Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Irrefutable Public Health Care Thread
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 274 of 314 (656608)
03-20-2012 2:42 PM
Reply to: Message 272 by onifre
03-19-2012 1:28 PM


Re: Freemarket Foodity
Oni writes:
We in America are NOT healthy people, and not only that but make light of not being healthy.
One of the advantages of a universal healthcare system is that it can focus on prevention. As I said earlier barely a week goes by without my kids undergoing some form of preventative healthcare. Last week a dentist visited the nursery of my youngest. A few weeks ago an optician did the rounds at my son's school. A nutritionist was taking part in their lessons one week last term. Both have had various immunisations as a matter of course. Potential problems are identified and tackled early. That is the aim and I think it is a noble one.
Are these not valuable undertakings in your eyes? Do you have this sort of thing in the US?
Straggler writes:
But Oni that would involve interference in the free-market miracle of providing people with what they want on the basis of what sells best.
Oni writes:
If marketed correctly, cyanide would be in every cereal too. Should we allow the idiots to run the asylum?
No. That's my point. The deeply individualistic American (and increasingly prevalent here) attitude that what you do to yourself is your business and has no effect on anyone else just doesn't work.
Instead we need people to see themselves as having a social contract whereby they can see the benefits of collective healthcare for themselves and their families whilst also understanding that this also obligates them to not actively take the piss out of the system by fucking themselves up physically through relentless overeating.
It's not an easy sell. But if you genuinely want to change health attitudes you could do worse than take this sort of approach modeled on the Swedens and Norways of the world.
Oni writes:
18,500 Mc Donalds...more than the entire world combined, and I've done the math, it's more by more than double. This is where it all begins. Fatties making fatty sandwiches and selling it to fatties in their cars. You tell me?
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.
The answer to this is not to simply dismiss the evidence and tell everyone to do some situps. To pretend that there are no factors beyond personal irresponsibility isn't going to be much help. That approach hasn't worked.
So what do you think should be done? And how is universal healthcare not part of that solution in the way it seems to be in more healthy nations?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by onifre, posted 03-19-2012 1:28 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 275 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-20-2012 2:47 PM Straggler has replied
 Message 278 by onifre, posted 03-20-2012 4:18 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 276 of 314 (656612)
03-20-2012 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 275 by New Cat's Eye
03-20-2012 2:47 PM


Re: Freemarket Foodity
They were getting free dental checkups and appointments made for those with signs of problems that needed looking into further.
What is wrong with that?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-20-2012 2:47 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 277 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-20-2012 3:00 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 287 of 314 (656690)
03-21-2012 4:18 AM
Reply to: Message 277 by New Cat's Eye
03-20-2012 3:00 PM


Re: Freemarket Foodity
FFS CS!!
Dentists are proactively checking the teeth of nursery school kids. Qualified professional expert dentists that treat private and publicly funded patients on a daily basis. Doing free-checkups and making appointments for those nursery kids with the early signs of potential problems.
It's not like the government minister for teeth is turning up in his tooth-mobile and forcing government manufactured toothpaste down the throats of government bred babies.
CS writes:
Perhaps soon enough, all we'll have to do is pop out a kid and leave it on the doorstep for the government to pick up and handle it from there.
I tell you about dentists checking the teeth of nursery kids and you do the "It's da GOVERNMENT!! AAAArrrrggghhhh!!!" thing.
Why?
Let me ask you - If your kid (pretend you have one) brought home a letter from nursery telling you free dental checkups were taking place next week would you opt your kid out?
Are you so ideologically bound that you would refuse this sort of service because it's funded by "da GOVERNMENT" (play sinister music)...?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-20-2012 3:00 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 289 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-21-2012 10:16 AM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 288 of 314 (656691)
03-21-2012 4:29 AM
Reply to: Message 278 by onifre
03-20-2012 4:18 PM


Re: Muffin Tops and Skinny Jeans
So health is simply a matter of personal responsibility and nothing else as far as you are concerned?
If everybody just applies some restraint and eats well and jogs and does situps then all will be well and healthcare won't be an issue at all - That is your position here right?
Frankly you might as well say that if we all just love each other then world peace could be achieved. True. But probably worth exploring some alternatives just in case that doesn't quite happen.
Oni writes:
I don't know why you insist on us having your style healthcare?
I can't insist you do anything. Nor is ours prefect. I am saying that there are better and more cost effective ways of providing healthcare than those presently in place in the US. But that these require a shift away from the current ideology.
Oni writes:
Fast food!!! It will kill us all, but in a legal, free-market kinda way.
So - What do we do about that? And how can what needs doing be done without some form of publicly funded aspect of health provision?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by onifre, posted 03-20-2012 4:18 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 294 by onifre, posted 03-21-2012 1:09 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 293 of 314 (656723)
03-21-2012 1:07 PM
Reply to: Message 289 by New Cat's Eye
03-21-2012 10:16 AM


Re: Freemarket Foodity
CS writes:
Because of the way you brought it up as an advantage of universal health care...
Actually what I brought up as an advantage is the increased focus on prevention as opposed to the tendency for private insurers to only pay out when they absolutely have to.
CS writes:
... as if we need the government involved in telling our kids to brush their teeth.
If the dentists in question had been privately funded by some wealthy-benefactor-philanthropist with a passion for the dental hygiene of nursery children rather than publicly funded would that be somehow better in your eyes? If so - Why?
Straggler writes:
Let me ask you - If your kid (pretend you have one) brought home a letter from nursery telling you free dental checkups were taking place next week would you opt your kid out?
CS writes:
Of course not.
Then I am bewildered as to why my comments prompted in you the bizarre response about leaving kids on doorsteps to be raised by governments?
Straggler writes:
Are you so ideologically bound that you would refuse this sort of service because it's funded by "da GOVERNMENT" (play sinister music)...?
CS writes:
Not at all; its not the simple government involvement that I mind. Its the idea that its an advantage to have the government teach our kids basic things like dental hygeine instead of us doing it for them at home. Its this shift in mentality away from doing what needs to be done and taking care of ourselves and towards shruggin it off on the government instead that I find distasteful.
Is that really what you think giving nursery kids publicly funded dental checkups amounts to? Some sort of crazy big government plot to take over your rightful role as a parent?
CS writes:
Kinda like what Onifre's talking about: rather than getting people to eat right and exercise....
How do you intend to do that exactly? Isn't there a role for public healthcare provision in achieving that aim? Or do you think we can just tell everyone to buck up their ideas and Voila! Problem solved. No doubt along with world peace and enlightenment for all.
CS writes:
....we'll just all chip in for a healthcare system that allows them to trash their bodies further.
And yet it seems that those in countries with the best public healthcare tend to live healthier lifestyles than in the US where there is apparently every reason to take the sort of 'individual responsibility' approach you are advocating. Why is that do you think?
I would suggest that what no doubt seems like common sense to you is in many cases the very opposite of how things actually work in practise.
CS writes:
Don't worry about teaching your kids personal hygiene, they'll take care of that shit in school. Its an advantage!
How do you come to that from me providing you with the fact that my youngest son got a dental checkup at nursery as an example of focussing on prevention?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 289 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-21-2012 10:16 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 297 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-22-2012 10:22 AM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 296 of 314 (656749)
03-21-2012 4:39 PM
Reply to: Message 294 by onifre
03-21-2012 1:09 PM


Re: Muffin Tops and Skinny Jeans
Let's have a quick review here:
Straggler writes:
So health is simply a matter of personal responsibility and nothing else as far as you are concerned?
Oni writes:
Yes, of course.
Oni writes:
Frankly, there isn't one person in the US that doesn't already know everything you want to teach them.
Oni writes:
If marketed correctly, cyanide would be in every cereal too.
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?
Oni writes:
Reduce the obesity rate and the price per capita drops significantly.
OK. So how are you realistically going to do that? 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".
Yeah - Let's get everyone eating salad, forgoing burgeres and jogging 5 miles a day and a lot (but by no means all - knee problems would soar) healthcare issues will miraculously vanish. But how do you make this happen?
Oni writes:
With even more effeorts on healthier living, there is no doubt we can equal the cost to that of Canada, or even France.
"Even more efforts" from who exactly? - Be specific.
Oni writes:
My plan is simple. Shut down fast food places and make it illegal to produce harmful food.
Who is going to objectively research and classify which foods are "harmful" if not publicly funded health bodies and research institutions?
Didn't I earlier in this thread suggest a fat tax as a more realistic alterantive? But you shot me down because of the government involvement in that. See Message 134 and your response to that.
Now you want the government to step in and determine which foods are legally healthy and which should be banned?
If not the government - Who?
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 294 by onifre, posted 03-21-2012 1:09 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 305 by onifre, posted 03-25-2012 7:00 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 298 of 314 (656821)
03-22-2012 10:43 AM
Reply to: Message 297 by New Cat's Eye
03-22-2012 10:22 AM


Re: Freemarket Foodity
Your attitude amazes me. I tell you about qualified health professionals giving nursery school kids dental checkups as an example of preventative healthcare. But because it's publicly funded all you hear is a tale of government bogey-men infiltrating people's lives and then you start ranting on about leaving kids on doorsteps and suchlike.
Meanwhile I simply see dentists who happen to be publicly funded giving nursery school children checkups.
As right-wingers go you are reasonably sane CS. And yet still the mere mention of publicly funded health provision of any sort has you frothing at the mouth like a rabid pit-bull.
CS writes:
Your advocating the system teaching our kids basic stuff they should be learning at home as advantageous.
By "the system" do you mean dentists in this case? Don't dentists in America provide advice to people on oral hygiene? Isn't that part of their job....?
CS writes:
I'm more concerned about people liking the fact that they can shrug off these responsibilities onto the government.
But it seems to be in the US where these things are not publicly funded at all that people lead the least healthy lifestyles. In fact I would argue that the deeply individualistic approach is part of the problem. If you measure your liberty in terms of your personal right to consume rather than embrace the obligations of a more collective approach to things like healthcare then it's not that surprising that people think that doing what they want no matter how personally damaging it may be or how much it flies in the face of public-health advice is somehow a blow struck for freedom. But if you consider yourself as benefiting from a system that all contribute to then it is in your own and everyone else's interest not to abuse it.
I think you have the responsibility thing completely back to front.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 297 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-22-2012 10:22 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 299 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-22-2012 10:56 AM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
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 replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
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 replied

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

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
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 replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
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 replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024