Survey of intergenerational opinions on socialized medicine/single payer/'medicare for all'

[Angus Avagadro]

This is where either incentivizing primary care or (gonna get some flack for this, it is NOT a preferred option) increasing PA and NP presence and scope of practice in a primary care environment specifically for algorithms-based care.

If you increase PA and NP presence, why would they need you?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[907914]

If you increase PA and NP presence, why would they need you?

I would MUCH rather prefer an increased incentivization of rural and primary care physicians. MUCH MUCH MUCH prefer that. But patients who are not being seen getting in and being seen is the primary objective.

 

[907914]

It's an interesting theory. I have little faith in the govt making anything more efficient or cheaper. Obamacare the most recent example. Although recent improvements at the VA are encouraging. No one ever mentions tort reform either.

You are right, the ACA is a joke in its 2013/2014 implementation format. The original draft of the ACA back in 2008 was supposed to act as an initial stepping stone on a 15 year plan towards total universal coverage. Then it got watered down because Mconnel and his ilk didn’t want anything to do with democratic legislator even if it benefitted their constituents. So now we have this completely terrible legislation that no one wants...but it still gets people some coverage they otherwise wouldn’t have had.

 

[Angus Avagadro]

Yes, but it wasnt billed that way. It was supposed to bend the cost curve down and lower premiums by $1,500. Both proven to be lacking in candor. Watching the govt roll out its website was agonizing. It provided less expensive high deductible coverage for catastrophic illness, preserved pre existing conditions, and allowed adult children to stay on parent plan to age 26. All good things. People were not happy with cheap catastrophic coverage, and wanted Cadillac coverage, paying for office visits and all meds. If your car ins played for tires and spark plugs, imagine the expense
People are going to have to get used to the new normal as everyone wants someone else to pay for their Cadillac health ins.

 

[electropartyogram]

Yes, but it wasnt billed that way. It was supposed to bend the cost curve down and lower premiums by $1,500. Both proven to be lacking in candor. Watching the govt roll out its website was agonizing. It provided less expensive high deductible coverage for catastrophic illness, preserved pre existing conditions, and allowed adult children to stay on parent plan to age 26. All good things. People were not happy with cheap catastrophic coverage, and wanted Cadillac coverage, paying for office visits and all meds. If your car ins played for tires and spark plugs, imagine the expense
People are going to have to get used to the new normal as everyone wants someone else to pay for their Cadillac health ins.

Simply put, people (everyone who receives health care) should pay for it. While I am all for subsidizing health care costs, raising taxes on everyone because others need unnecessary coverage is absurd.

 

[907914]

Simply put, people (everyone who receives health care) should pay for it. While I am all for subsidizing health care costs, raising taxes on everyone because others need unnecessary coverage is absurd.

But if the majority of people get rid of their private insurance, then they are paying the same amount or less by paying taxes. And it is not unnecessary coverage - no one is in favor of tax payer funded boob jobs and triannular bilirubin screens. It is a safety net program that people can go to the doctor twice a year to get a check up, get referrals for anything that comes up in the check up, and not have to worry about a bill of a true urgent care or medical emergency comes about. You can use it, your neighbor can use it, their children can use it, your children can use it - and you are paying no more in taxes then you would have been paying in private insurance costs.

 

[dr_kateb]

But if the majority of people get rid of their private insurance, then they are paying the same amount or less by paying taxes. And it is not unnecessary coverage - no one is in favor of tax payer funded boob jobs and triannular bilirubin screens. It is a safety net program that people can go to the doctor twice a year to get a check up, get referrals for anything that comes up in the check up, and not have to worry about a bill of a true urgent care or medical emergency comes about. You can use it, your neighbor can use it, their children can use it, your children can use it - and you are paying no more in taxes then you would have been paying in private insurance costs.

Most people like their private insurance and the quality of care. You want to take that away because...?

 

[907914]

Most people like their private insurance and the quality of care. You want to take that away because...?

Because I want them to receive the same quality of care as well as everyone else getting that quality of care.

 

[dr_kateb]

Because I want them to receive the same quality of care as well as everyone else getting that quality of care.

What's really going to happen is that people that were paying for private insurance are going to get a decrease in the quality of care. Why should the people actually paying be happy with that?

 

[deleted972488]

What's really going to happen is that people that were paying for private insurance are going to get a decrease in the quality of care. Why should the people actually paying be happy with that?

Not sure the evidence is actually there that the quality of care will decrease. But some people care about the welfare of others.

 

[907914]

What's really going to happen is that people that were paying for private insurance are going to get a decrease in the quality of care. Why should the people actually paying be happy with that?

Because the sick, poor, underserved, elderly, young, and otherwise inhibited 20% of the population that makes up 90% of all healthcare costs will be getting the care they deserve thanks to ‘those who actually pay’ and tax dollars will be doing what tax dollars are supposed to do - help people and provide for a nation.

 

[907914]

What's really going to happen is that people that were paying for private insurance are going to get a decrease in the quality of care. Why should the people actually paying be happy with that?

And god forbid we go into another recession or a depression and millions of people are laid off and lose their insurance. Would be nice to have a safety net health program if you lose your job, wouldn’t it?

 

[dr_kateb]

Just because they are sick, poor, old etc does not mean what they want is more important than those who aren’t.

 

[907914]

Just because they are sick, poor, old etc does not mean what they want is more important than those who aren’t.

It really does mean that though. They are the ones who need the most care. If you don’t need the most care, then your private insurance is just waisted money until you do need it. Alternatively, you could pay the same price and it is there when you need it - but in the mean time, someone else who needs it more can be using it.

 

[dr_kateb]

It really does mean that though. They are the ones who need the most care. If you don’t need the most care, then your private insurance is just waisted money until you do need it. Alternatively, you could pay the same price and it is there when you need it - but in the mean time, someone else who needs it more can be using it.

It’s never about what people need. It’s about want people want.

 

[907914]

It’s never about what people need. It’s about want people want.

And people want to not die because their insulin costs too much. People want to get coverage for their opioid addictions instead of getting either arrested or only getting 2 weeks rehab coverage. People want to be able to stand up and play with their grandkids without immense pain.i feel as though those wants outweigh the wants of a selfish minority that thinks of healthcare in terms of strictly supply and demand.

 

[Angus Avagadro]

Because the sick, poor, underserved, elderly, young, and otherwise inhibited 20% of the population that makes up 90% of all healthcare costs will be getting the care they deserve thanks to ‘those who actually pay’ and tax dollars will be doing what tax dollars are supposed to do - help people and provide for a nation.

The elderly are on medicaire and they are already being cared for. You can quibble about donut holes for prescriptions, but no one is denied a hip replacement or a cardiac stent

 

[and 99 others]

I'm surprised no one has mentioned diversion of federal funding from other areas. Lowered military spending, for example, to free up a significant amount of money for health.

That's not to say that cutting military expenses is the end-all, be-all but I think the most important changes to make are:
1) decreased military spending
2) addressing social determinants of health, i.e. empowering hospitals and clinics to address those factors of primary care that lie outside of the doctor's office (i.e. medical institutions partnering with food banks, legal agencies, housing departments, transit authorities, etc.),
3) reorienting the clinical experience, i.e. less dependence on expensive tests like constant MRIs and CTs and more focus on listening to the patients social factors that give primary insight for diagnosis.

I realize that each of these points is interwoven with so many other things. For example, for point 3, sure it would be great to make physicians less reliant on expensive technology and train them to read between the lines but now we are delving into the whole medical education system and reforming how med students are taught. Just curious as to what others take on this may be.

 

[Cornfed101]

I'm surprised no one has mentioned diversion of federal funding from other areas. Lowered military spending, for example, to free up a significant amount of money for health.

That's not to say that cutting military expenses is the end-all, be-all but I think the most important changes to make are:
1) decreased military spending
2) addressing social determinants of health, i.e. empowering hospitals and clinics to address those factors of primary care that lie outside of the doctor's office (i.e. medical institutions partnering with food banks, legal agencies, housing departments, transit authorities, etc.),
3) reorienting the clinical experience, i.e. less dependence on expensive tests like constant MRIs and CTs and more focus on listening to the patients social factors that give primary insight for diagnosis.

I realize that each of these points is interwoven with so many other things. For example, for point 3, sure it would be great to make physicians less reliant on expensive technology and train them to read between the lines but now we are delving into the whole medical education system and reforming how med students are taught. Just curious as to what others take on this may be.

I am a little hesitant to spend more money on healthcare without figuring out why our current spending doesn't work. We already spend the most money per capita of any country in the world on healthcare with some of the worst outcomes in the world. I think #3 addresses part of this, but I think it is also the idea of wanting to be the best and provide the best. That comes at a cost. If we want to give Cadillac healthcare to everyone it just isn't sustainable IMO.

I think prevention is huge, but let's think about this with the following example. Both parents work and they really try to feed their family healthy food, but it is so dang cheap to buy Kraft mac and cheese. Activities and work get in the way and McDonald's is there to save the day. Is it any surprise that obesity is an epidemic and we are spending huge amounts of money on chronic medical issues? We live sedentary lives, and frankly, we enjoy doing so.

We could definitely cut military spending, but we already spend trillions of dollars over the budget every year. Does it even matter how much debt the country has? Maybe we should just give amazing health insurance to everyone that costs nothing and just rack up an infinite amount of debt. I'm not really sure there would be any economic consequences (maybe a little tongue in cheek, but a little bit honest)

 

[907914]

I am a little hesitant to spend more money on healthcare without figuring out why our current spending doesn't work. We already spend the most money per capita of any country in the world on healthcare with some of the worst outcomes in the world. I think #3 addresses part of this, but I think it is also the idea of wanting to be the best and provide the best. That comes at a cost. If we want to give Cadillac healthcare to everyone it just isn't sustainable IMO.

I think prevention is huge, but let's think about this with the following example. Both parents work and they really try to feed their family healthy food, but it is so dang cheap to buy Kraft mac and cheese. Activities and work get in the way and McDonald's is there to save the day. Is it any surprise that obesity is an epidemic and we are spending huge amounts of money on chronic medical issues? We live sedentary lives, and frankly, we enjoy doing so.

We could definitely cut military spending, but we already spend trillions of dollars over the budget every year. Does it even matter how much debt the country has? Maybe we should just give amazing health insurance to everyone that costs nothing and just rack up an infinite amount of debt. I'm not really sure there would be any economic consequences (maybe a little tongue in cheek, but a little bit honest)

I just heard more about this on NPR today actually. Totally agree. We can’t just throw more money into a broken system and expect change. We can’t just reform our current health system it requires total transformation. Investment in thinks such as ‘food as medicine’ and the like. Hell, you could probably cut healthcare costs by a decent amount if we just made fresh and unprocessed foods free to everyone. Probably would cost a lot less than we spend on obesity associated chronic care...and that is just one aspect. It needs complete and total restructuring from the ground up. And that is why nothing gets done, because we know it either requires a huge restructuring or we go about business as is. There really isn’t a safe a comfortable middle ground...

 

[and 99 others]

I am a little hesitant to spend more money on healthcare without figuring out why our current spending doesn't work. We already spend the most money per capita of any country in the world on healthcare with some of the worst outcomes in the world. I think #3 addresses part of this, but I think it is also the idea of wanting to be the best and provide the best. That comes at a cost. If we want to give Cadillac healthcare to everyone it just isn't sustainable IMO.

I think prevention is huge, but let's think about this with the following example. Both parents work and they really try to feed their family healthy food, but it is so dang cheap to buy Kraft mac and cheese. Activities and work get in the way and McDonald's is there to save the day. Is it any surprise that obesity is an epidemic and we are spending huge amounts of money on chronic medical issues? We live sedentary lives, and frankly, we enjoy doing so.

We could definitely cut military spending, but we already spend trillions of dollars over the budget every year. Does it even matter how much debt the country has? Maybe we should just give amazing health insurance to everyone that costs nothing and just rack up an infinite amount of debt. I'm not really sure there would be any economic consequences (maybe a little tongue in cheek, but a little bit honest)

Yeah i totally agree. But like I said, I don't think cut military spending is the solution in and of itself. But in conjunction with those other points, which include the things you said (preventative and primary care), that is part of the restructuring of health delivery.

 

[Angus Avagadro]

I just heard more about this on NPR today actually. Totally agree. We can’t just throw more money into a broken system and expect change. We can’t just reform our current health system it requires total transformation. Investment in thinks such as ‘food as medicine’ and the like. Hell, you could probably cut healthcare costs by a decent amount if we just made fresh and unprocessed foods free to everyone. Probably would cost a lot less than we spend on obesity associated chronic care...and that is just one aspect. It needs complete and total restructuring from the ground up. And that is why nothing gets done, because we know it either requires a huge restructuring or we go about business as is. There really isn’t a safe a comfortable middle ground...

You are naive if you think making healthy foods less expensive will reduce the obesity epidemic. Look at Mrs Obama's healthy lunch program. Food wastage skyrocketed. Why didnt the kids choose the healthy options? You must understand the personal relationship people have with food. Why are they overeating? Anxiety? Depression? Too lazy to cook? Abused as a child? Bullied? People crave fat, one of the reasons fast food is popular. Why do gastric bypass surgeries fail? People will not eat healthier until we as a society look into why they are overeating in the first place. We also need to expose the dangers and costs to lifestyles by being obese. This is where primary care can help turn this obese and deconditioned society around. Getting breaks on insurance premiums for healthier lifestyles would also help. I am surprised when at the beach I see so many 20 somethings who are morbidly obese, i.e BMI over 30. Seems that age group doesnt care about body image anymore. Imagine in 20 yrs when their metabolism slows down. This is only the beginning IMO.

 

[electropartyogram]

Because I want them to receive the same quality of care as well as everyone else getting that quality of care.

Do you believe that everyone must take public transit to work? Because if I can afford a car I will drive and pay for parking. I believe everyone should be entitled to some baseline, essential and standard of care. If they cannot afford additional procedures (with the exception of testing for acute emergencies) then they should wait as people do in Canada. If I can afford healthcare immediately for myself and family, why should I be forced to wait? Why should I have my ability to receive the healthcare I want right away?

 

[electropartyogram]

you could probably cut healthcare costs by a decent amount if we just made fresh and unprocessed foods free to everyone.

Losing weight and being "healthier" is free already. Ever heard of eating less, intermittent fasting, walking/jogging/home work out, drinking more water?

 

[Physician.EXE]

I am a little hesitant to spend more money on healthcare without figuring out why our current spending doesn't work.

I'm surprised this wasn't mentioned earlier. Take a look at this:

 

[Cornfed101]

I'm surprised this wasn't mentioned earlier. Take a look at this:
View attachment 277052

The Y-axis of this graph is disgusting... almost 3500%??

 

[907914]

Do you believe that everyone must take public transit to work? Because if I can afford a car I will drive and pay for parking. I believe everyone should be entitled to some baseline, essential and standard of care. If they cannot afford additional procedures (with the exception of testing for acute emergencies) then they should wait as people do in Canada. If I can afford healthcare immediately for myself and family, why should I be forced to wait? Why should I have my ability to receive the healthcare I want right away?

I have never said people should be forced to give up their health insurance. Even described earlier in the thread that if they can afford it then they can keep it.

Losing weight and being "healthier" is free already. Ever heard of eating less, intermittent fasting, walking/jogging/home work out, drinking more water?

Being poor is expensive. You can only afford junk food because it is cheap. You cannot afford to go to the gym, both money and time, because you need to work more to make less. There is an element of personal responsibility to it, but (at least for those who are poor and/or underserved) their poor health is not really their choice.

 

[electropartyogram]

Being poor is expensive. You can only afford junk food because it is cheap. You cannot afford to go to the gym, both money and time, because you need to work more to make less. There is an element of personal responsibility to it, but (at least for those who are poor and/or underserved) their poor health is not really their choice.

You can feed a family of four for a week with $20. Intermittent fasting is free. Most people do not need to go to the gym to lose weight. You can jog and do pushups and situps at home for free. I grew up on the west side in my city I know the convenience store down the street sold rice and chicken at least.

Personal responsibility is the primary element. Not gaining weight, and not smoking are very, very easy choices to make. Easier and cheaper than buying insulin at least.

 

[907914]

family of four for a week with $20.

Where can you do this? Please tell me, as I have a family of three and one healthy meal typically costs around $7 minimum to fed three of us (and one of us is still only half a person).

Also, you missed the “afford the time...” part as well.

 

[Cornfed101]

You can feed a family of four for a week with $20.

As a father of a family of 4, this is BS. Maybe if you feed your family ONLY chicken and rice for every meal. That is a quick ticket to malnutrition. We are very frugal and we spend about $100 a week food.

edit: the point is not that you can't eat healthy for cheap, but it is easier and cheaper to eat garbage high fat, high sodium food. It's just the way it is.

 

[electropartyogram]

As a father of a family of 4, this is BS. Maybe if you feed your family ONLY chicken and rice for every meal. That is a quick ticket to malnutrition. We are very frugal and we spend about $100 a week food.

edit: the point is not that you can't eat healthy for cheap, but it is easier and cheaper to eat garbage high fat, high sodium food. It's just the way it is.

Wal-Mart. 10 lb bag of rice, $4.98; 10 lb chicken leg quarters, $5.98; Broccoli crowns, $1.48/lb. Many canned veggies are around $1. Throw in a gallon of milk and a two dozen eggs and you'll be around $20-25.

From the SBPP website, the average monthly SNAP benefit for a family of four is $465. The above meal plan can maybe hit $125 a month. I'm just saying, it is not impossible to eat cheap and healthy. Sure, it is easier to eat unhealthily. But everyone eating healthy would be bad for the medical field, wouldn't it? Plug: www.reddit.com/r/eatcheapandhealthy

 

[907914]

Wal-Mart. 10 lb bag of rice, $4.98; 10 lb chicken leg quarters, $5.98; Broccoli crowns, $1.48/lb. Many canned veggies are around $1. Throw in a gallon of milk and a two dozen eggs and you'll be around $20-25.

From the SBPP website, the average monthly SNAP benefit for a family of four is $465. The above meal plan can maybe hit $125 a month. I'm just saying, it is not impossible to eat cheap and healthy. Sure, it is easier to eat unhealthily. But everyone eating healthy would be bad for the medical field, wouldn't it? Plug: www.reddit.com/r/eatcheapandhealthy

I get Snap benefits of $366 a month. And yet I still need to cover around $200 out of pocket...I am not frugal, i probably could get by on the $366 a month, but the sense of taste is probably the greatest and most direct joy you can give people - and thus I eat and cook a variety of foods. Yes, you can eat healthy enough on the cheap. But that is not worthwhile life to have.

Also, why would everyone eating healthy be bad for healthcare?

 

[Cornfed101]

Wal-Mart. 10 lb bag of rice, $4.98; 10 lb chicken leg quarters, $5.98; Broccoli crowns, $1.48/lb. Many canned veggies are around $1. Throw in a gallon of milk and a two dozen eggs and you'll be around $20-25.

From the SBPP website, the average monthly SNAP benefit for a family of four is $465. The above meal plan can maybe hit $125 a month. I'm just saying, it is not impossible to eat cheap and healthy. Sure, it is easier to eat unhealthily. But everyone eating healthy would be bad for the medical field, wouldn't it? Plug: www.reddit.com/r/eatcheapandhealthy

Yeah, you try feeding your kids the exact same thing every day for the foreseeable future and let me know how that goes. SNAP is super nice and I will be taking full advantage of that while in medical school. Unfortunately, we don't qualify for SNAP now making $19/hour.

Everyone being healthy would be awesome for some specialties. Lots more knee and hip replacements for the orthopods.

 

[electropartyogram]

I get Snap benefits of $366 a month. And yet I still need to cover around $200 out of pocket...I am not frugal, i probably could get by on the $366 a month, but the sense of taste is probably the greatest and most direct joy you can give people - and thus I eat and cook a variety of foods. Yes, you can eat healthy enough on the cheap. But that is not worthwhile life to have.

Also, why would everyone eating healthy be bad for healthcare?

Seasoning's are not extremely expensive. Don't buy pepper it is too expensive.

Less sick people, less people needing health care services, less profit...

Yeah, you try feeding your kids the exact same thing every day for the foreseeable future and let me know how that goes. SNAP is super nice and I will be taking full advantage of that while in medical school. Unfortunately, we don't qualify for SNAP now making $19/hour.

Everyone being healthy would be awesome for some specialties. Lots more knee and hip replacements for the orthopods.

True, it is boring but doable. Like I said, you can eat cheap and healthy. I never said it was enjoyable, just that it was not impossible.

Yes, the cardiologists would weep and the orthopedic surgeons would be grateful that everyone lived to 100.

 

[907914]

Less sick people, less people needing health care services, less profit...

This matters literally zero percent to me. It is the driver of our current healthcare system - keep people sick so we can profit longer, but literally the point of healthcare should be les sick people.

 

[Cornfed101]

Seasoning's are not extremely expensive. Don't buy pepper it is too expensive.

Less sick people, less people needing health care services, less profit...



True, it is boring but doable. Like I said, you can eat cheap and healthy. I never said it was enjoyable, just that it was not impossible.

Yes, the cardiologists would weep and the orthopedic surgeons would be grateful that everyone lived to 100.

While on this topic, I like the Freakonomics podcast and this episode is great

The Zero-Minute Workout - Freakonomics

The Zero-Minute Workout - Freakonomics

freakonomics.com

 

[electropartyogram]

This matters literally zero percent to me. It is the driver of our current healthcare system - keep people sick so we can profit longer, but literally the point of healthcare should be les sick people.

That is the purpose of healthcare, but that is not the goal of pharmaceutical and insurance companies. Currently, the goal is to keep people managing their illnesses, not preventing them. I agree the system should change, but it won't

 

[electropartyogram]

While on this topic, I like the Freakonomics podcast and this episode is great

The Zero-Minute Workout - Freakonomics

The Zero-Minute Workout - Freakonomics

freakonomics.com

Interesting. However, I don't think it'll help people who eat 3-4,000 calories per day. The Law of Thermodynamics cannot be undone.

 

[Cornfed101]

Interesting. However, I don't think it'll help people who eat 3-4,000 calories per day. The Law of Thermodynamics cannot be undone.

The pill basically causes mitochondria to go into overdrive and supposedly could simulate exercise. The primary purpose of it would be to help those who cannot exercise (like those with cerebral palsy for example), but of course this would be marketed for everyone and most people would jump on it because we are lazy.

 

[electropartyogram]

The pill basically causes mitochondria to go into overdrive and supposedly could simulate exercise. The primary purpose of it would be to help those who cannot exercise (like those with cerebral palsy for example), but of course this would be marketed for everyone and most people would jump on it because we are lazy.

It could be a partial solution. Surely, fantastic for people who can not or should not exercise. I know a lot of the benefit of exercise comes from increasing your heart rate, stimulating blood circulation, hormone production, lung function, etc. That is why exercise is a great intervention, the global effects are amazing.

 

[907914]

The pill basically causes mitochondria to go into overdrive and supposedly could simulate exercise. The primary purpose of it would be to help those who cannot exercise (like those with cerebral palsy for example), but of course this would be marketed for everyone and most people would jump on it because we are lazy.

It would simulate the workout itself but not the long term benefits of #gains that builds muscle and increases basal metabolism, balance, all that Jazz

 

[907914]

agree the system should change, but it won't

That...is literally the entire point of this thread...

 

[Cornfed101]

It would simulate the workout itself but not the long term benefits of #gains that builds muscle and increases basal metabolism, balance, all that Jazz

But that’s the thing... in mouse models it did improve basal metabolism. Sedentary mice that started taking this drug were able to run as long as active mice. It improved endurance. Kinda crazy. Super interesting

 

[907914]

But that’s the thing... in mouse models it did improve basal metabolism. Sedentary mice that started taking this drug were able to run as long as active mice. It improved endurance. Kinda crazy. Super interesting

Interesting - was that after stopping the pill or while on it?

 

[electropartyogram]

That...is literally the entire point of this thread...

I thought it was to gather opinions, have people insert their own, then disagree with each other, no one changes their mind, thread dies, and gets necro'd a year later?

Many physicians do not support socialized medicine or single-payer medicare for all. That is okay. It does not mean they are a better or worse physician for having an opinion. It does not mean that they do not care about other people.

You will be hard-pressed trying to convince people to voluntarily accept less quality health care merely because other people cannot afford the best quality health care. In any society, there will always be high-, middle-, and low-income. Yes, low-income people need help with things, but that does not mean they get to have every test and every procedure for free or without a wait or without a decrease in quality.

No one system will ever work or be perfect. Socialized medicine will certainly not work with how we are as a nation. It is too late to implement something like that. It is easier to create assistance systems for low-income people, allow them free procedures with wait times, subsidies to hospitals who perform these procedures, than to overhaul a system that works right now. Regulate pharmaceutical and insurance companies better but do not force people into a system they do not want to be part of.

 

[Cornfed101]

Interesting - was that after stopping the pill or while on it?

I was trying to find the study, but from the interview, he said that they put the mice on the drug for a month and compared them with control mice. All the mice were sedentary. The mice on the drug could run continuously for 1 hour longer than the control.

 

[ciestar]

You can feed a family of four for a week with $20. Intermittent fasting is free. Most people do not need to go to the gym to lose weight. You can jog and do pushups and situps at home for free. I grew up on the west side in my city I know the convenience store down the street sold rice and chicken at least.

Personal responsibility is the primary element. Not gaining weight, and not smoking are very, very easy choices to make. Easier and cheaper than buying insulin at least.

Have you been poor, ever?
Sure, intermittent fasting is free but try explaining that to a child. Your post seems really out of touch.

 

[electropartyogram]

Have you been poor, ever?
Sure, intermittent fasting is free but try explaining that to a child. Your post seems really out of touch.

You are incorrect to assume that I would expect a child to intermittent fast.

 

[tri99]

New study finds 45,000 deaths annually linked to lack of health coverage

Even assuming this study grossly over-estimated the statistics, if someone told me I could sacrifice 10% of my annual salary to possibly save the lives of 10,000 people that would be a no-brainer.

 

[Cornfed101]

New study finds 45,000 deaths annually linked to lack of health coverage

Even assuming this study grossly over-estimated the statistics, if someone told me I could sacrifice 10% of my annual salary to possibly save the lives of 10,000 people that would be a no-brainer.

I think the hesitation comes because many are afraid that sacrificing 10% of annual salary would do nothing because that money would be used very poorly (given the US government's track record). I would definitely be willing to sacrifice 10% of my income if it guaranteed saving 10,000 people. On the other hand, I would be ticked if I gave up that much income and nothing changed.