71 replies to this topic

[Mind]

Ban tobacco
Ban all you can drink soda fountains
Ban large sodas, upsizing, value meals, etc.
Ban advertising of junk food and fast food to children, as they do in some foreign countries
Ban hydrogenated oil, the single worst food ingredient on the planet, progenitor of heart attacks and so much more
Ban MSG
Mandate walking paths and bike ways in future construction. Add them to existing spaces whenever the opportunity arises.

Wow Luminosity, I can't believe you could be this culturally insensitive. Tobacco, large sodas, junk food, hydrogenated oil and MSG are favored by low income single mothers and other protected communities. It's totally racist to deny them the expression of their awesomeness by forcing your White Suburban Bourgeois values on their unique and valuable culture.

Not to mention fascistic. Chairman Mao would be proud.

Once you require one person to pay for another person's healthcare, draconian rules will be the result. Why do you think smokers are being denied cancer treatment in the UK (which has UNIVERSAL health care, a "human right", which shouldn't be denied). It will happen in this country as well. 50% of the population now gets some sort-of direct support from the government. If you include corporate welfare, the number is much higher!). Do you think the productive workers and entrepreneurs are going to sit by and watch the obesity epidemic wipe out all their wealth and hard work (in a single payer system). You had better bet your bottom dollar that new draconian rules to improve the health of welfare recipients will be voted in (if a single payer system is developed). A smoking ban for national healthcare recipients will be a tiny first step.

I have to come back to the fact that it is very hard to compare the U.S. and other nations that have some sort-of government health benefit (not a natural human "right", but something created by politicians). It is easier and less expensive to manage the health of a relatively small homogeneous population. The U.S is large and very diverse. The U.S. is the least healthy of all developed nations, not because the U.S. lacks high quality MEDICAL care, but because the population eats crap and doesn't exercise. If a single payer system comes to the U.S., the MEDICAL care system will be over-run with tens of millions, maybe over 100 million people who are sick because of their lifestyle. There will absolutely be restrictions and very long waiting times.

I little while ago I inquired about emigrating to NZ. A fellow who specializes in moving people to NZ said I had to have a university education, a business to move to NZ, and about $50,000 to deposit in an NZ bank, and then there was no guarantee. I would have to get a work permit and hope that after a year, I would be accepted. It just so happens that I met a NZ citizen in Florida a little while later. I asked her why it is so difficult to get citizenship in NZ. She said (like "duh"), NZ has all kinds of government benefits like subsidized schooling and healthcare and such things, and that if they let just anyone in, they would get a ton of free-loaders and it would bankrupt the country. I looked around at a lot of other nations that have universal health care (Nordic countries especially), and they also have extremely tough immigration laws. Only in the U.S. do we think we can provide unlimited MEDICAL care to everyone, including immigrants and somehow pay for it.

Edited by Mind, 06 July 2012 - 11:40 PM.

[niner]

Once you require one person to pay for another person's healthcare, draconian rules will be the result. Why do you think smokers are being denied cancer treatment in the UK (which has UNIVERSAL health care, a "human right", which shouldn't be denied). It will happen in this country as well. 50% of the population now gets some sort-of direct support from the government. If you include corporate welfare, the number is much higher!). Do you think the productive workers and entrepreneurs are going to sit by and watch the obesity epidemic wipe out all their wealth and hard work (in a single payer system). You had better bet your bottom dollar that new draconian rules to improve the health of welfare recipients will be voted in (if a single payer system is developed). A smoking ban for national healthcare recipients will be a tiny first step.

We already require one person to pay for another person's healthcare. It's called Medicare, Medicaid, and uncompensated care. I'm forced to pay for all of those. And yet, we can't even pass a soda tax. Hmm. I guess that's because we live in America, not a totalitarian dictatorship. I don't think that the new system is going to turn us into Stalinist Russia. The most controversial change in the new system is that now we are going to start encouraging people who can afford insurance, but choose to forgo it, thus offloading their risk on the rest of us, to start being responsible and pay their own way. I'm in favor of personal responsibility.

[Sobriquet]

http://video.google....106773770802849

the gov,or the banks? watch and decide who really runs the show.

Edited by Sobriquet, 08 July 2012 - 09:56 AM.

[Sobriquet]

This guyGETS IT. HE BREAKS IT DOWN, NO BS!:

http://www.theangryp...icine-post.html

[Mind]

The most controversial change in the new system is that now we are going to start encouraging people who can afford insurance, but choose to forgo it, thus offloading their risk on the rest of us, to start being responsible and pay their own way. I'm in favor of personal responsibility.

That is hardly anyone in the U.S., barely registering in the statistical scheme of things.

The vast majority of people who do not have insurance CANNOT afford it. That is why the debate is going on.

[caliban]

Moved some discussion about social security

Left in some of the previous detours but please note that this topic is about the US Supreme Court's decision on Obamacare.

[Lufega]

I graduated Medical School about a year ago and have a lapse before I start Residency. During this "off" season, I have no medical insurance. I was in the yard earlier today, mixing soil so I could plant another batch of purslane seeds when I threw my back out. I desperately need Diclofenac or other NSAID to relieve the pain and inflammation. Curcumin is not helping, even at high doses. neither is rubbing magnesium oil or any other supplement in my bad of tricks.

When does this "obama care" take effect so I can go to the ER?

[niner]

I graduated Medical School about a year ago and have a lapse before I start Residency. During this "off" season, I have no medical insurance. I was in the yard earlier today, mixing soil so I could plant another batch of purslane seeds when I threw my back out. I desperately need Diclofenac or other NSAID to relieve the pain and inflammation. Curcumin is not helping, even at high doses. neither is rubbing magnesium oil or any other supplement in my bad of tricks.

When does this "obama care" take effect so I can go to the ER?

Sorry to hear about your back, Lufega. For the time being, I'd try something OTC like ibuprofen or naproxen. Since you're a med school grad, you must know some doctors who could fix you up with a prescription, no?

[Luminosity]

If you can get it, try York Zhou linament or another other similar menthol-based Chinese ointment. Try taking sasparilla, bromelain, pancreatin (perferably Nature's Plus and Boswellin. Take the Bromelain and pancreatin on an empty stomach. Take fresh aloe very juice on an empty stomach if you can get it. Try swimming or stretching the area gently so as to provide traction if that seems safe. If you have a support belt, that might help. Capsaisin might help or might make it worse. Taking a bath with epsom salts and baking soda might help. Bee & Flower sandalwood soap is good for aches and pain, in a hot bath. Lying down might help.

I'm sorry for your situation but I think one of your doctor friends would help you get the meds you want.

I wouldn't wait for Obamacare, unless you make less than $900 a month, which is less than it takes to live at all, you won't get free medical care. And if you do get it, no one will likely take it.

Edited by Luminosity, 11 July 2012 - 03:08 AM.

[Luminosity]

Response to Mind,

I don't know if it matters, but I'm neither middle-class nor suburban.

I obviously don't favor Obama-care but to discuss your other statements. The US has offered free health care to millions of low income people since the sixties through Medicaid, the Veterans Administration and community clinics. The cost has been billions, but there has been no effort to control smoking, junk food or soda consumption by these consumers or to make healthy habits a condition to receive benefits. In fact, food stamps can purchase candy, soda and desserts, but not hot food. There hasn't been any real effort to restrict access to benefits by overweight people. There is a hospital in Brooklyn for very obese people which allows them to order junk food delivered to them, even though it's against their diets, and some don't lose weight. (Generally hospitalization averages over $1,000 a day). Some morbidly obese people draw quite a few governement services in the form of caregivers, medical care, disability benefits, etc.

In the summer of 1996 then President Clinton cut drug addicts off of welfare and SSI and Social Security disability. He also basically cut women and children off of welfare too. (Later he would make it harder for the disabled to get and keep disability benefits.) Almost immediately there was a dramatic increase in crime where I live and the nature of the crimes escalated too. A major ice epidemic raged through the area for over a decade. This area has never been the same. People who would have otherwise had stable lives became hardcore ice addicts and dumped their kids with the grandparents. Those neglected kids are older now and vandalizing everything in sight. It seems moralizing made bad policy. Although it infuriates me that we gave benefits to drug addicts and alcoholics, I would go back to the way it used to be in a heartbeat.

A number of people that I know who were welfare mothers or addicts, switched to getting benefits as mentally ill, thereby defeating the purpose of the new law, but at least they didn't become ice addicts.

I don't personally favor picking on people on need-based assistance about their weight, or perhaps some other things. It doesn't seem like there has been that much of a pattern of doing that in the U.S., Clinton aside. One exception: There was a program that replaced welfare for women and kids that weighed the women regularly, even through there was really no purpose for that. It seemed designated as part of a routine of humilation. This wasn't a health care program. I have seen social security judges withhold benefits from people with chronic illnesses which are worsened by smoking when technically there was no legal reason. The person just ended up on welfare instead of Social Security Disability or SSI. Generally, I haven't seen a pattern of withholding medical treatment for smokers in the US, after decades of need-based medical benefits.

I've seen quite a few people in England on TV shows who are morbidly obese. They seem to get caregivers, medical care and disability benefits. On the other hand, you say smokers can't get cancer treatment. I can't say I disagree with that, though they probably do. I've met quite a few people online who cannot get desparately needed mental health treatment in England. I've seen people on TV in England who had such a bad experience with a government midwife that they chose to give birth unassisted. Apparently these midwives some are not wholistic or sensitive. I'm not a fan of government health care but it's hard to say which way that will play out. You basically can't control American's habits through benefits or health care distribution. There are better ways to go.

I would like to see all of society made healthier by the changes I listed before. It doesn't really help to go after certain individuals, we just need a healthier framework. People are porous and are a collaboration with their environment.

Someone else said that the new law will encourage responsiblity. I too don't think there is a statistically significant number of people who can afford health insurance and don't buy it. There are some people who will now choose to wait to buy insurance when they need it, since pre-existing conditions are covered, thereby raising everyone's rates. I heard in Kentucky which has a similar system, their rates went up 40%? I don't think that's encouraging responsibilty.

Edited by Luminosity, 11 July 2012 - 03:45 AM.

[Lufega]

Thanks for the advice. I've been sleeping on the floor a couple of nights and it's helping. I can also buy some meds. from alldaychemist and be done with it or I can walk in to any ER and deal the thousand dollar bill later. But I was also trying to make a point. I don't know if healthcare is a right and It sucks that they want to use the millions to give in taxes each year, but while we always have money to go to war, we never have money to do the right thing. I think giving people access to a freaking Doctor is the right thing. You can be against this all you want, but have a heart and at least admit it's a good thing. You can be a working stiff all your life and suddenly find yourself unemployed with no insurance for you and your family and that sucks even more. I know plenty of people in this very predicament, myself included. There has to be another option for everyone. it's a move in the right direction. It's about time this country invested money into itself !!

Now, about that national railway thingy and regulating these corrupt insurance companies?

[Luminosity]

Yes, obviously, everyone should have access to medical care. I wish you did right now. I understood you were making a larger point but I thought that I could help anyway. I actually thought you were making fun of Obamacare because it isn't there for you. I believe that we should insure everyone but that Obamacare will fail to do that. Even if it was fully implemented, you would not be able to get free health care under it due to asset/income limits and budgetary shortfalls. The little accessible health care that medicaid recipients and low income people get right now will also be diluted to the point of ridiculousness.

Edited by Luminosity, 11 July 2012 - 03:55 AM.