Health Care - was Best Mac Browser?
in [Mac Applications]
|
Prev: convert zvr audio files
Next: convert zvr audio files
From: D.F. Manno on 24 Dec 2009 22:29 In article <IZOdnSWtNucCi67WnZ2dnUVZ_gFi4p2d(a)earthlink.com>, 26 <kurtullman(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > D.F. Manno <dfmanno(a)mail.com> wrote: > > 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. I believe that's called "confirmation bias." -- D.F. Manno | dfmanno(a)mail.com And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence. (Bertrand Russell)
From: Nick Naym on 24 Dec 2009 22:58 In article 241220090718227042%aeiou(a)mostly.invalid, Mark Conrad at aeiou(a)mostly.invalid wrote on 12/24/09 10:18 AM: > 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 (Repetitive statement.) > screwing with _your_ health care? > No...no more than I want the stupid bean counters to be allowed to continue to "screw with _my_ 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> > That's _your_ (and -- coincidentally -- the insurance companies') pretense, not mine. > > >> ...remove the "antitrust exemption"... > > Now that might help, Might help? "Competition" -- that cornerstone of our supposed free-market economic system -- _might_ help? > provided it is judiciously applied. "Judicious competition"...I'll have to look that up. ;P Look, right now I have absolutely no real choice when it comes to my health-care insurance. Years ago, before the Industry got "special dispensation," I had several choices; didn't have to take out a second mortgage to pay increasing premiums (health-care premiums do indeed rival mortgage payments) for _shrinking_ coverage; nor fear that my policy might not be renewed and I'd find myself "uninsurable" next year for a condition I developed this year. A little competition -- that "free market" economics stuff that the right wingnuts seem to claim stewardship of (including the God-given right to interpret what the hell it means and when and where it applies), to suit their (or their corporate sponsors') agenda, certainly wouldn't hurt. > 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) > Ah! I see. Competition inevitably leads to "lowest-bidder-offering-poorest- quality-always-wins" economics. Sort of like allowing a government-sponsored insurance alternative, to stimulate competition and provide consumers some choice, will lead to Death Panels, right? > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > 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. Nah...I'm dead because I could no longer afford to pay my premiums and/or I reached my shrinking lifetime insurance cap and/or my coverage was not renewed after I contracted [insert your expensive-to-treat-serious- chronic-disease of choice here]. > A top-of-the-line _unregulated_ blood lab would have > spotted your rare blood type. Back to the "lowest-bidder/poorest quality" model, huh? > In this case I am all for monopoly, screw antitrust, I want > competent health care, not Walmart health care. > The more you talk, the more you sound like a shill for AHIP. -- iMac (24", 2.8 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 2GB RAM, 320 GB HDD) � OS X (10.5.8)
From: Nick Naym on 24 Dec 2009 23:02 In article 1jb9r7q.1umqv705htzn8N%jamiekg(a)wizardling.geek.nz, Jamie Kahn Genet at jamiekg(a)wizardling.geek.nz wrote on 12/24/09 1:28 PM: > 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 Ooooohhh....you said the "S" word! You must be a left-wing commie sympathizer. > 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? Not only the Polish politicians..._all_ of them! ;) -- iMac (24", 2.8 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 2GB RAM, 320 GB HDD) � OS X (10.5.8)
From: Nick Naym on 24 Dec 2009 23:26 In article doraymeRidThis-9F6557.08211025122009(a)news.albasani.net, dorayme at doraymeRidThis(a)optusnet.com.au wrote on 12/24/09 4:21 PM: > In article <241220090718227042%aeiou(a)mostly.invalid>, > Mark Conrad <aeiou(a)mostly.invalid> wrote: > >> A top-of-the-line _unregulated_ blood lab would have >> spotted your rare blood type. > > So would a top of the line government owned one. What is your point? Well, "top of the line" and "government owned" _might_ be oxymoronic. ("Top of the line" and "government operated" likely _would_ be.) Change "owned" to "sponsored," and you've got something. :) -- iMac (24", 2.8 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 2GB RAM, 320 GB HDD) � OS X (10.5.8)
From: TaliesinSoft on 25 Dec 2009 00:20
On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 15:25:17 -0600, dorayme wrote (in article <doraymeRidThis-4C8DD3.08251725122009(a)news.albasani.net>): [commenting in response to my prior postings in this thread where I commented on the increase in obesity in recent years] > I was talking the obesity largely influenced by genetics. You seem to be > talking human beings generally. We all are prone to get fatter if we > have bad diets and exercise less. Methinks in terms of that statement that we are pretty much in agreement. As an aside, today, December 24, I celebrated my 75th birthday, feeling good that at 5'10" my weight is at 160 lbs. I do watch my diet and try to get in about an hours walking each day. -- James Leo Ryan --- Austin, Texas --- taliesinsoft(a)me.com |