IT'S TIME FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

I thought the "pet rock" was one of the best fraud perpetrated on the consuming public.

0 Replies

okie wants to adjust the U.S. mortality rate for higher number of traffic deaths , obesity ...(anything else ?) ; i would want to adjust canada's mortality rate for poor health of many aboriginals and cold temperatures .
i'm sure every country could make a number of adjustments to make the numbers "LOOK BETTER" - but it DOES'NT MAKE them any better !

(having worked in the life insurance industry most of my life , we used to say : "our business is so much easier than the health insurance business ,
WHEN YOU ARE DEAD , YOU ARE DEAD ! " ).
hbg

btw anyone wanting to live on rice and beans is welcome to do so . sorry i won't be joining you at this time !
i also will be unable to send you some choppers (aka dentures) when your teeth fall out from lack of proper nutrition - sorry about that - but you won't really be needing any teeth for eating rice and beans , won't you ?

0 Replies

hbg, I see you're getting the hang of how to prose like okie, but please don't go "there." I'm begging you!

0 Replies

i suggest we all order a MOOD RING !
that'll take care of any health problems -
and only $3.49 PLUS 50 c (!) P + H !
'cause when your mood improves , your health improves !
hbg

http://www.tomheroes.com/images/COMICAD%20marvel_mood_rings.JPG

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

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

Where's this "Saying"?

0 Replies

okie wrote:

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.

Nonsense! Vist any major American hospital and you'll see lots of fat doctors and nurses.

0 Replies

Quote:

Saying

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A saying is something that is said, notable in one respect or another.

Another definition: a saying "is the simple, direct term for any pithy expression of wisdom or truth." From "When is a Pig a Hog?: A Guide to Confoundingly Related English Words" by Bernice Randall (Galahad Books, New York, 1991).

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

I thought the "pet rock" was one of the best fraud perpetrated on the consuming public.

There is demand for stupid products, imposter, otherwise why would anyone go to Lost Wages and purchase the products offered there, wherein those products or services are nothing more than people being amused by throwing away their money? Demand for a product does not always indicate value. I guess it does indicate value if amusement and entertainment has value, although that value is not always long lasting or of equal value to all people.

0 Replies

Miller wrote:

okie wrote:
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.

Nonsense! Vist any major American hospital and you'll see lots of fat doctors and nurses.

I don't think it is nonsense at all. It is not a one to one equation, I admit that, but I am going to guess that more fit people are generally more successful and have better jobs. There are many exceptions to this, simply because heredity also has some influence upon our physical condition. However, if you look at statistical averages, I think I am correct.

I only needed to take a look at the beginning of success, that being school, and there is evidence that the more physically fit perform better academically. See the following link. And it is common sense this pattern would persist throughout life. We know that physical fitness also helps our mental fitness.

http://www.aahperd.org/naspe/template.cfm?template=pr_121002.html

0 Replies

hamburger wrote:

okie wants to adjust the U.S. mortality rate for higher number of traffic deaths , obesity ...(anything else ?) ; i would want to adjust canada's mortality rate for poor health of many aboriginals and cold temperatures .
i'm sure every country could make a number of adjustments to make the numbers "LOOK BETTER" - but it DOES'NT MAKE them any better !

Total bunk, hamburger. Use your head. If group A has a life expectancy of 82 years but has an obesity rate of 5%, while group B has a life expectancy of 78 with an obesity rate of 20 or 30%, according to you, obesity has no impact, only the health care quality matters. Obviously it does. And likewise, if accident rates differ widely from one group to another, that will skew the statistics.

Some people here have tried to draw the conclusion that longevity is directly proportionate to health care system quality. I have simply pointed out this is total bunk because so many other factors enter into the equation. If quality of health care was all that mattered, then why stay fit, why quit smoking, why drive carefully, why, why, why, since you could simply go to your doctor and he will fix you. Such is total nonsense, hamburger.

0 Replies

Some doctors even smoke!

0 Replies

And even some politicians, one being Obama, is that correct? I thought he was going to quit?

0 Replies

hamburger wrote:

okie wants to adjust the U.S. mortality rate for higher number of traffic deaths , obesity ...(anything else ?) ; i would want to adjust canada's mortality rate for poor health of many aboriginals and cold temperatures .
i'm sure every country could make a number of adjustments to make the numbers "LOOK BETTER" - but it DOES'NT MAKE them any better !

Back to this. I don't suggest adjusting the rates, but if you are going to use the figures to compare life expectancy for the purpose of attempting to evaluate relative quality of health care from country to country or group to group, then yes it makes total sense to also attempt to correct or adjust the figures with what we know about some of the other major factors on life expectancy. Those other major factors include at least rates of obesity, smoking, accidents, and homicide/crime rate. Another one would be drug use, and another infant mortality rate. There are many, but these are some of the major ones. All of this merely points out one important fact, and that is the fact that the quality of health care is only one of many important factors that influence life expectancy. If you are going to use the life expectancy figures, then you should at least try to use an equation that is more balanced.

0 Replies

ha ha ha...

0 Replies

Look, Cyclo and Okie....eating healthy is not cheaper than eating fast food. No way, no how, never.

Do you have any idea how much broccoli and rice and beans you'd need to eat to get the recommended 1800-2300 calories to maintain a healthy weight? 5 lbs of broccoli is equal to about 500 calories. Most vegetables are in this caloric range. Beans and rice have more calories, but it is not healthy to only eat B & R.

Can you eat B & R & B and not be obese? You bet. Can you only eat this and have a healthy balance diet, NO WAY!

Please show me how a weeks worth of healthy food can be cheaper than a week at McDonalds.

0 Replies

maporsche wrote:

Look, Cyclo and Okie....eating healthy is not cheaper than eating fast food. No way, no how, never.

Tell me what you would spend fast food, or more accurately, what most people spend on fast food if they eat it 3 meals a day, and think cyclops or I can then demonstrate a healthier diet for less money.

Quote:

Do you have any idea how much broccoli and rice and beans you'd need to eat to get the recommended 1800-2300 calories to maintain a healthy weight? 5 lbs of broccoli is equal to about 500 calories. Most vegetables are in this caloric range. Beans and rice have more calories, but it is not healthy to only eat B & R.

Can you eat B & R & B and not be obese? You bet. Can you only eat this and have a healthy balance diet, NO WAY!

Please show me how a weeks worth of healthy food can be cheaper than a week at McDonalds.

There are lots of things besides broccoli, beans and rice, but to correct you on something, there are cultures that live on mostly rice, and I dare say that diet is healthier than fast food 3 times a day would be.

0 Replies

Miller wrote:

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

Where's this "Saying"?

I heard someone say this.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

and I dare say that diet is healthier than fast food 3 times a day would be.

I wasn't arguing that fast food was healthier than beans/rice. I was arguing that fast food is CHEAPER than a healthy diet would be.

Do you really need a strawman for this argument Okie?

0 Replies

okie wrote:

maporsche wrote:
Look, Cyclo and Okie....eating healthy is not cheaper than eating fast food. No way, no how, never.

Tell me what you would spend fast food, or more accurately, what most people spend on fast food if they eat it 3 meals a day, and think cyclops or I can then demonstrate a healthier diet for less money.

If I was on a budget, you can get quite full from most $0.99 cent menus. I would estimate that I would be full on about $12/day, and I'm a 180lb male.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Back to this. I don't suggest adjusting the rates, but if you are going to use the figures to compare life expectancy for the purpose of attempting to evaluate relative quality of health care from country to country or group to group, then yes it makes total sense to also attempt to correct or adjust the figures with what we know about some of the other major factors on life expectancy. Those other major factors include at least rates of obesity, smoking, accidents, and homicide/crime rate. Another one would be drug use, and another infant mortality rate. There are many, but these are some of the major ones. All of this merely points out one important fact, and that is the fact that the quality of health care is only one of many important factors that influence life expectancy. If you are going to use the life expectancy figures, then you should at least try to use an equation that is more balanced.

Do we "also attempt to correct" the figures for those other countries? For example, the percentage of smokers is higher in most other countries than in the United States. Should we assume that their life expectancy (which is, statistically, already higher than in the US) is even higher than that - because it should be corrected?

And if you adjust the US figures for traffic accidents, do we "also attempt to correct" the figures for France for lack of ACs? For example, the heat spell in Europe back in 2003 killed an extraordinarily large number of people in France. That was, in large parts, attributed to the fact that private houses in France rarely ever have air conditioning - simply because there rarely used to be several very hot days in a row in France. Different in the US, where almost every house or apartment has AC.

Do we correct life expectancy in France for those "cultural factors" as well? Would we get "an equation that is more balanced" that way?

0 Replies

IT'S TIME FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know