65
   

IT'S TIME FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

 
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Aug, 2007 09:31 am
okie: And Miller, the comment about sweat shops was a joke to tweak imposter.


There's no need to "tweak" anyone. Your posts are usually backwards without you knowing.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Aug, 2007 09:36 am
In fact, being fat and being poor are correlated. Think about the last time you saw a Whole Foods open in the ghetto vs. how many McDonalds you see there. And have you looked at what kids in school are served for subsidized lunch?
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Aug, 2007 09:43 am
If you can post any reasonable rebuttal of any point, I would like to hear it.

Back to the life expectancy ratings as being any kind of evidence of a good health care system, it is one indicator, but as the following points explain, it is only one important one of several. As I have pointed out, you need to look behind the numbers to see what is driving them.

The following site points out the accident statistics are much higher, about double those in Europe.

http://www.driveandstayalive.com/info%20section/statistics/stats-multicountry-percapita-2004.htm

So add accident statistics to homicide rates, obesity rates, and smoking, and you realize that life expectancy numbers are highly dependant on lifestyle factors, apart from health care. I have been criticized here for saying the U.S. health care system is the best or near the best in the world. The following quote from the following article asserts that very thing, and it is backed up by a discussion of the lifestyle factors discussed here.

"When you adjust for these "fatal injury" rates, U.S. life expectancy is actually higher than in nearly every other industrialized nation."

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/08/why_the_us_ranks_low_on_whos_h.html

P. S. By the way, being fat and poor does not necessarily imply cause and effect. They could be and I think quite possibly are both effects of another cause. Has that ever occurred to anyone else here?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Aug, 2007 09:49 am
okie: I have been criticized here for saying the U.S. health care system is the best or near the best in the world.

You'll never understand that the "best health care system" is the one that provides health care to everybody; not one that can bankrupt its citizens. A health society benefits everyone. Your myopia is incurable.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Aug, 2007 09:57 am
okie wrote:

P. S. By the way, being fat and poor does not necessarily imply cause and effect. They could be and I think quite possibly are both effects of another cause. Has that ever occurred to anyone else here?


That's why I say correlated. Being poor could be a factor in obesity and obesity could be a factor in being poor. Or neither or both or some other thing. But it's not totally absurd to imply a connection.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Aug, 2007 10:07 am
It's socio-cultural.

look, Rice, Beans, broccoli, carrots, leafy greens - you can have a pretty balanced diet which consists of a wide variety of cheap and healthy foods. It's certainly cheaper than fast food. A burger, fries and a coke will run you about $4-6 depending, these days; that same amount will feed a person for a whole day if they take the time to buy vegetables and cook them themselves.

Okie is right; it's not more expensive to eat healthier, at all. It's more expensive to eat tastier and in accordance with people's cultural mores.

Weren't any of you poor college kids? I was vegetarian for a whole semester, so I could afford classes and books. I guarantee that my $5-6 food budget for the day would not have worked if I had relied upon junk food.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Aug, 2007 10:07 am
What Free Duck said is true: there's a correlation between poor and being obese. The reason is very simple; they're usually the ones who frequent unhealthy fastfood restaurants with fried foods, and they usually don't attend to good diets for their families, because they do not subscribe to newspapers or magazines that promote good health that includes the food groups and excercise, and annual physical check ups.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Aug, 2007 10:07 am
It was implied that poverty causes obesity, and that is what I disagree with.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Aug, 2007 10:08 am
okie wrote:
It was implied that poverty causes obesity, and that is what I disagree with.


It's lack of education which causes obesity, and that correlates pretty close with poverty.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Aug, 2007 10:10 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:

It's lack of education which causes obesity, and that correlates pretty close with poverty.


Plus the others have more autonomy to buy what they want and to determine their own activity levels.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Aug, 2007 10:11 am
I think it boils down to this, self discipline, motivation, commitment, and being industrious. If you are not very disciplined financially and career wise, you may not be in regard to diet either, or education, and all the rest.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Aug, 2007 10:16 am
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:

It's lack of education which causes obesity, and that correlates pretty close with poverty.


Plus the others have more autonomy to buy what they want and to determine their own activity levels.


I'm not sure that's necessarily true. It's free to go for a run every day.

I agree with the 'autonomy to buy' argument, but the healthiest foods are in many cases the cheapest that can be purchased, or close to it. They merely take additional prep time and don't taste as good as expensive foods.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Aug, 2007 10:25 am
Cyclops, thanks for defending the evidence instead of piling onto okie here.

Anyway, I thought the report I cited last page has alot more good information to talk about than how somebody becomes fat.

This statement from that report:
"When you adjust for these "fatal injury" rates, U.S. life expectancy is actually higher than in nearly every other industrialized nation."

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/08/why_the_us_ranks_low_on_whos_h.html
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Aug, 2007 10:28 am
PLEASE TAKE NOTE :
------------------------
as the below stats show quite clearly american fatalities from car accidents are NOT higher than in europe .
pls see link for full article .

http://www.safecarguide.com/img/WHO468.gif


WORLDWIDE CAR ACCIDENT STATISTICS
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Aug, 2007 10:30 am
I saw that site, hamburger, but the important statistic is per capita, which the following site shows, that I already posted last page. Our rate is over 14 per 100,000 as compared to around 7 plus or minus in many European countries that have higher life expectancies than the U.S. does, so obviously that factor needs to be considered.

http://www.driveandstayalive.com/info%20section/statistics/stats-multicountry-percapita-2004.htm
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Aug, 2007 10:39 am
okie wrote:
I saw that site, hamburger, but the important statistic is per capita, which the following site shows, that I already posted last page. Our rate is over 14 per 100,000 as compared to around 7 plus or minus in many European countries that have higher life expectancies than the U.S. does, so obviously that factor needs to be considered.

http://www.driveandstayalive.com/info%20section/statistics/stats-multicountry-percapita-2004.htm


okie, Try to use your excellent imagination before you come to any conclusion. The reason the US has higher fatality rates per capita is very simple; more and larger cars. Per capita is not a good gauge, because you must also look at car ownership. Our family of four has four cars. Get it?
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Aug, 2007 10:41 am
okie wrote:
I saw that site, hamburger, but the important statistic is per capita, which the following site shows, that I already posted last page. Our rate is over 14 per 100,000 as compared to around 7 plus or minus in many European countries that have higher life expectancies than the U.S. does, so obviously that factor needs to be considered.

http://www.driveandstayalive.com/info%20section/statistics/stats-multicountry-percapita-2004.htm



Well, take Lichtenstein from source:

http://i16.tinypic.com/4px0l8o.jpg


None of the dead was a citizen from Liechtenstein ... (It was a terrible road accident, though: four persons came from my hometown.)
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Aug, 2007 10:41 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:


I'm not sure that's necessarily true. It's free to go for a run every day.


And if you want a little extra oomph in your workout, try carrying a television or a stereo on your shoulder. Or see if you can get one of the neighborhood dealers to chase you with a gun. (Obscure movie reference.)

Quote:
I agree with the 'autonomy to buy' argument, but the healthiest foods are in many cases the cheapest that can be purchased, or close to it. They merely take additional prep time and don't taste as good as expensive foods.


That's true, but I'll go back to my point about grocery store service. If you use public transportation then 1) you have less time for food prep as you probably spend a good bit of time on your commute and 2) you have to choose from the grocery stores that are within a certain distance of your home. I'm going to pull a Foxfyre here and say that in my experience these stores usually don't carry much fresh produce.

This is not to take away from personal responsibility for ones health and circumstances. I just want to be clear that it's not as easy as some would make it sound.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Aug, 2007 10:44 am
FreeDuck wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:


I'm not sure that's necessarily true. It's free to go for a run every day.


And if you want a little extra oomph in your workout, try carrying a television or a stereo on your shoulder. Or see if you can get one of the neighborhood dealers to chase you with a gun. (Obscure movie reference.)

Quote:
I agree with the 'autonomy to buy' argument, but the healthiest foods are in many cases the cheapest that can be purchased, or close to it. They merely take additional prep time and don't taste as good as expensive foods.


That's true, but I'll go back to my point about grocery store service. If you use public transportation then 1) you have less time for food prep as you probably spend a good bit of time on your commute and 2) you have to choose from the grocery stores that are within a certain distance of your home. I'm going to pull a Foxfyre here and say that in my experience these stores usually don't carry much fresh produce.

This is not to take away from personal responsibility for ones health and circumstances. I just want to be clear that it's not as easy as some would make it sound.


Well, you're absolutely right; it isn't easy to eat healthy. It's more labor and time intensive, and you are correct that the poor have less available of both.

But it isn't impossible, and my contention has been that it isn't more expensive to eat healthy food, just slower and not as tasty.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Aug, 2007 10:50 am
Free Duck, Another excellent point; economic standing and the number of grocery stores relate pretty closely. We have so many choices of grocery stores in our area, it's mind-boggling. We have your usual supermarkets like Safeway, Nob Hill, Costco, Albertsons, P&W, Luckys and WalMarts, but in addition we have Indian, Korean, Manila, and Chinese stores all within a few blocks from where we live, and added to those we have Whole Foods (the largest outside of Austin in Cupertino) and Green Earth (one block from where we live).
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 07/03/2025 at 05:59:51