IT'S TIME FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

cicerone imposter wrote:

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).

True enough. There are 5 major grocery stores within walking distance of my house, and innumerable smaller ones. But, I don't live in a very poor area.

It's hard to blame store-owners, though; would you like to locate your new store in an area full of people with money, or without?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Oh absolutely. That's the free market. Store owners are in it to make money and they go where the money is. That's just the nature of the beast.

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

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.

Grapes of Wrath: Discrimination in the Produce Aisle (2003 study)

the other thing that Setanta's commented on (and I noticed on my visits to him in Columbus) is that grocery stores such as Krogers charge more for 'good' foods in poorer neighbourhoods. Not sure why it happens, but it's startling to see.

Quote:

0 Replies

ehBeth wrote:

the other thing that Setanta's commented on (and I noticed on my visits to him in Columbus) is that grocery stores such as Krogers charge more for 'good' foods in poorer neighbourhoods. Not sure why it happens, but it's startling to see.

I'm going to hazard a guess that it has something to do with supply chain, but yeah, interesting. I'd love to know more. BTW, Kroger is my neighborhood market and is really only good for beer, milk, and packaged foods. I won't buy produce or meat from them.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

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?

imposter, do you have a bee in your shorts or what? I have not even mentioned what I thought was the cause for the higher fatality rates. I merely cited the statistics as a factor in life expectancy, not the cause. Your apparent compulsion to be sarcastic and disagree is so obviously all consuming to you that now you are making fun of and disagreeing with something I have never even talked about. Not only do you disagree with anything and everything I say, but now apparently you are disagreeing with stuff I have never even said or expressed an opinion on.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:
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).

True enough. There are 5 major grocery stores within walking distance of my house, and innumerable smaller ones. But, I don't live in a very poor area.

It's hard to blame store-owners, though; would you like to locate your new store in an area full of people with money, or without?

Cycloptichorn

Which comes first, demand or supply? I think mostly demand, which is basic economics. Why do some areas have more beer joints, night clubs, and bars instead of health food stores?

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Why do some areas have more beer joints, night clubs, and bars instead of health food stores?

That's quite easy to explain - if and when you know a bit about the history of settlments, towns etc.

And it hasn't changed since a couple of thousand years.

(Summarising my paper for the intermediate examination in history from .... 35 years ago :wink: )

0 Replies

okie wrote:

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

No, okie, you're trying to imply that life expectancy in the US is higher based on removing "fatal injury" rates based on "industrialized nations."

That's not the point; most industrialized nations do not have the same health related environment based on "fatal injuries" by auto accidents per capita. It also includes the number of auto ownership. I try to spell it out as clarily as I can, but you still "miss the points" of issue. You're the one with your underpants all in a twist.

0 Replies

ehBeth wrote:

the other thing that Setanta's commented on (and I noticed on my visits to him in Columbus) is that grocery stores such as Krogers charge more for 'good' foods in poorer neighbourhoods. Not sure why it happens, but it's startling to see.

I heard it's higher crime rates forcing higher insurance premiums for poor-neighborhood shops. I'm not sure where I heard that, but I think it makes sense.

0 Replies

but why the differential on 'good' foods - why not across the line?

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Which comes first, demand or supply?

I'll start thinking about this after I've figured out which of my hands makes the noise when I clap them.

0 Replies

Correct, Thomas. Higher crime rates, higher insurance, more security costs, perhaps even higher shoplift rates, and many other factors differ from neighborhood to neighborhood affect comparative prices from store to store. Volume sales by store also greatly affect prices.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

okie wrote:
Which comes first, demand or supply?

I'll start thinking about this after I've figured out which of my hands makes the noise when I clap them.

Well, one could argue that ready availability of something helps sell the product, but I am going to stay with the belief that demand primarily drives supply in a free market. No matter how many boat repair stores you place in a neighborhood, if nobody has any boats, I would say forget trying to sell your service. You might influence a few more people to buy boats by seeing your advertising, but I would rather swim downstream than upstream, and the stream starts with demand in my opinion. I think this is supported by Economics 101.

Countless inventions never proliferated because there was no demand. For inventions that worked and demand rose, supply rose with it.

0 Replies

I don't think universal health care will ever come to be in the US. The government doesn't supplement facilities and providers enough. If it comes to be that way, many hospitals will close and reopen as private institutions that do not accept gov't coverage. I would expect many physicians to quit and work at private practices as well.

0 Replies

USAFHokie80 wrote:

If it comes to be that way, many hospitals will close and reopen as private institutions that do not accept gov't coverage. I would expect many physicians to quit and work at private practices as well.

Well, we have discussed already the various forms of universal health care here a couple of times - more than 90% of hospitals are private here and all doctor's practises ...

0 Replies

ehBeth wrote:

but why the differential on 'good' foods - why not across the line?

Are you sure the junk food is the same price as in good neighborhoods? If you are, I don't understand the differential either.

0 Replies

If the distance of hamburger restaurants to s.o.'s home is an indication for a good neighbourhood and excellent health care ...

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

ehBeth wrote:
but why the differential on 'good' foods - why not across the line?

Are you sure the junk food is the same price as in good neighborhoods? If you are, I don't understand the differential either.

yup - and that's what the 2005 Oxford Press study was about as well (in part)

(there are actually quite a few studies on that particular phenomenon)

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Countless inventions never proliferated because there was no demand. For inventions that worked and demand rose, supply rose with it.

If you've ever taken any marketing courses, you'll recall that's precisely the difference between a sales plan and a marketing plan.

The old skool approach was for engineers to design something, and then have the sales department sell it. It's a comparatively modern approach to find out what consumers want, and then have that product developed and marketed.

It really is amazing how many products were developed, and sold, without a market force pushing their development.

0 Replies

There is a saying that those who are opposed to universal health care have never lost a relative due to denied coverage.

0 Replies

IT'S TIME FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know