|
On November 22 2009 14:17 TanGeng wrote:
no government sponsored plans? Switzerland has no government insurance plans. There is an individual mandate and tight regulations on basic coverage, but Switzerland doesn't have 300 million people nor the kind of political lobbies in the US.
Uhhh... slow a bit down there.
The Pharma-Industire has a VERY strong lobby in switzerland, a way to strong lobby in fact. We still pay more than germany, france, italy or austria for almost every medicament because the Pharmalobby is strong enough to block changes and puts insanely much money (scaled to swiss population size  ) into popular votes to win these.
And these "tight" regulations are more "tight" then you might think. The basic care (which cares for everything). My whole family work for an insurance companies and none of us got additional more than the *basic* healthh care plan). The insurance companys also HAVE TO take EVERYONE, no matter how ill he is or what risks he has and pay for eveything after he signed up. Someone has Cancer/Aids/MS whatever? You have to take him, for the same cost as a completly fine person in the same age class.
We could as well only have one big or goverment run company, wouldn't change much, not for the good and not for the bad - if done properly).
|
On November 22 2009 14:47 NovaTheFeared wrote:
This vote was only to start debate on the Health Care Bill, not the all-important vote to end debate (60 votes also). As long as Lieberman is still steadfastly claiming to filibuster a bill with the public option, I don't see where the bill can go. Lieberman said, and did, vote to start debate but also claimed he will not vote to end it. Without his vote or a Republican pick up, the Bill will stall in the Senate by one vote. The game now is all about finding that ONE vote.
I pray they are able to get the votes they need... Liberman is such a douchebag for refusing to vote to end debate.. I'm from CT and there's no way I'll ever vote for the guy again, he's such a traitor I've never liked him..
and did you hear that evil prick Mitch McConnel pleading for a dem to vote "no" against cloture and represent the "american people".. LOL I think he means "insurance industry".. what reality is that guy living in? It's scary how immoral and ass backwards some of our lawmakers are..
|
On November 17 2009 04:50 TanGeng wrote:
Hmm we're getting into chemistry and biology here...
Corn Syrup as produced by depolymerisation of corn starch is nearly pure glucose. Fructose is created from that glucose by enzyme isomerisation in industrial fermentation vast. In the end the High-Fructose Corn Syrup is a blend of the fructose and glucose. HFCS generally comes in 45% fructose, 55% fructose, and 90% fructose. The 90% is would be bad for you for the reasons you stated, but the 45% and 55% kinds (in soda and other processed foods) aren't that much different from sugar which has equal parts fructose and glucose or 50% fructose.
The difference between HFCS and table sugar would be that HFCS has mono-saccharides that can be directly absorbed in the intestines that sugar has di-saccharides that requires sucrase for hydrolysis cleaving. Like all passive enzymes that lowers the activation energy, sucrase works in both directions. So unless glucose and fructose were abosrbed out of the intestines, a chemical equilibrium would be reached and the sucrase would effectively cease to function.
Eating sugar as opposed to HFCS would mean be that the fructose uptake would be partially limited by glucose uptake (glucose-sodium intestinal transport pathways) and would incidentally trigger glucose regulatory mechanisms (insulin + leptin).
Although I haven't seen a definitive controlled scientific study, I would venture to guess that table sugar would have a more gradual uptake and would trigger dietary suppression signals faster. Inverted sugar is the same thing (mono-saccharides - less the corn starch impurities) so not much difference there.
That's relatively correct, but the effect of the 55/45 solution shouldn't be underestimated; If most of the body's response to sugar intake happens with respect to the glucose monomer, there's a full 10% of the stimuli missing.
With regards to the speed of sugar uptake, generally the GI scale is used. The glycemic index is a measure of the relative rates in which glucose are delivered into the blood, and is used to look at the 'timing' of sugar delivery to the blood. Pure fructose generally has a GI of 20, and glucose is used as the standard with a maximum value of 100. The problem with the GI measurement system, however, is that it measures blood glucose levels, not blood sugar levels.
Here's where the problem starts:
Fructose is taken up by the liver pretty much always. Glucose is not. There's no need for insulin or any other 'potentiation' factor for fructose to get taken up. In the liver, fructose is basically tossed down the chemical pathways I mentioned above and turned into energy and triglycerides. Glucose, by contrast, will generally be processed by the liver to form glycogen which starts to break down when insulin levels drop to provide a steady stream of blood sugar after meals.
After the triglycerides are made, there's a bunch of other factors that influence how they'll be used, etc.
There have been isolated studies with mice, however, comparing the effects of being fed a fructose solution compared to a sucrose solution. The mice eating fructose ate more on average, indicating that there's an suppression of satiation associated with high fructose concentrations (a study from a corn company showed equal satiation between fructose and glucose, though). Another study showed that a similar fructose imbibing group developed leptin resistance, which led to them getting fat very quickly once their diet was changed to something more normal than liquid sugar.
There's also the issue of contaminants brought into HFCS containing foods because of the chemical processes involved, but that's another story entirely. (Mercury, for starters).
All of this is made rather perversely because there are trade tariffs against sugar in north america and huge subsidies towards corn.
|
On November 22 2009 15:37 stk01001 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2009 14:47 NovaTheFeared wrote:
This vote was only to start debate on the Health Care Bill, not the all-important vote to end debate (60 votes also). As long as Lieberman is still steadfastly claiming to filibuster a bill with the public option, I don't see where the bill can go. Lieberman said, and did, vote to start debate but also claimed he will not vote to end it. Without his vote or a Republican pick up, the Bill will stall in the Senate by one vote. The game now is all about finding that ONE vote. I pray they are able to get the votes they need... Liberman is such a douchebag for refusing to vote to end debate.. I'm from CT and there's no way I'll ever vote for the guy again, he's such a traitor I've never liked him.. and did you hear that evil prick Mitch McConnel pleading for a dem to vote "no" against cloture and represent the "american people".. LOL I think he means "insurance industry".. what reality is that guy living in? It's scary how immoral and ass backwards some of our lawmakers are..
http://www.facebook.com/StopJoe?ref=mf
|
Sanya12364 Posts
Sounds like an agreement on the major principles. I still think that the total amount of sweetener consumption is far more important and the whether it is HFCS or table sugar. Whether or not the excess can be attributable to HFCS should be certainly be examined. The study of development of leptin resistance should be interesting.
That's your sugar and corn lobby in collusion in the North America agricultural markets.
|
On November 22 2009 13:33 jalstar wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2009 11:44 VorcePA wrote:Fucking fan-tastic. God I hate Harry Reid and I'm ashamed he's one of my state senators. Now that I can vote, I damn well am going to when it's senate election time. These people who think free healthcare disgust me. Doesn't work in any country that has it. what countries don't? besides america.
burma
|
On November 22 2009 15:00 jalstar wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2009 14:31 gchan wrote:
Plus, US does have government insurance plans. They're called Medicare and Medicaid. They're also a disaster. for whom?
How about the American tax payers who were lied to? When Medicare was created in 1965, LBJ promised that it would not add one dollar to the federal deficit. According to 1965 estimates, Medicare would cost $12 billion dollars in 1990; the reality was it cost $98 billion dollars. The US is notoriously bad at cost estimates (Amtrak, Social Security, farm subsidies, and the list goes on). Taking this into consideration, do you really believe that health care reform in the United States is going to cost less than a trillion dollars?
Source
|
Sanya12364 Posts
Best to control those numbers for inflation. LBJ thought he had a miracle in guns and butter of the Great Society (sounds a lot like Bread and Circus.) Inflation came back with a vengeance in the 1970's and exceeded all "conservative" allowance for inflation.
The unfunded promises made by Medicare will certainly become a disaster. If anything about the health care bill deserves applause, it's the cuts and cost controls to be added to Medicare. That might also be the most unpopular provision.
|
On November 22 2009 17:13 gchan wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2009 15:00 jalstar wrote:On November 22 2009 14:31 gchan wrote:
Plus, US does have government insurance plans. They're called Medicare and Medicaid. They're also a disaster. for whom? How about the American tax payers who were lied to? When Medicare was created in 1965, LBJ promised that it would not add one dollar to the federal deficit. According to 1965 estimates, Medicare would cost $12 billion dollars in 1990; the reality was it cost $98 billion dollars. The US is notoriously bad at cost estimates (Amtrak, Social Security, farm subsidies, and the list goes on). Taking this into consideration, do you really believe that health care reform in the United States is going to cost less than a trillion dollars? Source
yet taxes have gone down since medicare was implemented,
so we were able to pay for it then, but not now
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
