expect eveyone to concede in this thread soon.- Oni