Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Interesting article that my wife (a dietitian-in-training) forwarded to me:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32306655/ns/health-health_care/

Summed up, it questions what good reforming healthcare will do when the people who require healthcare take little to no interest in their own wellbeing.

The price tag for obesity has soared to $147 billion a year, new government studies show, and smoking costs about $193 billion in medical expenses and lost productivity.

If we were to be a healthier society in general, saving that nearly $350 BILLION dollars each year, maybe the rest of the healthcare system would sort itself out.

Why should the cost of these completely preventable causes be born by the taxpayer?

Yea but smokers die more quickly. On a pure costs basis everyone should be smoking, drinking, and practically snorting donuts.

Frazzled wrote:Yea but smokers die more quickly. On a pure costs basis everyone should be smoking, drinking, and practically snorting donuts.

Frazz, I'm tempted to sig that one.

LOL


GG

feel free. I'm here all week...

Never mind the work-placed related diseases like Black Lung, asbestos damage to your lungs, and the plain ol' 'have something big and heavy fall on your head' type of accident. If only those evil Republicans could get OSHA eliminated, just think of the savings!

On a somewhat serious note, at least some personal responsibility is needed. I recognized that I do control my diet, and I also recognize that I control it poorly.

Social security was originally established to -quite literally- take care of the little old widows. The average life expentancy of men was less than the age to collect benefits (like 61 vs 65, iirc) and it was expected that women would collect for only a few years (their expectancy being like 67 vs 65 to collect benefits). The government shouldn't be responsible for taking care of people.

Trouble is, Obesity can be caused by poverty, as the cheaper foods tend to be the crappier convenience type foods. Thus the lardarses are unable to afford their healthcare premiums on account of not being wealthy enough.

I still fail to see how any country claiming to be civilised only allows private health care.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Trouble is, Obesity can be caused by poverty, as the cheaper foods tend to be the crappier convenience type foods. Thus the lardarses are unable to afford their healthcare premiums on account of not being wealthy enough.

I still fail to see how any country claiming to be civilised only allows private health care.

As soon as you find one MDG, tell me. Its not the USA.

I fail to see how civilization requires free services. Where do you draw the line? At what point on Maslow's heirarchy of needs do you separate what the government should provide versus what the individual should obtain for themselves?

Food, Clothing, Shelter, Breathing, Sex - these are all considered the most basic needs, the physiological, and the government isn't responsible for providing all of these.

Healthcare isn't considered a need at this level. It's a 'safety' need - along with financial security and insurance. Why should the government be providing Safety needs when they don't even provide all the basic physiological needs?


That said, you're right, there are some correleations between poverty and obesity. But that's hardly all the people, and even in those cases, obesity can be self-controlled.

Perhaps the government would be better able to provide universal healthcare if the cost of doing so were not so exorbitant, and those costs would certainly be lessened if people would take responsibility for their own wellbeing.

Redbeard wrote:

Perhaps the government would be better able to provide universal healthcare if the cost of doing so were not so exorbitant, and those costs would certainly be lessened if people would take responsibility for their own wellbeing.

Why would the costs be lessened? Everyone dies, the helathier live longer and have more use of heath severices over time + the still have the same end of life costs as the other scum of the earth. The majority of costs incurred are in the last year of life, whether you are "healthy" or not. Eventually no one is healthy. Eventually everyone dies.

Frazzled is right. 80% of a persons medical costs occur in the last year of their life. Just trying to prolong the inevitable has a much more draining affect on medical costs and life savings.

As people live longer, they eventually incur severe debilitating afflictions our ancestors couldn't imagine and the cost to treat, nevermind cure, those afflictions can sky rocket. This is the true source of health care cost overload. We need more wars to cull the population. Not these one offs in the Middle east, I'm talking about massive cullings on the order of WW2. We lament 5,000 dead in Iraq, but 20 million dead in Russia, 8 million dead in Germany. Now we are talking real numbers.

Or we can live in peace, grow old and slowly die of some faceless virus or disease which rots our bodies and minds from the inside out.

As Def Leppard once said "It's better to burn out than fade away." So true in these times.

But the health services used by healthy people cost less, even if they're used for a longer period of time.

I know more about obesity than smoking, as a result of my wife's studies and conversations, but the obese tend to have significantly more long-term and chronic problems than non-obese. It's not all about the last year of life - there are many costs associated with obesity that are incurred year after year, only because people won't take responsibility to get themselves in shape.

Redbeard wrote:
Healthcare isn't considered a need at this level. It's a 'safety' need - along with financial security and insurance. Why should the government be providing Safety needs when they don't even provide all the basic physiological needs?


That said, you're right, there are some correleations between poverty and obesity. But that's hardly all the people, and even in those cases, obesity can be self-controlled.

Perhaps the government would be better able to provide universal healthcare if the cost of doing so were not so exorbitant, and those costs would certainly be lessened if people would take responsibility for their own wellbeing.

Obesity is hard to be self controlled when your eating habits are established when you're still a nipper. Give a kid large portions from birth, and it's metabolism and psychology adapts to this. Thus, I believe it is grossly inaccurate to label obesity 100% self inflicted.

And healthcare very much is a need. As I said in other threads, how many people are not working, and thus not contributing, due to relatively easily cured health worries. Things like a bad back, hip problems etc. And how many others work less due to having to care for someone needlessly invalided? An American NHS, whilst costly, does have a lot of financial benefits to your country (seeing as that is the one and only thing people are complaining about. Love and peace to your fellow man, unless it isn't free right?). Think of the frivolous lawsuits issued due to injury, and the massive payouts companies have to make. Offer a Social Health Scheme, and the awards could lessen, as the Healthcare costs simply aren't part of the equation. This reduces prices elsewhere, as companies no longer need write part of their profits each year to lawsuits brought by idiots.

But hey, those opposed keep looking for ways to satisfy your own selfish needs! (not saying this is you skip. Is a general thing)

And the healthy living fanatics have the same problem. The advantage is the serious smokers die more quickly. Study after study have shown that smokers cost less in toto than non-smokers. So puff away!

Additionally, this whole pregnancy thing should be monitoroed. If only people didn't get pregnant then they wouldn't die in childbirth. Come to think of it they would create few babies to suck up valuable health care dollars later on.

If you're going to invalidate self-control on account of tendencies you learned as a child, you're never going to have it.

When can I name this the fat people suck thread?

And as for smoking related diseases. Despite the inane prostestations of the Tobacco Companies, Passive Smoking can, and indeed does, kill people. Thousands of them. Every year. Tens of thousands (though I think thats globally). Thus, again, someone who grew up in a house where both Parent smoked, is liable to develop respiratory problems and diseases. What about them? Their condition was inflicted upon them, yet they have to pay?

P.S. Can someone let me know the average Health Insurance Premium and Excess costs for a Yank?

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Obesity is hard to be self controlled...

Lots of things are hard. That doesn't mean they shouldn't be addressed.

And healthcare very much is a need.

I didn't say healthcare wasn't a need. I said that, according to Maslow, Healthcare is not as important a need as a number of other things, including shelter, food and sex - and the government is not in the business of providing these.

If the government provides for everyone's needs, what point is there in working? I guess England is a good example of what happens when you give out the dole and watch people who are happy to take it year after year and do nothing to benefit the society that is providing for them.

Think of the frivolous lawsuits issued due to injury, and the massive payouts companies have to make. Offer a Social Health Scheme, and the awards could lessen, as the Healthcare costs simply aren't part of the equation. This reduces prices elsewhere, as companies no longer need write part of their profits each year to lawsuits brought by idiots.

Ha ha haha ha...

Seriously, you think Americans are gun nuts? Guns are protected in the 2nd amendment - the right to file frivolous lawsuits is protected in the 1st amendment. It's considered as important as freedom of the press and freedom of speech in these parts...

Orkeosaurus wrote:If you're going to invalidate self-control on account of tendencies you learned as a child, you're never going to have it.

Not trying to invalidate it, as it is a matter of education first and foremost. When someone accepts they are a big fatty fat fat because they scoff too many pies, and don't do any exercise, then they are now armed to do something about it.

Of course, denial is a massive problem. In Britain, we recently had a Fat Camp open, and there was a rather wonderful documentary about it, and a US equivalent. The parents in Britain differed from those in the States on one major fact. They admitted their kid was a big rolypoly buffoon because they fed them crap as and when they demanded it. The parents in the States however, blamed it on Genetics, Environent, God, The Devil, anyone but themselves. What stuck in my mind was the following quote....

[quote=Some Mother on aforementioned Documentary. To be read in an idiotic Southern Drawl Little Jim Bob (probably not his real name like, but it fits) is Fat, yeah. But it must be Genetic. I'm big, his father is big, our parents were big

Obesity is hard to define. I laugh at the BMI calculations for obesity which are based on sex, height and weight. According to those calculations Walter Payton in his prime was considered obese. In fact almost every running back in the NFL right now is considered obese. I'm not talking about a hulking lineman, but the running backs.

Thats because Muscle is denser than Fat, thus weighs more, throwing off the BMI somewhat.

I don't know that denial and education are mutually exclussive, though.

Both the parents and the children in the documentary probably have access to whatever information on obesity they desire, they just have no motivation to do so, for whatever reason. (Self-pity? Fear of responsibility? Who knows.)

Denial makes education harder. When I worked for my old Secondary School, two kids genuinely had ADHD. One kid had supportive parents who told him he just had to try extra hard to behave. The other was told being naughty wasn't his fault. Care to wager which was a nasty little gak?

On the subject of Healthcare costs, I found this. I cannot say anything about it's accuracy or veracity, but it's certainly food for thought. How much did you say the Tax increase would be?

But denial is a choice. It's not a problem of access to education, it's a problem of ignoring education in favor of what they would prefer the situation to be like.

America has the best healthcare system in the world because, sure you will get health care if you can't afford it.

But you'll just go bankrupt getting it.


GG

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
The trouble here is one of perspective... And therein lies the problem we now have (and it is a problem). A couple of Generations have now grown up, left school, and gone straight on benefits as it is all they have ever known. Give it 50 years, and we'll assess it again. These things take time to be rectified...

Well, when you get that figured out, come back and complain about the US healthcare system, right. Give the US 50 years, and they'll probably come up with something too - they'll have to, all the boomers are leaving the workforce, and there's no way the 20-somethings can pay for the current system.

I mean, you're sitting here saying that the US is uncivilized for not having government healthcare, but look at what happens when the government does everything for people - you get the problem in the UK, where, as you said, entire generations have grown up and gone on the dole because there's no reason to do anything else. If people can get all their needs covered by the government, what incentive do they have to seek employment? Perhaps having healthcare dependent on employment is a good thing - it gives people a reason to actually get a job.

Tax all of the things that do serious harm to people health ridiculously (say 100$ for cigarettes? ) then use the proceeds to fund the social welfare/healthcare system.

Funny thing about all of this (and Mad Doc mentioned this before) is that people of extremely low income have very few options to be healthy. The best they can do usually is quite smoking, then run around the block until they can save up for a bicycle. If you have ever lived on less than ten thousand dollars a year, you should understand how hard it actually is to remain healthy food, exercise, and mental health wise.

If I added up what it would cost to actually eat healthy, get a membership to a proper gym, a bike for every member in the family, and on top of this find the time in your schedule to keep the whole family in line. This matriarchal job usually falls to the mother in the family, while everyone else complains a bit too much. I see this in more than half of the families I know, but most of these are not your classic family, they follow a very American style of living.

For example:
Single (possibly with a good boyfriend if they are lucky) Mother with a full time job and two kids, hopefully no more than that.

Grandmother with a child of her own, dealing with her Mothers health issues, on top of other issues in the family.

At what point does it become practical in a realistic sense to DEMAND that people remain healthy as possible.

Furthermore Frazzled hit a very important point, which is the healthier you are the longer you live, and the more of a potential burden you become on the health care system. This may be a bit lofty quite honestly, but their is a lot of truth to it.

Again, I state that anything that can potentially cost the government health care programs more money that is put into it by the people, should be taxed to subsidize the system.

Mcdonalds hamburger 20 dollars.
Cigarettes 100 dollars.
6-pack of cheap beer 20 dollars.

Heh, I would love a world where action like this was taken to get to the core of the issues. Peopl sure as heck have the right to eat whatever, and smoke whatever, and so on and so forth, but they need to pay massive amounts of cash to do so. In other words good luck destroying your health if you are poor, more power to the stoned, unhealthy, and mentally distraught rich folks .

Not for a kid. It is the Parents decision to be ignorant in the face of facts (and I don't truly believe anyone can be ignorant unless they have been offered the facts). And think about it. Kid is say, 7 years old by the time they receive education about healthy eating and the impact of a poor diet. This might last for a couple of hours a week, for 3 months. Thats not a lot of time compared to the time the Parents have been saying it's not the kids fault.

@ Redbeard: I don't think the kind of people who plan to live their whole lives sucking money off of other people are usually the kind of people who are concerned about health problems. (Or at least health problems that don't immediately cause enough discomfort to get off of the couch.)

::EDIT:: @MDG: This thread is moving way too fast. Anyways, we're not talking about children paying for healthcare, are we? Once the child is an adult, it's their responsibility to start weighing evidence. (Now, if the health education they recieve at their school is anything like mine, they'll learn a bunch of crap about why sex and drugs are evil, and a small amount of wishy-washy crap about eating lettuce and playing sports. That's neither here nor there, though.)

Redbeard wrote:

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
The trouble here is one of perspective... And therein lies the problem we now have (and it is a problem). A couple of Generations have now grown up, left school, and gone straight on benefits as it is all they have ever known. Give it 50 years, and we'll assess it again. These things take time to be rectified...

Well, when you get that figured out, come back and complain about the US healthcare system, right. Give the US 50 years, and they'll probably come up with something too - they'll have to, all the boomers are leaving the workforce, and there's no way the 20-somethings can pay for the current system.

I mean, you're sitting here saying that the US is uncivilized for not having government healthcare, but look at what happens when the government does everything for people - you get the problem in the UK, where, as you said, entire generations have grown up and gone on the dole because there's no reason to do anything else. If people can get all their needs covered by the government, what incentive do they have to seek employment? Perhaps having healthcare dependent on employment is a good thing - it gives people a reason to actually get a job.

I'll say right now that I'm not sure whether your just being a good debating partner, or if you really and genuinely believe Social Healthcare is a bad idea. So please take into account when I undoubtably start gibbering!

I'm saying that to deny people even basic health care for want of a few extra dollar/quid/drachma/zloty/euros/shekkles etc is despicable. Utterly despicable. This sort of opinion is usually espoused by someone from a relatively closeted life where a lack of money has never been an issue.

Now the British system is indeed flawed. You shouldn't really be able to make a living off your benefits, but you should be able to exist on them. We've discussed this in the Pub numerous times, and one recurring idea is to have literal Social Security stamp books. You get issued it, and it covers your basic needs (food, drink, housing and warmth). You want ciggies? You want booze? You want a PS3? Then get off your lazy arse and work.

However, just because a system is flawed is absolutely no reason to scrap it. Any system will have it's flaws. And people will find then exploit these flaws. Thats just part of life sadly. But to deny those playing by the rules help just because some scum choose to cheat?

Also, I didn't say the current Generation were going on the dole purely out of choice. Thatchers royal buggering of everywhere but the South East (well, more or less) affected the next couple of Generations. Imagine the Mining Towns I mentioned. The mine was life. It provided jobs and all the benefits that go with it. Every generation since the mine opened would work down in the dark. Then that was taken away, with naff all provision made. So the generation immediately afterwards is stuffed. And arguably the next couple. They can't afford to move away (house prices fluctuate, and you won't get much for a 2 up 2 down in a dead town) and there are still precious few jobs around. Trapped by circumstance, and you have to work extremely hard, and getting very lucky to escape that.

Wrexasaur wrote:Tax all of the things that do serious harm to people health ridiculously (say 100$ for cigarettes? ) then use the proceeds to fund the social welfare/healthcare system.

Like

*Pregnancy
*Competitive sports
*Living longer (cancer rates rise over time)
*Living longer (diabetes and heart problems over time)
*Working in a hospital (being around sick people)
*Working in a school (being around sick people)
*Parenthood (being around sick people)
*Being a cop, fireman, ambulance driver

Its ironic I'm for personal responsibility. But at the end fo the day evrybody dies. Statistically no one dies peacefully in their sleep never having been in the hospital.