Universal Health Care ! CA (unemployed, neighborhoods, university)

[StanleysOwl]

Originally Posted by CaliRestoration

Now, assume all people make good individual health choices. Which people will live longer, the people within the system with all the technological innovation in medicine, or the people in the system that is slower to innovate?

Simple. For people who make good health choices individually, high-tech medicine is superfluous. Whatever system it exists in ... or doesn't ... is immaterial.

Thus we get back to the points you were called out on some posts back. You declared several things including:

- that high-academically-achieving profit-driven physicians provide better services and outcomes.
But no, they don't, as we have just agreed.

- that for-profit-driven systems innovate more with technology (patents, etc.)
Yes, they do.

- Technology provides better services and healthier outcomes.
No, it doesn't, as we have just agreed. The best services and outcomes come from simple advice and personal disciplines.

Summary:
Profit incentives in medicine drive competition, not healthier results.
Humanitarian concern drives better advice for good health.

[StanleysOwl]

Originally Posted by expatCA

There are three basic problems.

1. Doctors, Nurses, Pharmaceutical Companies, Medical equipment manufacturers and lawyers all want to make as much as they can from... people's health issues (Note all business want to make more money so this is normal). Being a free society where controlling such costs is almost impossible, this will mean any plan will have problems and costs will rise. While the Government sets a limit on some costs for medicare, there is also a co-payment or you pay for part "D", etc. This drives cost as much as medical needs.

2. People refusing to eat properly and live a life style that is healthy. It is true many people are living basically paycheck to paycheck that they can only survive by eating off the dollar menus and ......... eating really junky food. Then the food volume. For years it has been advised that "active" people eat 2000 calories a day. There are fast foods that as a "meal" can come close or even exceed that. In the US the amount of food served is wayyyyy larger as to portions than in say Europe and ................ 1/5 the sugar used there, which is a major reason for a lot of health and weight issues. Now inactive people, as in desk jobs, retired, etc should be well below 2000 calories unless .... they exercise just about every day.

3. Poor quality of food. I am not talking about Fast food but just about everything we eat. Loaded with chemicals, artificial in many case like a lot of blueberry's and even honey to name a few foods that are supposed to be good. The amount of chemicals including Sugar and Salt is so high that it causes poor health. While it is claimed it is safe, it isn't healthy at all. Oh but it tastes sooo good. Yeah more sugar as we have been so loaded with it we can't taste it unless it is in large amounts. Had some friends from the UK out to dinner at a very popular restaurant in SoCal and they had 2 girls 8 and 10. They ordered a desert that is very popular and after two bites (Ice cream) the said they could not eat any more it was sooo sweet. When we first visited Europe we were looking forward to some French pasties, oooh were they bland. After being there for a while they tasted .. sweeter. We eat wayyyy too much sugar and then there is salt ...........

No health plan will change this, they just move what is paid for around. I have spoken to a number of doctors now and all absolutely agree that medicine is no longer valuable as the new treatments not only have such bad side effects, they do not stop or correct the problem, they just lower it to some degree. ONLY a life style change will improve societies health. As people get problems, and more and more will, the costs have to go up and ... care will either be even more expensive or care will go down. If we got healthier, like many European Countries, our health care costs would drop, well at least for a while and then the ones making money off it would jack up the costs so they did not lose money.

Health care is a political issue to get elected and has virtually nothing really to do with good health care for people.

Agree with the spirit of your post. Disagree with your assumption that eating healthy is difficult and expensive. It's really not hard to find good, safe, healthy foods at low cost. What's hard is battling the dietary desires corporate farming and food processing has conditioned us to love and crave.

[CaliRestoration]

Originally Posted by StanleysOwl

Simple. For people who make good health choices individually, high-tech medicine is superfluous. Whatever system it exists in ... or doesn't ... is immaterial.

Uh no it's not immaterial. There are genetic factors, environmental factors, and many other factors that do not involve personal choice. Technology can fix these problems. Unless you're saying a baby with neuroblastoma somehow made choices that lead to them getting cancer.

[CaliRestoration]

Originally Posted by StanleysOwl

Agree with the spirit of your post. Disagree with your assumption that eating healthy is difficult and expensive. It's really not hard to find good, safe, healthy foods at low cost. What's hard is battling the dietary desires corporate farming and food processing has conditioned us to love and crave.

See, this is a sound post. You should try this more.

[expatCA]

Originally Posted by StanleysOwl

Agree with the spirit of your post. Disagree with your assumption that eating healthy is difficult and expensive. It's really not hard to find good, safe, healthy foods at low cost. What's hard is battling the dietary desires corporate farming and food processing has conditioned us to love and crave.

Depends on where you live. Many places are too far or you only have chain markets and they charge more for healthy food. In SoCal no excuse.

Yes we have been conditioned to want food that is bad for us.

Just like we have been conditioned to think medicine, vitamins, etc will fix it and allow us to keep eating junk or not exercising.

[StanleysOwl]

Originally Posted by CaliRestoration

Uh no it's not immaterial. There are genetic factors, environmental factors, and many other factors that do not involve personal choice. Technology can fix these problems. Unless you're saying a baby with neuroblastoma somehow made choices that lead to them getting cancer.

Yes, it is immaterial statistically. Of course there are rare anomalies that go beyond lifestyle choices. And there is always heartbreak associated with loss from them. And no society can survive being built around rare exceptions.

Originally Posted by CaliRestoration

See, this is a sound post. You should try this more.

All posts by StanleysOwl are sound. Never an exception.

[StanleysOwl]

Originally Posted by expatCA

Depends on where you live. Many places are too far or you only have chain markets and they charge more for healthy food. In SoCal no excuse.

Yes we have been conditioned to want food that is bad for us.

Just like we have been conditioned to think medicine, vitamins, etc will fix it and allow us to keep eating junk or not exercising.

Again, we agree in spirit. But no, it doesn't depend on where you live. It depends on knowledge of choices and willingness to make them. You can eat healthy at low cost out of any nominal grocery beyond a 7-11.

[JGC97]

Originally Posted by StanleysOwl

Again, we agree in spirit. But no, it doesn't depend on where you live. It depends on knowledge of choices and willingness to make them. You can eat healthy at low cost out of any nominal grocery beyond a 7-11.

Actually, it does, StanleysOwl. Here is an article from a few years back that describes the problem but it also gives some great information on how the problem of the "food desert" in areas of this country are being resolved.

I think we take for granted that we live in a state where fresh food is in abundance, therefore, prices aren't jacked up like they are in other parts of the country.

How access to fresh food divides Americans | Fortune.com

[StanleysOwl]

Originally Posted by HereOnMars

Actually, it does, StanleysOwl. Here is an article from a few years back that describes the problem but it also gives some great information on how the problem of the "food desert" in areas of this country are being resolved.

I think we take for granted that we live in a state where fresh food is in abundance, therefore, prices aren't jacked up like they are in other parts of the country.

How access to fresh food divides Americans | Fortune.com

Yes, food deserts. Know about them. But no, anyone can eat healthy for low cost out of any grocery store. You can't always get the freshest or organic produce. But we don't need those. They are great. But not exclusive to reasonably good health.

The #1 culprit in bad health is sugar. Even "natural" sugars. Refined grains is next. Excessive carbohydrate consumption. Transfats. Environmental toxins / chemicals. Tobacco. But lots of foods can be found anywhere without sugars and additives.

Plain legumes are probably the best single food a person can consume in quantity. Beans, lentils and the family. They are available - cheap - without any added anything, everywhere. But most folks aren't willing to eat so plain and they take some soaking and preparation.

Carrots, lettuce, spinach, apples ... etc. even frozen vegetables all can be found in any crappy grocery. Most tuna has no additives ... red the labels on the cans. Sure, fresh free-range chicken and beef would be best, but is hard to find and expensive (though getting easier and cheaper every week at major retailers now ... you can find organics even at COSTCO these days.). Oats are a wonder grain. They are cheap and available even at 7-11's.

Lots of accessible info. Example:
Cheap and Healthy: 15 Nutritious Foods for About $2

[SportyandMisty]

Originally Posted by payutenyodagimas

I thought we are going to save when we have single payer system because the middlemen (insurance) is eliminated and they have the power to dictate how much healthcare providers will charge?

Think about it this way. Everything that all the insurance companies do would then be done by the Single Payer.

Let's say there are, just to make up a number, 100,000 employees at health care insurance companies.

So, the government Single Payer entity would need to hire 100,000 employees to do the work that the insurance companies used to do. However, government employees cost more because of their gold-plated pensions, so you'd need to add an extra 20% or so just to pay for outsized pensions & their own Cadillac health care. Then, because we're talking government employees who don't accomplish as much as private sector employees, you'll need to hire an extra, say, 20,000 or so employees just to accomplish the throughput that the former insurance company employees used to do.

Then, of course, the former 100,000 employees at health care insurance companies who all lost their jobs would need unemployment payments from the government.

Add it all together, and no, government single payer is much more expensive. Everyone agrees.