A great example of do what I say, not as I do!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Leave it to our politicians.

FINALLY...THE $50,000 QUESTION WAS ASKED!!!!!.....YESTERDAY ON THE "ABC..OBAMA SPECIAL ON HEALTH CARE"......OBAMA WAS ASKED, "MR. PRESIDENT WILL YOU AND YOUR FAMILY GIVE UP YOUR CURRENT HEALTH CARE PROGRAM AND JOIN THE NEW "UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE PROGRAM" THAT THE REST OF US WILL BE ON ????.....OBAMA IGNORED THE QUESTION AND DIDN'T ANSWER IT!!!.....A NUMBER OF SENATORS WERE ASKED THE SAME QUESTION AND THEIR RESPONSE WAS...WE WILL THINK ABOUT IT!!!!



IT WAS ALSO ANNOUNCED TODAY ON THE NEWS THAT THE "KENNEDY HEALTH CARE BILL"....HAS WRITTEN INTO IT THAT CONGRESS WILL BE (FROM THIS GREAT HEALTH CARE PLAN)…. EXEMPT!!!!!



HOW ABOUT THOSE APPLES.....NOT GOOD ENOUGH FOR OBAMA OR CONGRESS......BUT "OK" FOR THE REST OF US????????

Jesus. There is no "universal health care program." Most people will stay on the current insurance that they have. The proposal is for a public health care option for those who are not covered by their employer. Of course Obama won't be on that program. Most Americans won't.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/20/2009 02:42PM by WashingTone-Locian.

Here is what I say to all of you who want public healthcare. We already have a publically funded healthcare service in this country and its run by the Department of Veterans Affiars. Yes, its for the military but its the probably the closest thing we have to a working model of public health care in this country. Yes, its nice for routine, non emergency medical procedures, but if you have an emergency or need a specialist, good luck. The waits are long and the service is medicore at best. Thats for the people who have literally given life and limbs in service to the country. Think its going to be any better regular Joe? Also, as far as i know, i dont think the Commander and Chief is using VA services.

I do admit that I am not a veteran, but are close to those who frequently use the services. Perhaps there are others with first hand expeirences who can corroberate or refute my comments.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/20/2009 03:37PM by FurfaxTownie.

Brother Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> A great example of do what I say, not as I
> do!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Leave it to our politicians.
>
> FINALLY...THE $50,000 QUESTION WAS
> ASKED!!!!!.....YESTERDAY ON THE "ABC..OBAMA
> SPECIAL ON HEALTH CARE"......OBAMA WAS ASKED, "MR.
> PRESIDENT WILL YOU AND YOUR FAMILY GIVE UP YOUR
> CURRENT HEALTH CARE PROGRAM AND JOIN THE NEW
> "UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE PROGRAM" THAT THE REST OF
> US WILL BE ON ????.....OBAMA IGNORED THE QUESTION
> AND DIDN'T ANSWER IT!!!.....A NUMBER OF SENATORS
> WERE ASKED THE SAME QUESTION AND THEIR RESPONSE
> WAS...WE WILL THINK ABOUT IT!!!!
>
>
>
> IT WAS ALSO ANNOUNCED TODAY ON THE NEWS THAT THE
> "KENNEDY HEALTH CARE BILL"....HAS WRITTEN INTO IT
> THAT CONGRESS WILL BE (FROM THIS GREAT HEALTH CARE
> PLAN)…. EXEMPT!!!!!
>
>
>
> HOW ABOUT THOSE APPLES.....NOT GOOD ENOUGH FOR
> OBAMA OR CONGRESS......BUT "OK" FOR THE REST OF
> US????????

YOUR WRITING STYLE SAYS YOU'RE STUPID.

That, and this is off-topic.

We used to have a public health care system in this country that included hospitals that were owned and operated by local governments and nonprofit organizations, such as churches and/or religious orders. Back in the 60s and 70s, if you had no money and no insurance and had to go to the hospital, these hospitals would provide care. It may have not been the best care, but it was something for people who had nothing.

Then, beginning in the 1980s, for-profit management companies began taking over these hospitals. Profit-motive began to take over. The hospitals, which can't deny service to people who come in through the ER, began passing those costs onto paying customers and insurers. The insurers responded by jacking up rates which increased premiums for employers who provided insurance. As the costs went up, more and more people lost their health care coverage.

The answer now could be to put something in place that would help take the place of the old system. Expanding a Medicaid-type service to the uninsured could be one way.

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Jesus. There is no "universal health care
> program." Most people will stay on the current
> insurance that they have. The proposal is for a
> public health care option for those who are not
> covered by their employer. Of course Obama won't
> be on that program. Most Americans won't.


The exact same system already collapsed in Hawaii, and you know why? Because people are not idiots, they will not idly stand by and pay enormous amounts for their own insurance, and for the public option, all the while those on the public option receive a free ride. The Public Option will become overloaded, and it will cause a massive systematic collapse.

ThePackLeader Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Jesus. There is no "universal health care
> > program." Most people will stay on the current
> > insurance that they have. The proposal is for a
> > public health care option for those who are not
> > covered by their employer. Of course Obama
> won't
> > be on that program. Most Americans won't.
>
>
> The exact same system already collapsed in Hawaii,
> and you know why? Because people are not idiots,
> they will not idly stand by and pay enormous
> amounts for their own insurance, and for the
> public option, all the while those on the public
> option receive a free ride. The Public Option will
> become overloaded, and it will cause a massive
> systematic collapse.



The best system is the one used by the Swiss. Make the entire health care system nonprofit. No stock-traded companies. No big bonuses for executives. Just a decent six figure salary for the top people and doctors. Doctors would be paid a salary, not by the number of procedures they perform. It will bring costs down and won't require taxpayer dollars to manage. Of course, the health care industry would fight it tooth and nail, but it's the only practical approach.

As jus soli does not exist in Switzerland, we would have to amend birthright citizenship interpretation so we could enroll only legal residents in the country's tax system to fund the program, as done in Switzerland.

If we implemented the Swiss jus soli and health care system procedure, there would be millions more uninsured and not eligible for the open option health care insurance. As non-residents they would be denied free non-emergency health care, and could no longer use the ERs for free primary care.

The Swiss, French, German and several other health care systems work well in those countries because eligiblity is clearly defined, strictly enforced to ensure everyone carries their own weight and there is no "free ride." You either are enrolled, pay as you go, or go to a church sponsored charity clinic or hospital.

That their populations are significantly smaller and easier to monitor is a major plus that we don't have working for us.

I hate to sound like a wet blanket, but I really don't believe the Swiss, French, German, UK and other "excellent national health care plans" will work the same here as they do in those countries. Our government doesn't have a clue who is living here and really doesn't even make a feeble effort to find out. Our government has no idea if an applicant is really eligible for tax funded benefits and services, so it just gives them to anyone, usually without question or proof of financial need.

In the end, I'm afraid nothing will change.

The middle class (which is the largest base of people who contribute to the tax base) will continue to support tax funded programs for the indigent whether eligible or not, while paying for their own insurance coverage through employee/employer contributions.

Without revisions to birthright citizenship interpretation, children will continue to be born to indigent families at a much faster rate than middle class and elite, adding to the number of tax funded insured, which will increase the costs needed to manage their care.

People who remain uninsured for any number of reasons, will continue to use the ERs for free primary care. Those costs will be passed along to the insured in the form of higher premiums and fees. To contain costs, insurance eligiblity for chronically ill will be rationed and Medicare coverage restrictions will be imposed on our elderly.

Round and round we go, and nothing changes.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/21/2009 11:09PM by RestonLass.

Well said, RestonLass!

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Being vague is almost as fun as that other thing.

I couldnt hear what you said, can you please type in all caps in the future pls. k thx bye.

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> We used to have a public health care system in
> this country that included hospitals that were
> owned and operated by local governments and
> nonprofit organizations, such as churches and/or
> religious orders. Back in the 60s and 70s, if you
> had no money and no insurance and had to go to the
> hospital, these hospitals would provide care. It
> may have not been the best care, but it was
> something for people who had nothing.
>

Back then, the suppliers were also smaller, probably privately owned companies. But at some point, the race was on, and profits and prices went haywire. Hospitals were faced with increasing costs, and at the same time insurance companies took over the paying of health care for what might have been low premiums at the time.

Once the receiver of health care no longer had to concern himself or herself with the costs, the whole thing spiraled out of control. Deeper pockets were footing the bill, and hospitals were happy to take all that extra money so they no longer negotiated with medical supply companies and people offering "breakthrough" technologies" like CAT Scans, MRIs, medicines, whatever could demand more and more money for their products and services.

It spiraled out of control because of a basic economic magic, somewhat like credit default swaps and derivatives. The person demanding the medical treatment was no longer connected to the cost, and the person paying the cost was no longer connected to the treatment, and the people providing the technology no longer had to deal with either party.

> Then, beginning in the 1980s, for-profit
> management companies began taking over these
> hospitals. Profit-motive began to take over. The
> hospitals, which can't deny service to people who
> come in through the ER, began passing those costs
> onto paying customers and insurers. The insurers
> responded by jacking up rates which increased
> premiums for employers who provided insurance. As
> the costs went up, more and more people lost their
> health care coverage.

Georgetown Hospital used to be a non-profit hospital. At some point it was sold to MedStar, and is now part of the same group that owns Washington Hospital Center and a few other medical facilities around the DC area. They still claim to be a Jesuit order Catholic Hospital, but they are owned by a for-profit corporation.

As far as more and more people losing their coverage, I believe that right now only 35 million people are without coverage, which is only 10% of the population, and you need to discount that since many of those without coverage choose to be, whether they can or cannot afford coverage. Plus, it is insurance that drives up prices.


>
> The answer now could be to put something in place
> that would help take the place of the old system.
> Expanding a Medicaid-type service to the uninsured
> could be one way.

Fuck that. What we need to do is get away from deep pockets paying for medical care.

If everyone needed to pay out of pocket for medical care, the price would need to go down by a hundred-fold, or even a thousand-fold.

Why has food prices, in the last century, gone down? Because they don't have "food insurance". Why has medical care gone up, in the last century? Because they DO have medical insurance.

Vet insurance is only now being offered. We can still afford to take our pets to the vet and all the MRI CAT and PET scans are only now being brought into play in the Veterinary field, and are still affordable, out of pocket.

If more people opt for pet insurance, we WILL see increased costs for pet medical care. MRIs for our kitties or puppies will begin to get more and more expensive.

At some point, if enough people opt for pet medical insurance, a dog will undergo a $25,000 procedure. And a cat will receive a $5,000 contrast-dye with sedation nursing supervision MRI.

Thurston Moore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

Fuck universal healthcare...just legalize medicinal marijuana...it worked for Bob Marley, mon!

Legalize it, mon! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thurston Moore Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> Fuck universal healthcare...just legalize
> medicinal marijuana...it worked for Bob Marley,
> mon!


actually thats a give and take that i could probably live with. although didnt Marley die of cancer?

Kenny_Powers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Legalize it, mon! Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Thurston Moore Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> >
> > Fuck universal healthcare...just legalize
> > medicinal marijuana...it worked for Bob Marley,
> > mon!
>
>
> actually thats a give and take that i could
> probably live with. although didnt Marley die of
> cancer?

He did...

He had melanoma on his toe, which, because of his belief in Rastafarism and not modern medicine, spread to his lungs and brain. Basically, Rastafarians don't believe in the use of modern medicine to cure ills...they would rather smoke weed and wait for Jah to cure them.

SoulJAH Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
...they would rather smoke
> weed and wait for Jah to cure them.


ok im with them on this one too then.

Kenny_Powers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> SoulJAH Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> ...they would rather smoke
> > weed and wait for Jah to cure them.
>
>
> ok im with them on this one too then.


so you think marijuana can cure cancer? come on...

Really? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Kenny_Powers Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > SoulJAH Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > ...they would rather smoke
> > > weed and wait for Jah to cure them.
> >
> >
> > ok im with them on this one too then.
>
>
> so you think marijuana can cure cancer? come on...

no, but id rather have cancer and be high, than just have cancer... come on!

The populations of Switzerland, France, and Germany are indeed smaller, but they also have fewer resources with which to monitor their populations. The US also has these convenient subdivisions called 'states' which might make populations smaller.

Thurston, is there a reason you put technologies in quotes? Do you honestly believe CAT scans, MRI's, etc., are useless? (whether they are overused is another debate.)

As for paying 100% out of pocket, that's great. We can go back to the 1890s model, in which those who didn't have the money could just go off in the corner and die.

Or are you positing that the cost of machinery, real estate, and other fixed costs would magically start declining only if insurance were abolished and people started paying 100% out of pocket?

I just don't understand the affection conservatives have for insurance company bureaucrats.

Well this will effect millions of retired people on Medicare, if you want to see the blonder and confusion just try and buy supplementary insurance to Medicare.
It is throwing good money after bad. One might think that when you buy supplementary insurance you will be covered 100% not so. How about co pay of $65 or $95 per prescription, o ya you want dental coverage? just check it on the list but don't expect to get any information when you get to the end of the information. By the way, all working people have been paying all their working life for the medicare benefits, not only for themselves but they also pay medicaid for the poor and are paying for medicare benefits as they receive them after the age of 65. Now under the OBMA/OSAMA plan if you are 70 years or older you better not need open heart surgery, kidney transplant, or any other major medical procedure, you just aren't worth the expense, you will die anyway so what is the big deal if you die sooner? The older American will never be young again but guess what? today's babes are tomorrows grannies and tomorrow is just around the corner. THE ONLY EQUITABLE WAY TO FIX THE HEALTH CARE PROBLEMS in this country, IS TO START WITH THE WHITE HOUSE AND CONGRESS, THEY SHOULD BE THE FIRST IN ANY PROGRAM. HAVE WE FORGOTTEN? THEY ARE SUPPOSE TO WORK FOR US. WE THE PEOPLE SHOULD TAKE BACK THE POWER WE HAVE AND WE SHOULD VOTE ON THE CONGRESSMAN'S PAY AND BENEFITS AS ANY EMPLOYER DOES. YOU MIGHT THINK I AM A REPUBLICAN, NO I AM A VOTER THAT HAD ENOUGH OF BOTH PARTIES AND AS FAR AS I AM CONSIDERED A PLAGUE ON BOTH OF THEIR HOUSES.

formerhick76 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The populations of Switzerland, France, and
> Germany are indeed smaller, but they also have
> fewer resources with which to monitor their
> populations. The US also has these convenient
> subdivisions called 'states' which might make
> populations smaller.

It is not to the advantage of the states to track their populations. Tracking means a percentage may not be eligible for federal funded programs - funding states don't want to give up

>
> I just don't understand the affection
> conservatives have for insurance company
> bureaucrats.

It's not that the conservatives have an affection for insurance companies, we just understand that there will never be effective health insurance reform, resulting in cost effective health care, until there is legal reform.

Then what holds the doctors accountable, bitch?

I want my surgeon to do his or her best when performing a major operation in fear of being sued and having his insurance rates skyrocket.

Similar to your botched sex change operation. Right RestonLad?

jiminy cricket esq Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Then what holds the doctors accountable, bitch?
>
> I want my surgeon to do his or her best when
> performing a major operation in fear of being sued
> and having his insurance rates skyrocket.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/23/AR2009072302723.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

formerhick76 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The populations of Switzerland, France, and
> Germany are indeed smaller, but they also have
> fewer resources with which to monitor their
> populations. The US also has these convenient
> subdivisions called 'states' which might make
> populations smaller.
>
> Thurston, is there a reason you put technologies
> in quotes? Do you honestly believe CAT scans,
> MRI's, etc., are useless? (whether they are
> overused is another debate.)
>
> As for paying 100% out of pocket, that's great. We
> can go back to the 1890s model, in which those who
> didn't have the money could just go off in the
> corner and die.
>
> Or are you positing that the cost of machinery,
> real estate, and other fixed costs would magically
> start declining only if insurance were abolished
> and people started paying 100% out of pocket?
>
> I just don't understand the affection
> conservatives have for insurance company
> bureaucrats.


This is the issue: We currently have THE BEST Health Care in the World, there is no question about it. However, we do have lapses and issues with our Health Insurance Coverage. The ultimate goal is to reform the Health Insurance Coverage to the point where it costs less, and more people are covered, but at the same time we MUST keep the same quality of Health Care that we currently have.

'



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/29/2012 04:38PM by Alias.

Alias Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> more government is what we need. i hate freedom.


freedum is fur' queers.

ThePackLeader Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> formerhick76 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The populations of Switzerland, France, and
> > Germany are indeed smaller, but they also have
> > fewer resources with which to monitor their
> > populations. The US also has these convenient
> > subdivisions called 'states' which might make
> > populations smaller.
> >
> > Thurston, is there a reason you put
> technologies
> > in quotes? Do you honestly believe CAT scans,
> > MRI's, etc., are useless? (whether they are
> > overused is another debate.)
> >
> > As for paying 100% out of pocket, that's great.
> We
> > can go back to the 1890s model, in which those
> who
> > didn't have the money could just go off in the
> > corner and die.
> >
> > Or are you positing that the cost of machinery,
> > real estate, and other fixed costs would
> magically
> > start declining only if insurance were
> abolished
> > and people started paying 100% out of pocket?
> >
> > I just don't understand the affection
> > conservatives have for insurance company
> > bureaucrats.
>
>
> This is the issue: We currently have THE BEST
> Health Care in the World, there is no question
> about it. However, we do have lapses and issues
> with our Health Insurance Coverage. The ultimate
> goal is to reform the Health Insurance Coverage to
> the point where it costs less, and more people are
> covered, but at the same time we MUST keep the
> same quality of Health Care that we currently
> have.


You are as uneducated as they come. Give me one legitimate source that shows the US having the best medical system. The "freedom" we have in this country is the freedom to die from an abyst tooth...to loose our life savings for medical emergencies...the freedom to loose our coverage for pre-existing health ailments.

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/24/2009 08:47AM by Vince(1).

As usual, here's a person trying to slam Obama without having a clue about they are talking about.

Obama clearly stated in his press conference that the bill is NOT about his person health care. In his words, "I have a Doctor by my side 24/7 and the best health care in the US."

Obama also stated that the cost of people not having health care and then draining their saving because they didn't get treatment early is COSTING Americans millions and raising premimums on ALL Americans. In case you don't know HOSPITALS ARE REQUIRED TO TREAT PEOPLE, when they don't get paid they pass that on to YOU and YOUR INSURANCE.

Actually, all hospitals are NOT required to TREAT uninsured people. The next time you're at the Reston Hospital, read the signs every where that say, the hospital will STABILIZE unisured patients, and then transfer them to the county hospital.

You are right though about the offset pass through. Hospital is places like TX and CA are past that option though. There aren't enough insured patients to pass the costs along to in higher fees.

ThePackLeader Wrote:
> This is the issue: We currently have THE BEST
> Health Care in the World, there is no question

I suspect with bleeding edge medicine that will affect 0.2% of the population, we are the best. OTOH, for everyday issues, we're in the lead pack but not way ahead of it.

> about it. However, we do have lapses and issues
> with our Health Insurance Coverage. The ultimate
> goal is to reform the Health Insurance Coverage to
> the point where it costs less, and more people are
> covered, but at the same time we MUST keep the
> same quality of Health Care that we currently
> have.

Only a grand compromise that pisses everyone off will succeed.

Insurance companies must be made to cap premium increases, and must be made to find a way to insure the chronically ill.

We have to cap punitive damages. This will piss off lawyers. While lawsuits and insurance premiums are only 0.5% of medical costs, defensive medicine probably amounts to much more. It will also (politically) bring conservatives on board and if lawyers are not given a slap, they will emerge as even more powerful.

Doctors have to 'give up the bad eggs' and allow data on past lawsuits, past state discipline, etc., to become public knowledge, and then *drive the bad ones out of treating patients.* I've read something like 5% of doctors get 50% of the discipline from the state.

Doctors also have to accept they can't just order more tests for little or no medical reason, get more money, and get the same results. (If we have tort reform this reduces the excuse doctors current use for over-testing.) For more on this read:

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/06/01/090601fa_fact_gawande

Basically McAllen, TX, ends up spending 3x as much on health care per person as El Paso, TX, but there are few if any differences in outcomes (and demographics are similar).

Patients have to accept they aren't going to see The Doctor every time they have a hangnail.

How come i never hear anything about a medical doctors lobby against government healthcare? It would seem they would against gov't run healthcare because it would most likely reduce thier earning power potential. Doctors are usally well off and would have the means to organize.

Doctors said they would be willing to take a cut in pay if the Bill includes Tort Reform to offset their malpratice insurance premiums. Currently, even though a small percentage of doctors are charged with malpracice, overall premiums - passed along to insurers and patients - represents about 10% of the overall cost of health care.

The doctors recognize that patients should not be placed in the position of a hapless victim, but they (and many others) feel the settlements are exorbitant and should be based on need, not greed.

Curing cancer within five years.

All great discoveries are usually rewarded with the ultimate prize the Nobel.

I am suggesting that another prize be awarded for curing cancer or any other major decease to save the lives of thousands of children and even more adults who have their lives cut short every year.

It would require a web based organization to advertise for and set up a data base of volunteers. The ideal organization would be the UN but due to the nature of the prized that won’t happen.

Five of these volunteers would be awarded as companions to the winner for a specified length of time.

The volunteers would be beautiful young women willing to devote part of their lives to this individual for having put an end to terrible waste of human lives.
Ben

SoulJAH Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Kenny_Powers Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Legalize it, mon! Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Thurston Moore Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > >
> > > Fuck universal healthcare...just legalize
> > > medicinal marijuana...it worked for Bob
> Marley,
> > > mon!
> >
> >
> > actually thats a give and take that i could
> > probably live with. although didnt Marley die
> of
> > cancer?
>
> He did...
>
> He had melanoma on his toe, which, because of his
> belief in Rastafarism and not modern medicine,
> spread to his lungs and brain. Basically,
> Rastafarians don't believe in the use of modern
> medicine to cure ills...they would rather smoke
> weed and wait for Jah to cure them.


So Bob Marley was a Christian Scientist? Cool.

Actually, you Americans could save on health care costs if more of you would convert to CS!

The Holy Ghost Wrote:
> Actually, you Americans could save on health care
> costs if more of you would convert to CS!

Actually, a large percentage of Americans could save a bundle on health care costs if they just got their weight under control and walked or biked every now and then, rather than driving.

Obesity is responsible for so many preventable diseases that drive up the cost of health care .... for everyone!

Ben1938 --- Are you High?!?! Or just blessed with a negative IQ? LMAO

RestonLass Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Holy Ghost Wrote:
> > Actually, you Americans could save on health
> care
> > costs if more of you would convert to CS!
>
> Actually, a large percentage of Americans could
> save a bundle on health care costs if they just
> got their weight under control and walked or biked
> every now and then, rather than driving.
>
> Obesity is responsible for so many preventable
> diseases that drive up the cost of health care
> .... for everyone!

As a note, I believe they are only attributing Obesity with potentially being involved with 10% or so of the cost issues - and that is at the Health Insurer level. The issue with expensive health care is not because of obesity. This has become a favorite target recently though and MSM is playing it up for all it is worth. Sure, is it good to not be obese, no doubt - but it is getting to the point where you can't even be "plump" without having the finger of shame pointed at you. We need to notch this back just a bit or we are all going to have our kids ending up being bulimic or anorexic because they don't fit into the same mold everyone else seems to.

Oh, contrare. Obsesity is directly related to heart disease, Stroke, High Blood Presssure, Cholesterol, Type 2 Diabetes, Gall Stones (50,000 Gall Bladders are removed each year) and the list goes on.

The cost for drugs and treatment for obestity related illness in 2008 was $147 billion dollars. Obesity NEEDS to be played up when 26% of Americans are obese (30 pounds more than normal weight), and that number increases every year.

That "plump" person spends on average $1,500 more for medical treatment and drugs each year than a person who is at a normal weight. As they get older the frequency of treatment and drugs required increases as do the costs.

If anything, we need to notch this UP a bit, especially with kids. Schools are just now getting the message and incorporating healthy eating into daily class studies - starting in pre-school - and in the cafeterias.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/31/2009 01:30PM by RestonLass.

Sure, healthy eating in schools is a great idea.

From the CDC
Overweight and Obesity:Table 2
http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/causes/economics.html

Including direct and indirect costs, in most cases the percentage is less than 10% of costs and that only applies to people using medicaid.

What I am saying is that they need to stop demonizing it - along with all this understanding that it is a disease that needs to be managed they need to make sure they don't push kids to more and more extreme behavior in combating it.

Here is your article:
http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSTRE56Q36020090727

From a study by Private Insurers:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2005-06-26-health-spending-obesity_x.htm

One of the jokes I hear now though is they want to tax soft drinks with sugar in them as a way to combat obesity costs.......... Funny thing, I believe most overweight people drink diet sodas :)

RestonLass Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The cost for drugs and treatment for obestity
> related illness in 2008 was $147 billion dollars.
> Obesity NEEDS to be played up when 26% of
> Americans are obese (30 pounds more than normal
> weight), and that number increases every year.
>
> That "plump" person spends on average $1,500 more
> for medical treatment and drugs each year than a
> person who is at a normal weight. As they get
> older the frequency of treatment and drugs
> required increases as do the costs.


It would cost a lot less to provide every obese person with treadmill and a subsidized personal trainer.


> If anything, we need to notch this UP a bit,
> especially with kids. Schools are just now
> getting the message and incorporating healthy
> eating into daily class studies - starting in
> pre-school - and in the cafeterias.

Here's additional idea...fucking PE every day. My kids get PE 2, maybe 3 times a week. Not to sound like an old codger, but when I was in school, PE was every day and there weren't as many fat kids. Of course all we kids had was the Atari 2600 and my parents even limited that to 30 minutes a day, and the rest was playing outside. Now you're competing with Xbox Live, internet porn, facebook, etc...

__________________________________
That's not a ladybug, that's a cannapiller.

Americans will never have good health care because the two party system is too greedy! In Canada and many other countries health is free and offered by the province.

Free health care keeps people from spreading diseases to others, loss of productive hours at work, less stress for families, the list is endless. You American will never have as good a system as Canada. You are stupid and selfish, you get what you deserve.

Ha ha ha... Canada has a great sales tax system too: The provincial tax applied to the purchase total and added up - and then a federal tax applied to that subtotal. That's fucking fantastic!!!!

__________________________________
That's not a ladybug, that's a cannapiller.

Despite the brainwashing of the last 40 years...taxes are not in and of themselves an evil thing.

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.

Warhawk Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Here's additional idea...fucking PE every day. My
> kids get PE 2, maybe 3 times a week. Not to sound
> like an old codger, but when I was in school, PE
> was every day and there weren't as many fat kids.
> Of course all we kids had was the Atari 2600 and
> my parents even limited that to 30 minutes a day,
> and the rest was playing outside.

unfortunately, doing most anything outside anymore is illegal mostly due to billy the idiot boy getting himself killed and grandpa screamer demanding laws to keep kids off his lawn. additionally, the decline of places to socialize in person has pushed kids to other means of communications. yes, there are still things to do but they are much fewer than 30 years ago.


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."