Health Care - was Best Mac Browser?
in [Mac Applications]
|
Prev: convert zvr audio files
Next: convert zvr audio files
From: Mark Conrad on 24 Dec 2009 10:18 In article <C7588BF6.4E3EC%nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com>, Nick Naym <nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote: > > We could easily make health care much worse by > > picking the wrong people to regulate it. > > What?? Wadda ya mean "What??" - - - you really want stupid politicians screwing with _your_ health care? > 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. R-i-g-h-t - Pretend health care regulation is as simple as regulating interstate truck traffic. <sheesh> > ...remove the "antitrust exemption"... Now that might help, provided it is judiciously applied. There are thousands of different support industries associated with health care. I kinda agree that no one blood analysis laboratory should be allowed to corner the market nationwide. ....but by the same token, assume that _you_ need to have surgery, and during that surgery someone does the usual thing and dumps type "O" blood into you, they even get the "Rhesus factor" of your blood correct. You are home free, right? You survive the surgery and start mending - - - then a few weeks later you die! Why? - Because your fly-by-night competitive "regulated" blood lab did not check you for rare blood types, and you have the rare "Bombay phenotype" type of blood. (there are about 200 rare blood types) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hh_antigen_system The rare individuals with Bombay phenotype do not express H substance on their red blood cells and therefore do not bind A or B antigens. Instead, they produce antibodies to H substance (which is present on all red cells except those of hh phenotype) as well as to both A and B antigens and are therefore compatible only with other hh donors. Individuals with Bombay phenotype blood groups can only be transfused with blood from other Bombay phenotype individuals. Given that this condition is very rare to begin with, any person with this blood group, who needs an urgent blood transfusion, may be simply out of luck, as it would be quite unlikely that any blood bank would have any in stock. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - You are dead because your f****** ignorant politicians were screwing around trying to regulate health care in the same way that they regulate the trucking industry. A top-of-the-line _unregulated_ blood lab would have spotted your rare blood type. In this case I am all for monopoly, screw antitrust, I want competent health care, not Walmart health care. Mark-
From: TaliesinSoft on 24 Dec 2009 12:59 On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 23:15:27 -0600, dorayme wrote (in article <doraymeRidThis-B80A0B.16152724122009(a)news.albasani.net>): [continuing in the discussion in this thread regarding obesity] > It is hard to know what you are thinking of as big or small factor. It > is a big factor as far as I can tell from the science known and > indicated strongly. So I will tell you what I mean by big. If millions > of people have ample opportunity to eat as much as they like and all > have equal opportunity to exercise and the millions that do grow really > fat almost overwhelmingly have a genetic factor that the millions who > don't lack, then it is a big factor... Given that the percentage of those with a "genetic propensity for obesity" is small I wouldn't consider that to be a "big" factor in regards to the massive increase in obesity, especially that here in the United States. And, I'm one who is willing to state that for the majority of the population obesity is something that can be avoided by proper diet and exercise. I do find it unfortunate that the "appropriate" sizes of servings have increased dramatically during my lifetime. An example is that of Coca-Cola which has changed from a 6 oz. size to a 12 oz. size and is now moving in the direction of something in the range of 16 oz. And if you go to such as McDonald's the emphasis is on size. But, as so many want to say, "It's not my fault!" -- James Leo Ryan --- Austin, Texas --- taliesinsoft(a)me.com
From: Howard Brazee on 24 Dec 2009 13:26 On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 02:18:39 -0500, 26 <kurtullman(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >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. I haven't seen twins studies that showed different sized twins. I have read of quite a few school district studies that failed to produce trim kids. I couldn't eat enough to weigh 200#. My daughter-in-law can't eat enough to weigh 300#. But some people weigh over 400#. But I don't care whether the difference is in their metabolism or in their brains. It isn't my business to be Righteous enough to scorn fatties and demand that they diet and exercise. Just as it isn't their business to demand that I quit risky actions such as hiking in the mountains. Much of the world's evil today is committed by Righteous people. Let people live their way. -- "In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department." - James Madison
From: Jamie Kahn Genet on 24 Dec 2009 13:28 Mark Conrad <aeiou(a)mostly.invalid> wrote: > 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 is your suggestion for that gnarly problem? > > Mark- Regulated socialised healthcare works well enough (and certainly better than the US system for the middleclass and below) in plenty of other parts of the world. Maybe you just need better policians? -- If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
From: dorayme on 24 Dec 2009 16:09
In article <CNOdnfEyRrw91K7WnZ2dnUVZ_s5i4p2d(a)earthlink.com>, Kurt Ullman <kurtullman(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > In article <doraymeRidThis-75F98B.18412024122009(a)news.albasani.net>, > dorayme <doraymeRidThis(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > > > 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. > > I see no problem with the logic. I can see! But I recommend you try harder and I will help if I can think of a better way of explaining it. > The hardness of the control is > beside the point, it is the that it CAN be done. Gee, my point is that this has *everything* to do with the point! > Heck I have that > problem being a yo-yo dieter. When people ask me how much I have lost, > it is probably 900 or more pounds. But the fact remains that the upward > yo is ALWAYS accompanied by my actions of starting to graze again, > deciding I can't get around to exercising, etc. > Your experience is pretty common and it is a tough battle. I know from my own case that even cutting down on chocolate and cheese and forking out for special types of margerines (to keep cholesterol count down) is hard! I can imagine how hard it must be to limit one's food intake. I've been lucky in having none of the genetic predispositions to put on weight that are being searched for and discovered these days. The standout feature of those with the disposition(s) is that dieting is very hard to maintain, good efforts achieve but the weight is easily put back on. I have heard the playing field can be levelled by stomach banding. If I was not able to maintain my svelte loveliness, that is what I would have done... Maybe! <g> > > > > > 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. Imagine a chariot race, one set of horses being VERY difficult to control, the other not. The way some people might talk is that there is no fundamental problem with the race because at least the horses *are* controllable. You can keep on saying how controllable the difficult horses are as much as you like. But it does not make the race fair, you have no intellectual right to be shrugging your shoulders. -- dorayme |