AMA speaks out

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Get help with your application

Use all the free resources available to you from SDN: articles, guides, expert advising, forums discussions, and school research.

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
There is no other factor. Why do u think everyone is making a big deal about the healthcare system now? Because people are getting so fat and irresponsible thats its costing more to treat them.

Your idealism isnt gonna pay for johnny tripple bypass so he can go back to mcdonalds in a few weeks.

Caring about your salary and how the government pisses away your money is not greed. Doctors fight to keep their salaries STAGNANT, not even for raises, but just to keep them from going down. That doesnt sound like greed to me. get a clue.

Um, I do have a clue. If you're worried about "the government pissing away" our money, I am sure there are more wasteful programs than making sure people can have affordable health care. and describing every patient that cannot afford health care as "johnny triple bypass" is inaccurate and you know it. Why is it that people against government waste always pick the most extreme cases to make their point? Is it because that is the only way? And befre you say it, I realize there is an obesity problem in this nation. Perhaps changing the way we view food would be a better way to fix that problem. Go read In Defense of Food and come back to me.

And I am sure every doctor is incredibly altruistic as well. It's no accident that the most competitive residencies just happen to be the ones that pay the most as well. Sounds like you should get a clue. I never said doctors get paid too much, I am saying that for a profession built on compassion, there are quite a few of them that don't want to pay a little extra in taxes to ensure that people can visit a doctor. This is an especially glaring truth when you look at the fact that many of those are at the tip top of the income ladder in the first place.

Cost should be a factor in HOW we approach the problem, but not in WHETHER we approach the problem. I know that all of us agree that we should fix the helath care model, but a starting point should be that every single person should have access to reasonably affordable medicine. If I were idealist, I would say everyone should get FREE health care, but I never said that nor will I ever.

We spent 4.7 billion dollars on "Plan Columbia" and it did little to nothing to stem the tide of cocaine production. Where is the outrage from fiscal conservatives about that? Oh wait, because it's practical to try to eliminate all cocaine production. So the argument that we shouldn't provide every access to health care for every American because it doesn't make fiscal sense falls on deaf ears.
 
It is not greed. We want to make a living. And, besides committing to an underserved area or our military, it can be hard. With the amount of debt we willingly take on, the time we "waste" of our prime youth, and the bull**** that we put up with, I would hardly say this is greed. If you subsidize my medical education with no catch (years of indebted "servitude") then perhaps you can cut my salary. Cutting physician salary is not going to solve any problems but will create more, most definitely.

II never advocated cutting physician salaries arbitrarily. I argued that the fact that it seems to me that many people at the top of the income bracket seem to balk at attempts to raise their taxes or cut salaries, even if it would solve a problem for millions of people. This would be expected from the wealthy subset of investment bankers, but not from a group of professionals whose chosen career path mandates empathy and compassion for their neighbors. Oh wait, the uninsured aren't their neighbors--out of sight, out of mind.
 
II never advocated cutting physician salaries arbitrarily. I argued that the fact that it seems to me that many people at the top of the income bracket seem to balk at attempts to raise their taxes or cut salaries, even if it would solve a problem for millions of people. This would be expected from the wealthy subset of investment bankers, but not from a group of professionals whose chosen career path mandates empathy and compassion for their neighbors. Oh wait, the uninsured aren't their neighbors--out of sight, out of mind.
I don't agree. Medicine is a job. Being such, we demand and deserve fair taxation and salary. Does that make me any less altruistic, helpful, or dignified? Not in my mind.
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Many physicians currently treat medicare and medicaid patients at a loss. Obama's plan will expand this system to the entire population and then mandate that physicians be required to treat these people. I don't think doctors like being told who they have to treat.

I wholeheartedly agree that healthcare needs reform but this system looks like a camoflaged single payer health system. Many say, 'great, we could use one of those,' but other countries which have those have additional things like subsidized medical education.

And while Obama takes on healthcare, what excatly has he done to reform the financial system?

Agreed
00.gif
 
Um, I do have a clue. If you're worried about "the government pissing away" our money, I am sure there are more wasteful programs than making sure people can have affordable health care. and describing every patient that cannot afford health care as "johnny triple bypass" is inaccurate and you know it. Why is it that people against government waste always pick the most extreme cases to make their point? Is it because that is the only way? And befre you say it, I realize there is an obesity problem in this nation. Perhaps changing the way we view food would be a better way to fix that problem. Go read In Defense of Food and come back to me.

And I am sure every doctor is incredibly altruistic as well. It's no accident that the most competitive residencies just happen to be the ones that pay the most as well. Sounds like you should get a clue. I never said doctors get paid too much, I am saying that for a profession built on compassion, there are quite a few of them that don't want to pay a little extra in taxes to ensure that people can visit a doctor. This is an especially glaring truth when you look at the fact that many of those are at the tip top of the income ladder in the first place.

Cost should be a factor in HOW we approach the problem, but not in WHETHER we approach the problem. I know that all of us agree that we should fix the helath care model, but a starting point should be that every single person should have access to reasonably affordable medicine. If I were idealist, I would say everyone should get FREE health care, but I never said that nor will I ever.

We spent 4.7 billion dollars on "Plan Columbia" and it did little to nothing to stem the tide of cocaine production. Where is the outrage from fiscal conservatives about that? Oh wait, because it's practical to try to eliminate all cocaine production. So the argument that we shouldn't provide every access to health care for every American because it doesn't make fiscal sense falls on deaf ears.

We shouldnt cover all americans. If I knew my tax dollars were going to help out the single mom trying to support her kids, then yea I would be ok with that. But if its being wasted on the drug addict, than no im not ok with that.

Also, why should I have to pay more because other people dont take care of their bodies and dont care about their health.

I love wendys, I could eat it everyday. I have done so, on some occassions. But I also goto the gym and work it off and try to stay in good shape. Most people are happy not working it off and playing Xbox instead. Thats totally cool, thats their choice. But they made their choice, they should have to live with the consequences. Same goes for your drug users and smokers.

1 outta 4 kids is overweight and something like 2 outta 3 adults are overweight/obese.

As far as the government wasting money. I more specifically meant that the government is run by *****s who will engage in wasteful/unfounded spending. Before we try to shove 47 million more people into medicare, maybe we should try to fix medicare and make it feasible for the people who are already in it.

People think that once everyone gets covered costs will magically decrease. As you said obesity is an epidemic, how does the doctor telling you youre fat change anything? Him telling you to stop smoking makes you quit immediately right?

I agree with you about the food thing. But this is an education problem not a medical problem. We should be spending money to educate kids on proper diet and exercise.
 
I don't agree. Medicine is a job. Being such, we demand and deserve fair taxation and salary. Does that make me any less altruistic, helpful, or dignified? Not in my mind.

Yes, but US tax rates are lower than every other industrial nation. I agree that physicians should be among the highest paid professions, but that shouldn't come at the expense of others people's health.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/altruism

"1 : unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others
2 : behavior by an animal that is not beneficial to or may be harmful to itself but that benefits others of its species"

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=egoism&db=luna

"1. the habit of valuing everything only in reference to one's personal interest; selfishness (opposed to altruism ).
2. egotism or conceit.
3. Ethics. the view that morality ultimately rests on self-interest."

Yes, "demanding" a certain pay does make it less altruistic, by definition.
 
We shouldnt cover all americans. If I knew my tax dollars were going to help out the single mom trying to support her kids, then yea I would be ok with that. But if its being wasted on the drug addict, than no im not ok with that.

Also, why should I have to pay more because other people dont take care of their bodies and dont care about their health.

I love wendys, I could eat it everyday. I have done so, on some occassions. But I also goto the gym and work it off and try to stay in good shape. Most people are happy not working it off and playing Xbox instead. Thats totally cool, thats their choice. But they made their choice, they should have to live with the consequences. Same goes for your drug users and smokers.

1 outta 4 kids is overweight and something like 2 outta 3 adults are overweight/obese.

As far as the government wasting money. I more specifically meant that the government is run by *****s who will engage in wasteful/unfounded spending. Before we try to shove 47 million more people into medicare, maybe we should try to fix medicare and make it feasible for the people who are already in it.

People think that once everyone gets covered costs will magically decrease. As you said obesity is an epidemic, how does the doctor telling you youre fat change anything? Him telling you to stop smoking makes you quit immediately right?

I agree with you about the food thing. But this is an education problem not a medical problem. We should be spending money to educate kids on proper diet and exercise.

Exactly, that also means it is not a reason to reject making sure everyone has access to medical care. Also, your logic defeats itself. Not EVERY person denied access to HC because of cost is obese. Why do THEY have to suffer for the sins of others? See? The same reason you shouldn't have to pay more is the same reason they should not be excluded.
 
Exactly, that also means it is not a reason to reject making sure everyone has access to medical care. Also, your logic defeats itself. Not EVERY person denied access to HC because of cost is obese. Why do THEY have to suffer for the sins of others? See? The same reason you shouldn't have to pay more is the same reason they should not be excluded.

Well since MOST americans are obese that majority of these people are covered. Then you have 47 million people uninsured who you say covering will make a world of difference.

30% of those people are uninsured by choice because they are young and have other priorities. X number of these people are illegally in the country (whom I would rather pay coverage for than drug addicts). Then theres a number of people who are between coverage and will have coverage again within a year.

The number of people who are in the category you say is much smaller.

No matter what the system a percentage of people will be screwed over. But coverage for all will do very little to help with the current problems and will only compound them. In theory coverage for all would be nice, but our government is to inept to successfully accomplish this or understand the implications.

Also my logic doesnt defeat itself, its based on the idea of covering the most people with finite resources. No system can pander to every person, every case or every individual need.
 
Yes, but US tax rates are lower than every other industrial nation. I agree that physicians should be among the highest paid professions, but that shouldn't come at the expense of others people's health.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/altruism

"1 : unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others
2 : behavior by an animal that is not beneficial to or may be harmful to itself but that benefits others of its species"

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=egoism&db=luna

"1. the habit of valuing everything only in reference to one's personal interest; selfishness (opposed to altruism ).
2. egotism or conceit.
3. Ethics. the view that morality ultimately rests on self-interest."

Yes, "demanding" a certain pay does make it less altruistic, by definition.
I don't really think there's such a thing as true altriuism. You're always getting some reward out of what you do. It may be money or it may be the satisfaction of helping others.

Why do physicians have to put everyone else ahead of themselves and their families?
 
I don't really think there's such a thing as true altriuism. You're always getting some reward out of what you do. It may be money or it may be the satisfaction of helping others.

Why do physicians have to put everyone else ahead of themselves and their families?

Because that's what the job entails. Everyone who goes into the profession knows that it requires certain sacrifices. Now, do I think doctors should be forced to treat patients at a loss? no. But that is a different question from whether everyone should have access to affordable care.
 
We shouldnt cover all americans. If I knew my tax dollars were going to help out the single mom trying to support her kids, then yea I would be ok with that. But if its being wasted on the drug addict, than no im not ok with that.

Also, why should I have to pay more because other people dont take care of their bodies and dont care about their health.

I love wendys, I could eat it everyday. I have done so, on some occassions. But I also goto the gym and work it off and try to stay in good shape. Most people are happy not working it off and playing Xbox instead. Thats totally cool, thats their choice. But they made their choice, they should have to live with the consequences. Same goes for your drug users and smokers.

1 outta 4 kids is overweight and something like 2 outta 3 adults are overweight/obese.

As far as the government wasting money. I more specifically meant that the government is run by *****s who will engage in wasteful/unfounded spending. Before we try to shove 47 million more people into medicare, maybe we should try to fix medicare and make it feasible for the people who are already in it.

People think that once everyone gets covered costs will magically decrease. As you said obesity is an epidemic, how does the doctor telling you youre fat change anything? Him telling you to stop smoking makes you quit immediately right?

I agree with you about the food thing. But this is an education problem not a medical problem. We should be spending money to educate kids on proper diet and exercise.
Being healthy is so much more complicated than that. You have the time to go to a gym and the resources to pay for a membership and perhaps you're even lucky enough to live in an area where there are accessible parks or trails where it is safe to run. You also (presumably) have the time and money to cook healthy foods if you want to, and live close to grocery stores or have a car to get to them. Moreover, people don't stay young forever--as you age your metabolism is going to slow down and it is going to be more difficult for you to maintain those "ideal" results.

If you don't pay for the drug addict to be successfully rehabilitated, he is going to keep showing up in your emergency room, and you WILL be paying for that.
 
Because that's what the job entails. Everyone who goes into the profession knows that it requires certain sacrifices. Now, do I think doctors should be forced to treat patients at a loss? no. But that is a different question from whether everyone should have access to affordable care.
No job should entail putting it over your FAMILY. Of course there is sacrifice, even unusual sacrifice, but it's not unreasonable to want to be a doctor and to want to put your family first.
 
30% of those people are uninsured by choice because they are young and have other priorities. X number of these people are illegally in the country (whom I would rather pay coverage for than drug addicts). Then theres a number of people who are between coverage and will have coverage again within a year.

This is called a false choice. Many low end jobs offer health insurance, but also pay low enough to the point where there is no real choice.

The number of people who are in the category you say is much smaller.

No matter what the system a percentage of people will be screwed over. But coverage for all will do very little to help with the current problems and will only compound them. In theory coverage for all would be nice, but our government is to inept to successfully accomplish this or understand the implications.

Also my logic doesnt defeat itself, its based on the idea of covering the most people with finite resources. No system can pander to every person, every case or every individual need.

We find a way to pay for many, many wasteful programs. I argue cutting those programs would pay for health care. I don't have to advocate that the government administers health care to think that. I can however advocate that the government subsidize health care.
 
Being healthy is so much more complicated than that. You have the time to go to a gym and the resources to pay for a membership and perhaps you're even lucky enough to live in an area where there are accessible parks or trails where it is safe to run. You also (presumably) have the time and money to cook healthy foods if you want to, and live close to grocery stores or have a car to get to them. Moreover, people don't stay young forever--as you age your metabolism is going to slow down and it is going to be more difficult for you to maintain those "ideal" results.

If you don't pay for the drug addict to be successfully rehabilitated, he is going to keep showing up in your emergency room, and you WILL be paying for that.

This is a fantastic argument. Healthy foods are sold at a premium price. This contributes to the obesity problem. taking it further, too many people say "I don't wanna pay for people who eat/smoke their way to health problems." Guess what? Find a way to fix those problems, but denying them health care is an ethical issue, and does nothing to solve them.
 
Because that's what the job entails. Everyone who goes into the profession knows that it requires certain sacrifices. Now, do I think doctors should be forced to treat patients at a loss? no. But that is a different question from whether everyone should have access to affordable care.

Its not a questions of whether everyone should have access to it. Any civilized society would WANT to have everyone be healthy. But wanting something is very different from making it a reality.

Being healthy is so much more complicated than that. You have the time to go to a gym and the resources to pay for a membership and perhaps you're even lucky enough to live in an area where there are accessible parks or trails where it is safe to run. You also (presumably) have the time and money to cook healthy foods if you want to, and live close to grocery stores or have a car to get to them. Moreover, people don't stay young forever--as you age your metabolism is going to slow down and it is going to be more difficult for you to maintain those "ideal" results.

If you don't pay for the drug addict to be successfully rehabilitated, he is going to keep showing up in your emergency room, and you WILL be paying for that.

Yes its obviously easier to be slovenly than healthy. But you can get salads at mcdonalds instead of the double quarter pounder with cheese. You can go running in the street. you dont even need to do that much, take the stairs instead of the elevator, if youre afraid of running in the street, run the stairs a few times, do push ups and sit ups. Walk a little faster, when youre going somewhere, it'll be safer and you'll get a better workout. Switching from soda to water is a small change that gets huge results. You dont have to eat granola all day to be healthy, I eat lots of crap, in turn i exercise more. You really dont need to work out that much either. I work out only twice a week and I am in pretty good shape, people think i goto the gym much more than I actually do. Staying healthy is more work than getting fat, but its not so difficult that you need to be in a high SES. Yea it will be harder in a lower SES, but simple choices can make a big difference. Also people in every SES are overweight and thats certainly not from being able to afford a gym membership.
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
This is a fantastic argument. Healthy foods are sold at a premium price. This contributes to the obesity problem. taking it further, too many people say "I don't wanna pay for people who eat/smoke their way to health problems." Guess what? Find a way to fix those problems, but denying them health care is an ethical issue, and does nothing to solve them.


its an issue of personal responsibility. If you want to smoke be prepared to pay for it. If you want to eat garbage all day live with the consequences. Why do you think the housing market is such a mess right now? People had no personal responsibility. I saw an interview with a guy who was losing his home because he couldnt make the payments. I felt really bad for the guy, then they showed the inside of his house, he had the flat screen, surround sound, leather couches. People took out money just because they could without thinking about the consequences and its ended up biting them in the ass.

Same thing with your health. If its not a priority for you, great it a free country do what you want, but dont expect other people to clean up your mess. Dont think you can squeeze doctors into a life of servitude because you made bad choices.

Like i said before HC wont fix those problems, education and management(diet and exercise) are the answers.
 
Its not a questions of whether everyone should have access to it. Any civilized society would WANT to have everyone be healthy. But wanting something is very different from making it a reality.



Yes its obviously easier to be slovenly than healthy. But you can get salads at mcdonalds instead of the double quarter pounder with cheese. You can go running in the street. you dont even need to do that much, take the stairs instead of the elevator, if youre afraid of running in the street, run the stairs a few times, do push ups and sit ups. Walk a little faster, when youre going somewhere, it'll be safer and you'll get a better workout. Switching from soda to water is a small change that gets huge results. You dont have to eat granola all day to be healthy, I eat lots of crap, in turn i exercise more. You really dont need to work out that much either. I work out only twice a week and I am in pretty good shape, people think i goto the gym much more than I actually do. Staying healthy is more work than getting fat, but its not so difficult that you need to be in a high SES. Yea it will be harder in a lower SES, but simple choices can make a big difference. Also people in every SES are overweight and thats certainly not from being able to afford a gym membership.
1. Again, in some places it is really not that safe to go running. Also, running on a city street can often just be awkward. You really need to run in a place where you're not navigating a lot of strollers/small kids/drug dealers.
2. Is walking the same distance/expending the same energy at a faster rate really going to burn more calories? Seems illogical
3. Everyone is going to have different kinds of diets/different exercise patterns to be at a healthy place. I think standard guidelines would suggest exercising 2x a week is not enough to be healthy.
4. That's really not the way epidemiological data works though. Yeah, it's true, it's very possible in every single SES bracket to be healthy, but we have to recognize trends and we can't dismiss them just because they are not absolutes, and we can't dismiss barriers just because they are not insurmountable.

Edit: Have you ever eaten a salad at McDonald's? Not only are they overpriced limp jokes, but they usually do not give you the calories/nutrients you need for a full meal.
 
its an issue of personal responsibility. If you want to smoke be prepared to pay for it. If you want to eat garbage all day live with the consequences. Why do you think the housing market is such a mess right now? People had no personal responsibility. I saw an interview with a guy who was losing his home because he couldnt make the payments. I felt really bad for the guy, then they showed the inside of his house, he had the flat screen, surround sound, leather couches. People took out money just because they could without thinking about the consequences and its ended up biting them in the ass.

Same thing with your health. If its not a priority for you, great it a free country do what you want, but dont expect other people to clean up your mess. Dont think you can squeeze doctors into a life of servitude because you made bad choices.

Like i said before HC wont fix those problems, education and management(diet and exercise) are the answers.

This is a two way street. Predatory lending practices are irresponsible, yet the homeowners are the ones who suffer. However, they are both somewhat to blame. Neither exercised personal responsibility. Many, many Americans (including some doctors) live WAY above their means.

As far as health goes, you are atypical. Most people cannot work out twice a week to keep weight off. Both my brother and I are the same way--we can eat and eat and eat and not gain much weight, but others are less fortunate. Again, none of your arguments answer mine: if the government subsidized healthier foods as opposed to crap, it would go a long way to solving the obesity problem. But just because some people have poor diets is an argument for overhauling the food supply chain and trying to find a way to promote a healthier lifestyle, not an argument against providing medical access.
 
1. Again, in some places it is really not that safe to go running. Also, running on a city street can often just be awkward. You really need to run in a place where you're not navigating a lot of strollers/small kids/drug dealers.
2. Is walking the same distance/expending the same energy at a faster rate going to burn more calories?
3. Everyone is going to have different kinds of diets/different exercise patterns to be at a healthy place. I think standard guidelines would suggest exercising 2x a week is not enough to be healthy.
4. That's really not the way epidemiological data works though. Yeah, it's true, it's very possible in every single SES bracket to be healthy, but we have to recognize trends and we can't dismiss them just because they are not absolutes, and we can't dismiss barriers just because they are not insurmountable.

Edit: Have you ever eaten a salad at McDonald's? Not only are they overpriced limp jokes, but they usually do not give you the calories/nutrients you need for a full meal.

1. I went to school in a pretty crappy area, if you go running during the safe for gang territories, you will probably be alright. Like i said there are alternatives you can do if youre not comfortable running outside. Presumably if you live in the inner city building there will be stairs, run em.

2. If i run from x to y as opposed to walking from x to y will I use more enegry?

3. first you would have to define healthy. I am defining it for the purposes of this argument and in general as not being overweight. You can not even work out at all if you eat the amount of calories your body burns sitting around. 2x can be more than enough. As i said before i only go twice and I am in much better shape than the average american (and I dont have that great of a diet.)

4. With 67% of the population being overweight/obese, its impossible to blame it all on SES, since 67% of the population is not in the lower SES class. So while being in a lower SES class may contribute to the problem it is certainly not the sole reason for it.

5. I dont goto mcdonalds I like wendys.
 
The day food overhaul occurs by the government is the day we should start burying money in our mattresses. 😆

Hate to tell you this, but the government has been involved in food production for a long, long time. Go read up on farm subsidies then laugh. I posted it before, and I'll do it again, read In Defense of Food.
 
This is a two way street. Predatory lending practices are irresponsible, yet the homeowners are the ones who suffer. However, they are both somewhat to blame. Neither exercised personal responsibility. Many, many Americans (including some doctors) live WAY above their means.

As far as health goes, you are atypical. Most people cannot work out twice a week to keep weight off. Both my brother and I are the same way--we can eat and eat and eat and not gain much weight, but others are less fortunate. Again, none of your arguments answer mine: if the government subsidized healthier foods as opposed to crap, it would go a long way to solving the obesity problem. But just because some people have poor diets is an argument for overhauling the food supply chain and trying to find a way to promote a healthier lifestyle, not an argument against providing medical access.

While i agree that predatory lending practices are not honorable, the company is trying to make money and thats what they did.

not being fat is a simple equation Burn more calories >= than you eat. People with medical conditions which mess up the equation are not in the majority and are considered an anomaly.

You never brought up government subsidized food before, but here are my thoughts on it. Without proper education, this is pointless. You could buy a bag of frozen mixed vegetables, for less than a number 1 on any fastfood menu. Even if you are eating healthy, overeating combined with low activity can still make you fat.

My original argument was that no matter how feel about healthcare it doesnt affect that fact that without the money to pay for it nothing will happen. All the good feelings in the world isnt gonna help medicare all of a sudden be able to hande 50 million more people. Doctors sacrificing pay isnt gonna make a dent in the amount of money we spend on healthcare. If doctors took a 50% pay cut, thats HALF, it would add approximately 5% more in spending which would just act to make the deficit a little less, not actually be able to be productively instituted.

The whole people who have different life priorities should be paying more was a tangent.
 
You may be right, but they don't regulate what we can eat (granted you don't include WIC, etc).

I'm sticking to my original opinion: I can demand a justified salary and it doesn't make me any less of a physician.

I never said doctors should not make good money. I think they should, they deserve one of the highest paid positions. Go look through my other posts in the thread. If I small pay cut would help I would advocate it, but I don't think they should be low paid workers either. My issue is those who complain about taxation. we enjoy the lowest tax rate in the developed world, yet the people who make the most money consistently complain the most about taxes.
 
While i agree that predatory lending practices are not honorable, the company is trying to make money and thats what they did.

not being fat is a simple equation Burn more calories >= than you eat. People with medical conditions which mess up the equation are not in the majority and are considered an anomaly.

You never brought up government subsidized food before, but here are my thoughts on it. Without proper education, this is pointless. You could buy a bag of frozen mixed vegetables, for less than a number 1 on any fastfood menu. Even if you are eating healthy, overeating combined with low activity can still make you fat.

My original argument was that no matter how feel about healthcare it doesnt affect that fact that without the money to pay for it nothing will happen. All the good feelings in the world isnt gonna help medicare all of a sudden be able to hande 50 million more people. Doctors sacrificing pay isnt gonna make a dent in the amount of money we spend on healthcare. If doctors took a 50% pay cut, thats HALF, it would add approximately 5% more in spending which would just act to make the deficit a little less, not actually be able to be productively instituted.

The whole people who have different life priorities should be paying more was a tangent.

This is the point both I and Scarletgirl made. YOU ARE NOT THE NORM. Excercising for a a little while twice a week is not what the average person needs to do to be in shape.

Yes, people can eat better, IF they have enough money to do so. No, frozen vegetables don't count, they are not as healthy as fresh vegetables. Yes, overeating is a problem, but some of that is a function of eating foods that don't have the proper nutritional value. Thus when they eat, they have to eat again in a couple hours because their body needs more nourishment. The point I am making is if the government were shift food subsidies to promote more whole/nutritious foods, that would help solve the obesity problem. You still do not answer the argument that obesity is NOT intrinsic to the health care debate. Yes, it does affect it, but that is not and never will be the point.

This is a debate about ethics--we find the money to pay for inefficient programs such as the drug war. We throw money at the war on terror when spending more money to modernize weapons does not help the cause in a guerilla war. The point is people take a moral stand against drugs and terror saying "well we gotta try" yet when it comes to health care, that attitude is nowhere to be found.

I understand your original point, and it is wrong. There is money to pay for it, but it requires cutting other programs that are not effective. I remember reading an article early in the Bush's first term about how the internal pollsters did a poll that found that the public supported attacking the drug problem through demand side means (treatment/rehab). Do you think these "conservatives" cut the funding for supply side intitiatives or shift the funding more toward demand side? Nope, they changed the way they counted the money so that it looked like they were spending evenly on both strategies. The point being that the whole spending argument is a red herring. If there is one thing that a just society can provide, it is the means to live a healthy life--that should logically include health care.
 
This is the point both I and Scarletgirl made. YOU ARE NOT THE NORM. Excercising for a a little while twice a week is not what the average person needs to do to be in shape.

Yes, people can eat better, IF they have enough money to do so. No, frozen vegetables don't count, they are not as healthy as fresh vegetables. Yes, overeating is a problem, but some of that is a function of eating foods that don't have the proper nutritional value. Thus when they eat, they have to eat again in a couple hours because their body needs more nourishment. The point I am making is if the government were shift food subsidies to promote more whole/nutritious foods, that would help solve the obesity problem. You still do not answer the argument that obesity is NOT intrinsic to the health care debate. Yes, it does affect it, but that is not and never will be the point.

This is a debate about ethics--we find the money to pay for inefficient programs such as the drug war. We throw money at the war on terror when spending more money to modernize weapons does not help the cause in a guerilla war. The point is people take a moral stand against drugs and terror saying "well we gotta try" yet when it comes to health care, that attitude is nowhere to be found.

I understand your original point, and it is wrong. There is money to pay for it, but it requires cutting other programs that are not effective. I remember reading an article early in the Bush's first term about how the internal pollsters did a poll that found that the public supported attacking the drug problem through demand side means (treatment/rehab). Do you think these "conservatives" cut the funding for supply side intitiatives or shift the funding more toward demand side? Nope, they changed the way they counted the money so that it looked like they were spending evenly on both strategies. The point being that the whole spending argument is a red herring. If there is one thing that a just society can provide, it is the means to live a healthy life--that should logically include health care.

My original point isnt wrong because there isnt going to be this massive restructuring your talking about. Maybe if we stopped bailing out the same banks 3 or 4 times we would have the money to do this (actually we would still only have a fraction of the money needed). The government is going to try to cut spending on HC by cutting reimbursements. But thats just gonna piss off providers and not gonna make an appreciable step towards covering people. Serious rationing is the only way to make it work, this is what all the other countries in the world with single payor systems do. However we get to compound the fact that we are one of, if not the unhealthiest nation in the world-this is where obesity becomes an intrinsic factor. An easy fix is make people pay higher premiums or tax or whatever if their obese and overweight (if done as a tax rebate people would be more likely to lose weight with money as a motivator). I dont see how obesity is not intrisic to a healthcare debate. High blood, pressure, diabetes, heart disease and many other ailments are caused by being overweight. With the population becoming increasingly overweight and all the comorbidities associated with it, it is most certainly a big factor, enough to be included in the debate.

I dont see how society being just and giving people healthcare are related. I believe you mean compassionate. But being compassionate, is irrelevant. Should we just bankrupt the country so that we can have universal coverage. So we can say our society was compassionate before it coloapsed? We have massachusetts as an example of what that would be like. Is the population of massachusetts really that much healthier than the rest of the country? I know that it was unfeasible, the state ran in the red, had to abandon the orginal mandate of insurance for all and had to spend alot of federal money. The issue of cost isnt a red herring, because 1. the money has to come from somewhere. 2. if it were that easy to just start pulling money from other programs it would have been proposed already and done. Medicare has been around for a long time and continually operates in the red. Medicare is inefficient, so it should be cut right? Most of what the government does is inefficient, it has no reason to be efficient. Coverage for everyone will inevitable lead to rationing which by its nature must be uncompassionate.

As for exercising, twice a week would be more than enough for some people to be healthy (the key is consistency). I am above average in health compared to the rest of the country. So no twice a week exercising wont get most people into the shape i am in. But it will help them lose weight and perhaps maintain a weight so that they wont be classified as overweight. Im not saying youre gonna be in the same shape as an olympian, but when I say healthy, I mean not overweight. just jogging for 20 minutes a few times a week, would do wonders for many people. Thats 1 hour out of the entire week!

And yea frozen vegetables may not be as great as the fresh ones, but they still have nutrients and vitamins and its certainly still better than a big mac, at least in nutrional value. Also i think a big part of the reason people are continuously eating isnt because the food they are eating isnt nutrious, but rather because they are bored. What do you do when you watch a movie? get popcorn. eating while we watch tv or bored or drunk is so easy to do and many people do it; and people dont say let me grab a fresh salad, while i watch gilmore girls, no they grab some chips or cookies, etc. I do this all the time. I have a great metabolism, its so difficult for me to gain weight. But the way that I eat which is probably the same as many other americans, even my body cant handle it and I start to gain some weight. So i just cut back my food intake, I dont even need to goto the gym extra, I just eat a little less.
 
This is a fantastic argument. Healthy foods are sold at a premium price. This contributes to the obesity problem. taking it further, too many people say "I don't wanna pay for people who eat/smoke their way to health problems." Guess what? Find a way to fix those problems, but denying them health care is an ethical issue, and does nothing to solve them.

If I understand you correctly, you come from the position that every individual is entitled to health care. Is this true? I don't know. It's quite a complicated issue, and with many varying points. Some people have pointed out that nowhere in the Constitution is health care listed as a right. However, others have said health care falls under the category of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".


And I thought I'd just throw this out there. This is an example of people who complain the benefits they get aren't enough to afford fresh fruits and veggies. And the daughter says she doesn't have time to exercise, because she's a student, and doesn't know how.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...ay-22000-worth-of-benefits-is-not-enough.html
 
Yes, people can eat better, IF they have enough money to do so. No, frozen vegetables don't count, they are not as healthy as fresh vegetables. Yes, overeating is a problem, but some of that is a function of eating foods that don't have the proper nutritional value. Thus when they eat, they have to eat again in a couple hours because their body needs more nourishment. The point I am making is if the government were shift food subsidies to promote more whole/nutritious foods, that would help solve the obesity problem.

Oh give me a break. Government food stamps such as WIC already encourage some pretty healthy foods, foods I couldn't even afford for myself on a daily basis. Has it ever occurred to you that some people just don't want to eat healthy foods? because, for example, it tastes like rabbit food? or they are too lazy to prepare meals using healthy foods and prefer microwave foods instead? or too lazy to go to the grocery store every other day to get fresh veggies?

Dumping more money to a cultural problem rarely ever solves the problem. One solution that does work is to ban unhealthy foods, but then I bet you have lots of people starving and malnourished.
 
Well since MOST americans are obese that majority of these people are covered. Then you have 47 million people uninsured who you say covering will make a world of difference.

30% of those people are uninsured by choice because they are young and have other priorities. X number of these people are illegally in the country (whom I would rather pay coverage for than drug addicts). Then theres a number of people who are between coverage and will have coverage again within a year.

The number of people who are in the category you say is much smaller.

But they exist is the point. I pay $600 a month for health insurance. I'm not a smoker (never smoked in my life), not a drinker, and not overweight. I go to the gym four-five days a week and I rarely eat McDonald's. I was diagnosed with a disease that I didn't cause and if I miss one insurance payment, I'm uninsurable by other companies. My rates go up every year, but I have to scrape together the money because I obviously can't give up my health insurance.

There are a lot of people just like me. Some of them weren't as fortunate as I was in having family support to help them on the months the premiums were just too much and so they end up with a lapse in coverage and then find they can't be insured at all because of their condition. They become a part of the uninsured. The system is broken. I don't have all the answers on how to fix it (I see pros and cons of every initiative proposed thus far), but something needs to be done beyond just education.
 
Last edited:
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Health care VAT (that politicians can't wantonly tamper or siphon from) is the only way to pay for it. Everything else is just wishful thinking. Health care costs aren't ever going to go down significantly enough to cover all of the uninsured and those with chronic illnesses in a public plan.

Surgery might be cheap in Canada, but breakthrough advances happen in the US. It's like the Da Vinci prostatectomies. There are hundreds of doctors doing them in the US, but only two in Canada. Because market incentives in the US make the high capital investment and training feasible.
 
**** the doctors! But, I'll watch Christiano Ronaldo kick a ball around for about an hour to the tune of $130,000,000. Or, I'll watch the Yankee's who spend ten's of millions on players' salaries each year.

Yeah, its funny how people can be starving in the streets, worried about losing jobs, and complaining about the economy, but GIVE MILLIONS in taxpayer money to help pay for a new stadium that team X that plays sport Y DESPERATELY NEEDS! 🙄

I guess this is just all "change we can believe in..."😳
 
My original point isnt wrong because there isnt going to be this massive restructuring your talking about. Maybe if we stopped bailing out the same banks 3 or 4 times we would have the money to do this (actually we would still only have a fraction of the money needed). The government is going to try to cut spending on HC by cutting reimbursements. But thats just gonna piss off providers and not gonna make an appreciable step towards covering people. Serious rationing is the only way to make it work, this is what all the other countries in the world with single payor systems do. However we get to compound the fact that we are one of, if not the unhealthiest nation in the world-this is where obesity becomes an intrinsic factor. An easy fix is make people pay higher premiums or tax or whatever if their obese and overweight (if done as a tax rebate people would be more likely to lose weight with money as a motivator). I dont see how obesity is not intrisic to a healthcare debate. High blood, pressure, diabetes, heart disease and many other ailments are caused by being overweight. With the population becoming increasingly overweight and all the comorbidities associated with it, it is most certainly a big factor, enough to be included in the debate.

It's not intrinsic because there are other things that can be done to improve people's overall health beyond HC. So no, it is not intrinsic. Related? yes. I am not going say that the gov can make every person eat healthy, but when 99% of the food offered at supermarkets is processed to hell, you get obesity.

I dont see how society being just and giving people healthcare are related. I believe you mean compassionate. But being compassionate, is irrelevant. Should we just bankrupt the country so that we can have universal coverage. So we can say our society was compassionate before it coloapsed? We have massachusetts as an example of what that would be like. Is the population of massachusetts really that much healthier than the rest of the country? I know that it was unfeasible, the state ran in the red, had to abandon the orginal mandate of insurance for all and had to spend alot of federal money. The issue of cost isnt a red herring, because 1. the money has to come from somewhere. 2. if it were that easy to just start pulling money from other programs it would have been proposed already and done. Medicare has been around for a long time and continually operates in the red. Medicare is inefficient, so it should be cut right? Most of what the government does is inefficient, it has no reason to be efficient. Coverage for everyone will inevitable lead to rationing which by its nature must be uncompassionate.

I agree it isn't easy, but that isn't my point. I gave you an example of a completely ineffective program--Plan Columbia--that cost $4.3 billion. Later I pointed out that really, the whole war on drugs is ineffective. We spend tons of money annually on it, yet drug use rates are stagnant. We throw money at modernizing a military that is already way overpowered compared to the rest of the world. In fact the war we are fighting isn't the type that better tech wins. You say nothing about these, but nowhere did I say it would be easy. It requires a major shift, I admit that, but to say "well there's just not enough money" bothers me, because I know that the finite resources reasoning is not true--it's a question of priorities and wasted money.

As for exercising, twice a week would be more than enough for some people to be healthy (the key is consistency). I am above average in health compared to the rest of the country. So no twice a week exercising wont get most people into the shape i am in. But it will help them lose weight and perhaps maintain a weight so that they wont be classified as overweight. Im not saying youre gonna be in the same shape as an olympian, but when I say healthy, I mean not overweight. just jogging for 20 minutes a few times a week, would do wonders for many people. Thats 1 hour out of the entire week!

Again, some. Most, no. You make it sound like going from obese--> overweight--> healthy is a cakewalk--it ain't. Especially while working two jobs to feed your kids.

And yea frozen vegetables may not be as great as the fresh ones, but they still have nutrients and vitamins and its certainly still better than a big mac, at least in nutrional value. Also i think a big part of the reason people are continuously eating isnt because the food they are eating isnt nutrious, but rather because they are bored. What do you do when you watch a movie? get popcorn. eating while we watch tv or bored or drunk is so easy to do and many people do it; and people dont say let me grab a fresh salad, while i watch gilmore girls, no they grab some chips or cookies, etc. I do this all the time. I have a great metabolism, its so difficult for me to gain weight. But the way that I eat which is probably the same as many other americans, even my body cant handle it and I start to gain some weight. So i just cut back my food intake, I dont even need to goto the gym extra, I just eat a little less.

This is exactly why I posted the link to In Defense of Food. Nutrients don't make a person healthy--whole foods do. The cookies would not be as bad if they were made by the person or purchased at a decent bakery. I urge you to go to the supermarket and look through the aisles. If the product says "hydrogenated oils" or "partially hydrogenated oils," it's not healthy. Though I don't think fresh made cookies are really very good for you at all, they are certainly better than chips ahoy! and oreos.

The point is that the majority of foods sold at out grocers are UNHEALTHY. If the food suppliers were subsidized to use whole foods, more people would be able to eat them. I go to Fresh Market when I can, especially for proteins, but ultimately it is too expensive to go often. When it is a TREAT to be able to eat something healthier, something is wrong with the status quo.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, its funny how people can be starving in the streets, worried about losing jobs, and complaining about the economy, but GIVE MILLIONS in taxpayer money to help pay for a new stadium that team X that plays sport Y DESPERATELY NEEDS! 🙄

I guess this is just all "change we can believe in..."😳

Except local governments pay for stadiums.
 
Oh give me a break. Government food stamps such as WIC already encourage some pretty healthy foods, foods I couldn't even afford for myself on a daily basis. Has it ever occurred to you that some people just don't want to eat healthy foods? because, for example, it tastes like rabbit food? or they are too lazy to prepare meals using healthy foods and prefer microwave foods instead? or too lazy to go to the grocery store every other day to get fresh veggies?

Dumping more money to a cultural problem rarely ever solves the problem. One solution that does work is to ban unhealthy foods, but then I bet you have lots of people starving and malnourished.

Whoa, isn't that what economic policy does? The argument against regulation of business is that it stymies growth correct? Our entire economic system is based on the government finding ways to promote certain types of behavior. When money is involved, people modify their behavior.

I agree that there are some people who don't like healthier foods. I would be willing to bet big that the majority of those people grew up eating those microwaved foods. Anytime I have cooked for people who don't like veggies, what was the first thing gone off the plate? The veggies. Why? Cuz they never had them. The most they had before that was maybe some flavorless, boiled broccoli. A quarter ounce of fresh parsley and basil, maybe some salt and pepper, does wonders to make people like vegetables.

I mentioned salt. Salt has been linked to heart disease and hypertension for a very long time. This is not from seasoning food with salt, but from using salt as a preservative. That is one of the reasons those tv dinners are so bad for you--the food is too processed.

As far as modifying a culture. Why do you think few restaurants use MSG anymore? Because they can't use it and sell food. Yes, MSG makes food taste better, but it is't good for you. Once word got out that the beef and broccoli had MSG in it, people stopped going. Where is MSG found now? In most of those "seasoning" packets you get from grocery stores. Why do people by those because they are cheap and easy. If they were to take two steps to their left and grab the three or four herbs individually that are in that packet, it would not only taste better and fresher, it would be healthier. But of course, that would increase the cost at the register, so no dice.

And finally, we wouldn't be dumping money for some lame "education on healthy foods program" but shifting the subsidies we give to food companies to over process foods to instead produce and market whole, fresh foods.
 
Oh give me a break. Government food stamps such as WIC already encourage some pretty healthy foods, foods I couldn't even afford for myself on a daily basis. Has it ever occurred to you that some people just don't want to eat healthy foods? because, for example, it tastes like rabbit food? or they are too lazy to prepare meals using healthy foods and prefer microwave foods instead? or too lazy to go to the grocery store every other day to get fresh veggies?

Dumping more money to a cultural problem rarely ever solves the problem. One solution that does work is to ban unhealthy foods, but then I bet you have lots of people starving and malnourished.

One more thing, I am not just talking about WIC. Everyone seems to focus on that group. A LARGE number of Americans who work and pay taxes cannot afford to eat whole foods.

And again, yes it has occurred to me that people don't like it. I answered that above. But that condescension irks me, because you clearly have no knowledge of the way food is produced in our nation. Go read a book, get informed, then and only then, speak on it.
 
Except local governments pay for stadiums.

Exactly. And the federal government recently gave huge sums of money to those same local governments. Its all a free for all trickle down that comes from the bottom, goes to the top, and LOOKS like its going back to the bottom.

The more things change...

(steps down from soapbox and ends contested political-type discussion in favor of not getting into one of "those" online forum spirals toward infinity)
 
But they exist is the point. I pay $600 a month for health insurance. I'm not a smoker (never smoked in my life), not a drinker, and not overweight. I go to the gym four-five days a week and I rarely eat McDonald's. I was diagnosed with a disease that I didn't cause and if I miss one insurance payment, I'm uninsurable by other companies. My rates go up every year, but I have to scrape together the money because I obviously can't give up my health insurance.

There are a lot of people just like me. Some of them weren't as fortunate as I was in having family support to help them on the months the premiums were just too much and so they end up with a lapse in coverage and then find they can't be insured at all because of their condition. They become a part of the uninsured. The system is broken. I don't have all the answers on how to fix it (I see pros and cons of every initiative proposed thus far), but something needs to be done beyond just education.

I have no problem with government subsidies covering people like you.

It's not intrinsic because there are other things that can be done to improve people's overall health beyond HC. So no, it is not intrinsic. Related? yes. I am not going say that the gov can make every person eat healthy, but when 99% of the food offered at supermarkets is processed to hell, you get obesity.

I still dont see how it isnt intrinsic, people can heal a broken bone without going to the doctor, so does that mean doctors arent intrinsic?




I agree it isn't easy, but that isn't my point. I gave you an example of a completely ineffective program--Plan Columbia--that cost $4.3 billion. Later I pointed out that really, the whole war on drugs is ineffective. We spend tons of money annually on it, yet drug use rates are stagnant. We throw money at modernizing a military that is already way overpowered compared to the rest of the world. In fact the war we are fighting isn't the type that better tech wins. You say nothing about these, but nowhere did I say it would be easy. It requires a major shift, I admit that, but to say "well there's just not enough money" bothers me, because I know that the finite resources reasoning is not true--it's a question of priorities and wasted money.

We throw trillions of dollars at medicare yet there is lots of fraud, low ball payments to providers to the point where they wont take more medicare patients, the system is bleeding money, and people still arent completely covered. It is a question of priorities, for lots of people health isnt one of them unless they can get it free, which shows you just how much of a priority it is.

Again, some. Most, no. You make it sound like going from obese--> overweight--> healthy is a cakewalk--it ain't. Especially while working two jobs to feed your kids.

Its not a cake walk. Buts its not the elusive unicorn that everyone seems to think it is. It takes hard work but its a simple process. Eat right and exercise, aside from someone like revilla, this will work, it just takes fortitude. Also I think if youre working two jobs you probably arent going to be overweight.


This is exactly why I posted the link to In Defense of Food. Nutrients don't make a person healthy--whole foods do. The cookies would not be as bad if they were made by the person or purchased at a decent bakery. I urge you to go to the supermarket and look through the aisles. If the product says "hydrogenated oils" or "partially hydrogenated oils," it's not healthy. Though I don't think fresh made cookies are really very good for you at all, they are certainly better than chips ahoy! and oreos.

The point is that the majority of foods sold at out grocers are UNHEALTHY. If the food suppliers were subsidized to use whole foods, more people would be able to eat them. I go to Fresh Market when I can, especially for proteins, but ultimately it is too expensive to go often. When it is a TREAT to be able to eat something healthier, something is wrong with the status quo.

you can live without eating if you get the right things in your body (intravenous feeding for instance), I think whole foods might be the easiest healthy alternative but its certainly not the be all end all you describe.
 
I hate to interrupt Premed Debate 5A ("Why should I pay for unhealthy people? Can't they all just eat some carrot sticks and go for a jog?"), but I feel this would be a good place to plug Atul Gawande's recent New Yorker piece The Cost Conundrum.

Given that this very article has percolated up through The White House, y'all should probably take a peek (if you haven't already). Here is the beginning:

It is spring in McAllen, Texas. The morning sun is warm. The streets are lined with palm trees and pickup trucks. McAllen is in Hidalgo County, which has the lowest household income in the country, but it’s a border town, and a thriving foreign-trade zone has kept the unemployment rate below ten per cent. McAllen calls itself the Square Dance Capital of the World. “Lonesome Dove” was set around here.

McAllen has another distinction, too: it is one of the most expensive health-care markets in the country. Only Miami—which has much higher labor and living costs—spends more per person on health care. In 2006, Medicare spent fifteen thousand dollars per enrollee here, almost twice the national average. The income per capita is twelve thousand dollars. In other words, Medicare spends three thousand dollars more per person here than the average person earns.

The explosive trend in American medical costs seems to have occurred here in an especially intense form. Our country’s health care is by far the most expensive in the world. In Washington, the aim of health-care reform is not just to extend medical coverage to everybody but also to bring costs under control. Spending on doctors, hospitals, drugs, and the like now consumes more than one of every six dollars we earn. The financial burden has damaged the global competitiveness of American businesses and bankrupted millions of families, even those with insurance. It’s also devouring our government. “The greatest threat to America’s fiscal health is not Social Security,” President Barack Obama said in a March speech at the White House. “It’s not the investments that we’ve made to rescue our economy during this crisis. By a wide margin, the biggest threat to our nation’s balance sheet is the skyrocketing cost of health care. It’s not even close.”

The question we’re now frantically grappling with is how this came to be, and what can be done about it. McAllen, Texas, the most expensive town in the most expensive country for health care in the world, seemed a good place to look for some answers.

From the moment I arrived, I asked almost everyone I encountered about McAllen’s health costs—a businessman I met at the five-gate McAllen-Miller International Airport, the desk clerks at the Embassy Suites Hotel, a police-academy cadet at McDonald’s. Most weren’t surprised to hear that McAllen was an outlier. “Just look around,” the cadet said. “People are not healthy here.” McAllen, with its high poverty rate, has an incidence of heavy drinking sixty per cent higher than the national average. And the Tex-Mex diet has contributed to a thirty-eight-per-cent obesity rate.

One day, I went on rounds with Lester ****, a weather-beaten, ranch-owning fifty-three-year-old cardiac surgeon who grew up in Austin, did his surgical training with the Army all over the country, and settled into practice in Hidalgo County. He has not lacked for business: in the past twenty years, he has done some eight thousand heart operations, which exhausts me just thinking about it. I walked around with him as he checked in on ten or so of his patients who were recuperating at the three hospitals where he operates. It was easy to see what had landed them under his knife. They were nearly all obese or diabetic or both. Many had a family history of heart disease. Few were taking preventive measures, such as cholesterol-lowering drugs, which, studies indicate, would have obviated surgery for up to half of them.

Yet public-health statistics show that cardiovascular-disease rates in the county are actually lower than average, probably because its smoking rates are quite low. Rates of asthma, H.I.V., infant mortality, cancer, and injury are lower, too.
El Paso County, eight hundred miles up the border, has essentially the same demographics. Both counties have a population of roughly seven hundred thousand, similar public-health statistics, and similar percentages of non-English speakers, illegal immigrants, and the unemployed. Yet in 2006 Medicare expenditures (our best approximation of over-all spending patterns) in El Paso were $7,504 per enrollee—half as much as in McAllen. An unhealthy population couldn’t possibly be the reason that McAllen’s health-care costs are so high. (Or the reason that America’s are. We may be more obese than any other industrialized nation, but we have among the lowest rates of smoking and alcoholism, and we are in the middle of the range for cardiovascular disease and diabetes.)
 
I personally believe, in any good society, that people are entitled to quality health care. I realize that a lot of people don't think that in the United States, especially doctors, and I begrudgingly respect their beliefs. (But I will always wonder if these people are in medicine for the right reasons.)

Maybe I don't know enough about the details of the matter. But when I look at the brute statistics, I cannot help but conclude that the US government needs to massively step up its level of health care intervention.

Just to take a few key stats, we spend the highest out of any other industrialized, developed nation on health care, in terms of sheer amount and percentage of GDP. Yet we lag in nearly every major health indicator as a population, in the 20s and 30s in terms of rank for things like infant mortality, life span, and a whole host of others. I think the only health indicator that we're doing reasonably well in is for health care for people over the age of 80 years old. Which is what you might expect in a system so rampant with such staggering health disparities.

So, we spend the most on health care, and we completely fail and utterly at achieving health care quality on a population-wide basis. And what is the one distinguishing factor between us and every single other wealthy, capitalist, industrialized nation? Yeah.

Arguably a lot more prosaic than Sicko, here's a nice, pretty well-balanced PBS documentary for anyone who wants a comparative introduction to several different health care systems across the world: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/
 
Exactly. And the federal government recently gave huge sums of money to those same local governments. Its all a free for all trickle down that comes from the bottom, goes to the top, and LOOKS like its going back to the bottom.

The more things change...

(steps down from soapbox and ends contested political-type discussion in favor of not getting into one of "those" online forum spirals toward infinity)

I agree that we shouldn't be building new stadiums, but also keep in mind that the those same sporting events create employment for many, many people. In fact the multi-million dollar contract athletes we watch are a tiny sliver of those that earn their living from such stadiums. Now, I am not defending building a stadium in these economic times, but I am pretty sure those stadiums opening in New York were not planned, finance, and built in the alst five months. So keep you delusional Obama bashing to yourself, or at least pick a criticism that makes sense. Hell, run for local office. Oh wait, that's right, it doesn't pay enough.
 
I personally believe, in any good society, that people are entitled to quality health care. I realize that a lot of people don't think that in the United States, especially doctors, and I begrudgingly respect their beliefs. (But I will always wonder if these people are in medicine for the right reasons.)

Maybe I don't know enough about the details of the matter. But when I look at the brute statistics, I cannot help but conclude that the US government needs to massively step up its level of health care intervention.

Just to take a few key stats, we spend the highest out of any other industrialized, developed nation on health care, in terms of sheer amount and percentage of GDP. Yet we lag in nearly every major health indicator as a population, in the 20s and 30s in terms of rank for things like infant mortality, life span, and a whole host of others. I think the only health indicator that we're doing reasonably well in is for health care for people over the age of 80 years old. Which is what you might expect in a system so rampant with such staggering health disparities.

So, we spend the most on health care, and we completely fail and utterly at achieving health care quality on a population-wide basis. And what is the one distinguishing factor between us and every single other wealthy, capitalist, industrialized nation? Yeah.

Arguably a lot more prosaic than Sicko, here's a nice, pretty well-balanced PBS documentary for anyone who wants a comparative introduction to several different health care systems across the world: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/

I agree with you, the people who complain about Obama's plan rarely can come up with an idea to fix it. That means they defend the status quo which you indicted. It's really easy to criticize, but difficult to formulate ideas to solve the problem.
 
I hate to interrupt Premed Debate 5A ("Why should I pay for unhealthy people? Can't they all just eat some carrot sticks and go for a jog?"), but I feel this would be a good place to plug Atul Gawande's recent New Yorker piece The Cost Conundrum.

Given that this very article has percolated up through The White House, y'all should probably take a peek (if you haven't already). Here is the beginning:

Sweet, levity.
 
I hate to interrupt Premed Debate 5A ("Why should I pay for unhealthy people? Can't they all just eat some carrot sticks and go for a jog?")

That made me laugh hard.

Great article. I worked in a dermatology office for one year, and the amount of things that we did that were not medically necessary but perfectly chargeable to Medicare and insurance companies was pretty shocking. But maybe that's just the nature of dermatology, with its fine line between cosmetic and medical concerns.
 
So keep you delusional Obama bashing to yourself, or at least pick a criticism that makes sense. Hell, run for local office. Oh wait, that's right, it doesn't pay enough.

Obama? Delusional?

I'm not a doctor so I'm not qualified to make that determination.

I actually worked as a teacher in some pretty poor areas (and not-so-poor areas) so know all about things not paying enough.🙄

Oh well.

What was this thread about again?
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Obama? Delusional?

I'm not a doctor so I'm not qualified to make that determination.

I actually worked as a teacher in some pretty poor areas (and not-so-poor areas) so know all about things not paying enough.🙄

Oh well.

What was this thread about again?

I do believe you missed the point. My snarkiness aside, you can't blame the POTUS for stadiums being planned, financed, and built before he was in office. Especially when it was the local governments that let did it.

FTR, I applaud that you were willing to teach in poorer areas. I apologize for being a jerk about it.
 
I apologize for being a jerk about it.

No problem.

BTW, no Obama bashing going on here, more like amazement at how most of the populace has no idea what is really going on in the world right now and is willing to just believe what they are told.

Luckily we all have SDN to keep us edumacated!😎
 
Our military expenditures are $651,163,000,000 per year. Twice as much as the entire European Union combined and ten times as much as China, the second largest single military spender.

I wonder if we could solve our healthcare woes by shifting some of our emphasis away from nation building and policing the world to investing more in maintaining a healthy population here in the States.