|
6530. robertjayb - 7/10/2005 1:36:49 AM Universal Health Care pops up again...
COLUMBUS, Ohio -- A push for universal health coverage is being rekindled in some states by the soaring cost of health care and the lack of political support in Washington for federal changes.
Advocates of a single-payer system _ where the government would collect taxes and cover everyone, similar to programs in Canada and across Europe _ have introduced bills in at least 18 state legislatures. Some are symbolic gestures, but heated debate is taking place in California and Vermont. 6531. robertjayb - 7/10/2005 1:52:54 AM Physicians for a National Health Program...(pnhp.org)
Physicians for a National Health Program is a not-for-profit organization of physicians, medical students, and other health care professionals that support a national health insurance (NHI) program. Specifically, we believe that a single-payer system (where the government finances health care, but keeps the delivery of health care to mostly private control) is the only solution to solving the United States' many health care problems: 43 million citizens with no health insurance, many more with only limited coverage, skyrocketing health insurance premiums, malpractice costs, long-term care issues, and relatively poor health indicators, when compared to similar industrialized nations. 6532. wonkers2 - 7/10/2005 4:19:58 AM A single payer system has got to come some day. I think I recall that 20 percent of health care costs are unnecessary administrative expenses incurred by insurance companies and providers having to deal with a multitude of payers with complicated plan provisions. 6533. arkymalarky - 7/10/2005 6:07:34 PM Arkansas public school teachers have the fourth highest insurance premiums in the country. It's awful, especially if you have a child, because the cost is the same per family no matter how many children. My surgery, even after insurance, cost me about $1500, which floored Bob and me. 6534. thoughtful - 7/11/2005 6:36:24 PM pelle, just because the studies that have been done have been done poorly doesn't mean there is no evidence that obesity carries health risks. Certainly the correlation between rising obesity rates in children and the run-up in the occurrence of "adult-onset" diabetes among children is compelling. All the work done around 'syndrome X' poor blood lipid readings, diabetes and abdominal weight should not be ignored. The fact that many people with adult onset diabetes are able to control their disease with weight loss, diet and exercise alone strongly suggests the linkage between the two. Clearly there is sufficient evidence of health risks associated with obesity to label people as 'morbidly obese' and to encourage serious surgeries such as gastric bypass in order to attempt to save their lives. And while the data may be skewed by other medical advances such as improvements in the ability to treat diabetes and heart disease may postpone death, it isn't measuring the quality of life issues including kidney disease, blindness, limb amputations associated with diabetes. Obesity alone adds its own health problems including the ability to move, be flexible, not to mention theatre attendance.
So whether the proper studies have been done or not regarding specifically obesity and death rates, it's foolish, IMO, to ignore the gestalt of the evidence.
And certainly the food industry plays heavily into the argument about obesity...including the fact that the group "Center for Consumer Freedom" which is strongly promoting this 'myth of obesity' argument is funded by the likes of Coca-cola and Wendy's. 6535. alistairconnor - 7/12/2005 9:37:39 AM I have no problem with obesity : whether it be the normal expression of a natural phenotype; a lifestyle choice; or whatever. The normal rules about freedoms apply : as long as it doesn't restrict the freedoms of others, people should be free to smoke, drink alcohol, be fat, indulge in offbeat sexual practices, whatever. I may deem them to be risky or unhealthy things (and I may be right or wrong), but as long as they shoulder the consequences, I have no moral judgement to cast on them.
But obese children. No. That is not normal or natural, and it's an imposition on them, with heavy (ha) consequences. Perhaps not as tragic as imposing sex on children, but as serious as feeding them tobacco, alcohol or drugs. Society has a right, and a responsibility, to address this issue.
The problem is so widespread and systemic that it can't be addressed by constraint. Consciousness raising and social engineering are required. 6536. alistairconnor - 7/12/2005 9:40:58 AM Indeed Tful... follow the money. 6537. thoughtful - 7/12/2005 1:43:10 PM I have mixed feelings about the food industry when it comes to health and obesity issues. Clearly they want to sell product so as soon as they catch wind of what consumers want, they can turn a massive food industry on a dime. To wit, the response to the atkins phenomenon...when they finally figured out the no carb thing was significant, they went about eliminating carbs from even the most carb-laden foods. Of course they were late and now lament that much of that stuff sits on the shelves.
And they are operating in a market place so of course they will do what it takes to sell product including using economic incentives so for a nickle more you get twic as much soda or whatever. So the economics of the food industry encourages larger portions. This is especially true at restaurants where the food is probably the least expensive item the restauranter faces, compared to taxes, heat, wages, social insurance, etc. So far better for them to raise the price and offer incredible amounts of food so the customer feels they're getting 'value'. Heck even this controversy about soda machines in the schools comes about because the school systems are desperate for money and they profit from the coins the kids pop into the soda machines.
But then there are all the ways that they have altered food without regard for the health effects. For example, the data is something like back in 1900 the average person consumed 5 lbs. of sugar a year vs. now it's 150 lbs. of sugar a year. Check the labels sometime and you'll find they add sugar to peanut butter and ketchup! Or the transfats which are seriously damaging to health though they have the property of extending the shelflife of food. And then again there's the difficulty of attaching a name brand to commodities. So pushing green beans is nowhere near as lucrative as pushing fig newtons. So their is a natural bent to produce more and more processed foods which take us further and further from health and nutrition.
The only fix I see is education. But the people who have an incentive to teach proper nutrition don't have the $$ of the food industry. And the docs who make money treating people for all their nutrional deficiencies are too in bed with big pharma to fight it...don't tell your patients to skip the cookies...give them glucophage instead.
It's a conundrum. 6538. arkymalarky - 7/12/2005 4:56:43 PM In the US, we're not going to address childhood obesity, especially among the poor, where it is much more pervasive, until we address what they serve for free lunches in the school cafeterias. I get tired of the blame being placed entirely on businesses (not that it's being done in here, but the government is trying to place all the blame on them), while no one even looks at what kids are being fed at school, where poor children get at least two meals a day, and generally a snack. 6539. arkymalarky - 7/12/2005 5:00:53 PM A typical school lunch meal is some kind of deep-fried, breaded meat patty or hot dog, mashed potatoes or fries, sweetened canned fruit, white bread rolls, and cheese and chili for things like hotdogs. Vegetables are generally canned, and while older kids have the choice of a salad bar, the most little kids get from that is occasionally a few cut vegetables or a small mixed salad. A lot of that stuff tastes good, and I've learned to avoid the lunchroom to avoid gaining weight during the school year. 6540. thoughtful - 7/12/2005 6:23:35 PM schools do play an important role but they're balancing limited budgets against what a battery of nutritionists say is healthy (didn't at one point the govt say that ketchup could be counted as a vegetable???) and most importantly what children will eat. The lunch line was always longest on Fridays at our schools as that's when they made pizza....lousy though it was.
I ended up bringing my lunch to school every day...cheaper and tastier. 6541. arkymalarky - 7/12/2005 8:27:10 PM Pre-kindergarten through 3rd or 4th grade is a good time to feed kids much healthier food and just create a school environment where they're not going to get deep-fried, high-fat, and sugary food. I've always had a problem with kid finickiness driving what they're fed, at home or at school. I've seen parents fix their kids entirely different meals from what was just cooked, and the kids are obviously using food to control the parents, which is unhealthy in all kinds of ways. And I say that as a finicky child and adult myself. Kids will eat when they're hungry, and if there aren't unhealthy options available they'll eat the healthy ones. I think schools, especially for small children, have an obligation to feed kids healthy food. 6542. thoughtful - 7/13/2005 2:20:59 PM Problem starts at home though. We haven't been in a fast-food joint in years and years (except to use the potties when we're traveling), but my mother tells me she's seen babies who can't even talk but have no problem grabbing a french fry, dipping it in ketchup and consuming it heartily.
As an adult, I know how powerful sugar cravings can be and children have a much higher tolerance for sweets than adults. (I used to eat candy corn and those orange peanut things like there's no tomorrow, not to mention things like scooter pies and marshmallow fluff. BLECCH!) So before they even get to school they're already trained to choose food that's extra sweet or extra salty rather than healthy.
Even the sippies things for young babies that are 'supposed to be healthy' because they have 'natural flavor' and vit c added are fundamentally sugar water.
Then try to get a kid to opt for broccoli instead? Fat chance. (no pun intended). 6543. arkymalarky - 7/13/2005 3:59:37 PM I realize the problem begins at home, but in poverty-stricken families you're not likely to get a lot of information to them, much less get them to change. However, when a child depends on the school system for at least two of his meals from the time he's 3 years old, and he receives them as part of the free lunch program, the school has a huge role to play in that child's nutrition, and there's absolutely zero excuse for feeding them crap. Parents beat their kids too, but it doesn't give the school reason to do it, as well. Deep-frying and opening cans is not cheaper, it's just a lot easier to deal with. In fact, lunchroom cooks used to prepare great stuff on very little money. At the virtually all-black rural school where I taught two years, they had beans instead of meat once a week, and the kids, especially the little ones, ate it. They didn't have any choice. 6544. arkymalarky - 7/13/2005 4:01:19 PM And I agree with all of what you posted, since I was the same way, except that it's any excuse for a public school to offer unhealthy choices to small children. My allowance was spent almost entirely on candy until I was old enough to care what I wore in public, which wasn't until I was in my late teens. 6545. arkymalarky - 7/13/2005 4:02:55 PM And...it's much better for young children to get at least some healthy meals while they're in school than to get none at all. When they're teens it's more problematic, but if schools are consistent it won't be an issue by then. 6546. arkymalarky - 7/13/2005 4:05:40 PM ...they had beans instead of meat once a week, and the kids, especially the little ones, ate it. They didn't have any choice.
Which, it occurs to me, would be another reason not to teach elementary school. I'd have hated to be a kindergarten teacher about 2:00pm on bean days. 6547. thoughtful - 7/13/2005 8:10:04 PM are school meals provided free of charge? or do they have to pay? 6548. judithathome - 7/14/2005 12:47:16 AM Even the sippies things for young babies that are 'supposed to be healthy' because they have 'natural flavor' and vit c added are fundamentally sugar water.
And now, they are putting Splenda in those drinks and most of the sweet snack foods and colas kids are having.
6549. arkymalarky - 7/14/2005 1:23:37 AM Thoughtful,
Kids who qualify get free meals, and some have reduced price meals. It's a federal program, and is a basis for measuring children in poverty in public schools. It also helps determine the amount of state aid to high poverty (70% or more on free and reduced meals, and in AR a number of schools have over 95% of their students living below the poverty line and on the F&R program) public schools in Arkansas--one of the good things that came out of education reform here in the last couple of years. AR also added a preschool program for three and four year olds, so now, in addition to the Head Start Program, children in poverty have the state option of preschool, where they can get free or reduced price meals, making it even more important that schools work on offering healthier food.
|
