But bottom line is they won't. Maybe we need some sort of system that doesn't penalize those that are responsible. I don't know, maybe some sort of "health card" you have to present before purchasing certain goods. If you've been caught drunk, then it will be marked appropriately so you're not allowed to buy alcohol. If your BMI exceeds certain amount, you're not allowed to buy certain foods.
Notice you would receive such marks only by your own decisions. Obviously, it would also allow for a review of your condition to remove those marks.
Just throwing it out there. I'm sure there would be some caveats to it too. I just haven't given it some major thought outside that basic idea.
Even Rick Perry said he was shocked at the response and it wasn't just three from all accounts including Perry's.
You all really think that "eating healthy" should be the rule on if you live or die or get insurance. People with know health issues already pay more than a healthy person. Smokers pay higher rates than non-smokers so if smokers or real eaters pay higher premiums for health insurance why are you all ing? YOU pay lower rates.
Yes, I've already stated, maybe not clear enough, that I did watch the debate and I am guilty of a misleading thread le. Sorry, I National Enquired it.
Thanks.
that would still cost the tax payer money though. even a streamlined process like the one you mentioned would be costly.
nobody should be obligated to pay a price for someone's self-inflicted bad health. and you shouldn't feel sorry for them either. i don't. i don't expect anyone to feel sorry for me 20 years from now if i get lung cancer and die because i'm a social smoker. i don't expect anyone to have to pay for my treatment if that were to happen. know who i feel sorry for? people who are trully a victim of cir stance. people who are starving in 3rd world countries, people who are genetically vulnerable to cancer, disease, etc. i've travelled to and lived in some of the poorest places in the world and lived with poor people. i'm done feeling sorry for American's who take it all for granted and piss on all they have.
that said, if i want to privately raise money to pay off soemone's expenses, i'd do it. my dad raised more than $30,000 for one of his workers in his office who had breast cancer. i'm all for something like that.
and people like to downplay what Ron Paul said about the church but he's been a doctor for a long time and knows how a big a role the church plays in giving people treatment. i know it myself because my parents help people through the church all the time. and many other doctors and nurses do as well.
It costs money to do nothing. That ship has already sailed. The question here is what can we do so it costs less money.
That's very nice but it isn't addressing reality. Some people do a piss poor job managing their health, and I wouldn't care less except that when they age they get kicked to the taxpayer funded health program and we're on the hook for it. Obviously, getting rid of the taxpayer funded health program isn't a solution because there's people that genuinely need it, took care of themselves or had some sort of disability and should receive the treatment.
So how do we find a solution that forces people to make better decisions about their health during their lifetime? (and I say force simply because non-forced hasn't worked).
I frankly think providing better access to care would be really important to address some of this. Thus the reason you don't see the same scale of this kind of problems in other developed countries.
I don't downplay it. But I also understand that church's charity simply cannot provide the type of help and funding required at this scale. It simply can't.
i just don't know how true it is that ac altive private funding for people who aren't irresponsible enough to eat, drink, and/or smoke themselves to heart diasease & and have no insurance can't be helped on a mass scale by the church and other private funding. if we had a system where the govt. basically threw the burden on private funding people who are not insured would probably start to manage their eating habits better knowing that the govt. won't be there for them in any case. i trully believe that in times of uncertainty people are more responsible. look at the uncertainty of the economy right now and how suddenly people are starting to be more wise with their money. they're more pragmatic, paying off debt and not taking as many chances as before. it think the same thing would happen with food but the climate would have to change.
$600 billion in 2008. It's going to hit $1 trillion pretty soon. Sorry, it's not happening.
And I think you're mistaken about the insured/uninsured. If having insurance is a carte-blanche to lead an unhealthy life, after they hit 65 and really need the coverage, we're going to foot the bill for the bad choices made while they still had insurance. You really can't tackle this from the angle of insured/uninsured.
The most people I actually know that are uninsured are either unemployed or are the stupid kind that think they're too healthy and will do no wrong to ever require care. Until some accident happens.
I actually think this is one of the few countries where insurance is tied to the job, which is completely backwards. If you're seriously injured and unable to work for some respectable period of time (say, over 12 weeks, which is what the FMLA establishes), that's exactly when you're going to need medical treatment the most. Removing insurance at that point is almost criminal.
How does better access to care cause people to make better decisions about their health? If anything, these are social and cultural issues - how is access relevant?
"how is access relevant"
yes, a complex issue.
America has a poor longevity rating for the entire population vs other modern countries, but as soon as Americans hit 65 ("access" to Medicare), their longevity shoots right up there with more civilized, humane, adult, progressive countries. So people make the decision to obtain sick-care when they can afford it via Medicare. This also means that below 65, USA's exorbitant, rip-off, for-profit medical care is not used sufficiently by people who could benefit, so they get sicker (more expensive) and stay sick longer(more expensive), and end up in the public emergency room, cost shifting to taxpayers.
"I actually think this is one of the few countries where insurance is tied to the job"
correct, in countries with national health insurance, the only qualification for lifetime medical care is citizenship. The other side of "compulsory" health providing is compulsory health insurance contribution taken out of every paycheck, which of course totally refutes the right-wing blatant lie of "free" medical care.
It's tied with prevention. The poor/uninsured normally skip yearly physicals and see a doctor only on emergencies. By the time the doctor sees those patients, it just might be too late (ie: already developed diabetes or obesity is out of control). Early detection and giving patients information is a way to mitigate the problem. It won't solve it, but it helps.
McDonalds (and junk food in general) exists in every country, including those without the strict standard like the FDA, yet America leads the pack on obesity by a wide margin:
FWIW, I expect Greece to fall off the ranking soon, tbh
I guess, but I don't really see how it's preventative. Preventative measures, to me, should be indoctrinating kids with healthy habits and not rewarding them with a toy every time they eat a happy meal.
That's part of it too. Everything helps.
But as DoK was pointing out, some people have a family history and have more propensity to those diseases. Those people require monitoring more often from a professional. Early detection is always cheaper in the long run.
"have a family history"
genetic defects aren't the problem.
A family of fatties is most often not genetic, but the parent's fat and lifestyle "infecting" the children.
The biggest health problems US has today are self-inflicted, personal decisions:
smoking: 350K smoking lung cancer deaths/year.
overweight and obesity (eat too much and too much industrial food-like substances) leading to complications in nearly all other diseases and medical procedures, and leading to strokes, heart disease, diabetes, and very probably brain dysfunction in later years.
In the last year or so, there have been reports about how both the man's and woman's health and diet affects the quality of egg, the sperm, and health of the fetus, even PERMANENTLY.
For sure. I was thinking more about those people whose health problems are self inflicted. We're talking past each other but I agree with you.
lol I actually agree with croutons.
McD, BK, Wendy's, and all other BigBurger corps are a key cog in UCA and a cornerstone of the VRWC, right?
every kid gets taught about eating habits from an early age in both grade school and high school. it boils down to the parents. parents who are lazy and don't want to make the time to make meals for their kids on a regular basis should be scrutinized more.
if Jimmy goes to school 20 pounds heavier than he was the year before, child protective agency should be contacted and his parents should be evaluated. treat it as negligence.
That's my point. That's why I said indoctrinate and not educate. This is way more on the parent's than schools. The idea that schools are responsible for teaching kids how to eat is symptomatic of the problem tbh.
I don't think it has as much to do with access to unhealthy food as it has to do with lack of access to healthy food. Almost everything we have here is process, pasteurized, irradiated, or something else that kills all the natural enzymes.McDonalds (and junk food in general) exists in every country, including those without the strict standard like the FDA, yet America leads the pack on obesity by a wide margin:
What kind of healthy food the rest of the world has access to that the US doesn't?
I frankly can't think of a country I've visited that didn't have the same kind of food than here (including pasteurized, processed food).
"healthy food the rest of the world has access to that the US doesn't"
As US BigFood/FastFood marketing and BigFood industrial food-like substances spread to other countries, those countries are also beginning to struggle with overweight and obesity.
A big difference is that portions, at home and at restaurants/fast food are enormous compared to traditional portions in other countries. The "French paradox" is baloney. French women eat everything, but much, much smaller portions. And of course, there's much more social stigma attached to being fat in France than in USA, where being fat is the accepted norm.
Great post! Cancer being one of those diseases.
All of which are effective forms of population control tbh.
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
