The Market Ticker
Rss Icon RSS available
Fact: There is no immunity or protection against The Law of Scoreboards.
Did you know: What the media does NOT want you to read is at https://market-ticker.org/nad.
You are not signed on; if you are a visitor please register for a free account!
The Market Ticker Single Post Display (Show in context)
Top Login FAQ Register Clear Cookie
User Info The Bill To Fix Health Care - Permanently; entered at 2017-04-01 10:53:11
Tickerguy
Posts: 190356
Registered: 2007-06-26
Oh am I gonna rip you to pieces on this...... pay attention folks because this is the sort of crap that Single Payer will FORCE you into.
Rwhittle wrote..
I agree with the concerns about excessively high obstacles for becoming a qualified doctor, and about the impossibility in many situations of determining what is wrong with someone and predicting how much work will be required to fix the actual problems, not all of which can be known without a lot of further work and attempts at treatment.

I support Karl's approach to insisting on proper self care regarding eating fewer carbs for all those who face type 2 diabetes and similar problems.

Insisting? Nowhere did I insist. I simply said "You cannot suck off the public teat IF you refuse to do the right thing, and the right thing WOULD resolve the problem you have."

BIG difference. Not only are you free to do so if you can pay for the cost on your own but the "no public tit" constraint is based on SCIENCE. Indeed, the constraint has a further check and balance on it in that if you insist that the science is bollocks for your particular metabolic make-up (and it might be, although it's unlikely) you have the right to prove it and if you're right then you can continue to access said public help, should you need it.

YOUR view is entirely different. "Do this or else", and the or else has no appeal process and no science required, as you amply demonstrate below.
Quote:
Preventative health is vastly better and cheaper than trying to mend the damage caused by avoidable behavior. Preventative health in terms of education, food regulations and insistence on self-care as part of medical care should go much further:

And here we go with the mandates -- enforced by law, of course.
Quote:
Everyone in the West should reduce their sodium (salt) intake and increase their potassium intake, including by use of supplements such as water-solutions of the almost tasteless potassium gluconate. This is because the excessively high sodium to potassium ratio which pretty much everyone in the West consumes is proven to cause hypertension, heart disease and stroke:

http://advances.nutrition.org/content/5/....
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1120986.The_High_Blood_Pressure_Solution

Increasing potassium levels may also reduce anxiety and improve mental health. Refs at: http://woman.thenest.com/can-low-potassi.... .

The best part of mandates is when they're lies. Like these, for example. See, with a few exceptions (there ARE a few people who are very sensitive to sodium) salt is of no harm to you at all and in fact is GOOD. It's quite hard to get a proper sodium:potassium balance and maintain it if you are intentionally evading sodium intake, and by the way, low potassium can kill you by disrupting your heart rhythm!

So now we start measuring people's sodium levels and if they're "too high", even if you're not hypertensive, "no health care for you!"
Quote:
Anyone who smokes (tobacco or cannabis) shouldn't, for numerous obvious physical and mental health reasons.

No argument with smoking being bad. What if I eat cannabis? Oh, by the way, while smoking weed isn't good for you (smoking is bad always) do you know anyone who can actually smoke 20 "Class A" joints in a day and still walk? No, you don't, so do we talk relative harm or absolute? If absolute, what if I spend an evening after hiking in front of a campfire (during which I will inevitably inhale some smoke)? If you can detect evidence of that in my body, do I get thrown out of the doctor's office?

YES, UNDER A SOCIALIST SYSTEM.

Let's keep going.
Quote:
Alcohol is a carcinogenic depressant. Anyone who drinks it regularly is setting themselves up for long-term depression problems, as well as increased risk of breast, colon and other cancers. It is a major factor in road injuries and deaths.

That's a half-lie. Alcohol in moderate amounts is actually protective in some cases. Is it bad if you overuse it? It sure is; it's VERY bad if you overuse it. And by the way, road injuries and deaths are ACUTE reflections of overuse of alcohol. I'm sure you're aware that the NTSB here in the US (and probably where you are) calls any accident where ANY amount of alcohol is detected an "alcohol-involved" wreck -- even if the person who had it detected was (1) well below legal limits and (2) PROVED NOT TO BE AT FAULT (e.g. hit from behind while stopped at a light.) This has the effect of GROSSLY overstating the problem, but, of course, that's all in the state's interest -- right?
Quote:
Most people use alcohol, cannabis and tobacco to reduce anxiety. Surely there's enough things in modern life to make us anxious. While it is true that a certain level of anxiety is natural and desirable, there is a huge, systemic, unrecognised (and actively denied) problem in that most people use caffeine every day of their adult (and sometimes adolescent) lives. This is a sleep disruptor, drives tiredness (and so road accidents), drives restless legs syndrome (immediate reduction and longer term increase of symptoms), drives road rage, aggression, domestic violence and probably war-making decisions by politicians.

Oh, here we go. Now we can call the beer I will drink this afternoon (since I just PR'd a 5k race this morning) "causative" of restless legs, aggression, depression (gee, we both sides here -- pick one!) and even WAR MAKING.
Quote:
So anyone seeking therapy or drugs for anxiety problems, especially PTSD, OCD or anything resembling borderline personality disorder, should be required to reduce and eliminate their caffeine consumption (and go easy on the dark chocolate).

REQUIRED again eh? Or? Hmmmm....
Quote:
Almost everyone needs vitamin D supplements, since the only way to get enough is via regular UV-B exposure which also drives skin cancer. Vit D is vital for good mood, reducing cancer and numerous other aspects of health. https://www.vitamindcouncil.org/ It is an extremely inexpensive supplement (see 50,000IU capsules, one every two weeks or so). This is especially important for people with dark or black skin, and for pregnant women, since low vit D is arguably a significant cause of autism and perhaps schizophrenia: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-12-14/au.... https://www.scientificamerican.com/artic....

TAKE THIS DRUG "OR ELSE".

BTW the science is REAL shaky on the "take a supplement to reduce cancer risk."
Quote:
Most people need more exercise and would benefit from ingesting more omega 3 essential fatty acids (fish and algal oils).

Most people get too little light (especially blue light) in the day, and too much (via computer/phone screens and artificial lighting) in the evening.

People with serious mental health problems and/or proclivity to violence need to be institutionalised before they harm and/or kill or maim themselves or someone else, not just after.

You're mentally ill. You believe you have the right to institutionalize (jail) people who YOU believe might harm someone else. That they choose to do things that might be less than optimal for THEMSELVES in YOUR view means they get to go to prison.

I call that sort of thing projection and mental illness. I think I'll lock your ass up for it, and if you resist, I'll kill you.

Are you ok with this?
Quote:
Here in Australia, the government prevents smoking in most public places and requires cigarette packets to have no trademarks and to be covered by dull colors, health warnings and gruesome images. The result is an impressive drop in smoking, including among young people, which translates in to a huge decrease in long-term ill-health and death.

In Victoria, the last commercial road traffic accident insurer withdrew some decades ago, leaving just the government insurer (insurance is part of vehicle registration). They soon figured it was cheaper and better to educate the public into reducing traffic accidents than to continue to pay out for medical care and lifelong support of the seriously injured. The result (despite increases in population and modern cars having poor visibility due to excessively thick A-pillars) is an extraordinary reduction in the road toll, from 1061 in the 1970s to 291. We have much better road signage and signals than those I have seen in the South of the USA, all due to government investment.

All this could be done in the USA. If it is not, then the epidemic of ill-health will continue, no matter how the economics of health care are improved.

Ah, so Government gets to choose what is "ill health" and what is not.

How's that working out, may I ask? After all, how did PUFAs and cheap carbs come to be? Why, at the urging of government!

But you're sure they'll fix it. Uh huh. Sure they will.
Quote:
This will require a reversal of the long tradition of the government not being involved in people's lives. The current pattern of ill-health and rapacious health-care has brought this extraordinary nation to its knees - and results directly from governments avoiding investing in preventative health care, while allowing the private sector to exploit the population due to insufficient regulation and government involvement. (There are problems with the nanny state too - that's another discussion.)

Uh huh. "Insufficient regulation and government involvement" eh?

Let's see.... food pyramid anyone? War on (saturated) fat anyone? Both GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS and both lies. Both based on provable metabolic falsehoods, and both arguably responsible for a large part of the obesity and diabetes epidemic.

No, correcting that can't be done the way you want, for one simple reason: Government hasn't been held accountable for its past lies, and won't be either ABSENT A VIOLENT REVOLUTION. Who's going to go to jail for telling people to eat few saturated fats and lots of PUFAs, which are biochemically PROVED to improve insulin sensitivity in adipose (fat) cells while damaging insulin sensitivity in muscle? Now add lots of glucose via fast, easily-digested carbs to the mix and you have actually CREATED the conditions that, if maintained over years, have a very high probability of CAUSING heart disease, diabetes and obesity -- all at once.

Then of course you'll tell us, as the government, to simply "eat less and exercise more" when the facts are that a mile of running burns about 100 calories and a pound of body mass is about 3,300. This means you need to run a 50k ULTRA to burn ONE pound. Clearly, you cannot outrun your fork, and if you poison the metabolic demand ("hunger") control center that every human has, well, you're going to get fat absent EXTRAORDINARY willpower that almost nobody will be able to maintain.

Now if I saw every single surgeon general marched off to the gallows from the last 50 years in the United States, all the doctors marched off with them to hang, the drug company executives and nutritionists -- yeah, then I might think government could solve this and provide an answer. I might even think the coercive nature of your ideas could work.

But that hasn't happened, and until and unless it does all your position will do is kill people -- and lots of them.

Unfortunately none of them will be the fine government folks responsible for all the mortality and morbidity they caused.

Unless, of course, the people decide to use the lampposts around town for their best and highest purpose. And, if such a program was forced onto the people, that would be exactly the sort of response that any logical individual would consider. Fortunately for government officials there are few logical individuals -- in our country and, apparently, in yours.

Last modified: 2017-04-01 11:01:55 by tickerguy

2017-04-01 10:53:11