Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8869 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 10-20-2018 2:34 AM
206 online now:
PaulK (1 member, 205 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: paradigm of types
Happy Birthday: Astrophile
Post Volume:
Total: 840,440 Year: 15,263/29,783 Month: 1,207/1,502 Week: 205/492 Day: 0/25 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1617181920
21
Author Topic:   The Irrefutable Public Health Care Thread
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 301 of 314 (656837)
03-22-2012 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 300 by Taq
03-22-2012 11:18 AM


Re: Freemarket Foodity
I think this is more of a moral responsibility across the entire system. At this time, healthcare in the US is for profit. There is no driving force in the market to push prices down. For any business, there is simply no reason to make your services affordable to everyone, and that is exactly what we have in the US. It is actually poor business practice for insurance companies to insure people with health problems. It is in the best interest of insurance companies to deny coverage to people who need insurance the most. This is a very big moral problem.

I agree that there's plenty of room for improvement and I'm not opposed to universal healthcare.

Norway, Sweden, Finland, the UK, and France are all different countries with different people in a different culture. They all have universal healthcare. They are all healthier than us.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 300 by Taq, posted 03-22-2012 11:18 AM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 302 by Taq, posted 03-22-2012 12:16 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7575
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 302 of 314 (656842)
03-22-2012 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 301 by New Cat's Eye
03-22-2012 11:45 AM


Re: Freemarket Foodity
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 million

Those countries have way more than 2% of our population and have universal health coverage that works.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 301 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-22-2012 11:45 AM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10208
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 303 of 314 (656843)
03-22-2012 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 299 by New Cat's Eye
03-22-2012 10:56 AM


Re: Freemarket Foodity
CS writes:

Can you not read?

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?

CS writes:

I don't care about the funding or the government,..

Then why do you keep on ranting about government involvement? Read your responses CS. I didn't write them for you.

CS writes:

... its the attitude of shrugging off personal responsibility onto others as something to be desired that I think is stupid.

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?

CS writes:

Compared to other countries with different people in a different culture in a different environment... but sure, its the fact that their healthcare is publically funded that makes them healthier.

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?

CS writes:

Depends on how you look at it.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 299 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-22-2012 10:56 AM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
xongsmith
Member
Posts: 1856
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009


Message 304 of 314 (656957)
03-23-2012 2:55 PM


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.


- xongsmith, 5.7d

    
onifre
Member (Idle past 874 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 305 of 314 (657093)
03-25-2012 7:00 PM
Reply to: Message 296 by Straggler
03-21-2012 4:39 PM


Re: Muffin Tops and Skinny Jeans
So on one hand you think that people will happily poison themselves as a result of the power of marketing but on the other hand all health problems can be waved away by simply telling people to ignore such things and show some personal restraint.

Is that your (rather contradictory) position?

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.

OK. So how are you realistically going to do that?

Me? I suggest yelling at the fatties.

Because I see public health provision as part of the answer to this problem whilst you don't seem to be offering anything other than the health equivalent of "Let's all love each other and bring about world peace".

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.

ho is going to objectively research and classify which foods are "harmful" if not publicly funded health bodies and research institutions?

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.

Didn't I earlier in this thread suggest a fat tax as a more realistic alterantive?

Yes. And the fat tax has also failed in your countries to solve the ever increasing obesity rate.

Any other suggestions?

Now you want the government to step in and determine which foods are legally healthy and which should be banned?

Yes, I'm asking the already existing government agency that does this to do their fucking job. But they don't listen.

- Oni

Edited by onifre, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 296 by Straggler, posted 03-21-2012 4:39 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 306 by Straggler, posted 03-26-2012 9:57 AM onifre has responded
 Message 307 by Taq, posted 03-26-2012 1:53 PM onifre has responded

    
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10208
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 306 of 314 (657139)
03-26-2012 9:57 AM
Reply to: Message 305 by onifre
03-25-2012 7:00 PM


Re: Muffin Tops and Skinny Jeans
Oni writes:

I suggest yelling at the fatties.

Well have fun with that.

Oni writes:

All the government would have to do is render the sale of poison illegal.

Poison in this context being....? What exactly? Fat? Sugar? What?

Oni writes:

And the fat tax has also failed in your countries to solve the ever increasing obesity rate.

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 Tax

Oni writes:

Yes, I'm asking the already existing government agency that does this to do their fucking job. But they don't listen.

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 305 by onifre, posted 03-25-2012 7:00 PM onifre has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 308 by onifre, posted 03-27-2012 8:19 PM Straggler has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7575
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.6


(1)
Message 307 of 314 (657173)
03-26-2012 1:53 PM
Reply to: Message 305 by onifre
03-25-2012 7:00 PM


Re: Muffin Tops and Skinny Jeans
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.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 305 by onifre, posted 03-25-2012 7:00 PM onifre has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 309 by onifre, posted 03-27-2012 8:29 PM Taq has responded

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 874 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 308 of 314 (657374)
03-27-2012 8:19 PM
Reply to: Message 306 by Straggler
03-26-2012 9:57 AM


Re: Muffin Tops and Skinny Jeans
Well have fun with that.

I would but then you'd call it a hate crime.

Poison in this context being....? What exactly? Fat? Sugar? What?

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.

Thirdly - There is some evidence available on this that suggests it might well change people's behaviour.

I've read plenty to suggest it hasn't and ends up simply hurting the poor.

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

US Food and Drug Administration

As their moto goes: Protecting and Promoting Your Health

Yeahhhh riggghhhhttttt!!!

- Oni


This message is a reply to:
 Message 306 by Straggler, posted 03-26-2012 9:57 AM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 310 by Straggler, posted 03-28-2012 6:01 AM onifre has not yet responded

    
onifre
Member (Idle past 874 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 309 of 314 (657375)
03-27-2012 8:29 PM
Reply to: Message 307 by Taq
03-26-2012 1:53 PM


Re: Muffin Tops and Skinny Jeans
We have a for profit system that has no incentive to lower prices so that everyone can afford health care.

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.

We are not paying 100% more than other countries because we have more fatties.

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 307 by Taq, posted 03-26-2012 1:53 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 311 by Straggler, posted 03-28-2012 6:59 AM onifre has not yet responded
 Message 312 by Taq, posted 03-28-2012 11:17 AM onifre has not yet responded
 Message 313 by Son, posted 03-28-2012 11:23 AM onifre has not yet responded

    
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10208
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 310 of 314 (657388)
03-28-2012 6:01 AM
Reply to: Message 308 by onifre
03-27-2012 8:19 PM


Re: Muffin Tops and Skinny Jeans
Oni writes:

All the government would have to do is render the sale of poison illegal.

Straggler writes:

Poison in this context being....? What exactly? Fat? Sugar? What?

Oni writes:

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.

OK. So what exactly is it that you want to make illegal? All of the things you list above?

Oni on fat tax writes:

I've read plenty to suggest it hasn't and ends up simply hurting the poor.

Obviously that depends how it is implemented. The revenue gained from fat tax could be used to subsidise healthier foods for example.

Straggler previously writes:

All over the Western world there is a correlation between obesity and things like education and socio-economic background. Poor uneducated Westerners are getting fatter and fatter.

Oni previously writes:

But there's only one reason for that, shitty food cost less. Dollar value meals at Mc Donalds, Wendy's and Burger King feed the poor.

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?

Straggler writes:

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

Oni writes:

US Food and Drug Administration

OK. So what exactly is it that you propose they do?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 308 by onifre, posted 03-27-2012 8:19 PM onifre has not yet responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10208
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 311 of 314 (657392)
03-28-2012 6:59 AM
Reply to: Message 309 by onifre
03-27-2012 8:29 PM


Re: Muffin Tops and Skinny Jeans
Oni writes:

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 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.......


This message is a reply to:
 Message 309 by onifre, posted 03-27-2012 8:29 PM onifre has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7575
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 312 of 314 (657415)
03-28-2012 11:17 AM
Reply to: Message 309 by onifre
03-27-2012 8:29 PM


Re: Muffin Tops and Skinny Jeans
Of course it's for profit... they profit from an unhealthy population. Where is the most unhealthy population in the world?

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.

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.

Makes sense to whom? Those that profit from health care or those who need health care?

Yes we are.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 309 by onifre, posted 03-27-2012 8:29 PM onifre has not yet responded

  
Son
Member (Idle past 1753 days)
Posts: 346
From: France,Paris
Joined: 03-11-2009


Message 313 of 314 (657417)
03-28-2012 11:23 AM
Reply to: Message 309 by onifre
03-27-2012 8:29 PM


Re: Muffin Tops and Skinny Jeans
Onifire writes:

We are not paying 100% more than other countries because we have more fatties.

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

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:
http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/causes/economics.html

The medical care costs of obesity in the United States are staggering. In 2008 dollars, these costs totaled about $147 billion (Finkelstein, 2009)

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:
--> --> -->https://www.cms.gov/NationalHealthExpendData/02_NationalHealthAccountsHistorical.asp#TopOfPage

U.S. health care spending accelerated slightly in 2010, increasing 3.9 percent compared to growth of 3.8 percent in 2009. Total health expenditures reached $2.6 trillion, which translates to $8,402 per person or 17.9 percent of the nation's Gross Domestic Product, the same share as in 2009.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 309 by onifre, posted 03-27-2012 8:29 PM onifre has not yet responded

    
onifre
Member (Idle past 874 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 314 of 314 (665167)
06-09-2012 3:03 AM


America's Biggest Losers, for real.
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


    
RewPrev1
...
1617181920
21
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018