On March 23 2012 20:12 xavra41 wrote: Again non-American posters don't know what they are talking about but i am always glad to school some e-hippies. Our rights come from our creator (natural law, read our declaration of indepence). We don't owe everything to society because 'they" "allowed" us to be here. That would be like saying you owe your life to your mother because you wouldnt be born without her. Society does take away stuff from me like money through taxation. Sorry for being so audacious for thinking i am entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I think it is inherited from my founding fathers who though that England didn't own us because we are their colony.
"Sorry for being so audacious for thinking i am entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"
Do you not feel a little bit stupid when you type this kind of stuff?
On March 23 2012 18:58 xavra41 wrote: I was actually after a deeper point. Why should we be forced to help others? Who decides who or what to help and how much is taken from us. I am in the camp of if you want to help people then help them and if you don't then dont. I respect personal liberty and freedom of choice, so government mandates take away much of your ability to be yourself.
This actually strikes to the heart of the matter. The real question is, what kind of society do we want to live in? Or at least that should be the question, but since USA is apparently a republic and not a democracy ( meh), that is not the question, but rather, how to form our society within the constraint set by the constitution.
Personally, while I disagree with the view held by xavra41, he certainly has the right to argue it. But that should be the argument. "I don't want to live in a country where you are forced to help other people," not "Being forced to help other people is unconstitutional." One argument is honest, the other is not.
On March 23 2012 20:12 xavra41 wrote: Again non-American posters don't know what they are talking about but i am always glad to school some e-hippies. Our rights come from our creator (natural law, read our declaration of indepence). We don't owe everything to society because 'they" "allowed" us to be here. That would be like saying you owe your life to your mother because you wouldnt be born without her. Society does take away stuff from me like money through taxation. Sorry for being so audacious for thinking i am entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I think it is inherited from my founding fathers who though that England didn't own us because we are their colony.
"Sorry for being so audacious for thinking i am entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"
Do you not feel a little bit stupid when you type this kind of stuff?
On March 23 2012 18:58 xavra41 wrote: I was actually after a deeper point. Why should we be forced to help others? Who decides who or what to help and how much is taken from us. I am in the camp of if you want to help people then help them and if you don't then dont. I respect personal liberty and freedom of choice, so government mandates take away much of your ability to be yourself.
Ive seen similar argument often, and the follow-up question that comes to my mind is always the same: do you think people should pay tax at all?
Because you already pay lots of taxes which means you help lots of people with lots of things already. You help other random dudes half acress the country get better infrastructure, you help them getting better education, you help them keep their towns clean, etc. So why cant you help them get better care?
If I were to choose where my tax money would go, helping other people (even those I never met) get a better life, maybe get sick people the medicins they need to keep a somewhat normal life going, would be pretty high up on my list. Higher up that LOTS of stuff I know my money goes to.
If your argument is that taxes shouldnt exist at all, then you actually have a point, but given the fact that taxes DO exist, shouldnt healthcare be a pretty important field to cover with that money?
On March 23 2012 18:54 xavra41 wrote: I did and it is pro-socialism. Like most socialists he completely disregards reality. 'If you just had public education on prevention everything would be perfect'. This is simply not true. Let's take weight loss, for example, as most people know that being obese causes health problems and having a healthy diet will prevent disease. Everybody knows this but obesity is on the rise.
Quite the contrary, I wouldn't say I'm "pro-anything". I look at the available literature and decide what makes the most sense.
I'll break down your example for you though in the context of what I was trying to iterate in my previous post:
You are right - most people do know that obesity causes health problems, and having a healthy diet will prevent disease. So then, why is obesity on the rise? That is because of various socioeconomic factors. For example, subsidies are provided to large companies such as McDonald's, Burger King, Wendy's, and the rest. This allows them to sell their food for cheaper to turn bigger profits relative to smaller local companies. Furthermore, the majority of our food is actually processed by the same 3-4 companies. This is especially true of our meat and corn industries (which is in virtually everything). Even our organic food is owned and processed by companies such as Wal-mart. Furthermore, food that is high in chemical preservatives and low in nutritional value is easily mass-produced, and is thus cheaper to produce.
(Documentaries aren't fact - go look up the research on your own, it's there - this is just easier for me to link)
A family limited in ability to make purchases is going to cut these corners, as they cannot afford to buy foods rich in nutrients. So they buy foods that are high in sodium and LDL cholesterol, which causes them to gain weight. These foods are high in calories as well typically as well, meaning metabolism attempts to slow down to adapt. This further increases weight gain. Furthermore, because of the lack of the nutrients available in these kinds of foods, people have to eat more to achieve less - further increasing weight gains. Even the more socioeconomically advantaged members of society may not have the time to cook food or the desire to spend the money/time on cooking a proper meal when they can go out for food or buy a KFC family meal. Risks associated with improper nutrition are long term. You can't "see" that you're going to develop cardiac issues or diabetes by the age of 60 due to your eating habits at the age of 30. This is just the way humans tend to think in short-term vs long-term thought processes. This is further intensified by the fact that the current political system is intertwined with corporations that sell these very products.
With regard to population health, equity in health considers these factors - it is evidence based. When you are referring to this problem, you are only referring to one aspect of the issue and are thinking of things in terms of cause and effect. This is what the biomedical model historically does. You aren't asking why these conditions exist. Population health and the social determinants of health consider these things. Healthy public policy is accounted for in these model of health - it is all encompassing. So you've proven my point, and for that I thank you. Obesity is a health concern because it causes things like cardiac issues, diabetes, and a host of other chronic diseases. This furthermore puts stress on areas of community health and the health system, so why are our governments giving tax exemptions and tax breaks to corporations that encourage obesity? Why aren't those breaks going towards healthier foods? These types of considerations are a huge part of health equity and population health too!
Secondly corruption and government are inseparable which is why capitalism is awesome, so if the government advertises it can fix everything. When we had the swine flu the government advertised everyone to get a vaccine. Not only did nthey not have enough flu shots they were also wrong about the dangers. And, as it turns out, the vaccine has some nasty side effects.
Capitalism doesn't hold a government more accountable, it historically does the opposite. In theory, it should as consumers should dictate the market; however, in practice the government has been dictating the market because of consumer apathy in combination with government becoming marketable. By this, I mean elected officials require money and power to be elected into office. Money and power within our society is derived from socioeconomical status. Individuals with the highest socioeconomic status are those involved in large economic organizations like corporations. Hence, the relationship between individuals who have position of political power and those who have positions of economic power become well established and perpetuated. The invisible hand Adam Smith talked about unfortunately doesn't account for established social and political conditions. Adam Smith himself identified the need for government regulation in "The Wealth of Nations" - particularly in Chapter's 5 and 6.
I'll quickly address the swine flu vaccination myth with a couple quick reference here:
Doherty, L. (2009). 'Scurrilous' email campaign hits nurse uptake of swine flu vaccine. Nursing Standard, 24(13), 8. Griffith, R., & Tengnah, C. (2009). The swine flu, advice giving and the reporting of adverse drug reactions. British Journal Of Community Nursing, 14(9), 405-409.
This is from the University database, unfortunately I can't find a link to the articles that are publicly accessible so I'll provide the reference and hopefully you can find it on your own. Essentially it states that the email and information presented about the swine flu vaccine was incorrect. The second article provided a great deal of background information about the Swine Flu epidemic, and how public health was faring in its battle. Excellent critique and reality check if you can get a hold of it. Based upon what I know about vaccines and the composition of the swine flu vaccine, it really shouldn't have many side effects outside of the normal realms of possibilities of these types of vaccines.Most flu vaccines (especially potentially pandemic ones) are actually derived in the same manner by studying the manipulation of the H or N spikes of a virus (hence H1N1 for example). Likewise, components of immunizations are typically the same across the various types of immunization administration and have been proven to be more or less safe in various field tests. The only concern would have been the actual virus strain itself; however, As far as I'm concerned, this is the same as the rumour where MMR vaccines have side effects of autism, despite the fact that the study where this was originally founded had an incredibly small sample size and the sample was directly chosen by the researcher without any form of randomization. The study was proven to be falsified, but you won't hear about this unfortunately in the news....
The reason why "scientists" (more like media) keep making a big deal about swine flu, H1N1, bird flu, etc, is because every so often the HN spikes mutate into a deadly virus of pandemic potential (eg, Spanish Flu in 1918). We are actually due for such a mutation, so they keep spreading panic and making a big deal about it because we need to be prepared, though media sensationalize certainly doesn't help either. To be honest, chronic diseases are a much bigger concern and should be the forefront of medical research.
On March 23 2012 18:54 xavra41 wrote: Like most socialists he completely disregards reality.
I disliked being labeled an anything, especially with such a negative connotation. You are correct to an extent - there is a difficulty in applying much of what I say. I'll copy and paste what I sent to someone else who was asking on the forums who disagreed with me in that regard:
At the end of the day though, I try to look at it as individuals are both created and create themselves. It seems like you probably take pride in the fact that you are a productive member in society, and you've "created yourself". I know I do. Obviously I don't know your background well, so I can only guess (forgive me if I'm wrong), but not everyone really is given the right start at the start of life to really "create themselves" thus they turn into delinquents and have a negative impact on society. These types of people also reproduce at a higher rate because they don't have access to contraception, and the process just keeps going as they make poor parents. So the way I look at it, is that healthy public policy limits this process so in the long run it's going to help your contributing member of society like myself too.
The frustration is there for me as well though. I guess it's more of a difference between of us of how we would solve the obvious problems of our society as a whole (I don't buy into the whole US vs the world BS - honestly things like this are a world wide problem due to globalization, people just tend to be ignorant of how intertwined we all really are). Despite all my knowledge on the subject area, there are still huge limitations in making population health work. Aside from the difficulty of changing a century old system, even if you were to redistribute resources as WHO suggests, people vary hugely in their ability to actually utilize them properly. What do you think will happen if you give a drug user money for example? That leads to questioning the education system and childcare system, which goes straight back to politics, economics, societal costs, and profits... It's just a really complicated issue in general. To top it off, problems are generally profitable for business as they require a cost to "solve".
As for Obamacare, I guess I see it as a step? Even if it's a huge failure (I think it will be overturned prior to seeing if it's a "true failure" as the benefits are long term rather than short), I think it's good that at least something is changing and it'll raise awareness to the issues. I don't like the idea that insurance companies are part of the idea because that's a conflict of interest, but at least it's something. Honestly, your guys' political and healthcare system is so heavily linked with the globalized corporations, such as pharmaceuticals, I have no idea how to even begin to tackle the realistic aspect of addressing those problems through political action. Even with the Canadian system, it's becoming a bigger and bigger challenge due to the profit aspect of health and our aging population increasing the financial burden on our system. It's easy enough to make recommendations and provide facts on relationships of variables, but it's significantly harder to change a system that's been in place for centuries. One day I hope to find the answer though.
That's the whole point of what I'm trying to say, this isn't a black and white issue and is an incredibly complex interaction of variables - hence we need a method of thinking that accounts for this. This is why I believe there is a future in the focus of population health.
@fwmeh when did i say the word constitution? welfare/entitlements are constitutional (according to supreme court at least) i just think people should mind their own business, if you want to help then help, don't take my money for your agenda whether its right or wrong.
On March 23 2012 18:58 xavra41 wrote: I was actually after a deeper point. Why should we be forced to help others? Who decides who or what to help and how much is taken from us. I am in the camp of if you want to help people then help them and if you don't then dont. I respect personal liberty and freedom of choice, so government mandates take away much of your ability to be yourself.
Ive seen similar argument often, and the follow-up question that comes to my mind is always the same: do you think people should pay tax at all?
Because you already pay lots of taxes which means you help lots of people with lots of things already. You help other random dudes half acress the country get better infrastructure, you help them getting better education, you help them keep their towns clean, etc. So why cant you help them get better care?
If I were to choose where my tax money would go, helping other people (even those I never met) get a better life, maybe get sick people the medicins they need to keep a somewhat normal life going, would be pretty high up on my list, higher up that LOTS of stuff I know my money goes to.
If your argument is that taxes shouldnt exist at all, then you actually have a point, but given the fact that taxes DO exist, shouldnt care be a pretty important field to cover with that money?
i am not against taxes i think obamacare hurts society. It is a simple matter that the pros outweigh the cons. If you want people to have health care start with cultivating (not creating) job growth so people can buy their own if they choose to. I am in the camp that people can spend their money better than the government can.
On March 23 2012 20:12 xavra41 wrote: Again non-American posters don't know what they are talking about but i am always glad to school some e-hippies. Our rights come from our creator (natural law, read our declaration of indepence). We don't owe everything to society because 'they" "allowed" us to be here. That would be like saying you owe your life to your mother because you wouldnt be born without her. Society does take away stuff from me like money through taxation. Sorry for being so audacious for thinking i am entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I think it is inherited from my founding fathers who though that England didn't own us because we are their colony.
"Sorry for being so audacious for thinking i am entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"
Do you not feel a little bit stupid when you type this kind of stuff?
yeah and im the troll...
The great irony is, you've been left in the situation. You're the type of moron who hated the idea of a public option, and you left the reform no choice but to go in this dreadful direction. If you supported a public option, you would have healthcare available for everybody who needs it, AND your own individual choice to either use the government healthcare or pay for private healthcare.
I'll say it again, a nation so poorly educated that they regularly fight against their own interests. You're horribly educated, you're horribly informed and you have views that rival that of the rednecks you laugh at on youtube. Stop posting, before you further embarrass yourself.
Socialists are off-base with the retiring age all across Europe. Most people in Europe are old so they are against high retiring ages because they believe they already paid. So they want the next generation to pay more. And they will have to retire later anyway. It is just completely standing up for their own interest. And when one goes against it, the unions will be mobilized because younger people are a minority already and they almost always don't become union members anyway (which is a huge mistake on their part).
These older people with an average and above average pay already paid off their mortgage on their house, which they were able to get cheap and with subsidies now gone anyway, they have had their salary increased because of age many times, children are out of their care and on their own. Yet these haves mobilize againsat their own children the moment retiring age becomes an issue. These people often need to retire because while they are working they don't have the time to spend all the money they are hoarding.
How is this socialism? Yes, there needs to be some regulation for people that do hard manual labour. Obviously these people can't work till 70 when they started at 16. Either you retire these people when their body starts to cause problems. Or you phase them into some different job long before that happens. It's a problem for society that needs to be solved. Or is our solution to use some Poles or Romanians (or Greeks lol) for these jobs, underpay them which only works because in eastern Europe their salary has a lot more purchasing power than in western Europe. (I mean, if these Polish got the same purchasing power as western workers, they would reject that pay as well.) Discard them when they get over 35 or so. And just give up on our own people who are supposed to do this job and try to have them on the most minimalistic wellfare possible. Is that our solution?
Increasing retiring age in general is a great way to help us go out of this financial crisis. Together with not doing austerity right now. We need reform and we need to pay back the debts. But the private sector already is forced to do nothing but pay off debts. The government actually can delay this for the sake of the economy. The government should start to pay off the debts when the private sector is finished and is investing again. If both pay off debt at the same time, this amplifies the recession and makes it deeper than needed.
Then we actually need to reinvent what we are doing right now with capitalism, speculation, hedge funds, the whole financial sector because it's just an engine of booms and busts as well as vehicile for continious enlargement of inequality. Inequality is the big no.1 civilization killer.
I also do agree that we do need to make it easier for companies to both hire and fire people. (they are connected). But we can't have this trend continue where companies hire as few people as possible and let the government figure out what to do with all the people they don't want. Because directly or indirectly, we as a society have to pay for them. There are people who just can't compete on the labour market at all. There are people who aren't worth minimum loan. Companies used to have coffee ladies. Now we all have coffee machines and the people doing those jobs sit at home on wellfare in social isolation while forces are at work to see how low they can get this wellfare to be. If they can get wellfare so low these people all commit suicide, then for them that would be great.
Psst, you aren't supposed to actually read Adam Smith.
Wow Satire... i am not going to spend a whole hour watching videos and reading that block. You are pro something you are pro-"social equity" (aka income redistribution). Also stop making it sound like people are the victims lol. Healthy food can be cheaper than fast food so i don't know what you are talking about. If people are too stupid to find this cheap healthy food (cuz they are in the frozen pizza aisle instead of the frozen vegetable aisle) then that is their fault. Since your whole argument is based on government hating health food then check our the Paleo Diet thread for cheap ways of eating healthy you will be surprised how cheap it is. If people started demanding health food more it would drive the price down in the long run do the available amount of capital and thus further help. Also middle class and above people are fat so price isn't the problem it is consumer choice. But then who is to say that eating bad food is wrong? You? lol. We should be allowed to pursue happiness even if it means diabetes.
On March 23 2012 20:03 xavra41 wrote: I argued against 2 main points 1. Government endorsed education "The second way to address this issue, is to provide public education to the masses on the effects of hot stoves and create policies which allow easier access to said education. By doing this, the trips to both the hospital and the store are prevented, and the incidence of this particular health disparity causes actively goes down" Swine flu is the perfect example of the failure of government. karpo said it well that corporations had special interest which impacted the advice. If i want quality advice on my health i definitely do not go to government. Secondly because there is awareness/education it doesn't solve the problem (see obesity).
2. Capitalism is anti-prevention thus socialism is better "This is why capitalism and healthcare should not mix as there is far more potential for profit in treating problems than there is in preventing them." First and foremost, you have a choice to take prescription or treatments. Preventive options are still an option. The problem is the people, not the markets, because people don't value prevention very much. Secondly the profit and capital from these industries has driven innovation in the health industry. Profit isn't a force of evil, it is an incentive. A lot of people become doctors because of how much money they make that doesn't make them evil. I am a fan of capitalism because it gives decision making power to the individual not the politician.
I missed this post as I was spending so much time replying and finding literature for my previous one. I feel like I addressed many of these points in my last post. Suffice it to say, your view point, while appreciated, is very limited in scope. I feel like this is where we tend to disagree. You are right that education is only one component of health advocation, but I already addressed this in my very first post when I provided the two links to the social determinants of health. I understand it's a lot of reading, so I won't hold it against you, but within those links they address much of your concerns with your first main point.
For the second main point, I believe I addressed that in my last post. Refer specifically to the section regarding Adam Smith. You are correct that capitalism centralizes power in the hands of consumers; unfortunately, the market has found a way to circumvent this delegation of power through control of media outlets and information flow; this is further intensified by government connections to market powerhouses. Your very argument for why you don't want government running the show is the exact same danger that is presented with the free market. As such, a system where both are held accountable to the general public is ideal. Of this, I'm sure we can both agree no? This is part of population health as well, as I mentioned before a specific importance is holding the government accountable through healthy public policy that is evidence based. As the goal is health equity for all, this automatically holds the economic system accountable to the public as well. I believe it's a fair balance.
On March 23 2012 20:39 xavra41 wrote: Wow Satire... i am not going to spend a whole hour watching videos and reading that block. You are pro something you are pro-"social equity" (aka income redistribution). Also stop making it sound like people are the victims lol. Healthy food can be cheaper than fast food so i don't know what you are talking about. If people are too stupid to find this cheap healthy food (cuz they are in the frozen pizza aisle instead of the frozen vegetable aisle) then that is their fault. Since your whole argument is based on government hating health food then check our the Paleo Diet thread for cheap ways of eating healthy you will be surprised how cheap it is. If people started demanding health food more it would drive the price down in the long run do the available amount of capital and thus further help. Also middle class and above people are fat so price isn't the problem it is consumer choice. But then who is to say that eating bad food is wrong? You? lol. We should be allowed to pursue happiness even if it means diabetes.
If you're not willing to read articles/sources that articulate my view point as well as critique it, then how am I to assume that you've done the same for yours? I've provided substantial information for you to form an opinion either way that is, if nothing else, peer reviewed.
Based upon your responses, it's clear to me you have no interest in actual intellectual debate so I suppose we'll just leave it at that then. Not attempting to be rude in any sort of fashion, but we're both just wasting our time: your points would be based upon personal opinion and potential fallacy, while mine would be backed upon self-selected evidence that you aren't even willing to consider looking at to critique. Neither of us gain anything from that, except maybe a soap box.
Sorry if i was too lazy to watch the videos lol but since i disagree with the foundation of your ideas there wasn't any point. You're ideas aren't new and they have all been tried in many ways by various governments. Educated consumers are almost always better concerning their own self interest. This is why these mandates are bad news for liberty. The media is part of the market so no they are not "controlling" people. People are acting out of their own values ( i would mention evolutionary psych but im too lazy) and just because their values don't match yours dont make them wrong. as you said in your last sentence your ideas are socialist and because i don't trust the government with the responsibility you want to give them is why i disagree.
You do know John Mauldin is a republican through and through right? He's on Fox news almost everyday spewing whatever it is they want to hear, you know that right? You know he's going to have a ridiculously biased opinion on healthcare right?
You do know John Mauldin is a republican through and through right? He's on Fox news almost everyday spewing whatever it is they want to hear, you know that right? You know he's going to have a ridiculously biased opinion on healthcare right?
It is actually by lisa cummings but i cross referenced some of the tables and its pretty accurate.
EPT
