Health Care - was Best Mac Browser?
in [Mac Applications]
|
Prev: convert zvr audio files
Next: convert zvr audio files
From: Jamie Kahn Genet on 24 Dec 2009 01:21 Nick Naym <nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote: > In article 0001HW.C756766F0045CC13B01029BF(a)News.Individual.NET, TaliesinSoft > at taliesinsoft(a)me.com wrote on 12/22/09 2:13 PM: > > > On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 12:58:02 -0600, Robert Haar wrote (in article > > <C75680EA.481FEC%bobhaar(a)me.com>): > > > >> On 12/22/09 1:31 PM, "Nick Naym" <nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote: > > > > [responding to the following comment made in the preceding posting in this > > thread] > > > >>> Compared to the US, _everybody_ has better healthcare. > >> > >> No _everybody_ but at least all the people in the developed nations of the > >> world. > > > > What comes to mind is that within the United States we have one of the > > world's foremost problems with obesity. Given that whether or not one is > > obese is something almost completely under control of the individual I would > > think that the overall position of health care in the United States would > > likely be better than it is if only more persons in this country took better > > care of themselves. > > That's _health_ -- a different issue than health _care_. The latter is a > service which many -- if not most -- (developed) countries consider an > essential service, akin to police, fire, sanitation, etc. In the US, it's > treated as an unregulated market, driven solely by shareholder profit, not > social need. IMNSHO, if health care is allowed to be totally unregulated -- > free, even, from the basic monopoly and antitrust restrictions and > regulations imposed on virtually every other industry -- then why don't we > farm out police, fire, sanitation, etc. to the private sector? I wouldn't give them any ideas, IIWY. -- If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
From: 26 on 24 Dec 2009 02:18 In article <doraymeRidThis-F02783.06595424122009(a)news.albasani.net>, dorayme <doraymeRidThis(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > In article <0001HW.C757878F001EC7B3B01029BF(a)News.Individual.NET>, > TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft(a)me.com> wrote: > > > Although there is a genetic aspect to obesity that hardly explains the > > massive increase in obesity in this country (and in many others also) that > > has occurred over the last fifty years. What it comes down to is that > > people > > tend to be eating more and exercising less, issues that are generally > > completely under the control of the individual, or, in the case of > > children, > > their parents or guardians. > > You can't admit that that there is a big genetic factor and in the same > breath talk about how so "completely" something is under the control of > someone. Why not? There is a genetic component to alcoholism and yet the indulging part is under the person's control. VERY hard to control, but under the control none the less. The genetic component is also a TENDENCY toward obesity. What you take in and how much exercise you do is very much under a person's control. Haven't yet seen any kind of study indicating otherwise. -- To find that place where the rats don't race and the phones don't ring at all. If once, you've slept on an island. Scott Kirby "If once you've slept on an island"
From: 26 on 24 Dec 2009 02:22 In article <dfmanno-99428B.15545223122009(a)news.albasani.net>, "D.F. Manno" <dfmanno(a)mail.com> wrote: > In article <0001HW.C756766F0045CC13B01029BF(a)News.Individual.NET>, > TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft(a)me.com> wrote: > > > Given that whether or not one is > > obese is something almost completely under control of the individual > > Care to back that up with scientific evidence? Because there's a lot of > evidence for the opposite proposition. Haven't seen anything yet that says genetics requires one to over eat and/or not exercise. There is plenty of genetic (and evolutionary for that matter) evidence that the tendency toward obesity may be related in that they might process store excess nutrition differently. But nothing I have seen indicates that there is a genetic imperative to shovel supersized Happy meals down one's throat instead of fruits and vegetables. -- To find that place where the rats don't race and the phones don't ring at all. If once, you've slept on an island. Scott Kirby "If once you've slept on an island"
From: dorayme on 24 Dec 2009 02:41 In article <IZOdnSqtNudNiK7WnZ2dnUVZ_gGdnZ2d(a)earthlink.com>, 26 <kurtullman(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > In article <doraymeRidThis-F02783.06595424122009(a)news.albasani.net>, > dorayme <doraymeRidThis(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > > > In article <0001HW.C757878F001EC7B3B01029BF(a)News.Individual.NET>, > > TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft(a)me.com> wrote: > > > > > Although there is a genetic aspect to obesity that hardly explains the > > > massive increase in obesity in this country (and in many others also) > > > that > > > has occurred over the last fifty years. What it comes down to is that > > > people > > > tend to be eating more and exercising less, issues that are generally > > > completely under the control of the individual, or, in the case of > > > children, > > > their parents or guardians. > > > > You can't admit that that there is a big genetic factor and in the same > > breath talk about how so "completely" something is under the control of > > someone. > > Why not? Because if you are thinking the genetic factor is significant, this puts pressure on the folks with it to exercise *more control* than those without the genetic factor. Food is a big part of normal daily living and pleasure (it is not really something extra to life). You cannot at the same time be comfortable about the control while being impressed by the genetics. It is a logical matter. > There is a genetic component to alcoholism and yet the > indulging part is under the person's control. VERY hard to control, but > under the control none the less. The genetic component is also a > TENDENCY toward obesity. What you take in and how much exercise you do > is very much under a person's control. Haven't yet seen any kind of > study indicating otherwise. It is not the studies you should be concentrating on but the logical relations here. -- dorayme
From: Nick Naym on 24 Dec 2009 03:09
In article 231220092058574529%aeiou(a)mostly.invalid, Mark Conrad at aeiou(a)mostly.invalid wrote on 12/23/09 11:58 PM: > In article <C757FF98.4E39A%nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com>, Nick Naym > <nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote: > >> if health care is allowed to be totally unregulated -- >> free, even, from the basic monopoly and antitrust restrictions and >> regulations imposed on virtually every other industry -- then why >> don't we farm out police, fire, sanitation, etc. to the private sector? > > Regulating it presents another huge problem. > > We could easily make health care much worse by > picking the wrong people to regulate it. What?? > What is your suggestion for that gnarly problem? > Level the freakin' playing field: Require the Industry to abide by the same rules and regulations that virtually every other industry in this country is subject to. IOW, remove the "antitrust exemption" that the Industry enjoys. <sheesh> -- iMac (24", 2.8 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 2GB RAM, 320 GB HDD) � OS X (10.5.8) |