IT'S TIME FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

What kind of BS are you trying to pull? Here's your posts, and my responses.

Hokie wrote:

I might get cancer - but not because I smoke or do any of the other things we KNOW causes it. I won't get diabetes because I'm not 350lbs.

Firstly, let me point out there are two types of diabetes: type 1 and type 2. d sugar. Type 2 is ACQUIRED, meaning people eat too much sugar or become too heavy and their pancreas cannot regulate their blood [b]Type 1 is genetic[/b], perhaps that is why your friends have diabetes. If your wife is just now in the pre-diabetic stages, then I expect she is overweight or eats too much sugar and high carb foods.

Much of the increase in cost is due to the misuse of services.
ci posted:
In response to Type 2 Diabetes
Causes of Type 2 Diabetes
PRESS RELEASE

17 July 2002

Experts reach consensus on causes of Type 2 diabetes

Genetics, foetal origins, lifestyle and stress may all be risk factors of Type 2 diabetes

Genetics, foetal history, lifestyle and stress may all favour the occurrence of Type 2 diabetes, according to experts at a recent meeting in Colombo, Sri Lanka. 350 international experts including representatives of the International Diabetes Federation (IDF) and the World Health Organization (WHO) met on 6-7 July under the banner of Diabetes in Asia 2002 to discuss the causes that could be at the origin of Type 2 diabetes. ………… Up until now, scientists mainly focussed on obesity due to lifestyle changes as being a cause of Type 2 diabetes, however, new studies reveal that genetics, foetal history and, possibly, stress may also play a role in the development of the condition.

Genetics was identified as a significant factor that causes diabetes. There is firm evidence from genetic studies that the association of some genes is at the root of causing Type 2 diabetes.
:
In response to increasing costs of health care. It doesn't say anything about "misuse."

Health insurance premiums and underlying medical expenses have been rising dramatically since 1998. Factors accounting for rising health care costs include:

Growth in pharmaceutical expenses.
Expensive new technologies.
Aging of the population.
Increase in consumer demand.
Broader managed care networks.
Provider consolidation.
Health care labor pressures.

It seems that the real obvious point here is:

There exists a group of people here (A) who think the health of other people, who aren't necessarily related to them, is important and something which is worth taking care of. These same people see an economic incentive for everyone to do so. These people are working to fix a broken system of health care.

There exists another group here (B), who doesn't care about the health of others, denies the economic incentive from keeping others healthy, and is more concerned with keeping their money then with keeping people healthy. These people only examine their own economic situation when making decisions such as this. These same people deny that our current health care system is broken at all and have offered zero solutions or ideas to fix it.

I posit that group A is not only morally superior, but practicing innovation and searching for solutions; group B is searching for ways to keep as much of their own money as possible, at the expense of innovation and the health care market in general, not to mention other US citizens.

Cycloptichorn

I've tried to offer some ideas on a system, but you only seem to want a system where people get all the care they can suck up without taking any responsibility for their own health. And I cannot see how that is good for society. This whole "morally superior" thing is bullsh!t. That is the same attitude that the people of faith use to discriminate against every other creed. It's disgusting.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

It seems that the real obvious point here is:

There exists a group of people here (A) who think the health of other people, who aren't necessarily related to them, is important and something which is worth taking care of. These same people see an economic incentive for everyone to do so. These people are working to fix a broken system of health care.

There exists another group here (B), who doesn't care about the health of others, denies the economic incentive from keeping others healthy, and is more concerned with keeping their money then with keeping people healthy. These people only examine their own economic situation when making decisions such as this. These same people deny that our current health care system is broken at all and have offered zero solutions or ideas to fix it.

I posit that group A is not only morally superior, but practicing innovation and searching for solutions; group B is searching for ways to keep as much of their own money as possible, at the expense of innovation and the health care market in general, not to mention other US citizens.

Cycloptichorn

This is such crap. Sorry for the language, but that's all I can think of. You see this economic incentive because you're not looking at the economic problems it would cause as well. I've tried to offer some ideas on a system, but you only seem to want a system where people get all the care they can suck up without taking any responsibility for their own health. And I cannot see how that is good for society. This whole "morally superior" thing is bullsh!t. That is the same attitude that the people of faith use to discriminate against every other creed. It's disgusting.

USAFHokie80 wrote:

You haven't managed to contribute anything to this thread except for whatever you can find in google that you think proves me wrong. It seems that your entire goal here is to discredit me instead of discuss the topic. You are a pest.

People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

USAFHokie80 wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

It seems that the real obvious point here is:

There exists a group of people here (A) who think the health of other people, who aren't necessarily related to them, is important and something which is worth taking care of. These same people see an economic incentive for everyone to do so. These people are working to fix a broken system of health care.

There exists another group here (B), who doesn't care about the health of others, denies the economic incentive from keeping others healthy, and is more concerned with keeping their money then with keeping people healthy. These people only examine their own economic situation when making decisions such as this. These same people deny that our current health care system is broken at all and have offered zero solutions or ideas to fix it.

I posit that group A is not only morally superior, but practicing innovation and searching for solutions; group B is searching for ways to keep as much of their own money as possible, at the expense of innovation and the health care market in general, not to mention other US citizens.

Cycloptichorn

This is such crap. Sorry for the language, but that's all I can think of. You see this economic incentive because you're not looking at the economic problems it would cause as well. I've tried to offer some ideas on a system, but you only seem to want a system where people get all the care they can suck up without taking any responsibility for their own health. And I cannot see how that is good for society. This whole "morally superior" thing is bullsh!t. That is the same attitude that the people of faith use to discriminate against every other creed. It's disgusting.

Please repeat the ideas which you have offered to fix some of the current problems; or link to them. I haven't seen any of them, coming from you, myself.

I stand by my position, that the attitude supporting affordable health care for all is morally superior to that which looks to one's own pocketbook first. I would like to see you or anyone attempt to argue against the position that better health care for our society is a goal we should work towards.

I understand that a re-vamping of the insurance industry will probably cause a lot of people in the insurance industry to lose their jobs. But, you have to break some eggs to make an omelette, and in the long run, it's better to cut away the fat.

Cycloptichorn

I've given insight into the system because I DO work in health care and I DO deal with these things frequently. Ci hasn't given anything except pasting articles that he can barely understand. You aren't even in this country and have no idea how it works - you are constantly asking.

USAFHokie80 wrote:

I've given insight into the system because I DO work in health care and I DO deal with these things frequently. Ci hasn't given anything except pasting articles that he can barely understand. You aren't even in this country and have no idea how it works - you are constantly asking.

This thread is about "It's time about universal healthcare".

I must have missed your contrbutions about this.

Sorry, I will reread your insight views now .

You do that.

It seems that the real obvious point here is:

There exists a group of people here (A) who think the health of other people, who aren't necessarily related to them, is important and something which is worth taking care of. These same people see an economic incentive for everyone to do so. These people are working to fix a broken system of health care.

There exists another group here (B), who doesn't care about the health of others, denies the economic incentive from keeping others healthy, and is more concerned with keeping their money then with keeping people healthy. These people only examine their own economic situation when making decisions such as this. These same people deny that our current health care system is broken at all and have offered zero solutions or ideas to fix it.

I posit that group A is not only morally superior, but practicing innovation and searching for solutions; group B is searching for ways to keep as much of their own money as possible, at the expense of innovation and the health care market in general, not to mention other US citizens.

Cycloptichorn

How exactly do you see this as an economic advantage anyway? I mean I'm looking at a family, single mother, who has 5 kids and makes no money. She'll contribute essentially nothing to the fund while the rest of us pay for her kids.

In a mandatory system, everybody would have to pay into some kind of health insurance. Someone earning minimum wage as well as a multi-millionaire. Essentially, it'd constitute a fairer distribution of health care costs.)

Cycloptichorn wrote:

It seems that the real obvious point here is:

There exists a group of people here (A) who think the health of other people, who aren't necessarily related to them, is important and something which is worth taking care of. These same people see an economic incentive for everyone to do so. These people are working to fix a broken system of health care.

There exists another group here (B), who doesn't care about the health of others, denies the economic incentive from keeping others healthy, and is more concerned with keeping their money then with keeping people healthy. These people only examine their own economic situation when making decisions such as this. These same people deny that our current health care system is broken at all and have offered zero solutions or ideas to fix it.

I posit that group A is not only morally superior, but practicing innovation and searching for solutions; group B is searching for ways to keep as much of their own money as possible, at the expense of innovation and the health care market in general, not to mention other US citizens.

Cycloptichorn

This is such crap. Sorry for the language, but that's all I can think of. You see this economic incentive because you're not looking at the economic problems it would cause as well. I've tried to offer some ideas on a system, but you only seem to want a system where people get all the care they can suck up without taking any responsibility for their own health. And I cannot see how that is good for society. This whole "morally superior" thing is bullsh!t. That is the same attitude that the people of faith use to discriminate against every other creed. It's disgusting.