Who hurts the US Healthcare system worse?

Hmmm....you seem to think I am still calling you a liar. I am not.
I am calling you crazy.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

And I'm asking you what the basis is for your claim that I'm crazy. It seemed like in context, you were saying that I was crazy because I recounted as true events that did not occur. It seemed like that because you quoted me recounting some events, and then responded below the quote by saying I must be crazy. So I asked you which events those were that you thought didn't occur.But, ok, you're not saying that. You're just calling me crazy apropos of... what, exactly? You're making an assertion. I'm asking you what the basis for it is. There's no need to be evasive, I'm just asking you to support your contentions.

Apropos of...you being an English speaking kofh2u.

Putting a price floor on wages forces a minimum wage. That does 3 things:I) Drives inflation: decreases the $, which the forced wage then becomes null for the person who receives it.
((a)) this puts the person in a worse position than when they started
((b)) hurts people making above the minimum wage because it essentially takes back a portion of earned incremental raises.
(((i))) Buying power decreases, so spending decreases
(((ii))) business suffersII) Increases Labor Costs
((a)) Employers have less to spend on labor expenses, so they cut back on hiring or lay people off.
((b))alternatively, they hire under the tableIII) Black Markets: always a necessary byproduct of any price floor.
((a)) creates illegal immigration
((b)) in turn, causes unemployment for legal workers who cannot compete with black market laborAll of these factors drive unemployment. And no, it isn't really a handout, because the person who receives a wage hike because the price floor is raised sees a very short term benefit before inflation catches up and they end up with less buying power than before the wage hike. Because the buying power increases.Would you rather have $3 that will buy one gallon of milk or $1 that will buy 1 gallon of milk?If $1 will buy milk when formerly $3 was necessary, does it matter if the nominal value of $ is less to divy up?Fewer $s in the till, but a better quality and quantity for those less dollars.This is simply a matter of allowing the market to naturally find its point of equilibrium.In the meantime, the working poor would benefit naturally from their same meager nominal wages buying more and that would afford them to get over the poverty line simply because the poverty line would drop even though their nominal dollars would remain the same.All at the same time, producers could produce at a lower cost, because of the combination of paying lower wages and having more bang for their buck, which means they can 1) hire more people and 2) sell items for less, which would enrich everyone at every level of the economic spectrum.

I should note that I consider people who desire that the minimum wage be raised out of personal benefit are essentially asking for a handout, even though that I agree that calling wage increases a "handout" is probably wrong.

Before the Min Wage is called anything, the name calling must be restricted to only those people, on the one side, who believe a Min Wage is as necessary as the Taft Hartley Act and all the legislation against monopolies and other unfair business practices.People against a Min Wage need not even respond at all since they already assert the wage safety net should not exist. Once we separate these two groups, it becomes factually clear that the minimum wage stopped increasing at the rate it had after 1965.Once we people who support a min wage see that it has stayed at half what it would now be had it increased in every decade proportionalyl to previous increases and the similar rise in all other wages and prices over those decades.Once we see that the min wage froze during the sixties, when women exploded into the labor force, expanding/doubling the Labor Supply, it become apparent that Min Wage stopped increasing due to the law of supply and demand for labor.Then, with that history and record in hand, the people who believe a laborer ought receive a livable Wage can decide on raises now due.That would not include you would it Eli?Edited by kofh2u, : No reason given.

You can't talk to liberal progressives about anything unless you grant them the unique privilege to tag you as a member of a Politically Incorrect Group.This is their democratic call to arms.
They expect other liberal democratic brainwashed media trained people to ignore the discussion and focus on the group warfare.Crazy is the battle cry against common sense arguments they encounter.
If you are critical of Single Mother, fatherless families, they will call you a woman hater.Homophobic is reserved for people who want attention to the doubling of the HIV/AIDS case every ten years in America and the lack of Quarantine/identification of infected Carriers now doubling due to subsidized medical services and drug.Religious nut case is the battle cry against those decrying the wide open Sexual Promiscuity directly promoted by Gay Marriage, shameless abortions, free condoms, TV and Movie porn, and 14 years of "recreational adolescent sex" until marriage @ age 26.You will called a racist if pro-death penalty.
You will be called a bigot if you criticize the violent Black inner city situation.They have a tag so they don't need to respond rationally.
Its Cultural Democracy where guys like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, and the Gays, and the Unions can just amass in kangaroo style to get their way.

That isn't true.

Hi oni, I think the food problem is caused by the genetically engineering that has taken place in the food industry over the last 60 years.The last year I farmed to make money was 1962. We had always grown tobacco as a money crop. I had been involved in agriculture in school and was using all the new and improved methods, but until 1962 the best I could do in producing lbs of tobacco per acre was an average of 1900 lbs per acre. In 1962 I was invited to use a special genetically engineered tobacco seed. That year I produced 3200 lbs of tobacco per acre. It wasn't the highest grade but it averaged only 8cents per lb less that the highest grade. I had no bug problems of any kind and did not have to use any poison.At that time a chicken had about 1/8 th the white meat that a chicken does today.It is getting harder and harder to get seeds or animals that have not been genetically engineered, including pumped full of steroids.I gather from that, we are being exposed to chemicals and food that has been genetically engineered to produce more per acre, to be what is causing the obesity problem in America. Especially when you add in tv's and laziness.

If it is that, without a doubt we have the evidence to prove it, then it follows that our health and the condition of our bodies when we get older has a direct correlation to the food we eat. I believe I've made a good argument for it here. Crash and I are just going around in circles and it's become pointless. How was it a bad thing to do that to tobacco? I mean, people are going to smoke it. Did it produce a more toxic tobacco? I agree with everything, except that I believe the laziness is directly correlated to the food we eat.- Oni

However, it does not have a direct correlation to the cost of treating that person. Unfortunately, the same person being treated in the US will cost twice as much as the same person in the UK. As to the topic described in the title of this thread, it is the US healthcare system itself that hurts us the most. Obesity causes a very minor increase in costs compared to the doubling of costs produced by the system itself.

Hi oni, The tobacco had at least twice as much tar as normal tobacco but to weigh as much as it did it needed to be more than twice the amount.The tar I refer too is what gets on your arms when you pull the leaves off the stalk and put under the other arm until full and then you put in the sled. We had fire cured tobacco so we gathered 3 to 5 leaves at the time as the turned yellow on a weekly basis until all leaves were off the stalk.The tar would turn your arm brown and was real stickey. The same substance remained in the tobacco when cured and turned into cigaretts. It is the same substance that turns a smoker's fingers brown, a filter brown, clothes, and furniture, it coats the lungs and destroys the liner in the lungs and causes cancer as well as teeth to rot.Not a very good thing. That is the reason I quit smoking the same year I quit growing tobacco. Laziness is a choice, produced by an attitude of let someone else do it. Why should I bother?God Bless,

Thanks, I wasn't aware of all that. You think all cases of laziness are a choice? You don't believe the food you eat ha anything to do with not having enough energy or will to be physically active?- Oni

Hi oni, I believe that the energy stored in the food we eat has a direct effect on the amount of energy we can expend in activity without getting tired.But a person that receives enough food to power the body for a day's work and will not preform the work is lazy.A person that is not willing to work to provide food for himself/herself for their family is lazy. A person that would rather sit around and watch TV and let someone else supply the food for their family is lazy.I have worked since I was 4 years old.
At 4 I had to wash the dishes. It didn't make any difference that grandma had to rewash some of them. But by the time I was 5 she did not have to rewash any of them.By the time I was seven I began to work in the fields along side of the men. By the time I was nine I was contracting croping tobacco 6 days a week. By the time I was twelve I was running the farm as my dad had got a job as inspector with the state DOT.I am now 73 and during my lifetime I received unemployment for two months during hunting season when the company I was working for got slow on work. So by mutal agreement I was laid off. I returned to work after hunting season ended.Everything I have was earned by applying the skills I had and those I acquired over my lifetime.I had an injury in 1959 that I could have applied for SS Disability and received payments from then until now had I chose to do so. I chose to overcome my problems and work and provide for my family.Had I chose to go the SS disability route I would have been lazy.God Bless,

This really isn't the case (if my memory of physio isn't failing me). Our blood glucose stays pretty level, at least for non-diabetics. The liver is converts excess blood glucose into stored glycogen, and then releases that glycogen back into the blood stream when glucose gets low. Even if someone is completely sedentary you will still see an initial spike in blood glucose right after a meal that then moves back to a normal baseline within 2 hours. However, that glucose is made into glycogen and stored lipids which can be released back into the bloodstream at any point, even days later. If those glycogen stores from your last meal get low the the body will start to convert proteins (including those that make up your body) into glycogen, or use stored lipids to produce glycogen.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.