Someone pays - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

chickentribs · 06-09-2005, 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

That may be, but a healthcare system run by the federal government isn't the answer. I can't see one being implemented without a major tax hike - at least 20%. I'm not saying the current system is perfect, it obviously isn't, perhaps reforming the system is a better idea than creating a whole new one that would no doubt be overpriced and incredibly inefficient.

I can live with the "may be" for now! I will let McCain know that if we can get it down to a 8% tax hike, stevo is on board...

A-B-C Always Be Closing

stevo · 06-09-2005, 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chickentribs

I can live with the "may be" for now! I will let McCain know that if we can get it down to a 8% tax hike, stevo is on board...

A-B-C Always Be Closing

wait a minute I didn't say that

pan6467 · 06-09-2005, 03:00 PM

[QUOTE=chickentribs]Hey Stevo! You probably meant the attitude he is talking about not, put forth, because trust me, anyone out of Canton, OH who is as well thought out and articulate as pan has worked hard to get there! (pan knows my family is from Elyria around the corner and just as rough.)[QUOTE]

Actually, I moved to Canton for the ex-wife back when we were in love, engaged and were happy.

I'm originally a Lex. Ohio product, the great Mansfield, Ohio suburb and went to Hiram College till I gambled my way out, many years ago. Thanks for the great write up the check's in the mail.

As for Elyria..... well could be worse, you could be from Amrap

.... (sorry had to get a Ghoul reference in).

//end threadjack

Telluride · 06-09-2005, 04:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kutulu

This is the typical response from the right. It's shallow and disturbing.

The fact that so many believe that one person has a right to the property of another is far more disturbing.

pan6467 · 06-09-2005, 04:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Galt

The fact that so many believe that one person has a right to the property of another is far more disturbing.

How is it property if everyone is paying for it in taxes?

I'm sorry but the whole "taxes" are MY money and I pay too much is disturbing to me. The rich pay far less than ever and if the tax rate bothers you so much then get industry in here that will pay workers decent wages and increase the tax bases.

Oh I forgot that doesn't increase anything. Even though better paying jobs promotes more mom and pop shops which helps drive local economies, which helps the states which helps the Fed. but the Right doesn't seem to ever want to believe that.

Taxes are to move civilization and our country forward and to better ourselves. The right has proven they are no better at keeping a balanced budget and spending tax money as the left.

Both sides promote their own pork and free spending.

Seriously, the argument "it's my money" is thin. It's my money also, why should my tax dollars go to a war I don't believe in and not towards education or universal healthcare for which I do believe in?

It's all about who is in power as to where the money goes. We have to pay taxes, we may not like it, we may think we pay too much but I'm sure you use all the government programs and luxuries they provide without hesitation. It's just some people have other needs and use different programs. But we all use the programs out there in some fashion.

You don't want to pay taxes, then don't use any of the programs.

Grow your own food and make your own drugs otherwise you are using the FDA.

Don't drive on any roads or walk on any sidewalks because that was paid for by taxes and government.

Don't use any utilities because in some way they use government funding, make you own clothing from materials you make, as government programs helped the companies that do make those products.

Don't read or write, go to church or educate your children, because you're using freedoms that the government paid military protects.

Don't drink the water or breathe the air because the EPA keeps it clean....

See how ridiculous arguing how taxes are too high is?

One can argue the government is involved in too much, but that's politics one side cuts programs their constituency wants cut and increases the spending their side uses more of.

Mantus · 06-09-2005, 05:45 PM

The idea that government burocracies are less efficient then private organization is a bit flawed. Most of the world's most healthy countries have universal healthcare systems and all of them manage to be do more with less.

Canada spends 9.6% of their $30,000 GDP while we spend 14.6% of our $36,000 GDP and has a better healthcare system.

Corruption is a given when it comes to the govenment but it's just as frequent in the corporate world. Govenment coruption usually leads to an increase in costs while in the corporate world coruption leads to decline in services.

Finally, it seems that privatization of any social service never works. The problem is very obvious: corporations are loyal only to the share holders, a stance which runs in direct conflict with social services.

Just some thoughts.

j8ear · 06-09-2005, 06:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mantus

The idea that government burocracies are less efficient then private organization is a bit flawed. Most of the world's most healthy countries have universal healthcare systems and all of them manage to be do more with less.

Canada spends 9.6% of their $30,000 GDP while we spend 14.6% of our $36,000 GDP and has a better healthcare system.

Corruption is a given when it comes to the govenment but it's just as frequent in the corporate world. Govenment coruption usually leads to an increase in costs while in the corporate world coruption leads to decline in services.

Finally, it seems that privatization of any social service never works. The problem is very obvious: corporations are loyal only to the share holders, a stance which runs in direct conflict with social services.

Just some thoughts.

Canada has an abysmal healthcare system. Abysmal. Doctors and other health care professionals fleeing the country in droves, at their earliest possible opportunity, to practice, those who can afford it looking south of the 49th to stay alive and middle class taxpayers KEEPING 45 cents on every dollar they make (that's a 55% payroll tax)...and then paying 15-20 percent sales tax on everything they buy. People waiting six months to get an appointment, and every tom, dick and harry stressing the emergency rooms with the sniffles.

It is not cheaper and it is not better. Not by a long shot.

There is ONE place and only one place on this entire planet that is the envy of every health care professional, and patient in need of medical care...and it is right here in the good old US of A.

Please don't misunderstand me by assuming I don't think there is room for improvement..there is...there always is and there always will be.

I have some thoughts on these needed improvements...but must get home to the little one. A brief preview:

1. Lawsuit reform
2. Liabilty reform
3. Expectation realignment. Sorry but smokers, alchy's, obese, and other high risk life style choosers don't get to live like the rest of us who didn't abuse our temple, imho.
4. Pharmacuetical distribution changes.

Involving the government in some universal health care wealth redistribution ponzi scheme will compound the problem, vastly deteriorating quality of care and greatly increasing the costs of this care. Just like it has happened everywhere else this utopia scheme was perputrated.

I hear the flawed argument about superior health care in countries with socialized medicine...unfortunately I have never seen the argument have any validity. The poster I quoted above is no exception.

-bear

Mantus · 06-09-2005, 06:47 PM

j8ear, I thank you for your coments. They prompted me to do more research on the mater which is proving quite enlightening. I will post back here when I am done.

SSG505 · 06-09-2005, 07:20 PM

All I know is that I had 4 wisdom teeth pulled about 3 or so months ago. Without insurance it would have cost me about 3,800 bucks. Without insurance they would still be in my mouth and I would still be popping motrin like candy to dull the pain. At least with some sort of centralized healthcare how dismal or bad it may be I would be able to get treatment. However long I had to wait or even if the service was sub par at least they would be out of my mouth. In the good ol' US they would still be in my mouth.

Wisdom teeth are very painful and very common. I wonder how many people suffer just because they can't afford to have the removed? I know there is people that suffer with a lot more but just some food for thought.

pan6467 · 06-09-2005, 07:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by j8ear

Canada has an abysmal healthcare system. Abysmal. Doctors and other health care professionals fleeing the country in droves, at their earliest possible opportunity, to practice, those who can afford it looking south of the 49th to stay alive and middle class taxpayers KEEPING 45 cents on every dollar they make (that's a 55% payroll tax)...and then paying 15-20 percent sales tax on everything they buy. People waiting six months to get an appointment, and every tom, dick and harry stressing the emergency rooms with the sniffles.

It is not cheaper and it is not better. Not by a long shot.

There is ONE place and only one place on this entire planet that is the envy of every health care professional, and patient in need of medical care...and it is right here in the good old US of A.

Please don't misunderstand me by assuming I don't think there is room for improvement..there is...there always is and there always will be.

I have some thoughts on these needed improvements...but must get home to the little one. A brief preview:

1. Lawsuit reform
2. Liabilty reform
3. Expectation realignment. Sorry but smokers, alchy's, obese, and other high risk life style choosers don't get to live like the rest of us who didn't abuse our temple, imho.
4. Pharmacuetical distribution changes.

Involving the government in some universal health care wealth redistribution ponzi scheme will compound the problem, vastly deteriorating quality of care and greatly increasing the costs of this care. Just like it has happened everywhere else this utopia scheme was perputrated.

I hear the flawed argument about superior health care in countries with socialized medicine...unfortunately I have never seen the argument have any validity. The poster I quoted above is no exception.

-bear

Bear,

Thank you for a well thought out post, some good arguments on the other side.

See I like the idea of a sliding scale based on income and dependants for medical care, moreso than just a full fledged "free" healthcare.

The argument this takes away someone's desire to earn more to me is petty and flawed because most people are driven to buy products. This would allow more money in their pockets, to spend more freely.

With a universal healthcare system though, companies like GM and Ford could put the savings not only into payroll, but into badly needed R&D and help them compete against the imports.

Granted the rich will always pay more (but perhaps less of a %age of their income than they do now), no matter what system we have.... but as the Right loves to say life isn't fair.

As for your 4 proposals, 1,2 and 4 need to be done.

However 3, is a punishment, addiction is NOT a choice, nor is obesity and to continue to treat it as such is wrong.

What about the jogger who after years of running on asphalt blows his knee? We have been told for years studies show that jogging on asphalt can cause knee and joint problems.

Who determines what is high risk? That sounds like in the end an escape route to just scrap any reform.

At the very least, by putting any distinction on lifestyle and such, would allow more governmental control into our lives.

By your proposal in #3 people with hereditary problems such as heart disease, cancer, diabetes, and so on would be treated differently than those born perfect? Granted those aren't high risk lifestyles, but study after study shows most diseases are hereditary.

Besides smoking and alcohol taxes really help keep income taxes down. Tax them more, to help pay for their medical care, I could live with that, but to dictate that they wouldn't get medical care or less care, is just wrong. Just have them pay more for their vices/addictions/habits whichever you choose to call them.

irateplatypus · 06-09-2005, 07:37 PM

given the size of our waistlines, the health of the average mouth in the United States is no cause for concern.

in response to the Gospel of Matthew cited above...

having the government force you to pay for someone elses medical bills is not the same as taking care of your fellow human beings in the model of Christ.

if universal healthcare were a true implementation of Christ's message, there would not be a need for laws... each would give what they could to those in need.

the ghost of Ayn Rand says "there is no morality at the point of a gun"

samcol · 06-09-2005, 08:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by j8ear

3. Expectation realignment. Sorry but smokers, alchy's, obese, and other high risk life style choosers don't get to live like the rest of us who didn't abuse our temple, imho.
-bear

This is the scariest thing about a national healthcare system. The government will be able to dictate who does or does not get treatment and to what extent. I really shudder at the thought of that.

MSD · 06-09-2005, 08:35 PM

This thread is now about taxes

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

You don't want to pay taxes, then don't use any of the programs.

Grow your own food and make your own drugs otherwise you are using the FDA.

Don't drive on any roads or walk on any sidewalks because that was paid for by taxes and government.

Don't use any utilities because in some way they use government funding, make you own clothing from materials you make, as government programs helped the companies that do make those products.

Don't read or write, go to church or educate your children, because you're using freedoms that the government paid military protects.

Don't drink the water or breathe the air because the EPA keeps it clean....

Just because something is does not mean that it should be. Additionally, nobody is arguing that we should not pay taxes, just that they should pay for the minimal services necessary to keep things running. You admit that both sides are irresponsible once they are involved in government, so perhaps we should consider partial privitization with public regulation and oversight in the cases of things that can be done more efficiently and cheaply by private companies that don't have the same problems with waste and pork.

As for your examples, you offer the simplistic "love it or leave it" argument. The obvious solution is to fix problems, not to abandon the affcted systems entirely. The FDA needs to be rebuilt in a way that it works in favor of the public, not the big drug companies and food producers. A private company with its own researchers whose accounting and business practices are periodically reviewed and made publically available by a regulatory agency could have almost the same influence on sales of products as a government agency. If there were one central regulating body in the form of a private company that conducted business in the same way that the FDA does, no self-respecting pharmacy would sell unapproved and potentially unsafe drugs. Companies that wanted products reviewed for approval would pay the appropriate fees, prices would increase slightly, and the whole country would not have to pay for what only a small portion of the population uses.

Roads and sidewalks are one of the few areas that would be difficult to privatize. Adding service fees could pay for much of the cost of highway construction, for example a pass that allows you to use a reserved lane would probably be a high-demand item, and setting a high rice so that such a lane would not become another overused, clogged lane would make it a worthwhile investment for long-distance commuters and impatient jerks. Government ownership is necessary in order for society to function, but allowing contractors to bid on road construction, maintenence, and repair would bring prices down and speed up construction because of the competitive nature of the system. Current maintainence and repair systems are painfully slow and suffer from bloated costs (I-95 repairs in my area of CT is anticipated to be completed four years late at close to triple the projected cost.)

Utilities are another necessary recipient of minor government aid, as power lines, water pipes, and other utility systems are universally used, and individual use of the system cannot change the amount of repair and maintenence that the whole system needs. It is perfectly fair to charge small, universal fees based on teh number of connections to a particular utility system, but almost all utility systems are built and maintained by private companies, not government workers.

As cliché as it sounds, freedom isn't free. In the case of military and police, the inherent nature of their duties necessitates government ownership. The equipment for our civil servants who protect us is manufactured by private companies with government contracts that assure quality and reliability. For training, the government employees who have had first-hand experience in the field and in training are obviously the most qualified to train new recruits, therefore it is perfectly acceptable to use tax money to pay them to train others to protect us.

As for your last point, politics, apathy, and ignorance have rendered ther EPA almost entirely poweless and ineffective. Agents find it nearly, if not entirely impossible to fine offenders for even serious infractions. In principle, damage to the environment is something that affects us all equally (except those few who are unfortunate enough to have to live in plastic bubbles and paranoid folks who order duct tape nad plastic sheeting by the truckload.) This is yet another of the few government programs that should be given more authority and funding, paid for paritally by taxes, but mainly by fees (a nicer name for fines) paid by those who do the most damage.

I hope that I can clarify the views of many of those who oppose high taxes and big government. We don't object to paying for services, we just want those services to be performed by those who are best able to do so and who can do it quickly and for a reasonable price.

martinguerre · 06-09-2005, 08:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by irateplatypus

given the size of our waistlines, the health of the average mouth in the United States is no cause for concern.

in response to the Gospel of Matthew cited above...

having the government force you to pay for someone elses medical bills is not the same as taking care of your fellow human beings in the model of Christ.

if universal healthcare were a true implementation of Christ's message, there would not be a need for laws... each would give what they could to those in need.

the ghost of Ayn Rand says "there is no morality at the point of a gun"

it's not forced if it's offered. i for one, as a citizen, offer to do so. i'm not trying to be snappy here, but i'm really quite intent on getting this point across. if we believe that democracy ligitimizes anything, then it can legitimize a health care program, no?

i don't refer to that to say "God wants you to pay for a health care program."

I refer to it to say "this is why i think it's important to make health care accessible, and to pay my share of that responsibility."

I don't think taxes are much fun...but i'm willing to fund the social compact that makes this show a little more than a every person for themselves scrabble.

Telluride · 06-09-2005, 10:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

How is it property if everyone is paying for it in taxes?

I'm sorry but the whole "taxes" are MY money and I pay too much is disturbing to me. The rich pay far less than ever and if the tax rate bothers you so much then get industry in here that will pay workers decent wages and increase the tax bases.

Oh I forgot that doesn't increase anything. Even though better paying jobs promotes more mom and pop shops which helps drive local economies, which helps the states which helps the Fed. but the Right doesn't seem to ever want to believe that.

Taxes are to move civilization and our country forward and to better ourselves. The right has proven they are no better at keeping a balanced budget and spending tax money as the left.

Both sides promote their own pork and free spending.

Seriously, the argument "it's my money" is thin. It's my money also, why should my tax dollars go to a war I don't believe in and not towards education or universal healthcare for which I do believe in?

It's all about who is in power as to where the money goes. We have to pay taxes, we may not like it, we may think we pay too much but I'm sure you use all the government programs and luxuries they provide without hesitation. It's just some people have other needs and use different programs. But we all use the programs out there in some fashion.

You don't want to pay taxes, then don't use any of the programs.

Grow your own food and make your own drugs otherwise you are using the FDA.

Don't drive on any roads or walk on any sidewalks because that was paid for by taxes and government.

Don't use any utilities because in some way they use government funding, make you own clothing from materials you make, as government programs helped the companies that do make those products.

Don't read or write, go to church or educate your children, because you're using freedoms that the government paid military protects.

Don't drink the water or breathe the air because the EPA keeps it clean....

See how ridiculous arguing how taxes are too high is?

One can argue the government is involved in too much, but that's politics one side cuts programs their constituency wants cut and increases the spending their side uses more of.

You spent a lot of time arguing against positions I never took.

I don't think that taxation should be eliminated. I just think we need to limit the things taxpayer money is spent on. We shouldn't eliminate fundings for the police/military/fire departments (these are used to directly protect the rights of citizens), or roads or power lines, etc. (used by police/military/fire departments to protect our rights).

What I do believe:

We need a flat tax.

The purpose of taxation is to provide the financial resources the government needs to protect our individual rights. It's not about compassion or the "common good".

Way too much money is spent on crap that has no direct relation to protecting the rights of Americans, and this needs to stop.

pan6467 · 06-10-2005, 05:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrSelfDestruct

This thread is now about taxes

Just because something is does not mean that it should be. Additionally, nobody is arguing that we should not pay taxes, just that they should pay for the minimal services necessary to keep things running. You admit that both sides are irresponsible once they are involved in government, so perhaps we should consider partial privitization with public regulation and oversight in the cases of things that can be done more efficiently and cheaply by private companies that don't have the same problems with waste and pork.

As for your examples, you offer the simplistic "love it or leave it" argument. The obvious solution is to fix problems, not to abandon the affcted systems entirely. The FDA needs to be rebuilt in a way that it works in favor of the public, not the big drug companies and food producers. A private company with its own researchers whose accounting and business practices are periodically reviewed and made publically available by a regulatory agency could have almost the same influence on sales of products as a government agency. If there were one central regulating body in the form of a private company that conducted business in the same way that the FDA does, no self-respecting pharmacy would sell unapproved and potentially unsafe drugs. Companies that wanted products reviewed for approval would pay the appropriate fees, prices would increase slightly, and the whole country would not have to pay for what only a small portion of the population uses.

Roads and sidewalks are one of the few areas that would be difficult to privatize. Adding service fees could pay for much of the cost of highway construction, for example a pass that allows you to use a reserved lane would probably be a high-demand item, and setting a high rice so that such a lane would not become another overused, clogged lane would make it a worthwhile investment for long-distance commuters and impatient jerks. Government ownership is necessary in order for society to function, but allowing contractors to bid on road construction, maintenence, and repair would bring prices down and speed up construction because of the competitive nature of the system. Current maintainence and repair systems are painfully slow and suffer from bloated costs (I-95 repairs in my area of CT is anticipated to be completed four years late at close to triple the projected cost.)

Utilities are another necessary recipient of minor government aid, as power lines, water pipes, and other utility systems are universally used, and individual use of the system cannot change the amount of repair and maintenence that the whole system needs. It is perfectly fair to charge small, universal fees based on teh number of connections to a particular utility system, but almost all utility systems are built and maintained by private companies, not government workers.

As cliché as it sounds, freedom isn't free. In the case of military and police, the inherent nature of their duties necessitates government ownership. The equipment for our civil servants who protect us is manufactured by private companies with government contracts that assure quality and reliability. For training, the government employees who have had first-hand experience in the field and in training are obviously the most qualified to train new recruits, therefore it is perfectly acceptable to use tax money to pay them to train others to protect us.

As for your last point, politics, apathy, and ignorance have rendered ther EPA almost entirely poweless and ineffective. Agents find it nearly, if not entirely impossible to fine offenders for even serious infractions. In principle, damage to the environment is something that affects us all equally (except those few who are unfortunate enough to have to live in plastic bubbles and paranoid folks who order duct tape nad plastic sheeting by the truckload.) This is yet another of the few government programs that should be given more authority and funding, paid for paritally by taxes, but mainly by fees (a nicer name for fines) paid by those who do the most damage.

I hope that I can clarify the views of many of those who oppose high taxes and big government. We don't object to paying for services, we just want those services to be performed by those who are best able to do so and who can do it quickly and for a reasonable price.

MrSelf,

Thank you, this was a very interesting read.

pan6467 · 06-10-2005, 05:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Galt

You spent a lot of time arguing against positions I never took.

I don't think that taxation should be eliminated. I just think we need to limit the things taxpayer money is spent on. We shouldn't eliminate fundings for the police/military/fire departments (these are used to directly protect the rights of citizens), or roads or power lines, etc. (used by police/military/fire departments to protect our rights).

What I do believe:

We need a flat tax.

The purpose of taxation is to provide the financial resources the government needs to protect our individual rights. It's not about compassion or the "common good".

Way too much money is spent on crap that has no direct relation to protecting the rights of Americans, and this needs to stop.

I rambled, I had a point in the back of my mind and couldn't get it out.... sometimes happens.

The highlighted portion of your post I agree with immensely. Some obscure programs need to be cut, but then again, whose to say those obscure programs are what they say they are? My favorite line in ID4 "you don't think they actually pay $1000 for a toilet do you?"

roachboy · 06-10-2005, 07:16 AM

i had decided to stay away from this type of thread becaseu the arguments do not seem to move--the right rehearses its litany of more or less arbitrary assumptions about the irrationality of "the state" as over against the rationality of markets, individuals complain about not liking the fact of taxes and things move from there.
when things move to the level of example, it is almost inevitably the anglo-canadian model that gets bandied about, almost always framed in an anecdotal manner.
across this sequence of term substitutions, the central issues get obscured.

1. the consequence of the present privatized barbarism in the states is that the lives of the children of the wealthy are worth more than the lives of the children of the poor. the lives of the children of the insured are worth more than the lives of the children of the uninsured.

2. the hmo-dominated variant of the present prviatized barbarism is like some bad joke--ask anyone who has gone into--o, say--the mental health treadmill in hmo-land. across the board, in the cases of many many folk, psychotropics are handed out like pez within either adequate monitoring of dose levels and without the links to therapy that is presented as the necessary compliment to the psychotropics. which means, then, that in the interest of cost-cutting, psychotropoics are being administered arbitrarily.

3. on the rationality of capitalist markets.

consider this:

Quote:

Little exercise, little fresh food. Now the US government is forced to act on obesity

Special unit sent into West Virginia as weight-related health problems soar

Julian Borger in Washington
Saturday June 4, 2005
The Guardian

West Virginia is used to indignity. Its Appalachian hills are a byword for poverty and its people derided as hillbillies.

Now insult has been added to injury in what will be seen as an unwelcome first in the history of the United States.

A team of federal "disease detectives", normally sent to combat outbreaks of infectious bugs, has been dispatched to the state to chart its frightening obesity epidemic. Epidemiologists from the Centres for Disease Control (CDC) have never before been deployed in this fashion, and it reflects the growing anxiety about the threat obesity poses to the health of the nation as a whole.

Over two-thirds of American adults are overweight and 30% are obese, as are 15% of the country's children. The incidence of diabetes and high blood pressure is widespread and rising.

The figures for West Virginia are even worse. A quarter of the state's children are obese. There are no available clinical statistics for the state population as a whole. On the basis of what West Virginians told researchers about 27% are obese (with a body mass index of over 30), but the actual figure is thought to be nearer 35%. The prevalence of obesity has nearly doubled since 1990.

The result is that 10% of the population suffer from diabetes, 33% have high blood pressure and 28% report doing no physical activity over the course of a month.

"We are the highest in the country for several things. For hypertension we're number one, we're number four for diabetes and three for obesity," said John Law, a spokesman for the West Virginia department of health and human services. "We determined we have a lot of people dying and we have a lot of health costs as a result of obesity, so we wanted the CDC to come in and look at this as they might look at an infectious disease."

The health "Swat" team has just spent three weeks taking their clipboards and scales around West Virginian schools, offices and restaurants in an attempt to understand why so many of the state's people, particularly its children, are getting so fat so very fast.

The disease detectives looked to see if there were any pavements along the roads for pedestrians, whether employees were encouraged to take any exercise, and whether bottled water was on offer alongside the sweet fizzy drinks in automatic dispensers in schools. People were asked whether they "were offered at least one or two appealing fruits and vegetables every day," and "would you replace regular sour cream with low-fat sour cream?"

"This is a team of public health professionals from CDC that are dispatched for West Nile virus and for meningitis. But this is the first time we've dispatched a team of disease detectives around the problem of obesity and it was a recognition in one of our states that their obesity problem was very large," said Donna Stroup, a CDC doctor in charge of health promotion.

However, the CDC's director Julie Gerberding, insisted that the inquiry had not been imposed on West Virginia, the butt of so many jokes through the ages.

"CDC doesn't send people into the states. We get invited, and we are just delighted that the health officials in West Virginia appropriately recognised that they had a serious problem with obesity in their state, and they really wanted to do more than just describe it," Dr Gerberding said.

The CDC produced an obesity map of America, confirming that the problem was worst between the coasts. That would not come as a surprise to anyone who has travelled through the American "heartland" where most restaurants are fast-food outlets, and fresh fruit and vegetables can sometimes be hard to find.

The figures also make clear that there is still a strong link between obesity and poverty, despite a recent study suggesting wealthy Americans are catching up fast. The three most obese states - Alabama, Mississippi and West Virginia - are also the poorest.

West Virginia is third from bottom of the league when it comes to child poverty, with 27% of its children living below the bread line. It has the highest death rate in the nation, is second among 50 states for cancer deaths, and second for smoking. High unemployment and heavy reliance on coal mining are undoubtedly other factors behind the low life expectancy.

The deployment of the medical version of a Swat team has helped dramatise the scale of the crisis, but some health statisticians were sceptical over whether the results of the West Virginia survey would teach the world anything new about obesity and its dangers.

"You're not going to find anything we don't already know. We'll find out that there aren't any sidewalks and there is lousy food in schools," said Daniel McGee, a statistician at Florida State University. "I don't think much will come of it. There is no comparison group, from somewhere where there are sidewalks and good food, maybe because they couldn't find one."

CDC spokesman Llelwyn Grant denied that the survey was a waste of federal money and time. "This is not about discovering the obvious," he said. "It is not about finding out why people are fat, but it will be used to guide the state's future planning in helping the community towards good health and nutrition."

Faced with dramatically rising rates of "adult-onset" diabetes and other obesity-related diseases among young West Virginians, the state's Public Employees Insurance Agency has taken unorthodox measures, using video games in an attempt to get sedentary children moving.

Eighty-five West Virginian children have been recruited for a study in the impact of a Japanese game called Dance Dance Revolution, which involves dancing on a metal mat in time to on-screen directions.

Initial results suggest the game could be effective for some children, but health experts argue that only a fundamental change in diet and lifestyle is likely to make a serious impact on the fat epidemic in West Virginia.

A growing epidemic

· Obesity is rising throughout the world and affects at least 300 million people.

· In the US the percentage of young overweight people has more than tripled since 1980. Some 16% of children and teens are considered overweight with childhood obesity growing at the rate of 20% a year. Some 30% of adults, more than 60 million people, are obese - one in three women and more than one in four men

· In the UK, two-thirds of adults are overweight. Of these, 22% of men and 23% of women are obese (at least 13kg-19kg overweight), putting their health at risk. The level of obesity has tripled in the past 20 years

· Obesity is rising among British children. In the past 10 years it has doubled in six-year-olds (to 8.5%) and trebled among 15-year-olds (to 15%)

· Obesity is responsible for $100bn (£55bn) in medical costs and 300,000 deaths annually, according to the American Obesity Association

· Throughout the 1990s, the average weight of Americans increased by 4.5kg (10lb). The extra weight meant airlines burnt 350m more gallons of fuel in 2000, costing an extra £157m.

· In 2004 24 states took steps toward phasing out soda and junk food in schools, following 20 states that already had such bans

· Americans eat 200 calories more food energy per day than they did 10 years ago. On any given day, 30% of American children aged four to 19 eat fast food. Overall, 7% of the US population visits McDonald's each day, and 20%-25% eat in some kind of fast-food restaurant.

source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/...499143,00.html

the list of factoids at the end of this article is pretty amazing/shocking.
what is going on here?
well, it appears that these are among the consequences of the transformation/centralization of american agriculture around a primarily fast-food style model over the past 15 years or so.
or: these are among the consequences of extending a market "logic" into food production.
or: this is what happens when the ideology of markets lulls capital (and you) into thinking that all markets are equivalent.

there are alot of problems linked to the above--i woudl suggest looking at the cdc obesity map cited in the article for a better picture of the situation in general.
the centralization of agricultural production, the emphasis on lowering costs by diverting food production processes in such a way as to incorporate byproducts of other levels of food processing into the ingredients (transfats)--in short, i know of few examples that make the insanity masked by belief in the rationality of markets than this one.

it is also really clear that the worst consequences of this transformation in food production are bourne by the poor. the same people who are affected the most by the present system of privatized barbarism in health care. "the market" in food produces systematic health distortions: the health care system does not deal with its consequences unless insurance is involved: conservatives apply their tendency to blame the poor for poverty to the effects of poverty as well, and so manage to locate a position that amounts to the poor are poor, the uninsured are uninsured, through some moral failing of their own--they are extra people--let them die.

flstf · 06-11-2005, 12:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by irateplatypus

the solution to this whole problem is for everyone to pay for the healthcare they receive via their own insurance policies or out of pocket. what isn't covered there would have to come from their local charity or place of worship.

You make some very good points in this post and others in this thread. In a perfect world a competitive, capitalistic approach to healthcare would probably be the best solution.

However there isn't much competition involved in today's healthcare. I have yet figured out how to shop for a doctor,dentist or hospital on a price/service basis. As I have pointed out in other healthcare threads in these forums, this mostly libertarian has become convinced that healthcare like national defense would be better provided by the government instead of having prices dictated by insurance executives.

The nature of healthcare just doesn't seem to lend itself to competition like other industries.

06-09-2005, 03:00 PM	#43 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	[QUOTE=chickentribs]Hey Stevo! You probably meant the attitude he is talking about not, put forth, because trust me, anyone out of Canton, OH who is as well thought out and articulate as pan has worked hard to get there! (pan knows my family is from Elyria around the corner and just as rough.)[QUOTE] Actually, I moved to Canton for the ex-wife back when we were in love, engaged and were happy. I'm originally a Lex. Ohio product, the great Mansfield, Ohio suburb and went to Hiram College till I gambled my way out, many years ago. Thanks for the great write up the check's in the mail. As for Elyria..... well could be worse, you could be from Amrap .... (sorry had to get a Ghoul reference in). //end threadjack __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

06-09-2005, 07:37 PM	#51 (permalink)
irateplatypus can't help but laugh Location: dar al-harb	given the size of our waistlines, the health of the average mouth in the United States is no cause for concern. in response to the Gospel of Matthew cited above... having the government force you to pay for someone elses medical bills is not the same as taking care of your fellow human beings in the model of Christ. if universal healthcare were a true implementation of Christ's message, there would not be a need for laws... each would give what they could to those in need. the ghost of Ayn Rand says "there is no morality at the point of a gun" __________________ If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves. ~ Winston Churchill

06-09-2005, 05:45 PM	#46 (permalink)
Mantus lascivious	The idea that government burocracies are less efficient then private organization is a bit flawed. Most of the world's most healthy countries have universal healthcare systems and all of them manage to be do more with less. Canada spends 9.6% of their $30,000 GDP while we spend 14.6% of our $36,000 GDP and has a better healthcare system. Corruption is a given when it comes to the govenment but it's just as frequent in the corporate world. Govenment coruption usually leads to an increase in costs while in the corporate world coruption leads to decline in services. Finally, it seems that privatization of any social service never works. The problem is very obvious: corporations are loyal only to the share holders, a stance which runs in direct conflict with social services. Just some thoughts.

06-09-2005, 06:47 PM	#48 (permalink)
Mantus lascivious	j8ear, I thank you for your coments. They prompted me to do more research on the mater which is proving quite enlightening. I will post back here when I am done.

06-09-2005, 07:20 PM	#49 (permalink)
SSG505 Upright	All I know is that I had 4 wisdom teeth pulled about 3 or so months ago. Without insurance it would have cost me about 3,800 bucks. Without insurance they would still be in my mouth and I would still be popping motrin like candy to dull the pain. At least with some sort of centralized healthcare how dismal or bad it may be I would be able to get treatment. However long I had to wait or even if the service was sub par at least they would be out of my mouth. In the good ol' US they would still be in my mouth. Wisdom teeth are very painful and very common. I wonder how many people suffer just because they can't afford to have the removed? I know there is people that suffer with a lot more but just some food for thought.