ADVERTISEMENT

You want to fix today's health cost in the US?

then get off your lazy ass and start exercising and eating less. And for those that smoke....stop!

http://atlanta.cbslocal.com/2015/06...can-woman-now-weighs-as-much-as-1960s-us-man/
This is why we have got to put PE, health, and nutrition back in U.S. schools. Liberal Democrats will want to ban all foods and put us on rations while institutionalizing every kid in the country with government mandated breakfast, lunch, and dinner at school while at the same time defunding exercise and the arts.

Our society has become sedentary due to advancements in technology and a large segment has become government dependent and doesn't have to work nor watch their health.

Studies have proven those who pay for their healthcare are more likely to watch what they eat, work out more, and utilize health providers less.

Part of the problem can also be contributed to the suburbanizing of the country with longer commutes to work and fewer bike paths. I personally believe this trend is being reversed and we have seen the worst with many communities redeveloping to put in bike paths and a trend of gentrification to downtown communities.

This is a multi-faceted problem and I hope is reaching its apex but the cynic in me believes it could be mirroring our economy, the haves (of health) and the have nots (the sedentary lifestyles). If each individual takes ownership of their health and payment this trend would definitely reverse itself. I was surprised that we've collectively grown an inch. #themoreyouknow
 
  • Like
Reactions: Noodle and IUXC68
Start drinking more. In the early 1800s the average consumption of alcohol was four times today's. They had lower BMIs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DrHoops
Start drinking more. In the early 1800s the average consumption of alcohol was four times today's. They had lower BMIs.
My guess, without auto's, and other modern day luxuries, they burnt a heck of a lot more calories per day than we do, and lived many years less. But your general premise of drinking more should be considered.
 
This is why we have got to put PE, health, and nutrition back in U.S. schools. Liberal Democrats will want to ban all foods and put us on rations while institutionalizing every kid in the country with government mandated breakfast, lunch, and dinner at school while at the same time defunding exercise and the arts.
Hyperbole alert.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DrHoops
No, not stop being sick. Just stop being fat.

I have freedom and liberty that allows me to be fat, but you are correct. I see fat asses all the time in my work and they all wonder why they have hypertension and are insulin dependent diabetics. They have stasis ulcers on their feet and legs and can't shit without assistance, but they keep sucking down the food. Without modern medicine they'd have been dead a long time ago. I'm not sure how much money and effort we spend on these people, but it's got to be astronomical.
 
Last edited:
then get off your lazy ass and start exercising and eating less. And for those that smoke....stop!

http://atlanta.cbslocal.com/2015/06/15/cdc-average-american-woman-now-weighs-as-much-as-1960s-us-man/

Wow, those stats are really depressing: "the average American woman now weighs 166.2 pounds – nearly identical to what American men weighed in the 1960s. And U.S. men have expanded greatly in the same time period, having gained nearly 30 pounds from the 1960s to 2010 – 166.3 pounds to 195.5 pounds today."

I also find it interesting that the average male waist is now 39.7 inches. Does anyone else think that seems really big for an average weight of 195.5?

I was the local international grocery store last weekend (Jungle Jim's--a must see place if you are ever in Cincinnati with time to kill). I was shocked by the number of people I saw riding motorized scooters; all of them using a scooter because they were morbidly obese. And then I saw the family with a couple of obese kids under 10, everyone in the family sipping on a soda they had picked up in the store.

What makes all of this even sadder is that Americans are getting fatter and fatter by eating pure crap. It's not like we're getting obese because we eat too many chicken thighs in a butter-tarragon sauce, or homemeade apple pie a la mode, or too many third glasses of Bordeaux after dinner. No, we're eating and drinking crap!
 
  • Like
Reactions: DrHoops
Don't let those scooters fool you, at the Beach Grove WalMart people hop right off those things and charge at other people, fists flying. The scooters are just to conserve energy for the impending assault.
 
then get off your lazy ass and start exercising and eating less. And for those that smoke....stop!

http://atlanta.cbslocal.com/2015/06...can-woman-now-weighs-as-much-as-1960s-us-man/

I'm in favor of de-consolidation of school districts and more, smaller neighborhood schools. Get the damned buses off the road, let the kids walk or ride bikes to school and let locals handle kidnappers and perverts who mess with those kids in accordance with local, um, customs.

More exercise for the kids, more parental involvement in the local schools, more parents walking to that involvement with schools, and fewer buses to interfere with traffic patterns . . .

. . . this solves EVERYTHING.
 
Wow, those stats are really depressing: "the average American woman now weighs 166.2 pounds – nearly identical to what American men weighed in the 1960s. And U.S. men have expanded greatly in the same time period, having gained nearly 30 pounds from the 1960s to 2010 – 166.3 pounds to 195.5 pounds today."

I also find it interesting that the average male waist is now 39.7 inches. Does anyone else think that seems really big for an average weight of 195.5?

I was the local international grocery store last weekend (Jungle Jim's--a must see place if you are ever in Cincinnati with time to kill). I was shocked by the number of people I saw riding motorized scooters; all of them using a scooter because they were morbidly obese. And then I saw the family with a couple of obese kids under 10, everyone in the family sipping on a soda they had picked up in the store.

What makes all of this even sadder is that Americans are getting fatter and fatter by eating pure crap. It's not like we're getting obese because we eat too many chicken thighs in a butter-tarragon sauce, or homemeade apple pie a la mode, or too many third glasses of Bordeaux after dinner. No, we're eating and drinking crap!

Our bodies can't process all of the processed shit we eat. Ironic.
 
It's virtually impossible to eat a healthy diet unless you (1) cook most of what you eat (2) from whole foods. That's because both restaurants and processed food manufacturers take the cheap and easy way out by larding up their offerings with fat, salt, and sugar. It's more expensive to eat healthy, and it takes a lot more effort. It's lazy to fob this problem off on the people of Walmart, and calls for more personal responsibility are no help. The relative lack of healthy options places a disproportionate burden on the poor, who often live in "food deserts" where it's extremely difficult to buy fresh, affordable food.

While it surely would help if Americans lost weight, people in other developed countries smoke and drink a lot more than we do, and their health care costs are still about half of ours, even though they see their doctors more often than we do. The main reason we pay a lot more for health care than everyone else in the developed world is that the prices our health care providers charge are a lot higher than they are in other developed countries. For everything from ambulance rides to hip replacements to prescription drugs to (especially) hospital stays, we just pay a lot more than everyone else. And we get nothing for it. Instead of blaming the poor stupid schlubs riding around in carts at Walmart, we ought to blame our private, for-profit health care system that allocates wealth and income away from ordinary people to the well-to-do who work in gleaming office towers and always-under-construction hospitals.

An anecdote: Some time ago I read a piece by Atul Gawande that focused on the efforts of a small group of doctors working at a large hospital. They determined that a hugely disproportionate share of the hospital's billings went to a small percentage of the hospital's patients, who mostly suffered from chronic conditions. The doctors located these patients and arranged for the hospital to send someone out to see them on a regular basis. They'd ask the patients how they were doing, check on their meds, see if they needed anything. The billings to this group of patients fell off sharply, even after accounting for the cost of the home visits, because as a result of the increased attention they were much less likely to require hospitalization.

This great result was a big problem from the hospital's perspective. It realized that it was effectively paying its doctors to reduce its revenues. Instead of expanding the program that made more people better off for less money, the hospital killed it. The hospital administrators didn't do this because they were evil. They did this because they were rational. They responded exactly how you would expect profit-maximizers to respond -- indeed, how the hospital's shareholders would presumably demand that they respond.

You don't fix problems like these by blaming the schlubs and demanding that they have more "skin in the game." (Again, Americans already have more "skin in the game" than people in other developed countries, where utilization is higher and prices are lower.) You fix problems like these by ditching the dysfunctional system that persistently produces such lousy outcomes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DrHoops
It's virtually impossible to eat a healthy diet unless you (1) cook most of what you eat (2) from whole foods. That's because both restaurants and processed food manufacturers take the cheap and easy way out by larding up their offerings with fat, salt, and sugar. It's more expensive to eat healthy, and it takes a lot more effort. It's lazy to fob this problem off on the people of Walmart, and calls for more personal responsibility are no help. The relative lack of healthy options places a disproportionate burden on the poor, who often live in "food deserts" where it's extremely difficult to buy fresh, affordable food.

While it surely would help if Americans lost weight, people in other developed countries smoke and drink a lot more than we do, and their health care costs are still about half of ours, even though they see their doctors more often than we do. The main reason we pay a lot more for health care than everyone else in the developed world is that the prices our health care providers charge are a lot higher than they are in other developed countries. For everything from ambulance rides to hip replacements to prescription drugs to (especially) hospital stays, we just pay a lot more than everyone else. And we get nothing for it. Instead of blaming the poor stupid schlubs riding around in carts at Walmart, we ought to blame our private, for-profit health care system that allocates wealth and income away from ordinary people to the well-to-do who work in gleaming office towers and always-under-construction hospitals.

An anecdote: Some time ago I read a piece by Atul Gawande that focused on the efforts of a small group of doctors working at a large hospital. They determined that a hugely disproportionate share of the hospital's billings went to a small percentage of the hospital's patients, who mostly suffered from chronic conditions. The doctors located these patients and arranged for the hospital to send someone out to see them on a regular basis. They'd ask the patients how they were doing, check on their meds, see if they needed anything. The billings to this group of patients fell off sharply, even after accounting for the cost of the home visits, because as a result of the increased attention they were much less likely to require hospitalization.

This great result was a big problem from the hospital's perspective. It realized that it was effectively paying its doctors to reduce its revenues. Instead of expanding the program that made more people better off for less money, the hospital killed it. The hospital administrators didn't do this because they were evil. They did this because they were rational. They responded exactly how you would expect profit-maximizers to respond -- indeed, how the hospital's shareholders would presumably demand that they respond.

You don't fix problems like these by blaming the schlubs and demanding that they have more "skin in the game." (Again, Americans already have more "skin in the game" than people in other developed countries, where utilization is higher and prices are lower.) You fix problems like these by ditching the dysfunctional system that persistently produces such lousy outcomes.
I completely understand your frustration with hospitals, doctors, insurance companies, and big pharma, but why shouldn't we "shame" those that are obese, or in many instances, morbidly obese. I read an article yesterday, I think from one of the Philly papers, that said just that. That doesn't mean to go around shouting at someone that they are fat, but start charging the obese when they need 2 seats on a plane, increase health premiums for those that don't take care of themselves. We do that for life insurance, why not health insurance?

My anecdote: I just finished up a 1 pm meeting. On the way to that meeting, I passed by one of our sales assistants, who, I am assuming, would be classified as morbidly obese. In her hand were 4 pieces of deep dish pizza she was walking out from out office kitchen. The timing was rather ironic.
 
Yeah, conservative republicans just tell you to stop being sick. If you get sick, blame yourself. Supply side Jesus is in
It's virtually impossible to eat a healthy diet unless you (1) cook most of what you eat (2) from whole foods. That's because both restaurants and processed food manufacturers take the cheap and easy way out by larding up their offerings with fat, salt, and sugar. It's more expensive to eat healthy, and it takes a lot more effort. It's lazy to fob this problem off on the people of Walmart, and calls for more personal responsibility are no help. The relative lack of healthy options places a disproportionate burden on the poor, who often live in "food deserts" where it's extremely difficult to buy fresh, affordable food.

While it surely would help if Americans lost weight, people in other developed countries smoke and drink a lot more than we do, and their health care costs are still about half of ours, even though they see their doctors more often than we do. The main reason we pay a lot more for health care than everyone else in the developed world is that the prices our health care providers charge are a lot higher than they are in other developed countries. For everything from ambulance rides to hip replacements to prescription drugs to (especially) hospital stays, we just pay a lot more than everyone else. And we get nothing for it. Instead of blaming the poor stupid schlubs riding around in carts at Walmart, we ought to blame our private, for-profit health care system that allocates wealth and income away from ordinary people to the well-to-do who work in gleaming office towers and always-under-construction hospitals.

An anecdote: Some time ago I read a piece by Atul Gawande that focused on the efforts of a small group of doctors working at a large hospital. They determined that a hugely disproportionate share of the hospital's billings went to a small percentage of the hospital's patients, who mostly suffered from chronic conditions. The doctors located these patients and arranged for the hospital to send someone out to see them on a regular basis. They'd ask the patients how they were doing, check on their meds, see if they needed anything. The billings to this group of patients fell off sharply, even after accounting for the cost of the home visits, because as a result of the increased attention they were much less likely to require hospitalization.

This great result was a big problem from the hospital's perspective. It realized that it was effectively paying its doctors to reduce its revenues. Instead of expanding the program that made more people better off for less money, the hospital killed it. The hospital administrators didn't do this because they were evil. They did this because they were rational. They responded exactly how you would expect profit-maximizers to respond -- indeed, how the hospital's shareholders would presumably demand that they respond.

You don't fix problems like these by blaming the schlubs and demanding that they have more "skin in the game." (Again, Americans already have more "skin in the game" than people in other developed countries, where utilization is higher and prices are lower.) You fix problems like these by ditching the dysfunctional system that persistently produces such lousy outcomes.
A really near sighted post that unfortunately appeals to the lowest common denominator. I eat healthy and I'm part of the 99% with not much spare change. You don't have to go to whole foods or a farmers market, you can go to any Kroger and buy fresh vegetables, lean protein, and assorted nuts and other snacks that are healthy without breaking the budget. Recipes are posted all over the internet for healthy choices that are economical and cooking shows are on the food networks. It takes a lifestyle change.

One doesn't need a gym membership to stay fit either. A pair of comfortable shoes and about 10 feet of space is all one needs to stay fit as well.

That article you referenced showed just how high of a cost a small portion of healthcare abusers cause the system and if you did some research you might be able to make a connection between obesity rates over the last 40 years and the rising cost of healthcare.

This is a multifaceted problem that needs to be addressed from many angles but the belief that one can't eat healthy on a budget and need not live healthy because it won't lower healthcare costs is just plain wrong and not part of a solution to healthcare improvement.
 
While it surely would help if Americans lost weight, people in other developed countries smoke and drink a lot more than we do, and their health care costs are still about half of ours

So you are alluding to the fact that I need to take up smoking? I can get behind this.
 
It's virtually impossible to eat a healthy diet unless you (1) cook most of what you eat (2) from whole foods. That's because both restaurants and processed food manufacturers take the cheap and easy way out by larding up their offerings with fat, salt, and sugar. It's more expensive to eat healthy, and it takes a lot more effort. It's lazy to fob this problem off on the people of Walmart, and calls for more personal responsibility are no help. The relative lack of healthy options places a disproportionate burden on the poor, who often live in "food deserts" where it's extremely difficult to buy fresh, affordable food.

While it surely would help if Americans lost weight, people in other developed countries smoke and drink a lot more than we do, and their health care costs are still about half of ours, even though they see their doctors more often than we do. The main reason we pay a lot more for health care than everyone else in the developed world is that the prices our health care providers charge are a lot higher than they are in other developed countries. For everything from ambulance rides to hip replacements to prescription drugs to (especially) hospital stays, we just pay a lot more than everyone else. And we get nothing for it. Instead of blaming the poor stupid schlubs riding around in carts at Walmart, we ought to blame our private, for-profit health care system that allocates wealth and income away from ordinary people to the well-to-do who work in gleaming office towers and always-under-construction hospitals.

An anecdote: Some time ago I read a piece by Atul Gawande that focused on the efforts of a small group of doctors working at a large hospital. They determined that a hugely disproportionate share of the hospital's billings went to a small percentage of the hospital's patients, who mostly suffered from chronic conditions. The doctors located these patients and arranged for the hospital to send someone out to see them on a regular basis. They'd ask the patients how they were doing, check on their meds, see if they needed anything. The billings to this group of patients fell off sharply, even after accounting for the cost of the home visits, because as a result of the increased attention they were much less likely to require hospitalization.

This great result was a big problem from the hospital's perspective. It realized that it was effectively paying its doctors to reduce its revenues. Instead of expanding the program that made more people better off for less money, the hospital killed it. The hospital administrators didn't do this because they were evil. They did this because they were rational. They responded exactly how you would expect profit-maximizers to respond -- indeed, how the hospital's shareholders would presumably demand that they respond.

You don't fix problems like these by blaming the schlubs and demanding that they have more "skin in the game." (Again, Americans already have more "skin in the game" than people in other developed countries, where utilization is higher and prices are lower.) You fix problems like these by ditching the dysfunctional system that persistently produces such lousy outcomes.

I can't completely agree with this. I drink a LOT of beer, but I'm picky about it. It pretty much has to be Three Floyds, Bells, Lagunitas, or Founders. I like some others but you're guaranteed to find these breweries in my fridge. Anyways, just saying people in other countries don't drink more than me.
 
I can't completely agree with this. I drink a LOT of beer, but I'm picky about it. It pretty much has to be Three Floyds, Bells, Lagunitas, or Founders. I like some others but you're guaranteed to find these breweries in my fridge. Anyways, just saying people in other countries don't drink more than me.
Then you are really missing the boat. You are depriving yourself of Stone, Victory, Surly, Ballast Point, Toppling Goliath, and so many others. Shame on you!
 
A really near sighted post that unfortunately appeals to the lowest common denominator.
Actually, it's a post based on a veritable library of research, much of which I've posted here. No wonder it gives you hives.
I eat healthy and I'm part of the 99% with not much spare change.
Well, that's splendid, but I didn't remotely say that only the one percent are able to eat healthy. I said that "It's virtually impossible to eat a healthy diet unless you (1) cook most of what you eat (2) from whole foods" and that "[t]he relative lack of healthy options places a disproportionate burden on the poor, who often live in "food deserts" where it's extremely difficult to buy fresh, affordable food."
You don't have to go to whole foods or a farmers market, you can go to any Kroger and buy fresh vegetables, lean protein, and assorted nuts and other snacks that are healthy without breaking the budget.
Well, yes, I can and you can, but see again my point about poor people and "food deserts," where there isn't a Kroger to be found -- as if everyone could afford "fresh vegetables, lean protein, and assorted nuts and other snacks".
Recipes are posted all over the internet for healthy choices that are economical and cooking shows are on the food networks. It takes a lifestyle change.
Shorter IU1: "Let them watch Rachel Ray."
That article you referenced showed just how high of a cost a small portion of healthcare abusers cause the system
They aren't "healthcare abusers", you asshole. They're people suffering from chronic illness who need care and aren't getting it. Even when you hear that we'd all be better off if they got more attention your response is still to be a callous little shit.
f you did some research you might be able to make a connection between obesity rates over the last 40 years and the rising cost of healthcare.
Wait. If I did some research? Okay, smart guy, by all means show us the research. The next time you show your work will be the first. Do you get all your health care ideas from ZeroHedge, or do you have another go to source for that? (Also, soaring interest rates? Ruinous inflation?)

By all means show me that I'm just flat dead wrong. Make my day.
This is a multifaceted problem that needs to be addressed from many angles but the belief that one can't eat healthy on a budget and need not live healthy because it won't lower healthcare costs is just plain wrong and not part of a solution to healthcare improvement.
Shorter IU1: "This is a multifaceted problem that can only be addressed by my baseless dumbassery."
 
I completely understand your frustration with hospitals, doctors, insurance companies, and big pharma, but why shouldn't we "shame" those that are obese, or in many instances, morbidly obese.
It's easy to hold the people of Walmart in contempt, but we don't have crazy high health care costs because we have too many schlubs that we ought to shame into even deeper misery. We have crazy high health care costs because corporate health care providers are ripping us off. If you want to shame someone, shame them. Punch up, not down.

Say something mean to a fat person if it makes you feel better, but don't imagine that you've accomplished anything other than heaping a little more misery onto the back of someone who has many fewer choices than you think they do.
 
It's easy to hold the people of Walmart in contempt, but we don't have crazy high health care costs because we have too many schlubs that we ought to shame into even deeper misery. We have crazy high health care costs because corporate health care providers are ripping us off. If you want to shame someone, shame them. Punch up, not down.

Say something mean to a fat person if it makes you feel better, but don't imagine that you've accomplished anything other than heaping a little more misery onto the back of someone who has many fewer choices than you think they do.
Ok, so where do you draw the line. We descriminate with life insurance, having to obtain physical exams and health history. Why not health insurance? I may receive preferred status on life insurance, and you may be rated. Do you feel that is unfair? If so, my question is moot.

But, if not, why should I pay the same in my companies health insurance as someone who is morbidly obese, smokes, and eats Cheetos all day. That seems unfair to me.
 
Ok, so where do you draw the line. We descriminate with life insurance, having to obtain physical exams and health history. Why not health insurance? I may receive preferred status on life insurance, and you may be rated. Do you feel that is unfair? If so, my question is moot.

But, if not, why should I pay the same in my companies health insurance as someone who is morbidly obese, smokes, and eats Cheetos all day. That seems unfair to me.
The irony here is that if we did things my way you'd pay less and get more, but it's more important to you that the schlubs get what you think they "deserve".

Most conservatives here hate France, but the French have what's widely regarded as the best health care system in the world. It gives what we would think of as insanely generous benefits to everyone whether they "deserve" it or not -- hell, whether they're French or not -- and they pay about half of what we pay per capita. Meanwhile we're enriching corporate health care providers who rip us off, and all you can do is fulminate against the poor stupid schlubs who ride carts at Walmart. The people who are getting rich off of you are laughing at you every bit as much as you're laughing at those poor dumb schlubs at Walmart.

You think the people of Walmart are the fools, but they aren't. They know they don't have agency, and they've given up. That's sad and tragic. But you imagine that you do have agency, yet all you do with it is punch down at those poor sad slobs, while you ignore the suits who are laughing at you. That makes you a schmuck.
 
The irony here is that if we did things my way you'd pay less and get more, but it's more important to you that the schlubs get what you think they "deserve".

Most conservatives here hate France, but the French have what's widely regarded as the best health care system in the world. It gives what we would think of as insanely generous benefits to everyone whether they "deserve" it or not -- hell, whether they're French or not -- and they pay about half of what we pay per capita. Meanwhile we're enriching corporate health care providers who rip us off, and all you can do is fulminate against the poor stupid schlubs who ride carts at Walmart. The people who are getting rich off of you are laughing at you every bit as much as you're laughing at those poor dumb schlubs at Walmart.

You think the people of Walmart are the fools, but they aren't. They know they don't have agency, and they've given up. That's sad and tragic. But you imagine that you do have agency, yet all you do with it is punch down at those poor sad slobs, while you ignore the suits who are laughing at you. That makes you a schmuck.
Well, I guess I am a schmuck. But I am going to be a fit, healthy schmuck, and not a fat smelly schmuck. And if the exec's at Anthem, and Lilly, and Ortho Indy want to sit back and laugh at me as they get rich....so be it.
 
Actually, it's a post based on a veritable library of research, much of which I've posted here. No wonder it gives you hives.

Well, that's splendid, but I didn't remotely say that only the one percent are able to eat healthy. I said that "It's virtually impossible to eat a healthy diet unless you (1) cook most of what you eat (2) from whole foods" and that "[t]he relative lack of healthy options places a disproportionate burden on the poor, who often live in "food deserts" where it's extremely difficult to buy fresh, affordable food."

Well, yes, I can and you can, but see again my point about poor people and "food deserts," where there isn't a Kroger to be found -- as if everyone could afford "fresh vegetables, lean protein, and assorted nuts and other snacks".

Shorter IU1: "Let them watch Rachel Ray."

They aren't "healthcare abusers", you asshole. They're people suffering from chronic illness who need care and aren't getting it. Even when you hear that we'd all be better off if they got more attention your response is still to be a callous little shit.

Wait. If I did some research? Okay, smart guy, by all means show us the research. The next time you show your work will be the first. Do you get all your health care ideas from ZeroHedge, or do you have another go to source for that? (Also, soaring interest rates? Ruinous inflation?)

By all means show me that I'm just flat dead wrong. Make my day.

Shorter IU1: "This is a multifaceted problem that can only be addressed by my baseless dumbassery."
Actually, it's a post based on a veritable library of research, much of which I've posted here. No wonder it gives you hives.

Well, that's splendid, but I didn't remotely say that only the one percent are able to eat healthy. I said that "It's virtually impossible to eat a healthy diet unless you (1) cook most of what you eat (2) from whole foods" and that "[t]he relative lack of healthy options places a disproportionate burden on the poor, who often live in "food deserts" where it's extremely difficult to buy fresh, affordable food."

Well, yes, I can and you can, but see again my point about poor people and "food deserts," where there isn't a Kroger to be found -- as if everyone could afford "fresh vegetables, lean protein, and assorted nuts and other snacks".

Shorter IU1: "Let them watch Rachel Ray."

They aren't "healthcare abusers", you asshole. They're people suffering from chronic illness who need care and aren't getting it. Even when you hear that we'd all be better off if they got more attention your response is still to be a callous little shit.

Wait. If I did some research? Okay, smart guy, by all means show us the research. The next time you show your work will be the first. Do you get all your health care ideas from ZeroHedge, or do you have another go to source for that? (Also, soaring interest rates? Ruinous inflation?)

By all means show me that I'm just flat dead wrong. Make my day.

Shorter IU1: "This is a multifaceted problem that can only be addressed by my baseless dumbassery."
I do quite a bit of shopping at Aldi which won't be mistaken for Whole Paycheck anytime soon and the choices available are are fresh and edible (and affordable). There are plenty of alternatives at fast food joints which may surprise you. Walgreens has recently gone to fresh food choices in their stores and stopped selling tobacco products, so there's that. And exercise starts with putting one foot in front of the other.

Claiming that healthier lifestyle choices is not part of the equation to lower healthcare costs is not a position that would ever be considered credible in a discussion on reducing our nations healthcare costs and improving our nations health. The research is out there but if your position is that obesity, smoking, and drinking isn't part of the healthcare cost equation because other countries do it, by all means flame away.

And you may want to read the Hot Spotters by Atul Gawande again and fact check your earlier post. The answer to better healthcare does begin with personal responsibility and in the absense of that could have been helped with social workers, not trying to funnel more people to buying insurance they can't afford. Reading is fundamental and so is understanding the basis of the problem.
 
Claiming that healthier lifestyle choices is not part of the equation to lower healthcare costs is not a position that would ever be considered credible in a discussion on reducing our nations healthcare costs and improving our nations health.
Once again you lack reading comprehension -- or any other kind of comprehension. I didn't say healthy choices are irrelevant. I said that they're only a very small part of the picture. And I've linked voluminous evidence in support.
The research is out there
Yes, well, maybe the research that would support your claims is "out there", but you've never brought it in here. Once again: Prove your points. Show your work. Don't be such a pathetic little poser.
if your position is that obesity, smoking, and drinking isn't part of the healthcare cost equation because other countries do it, by all means flame away.
How can you be so obtuse? I emphasize the unhealthy choices that people in other countries make because people who explain away our high health care costs with obesity ignore all these unhealthy behaviors elsewhere. To establish that our much higher costs are the result of obesity, you must control for these other factors.
And you may want to read the Hot Spotters by Atul Gawande again and fact check your earlier post.
I might. But then again I might want to just keep laughing my ass off at you. Remember, nitwit, you're always free to show me up anytime you like. You just have to show up with something more than what you've pulled out of your ass.

Again. By all means prove me wrong. Make my day. Or piss off, pissant.
 
I do quite a bit of shopping at Aldi which won't be mistaken for Whole Paycheck anytime soon and the choices available are are fresh and edible (and affordable).
Ahoy polloi! It's really splendid that you've discovered Aldi, but a "food desert" isn't a place where they only have cheap fresh food groceries like Aldi. It's a place where even a cheap fresh food grocer like Aldi would be a dream come true. (By the way, there's an Aldi on North Keystone in Indianapolis. I've shopped there because it's cheap. But unlike lots of desperately poor people, I could get there.)

With every point you make you more conclusively establish that you have no idea what you're talking about. Read more. Think more. Talk less. Actually, until you learn a very great deal more, you should just stop talking altogether.
 
Ahoy polloi! It's really splendid that you've discovered Aldi, but a "food desert" isn't a place where they only have cheap fresh food groceries like Aldi. It's a place where even a cheap fresh food grocer like Aldi would be a dream come true. (By the way, there's an Aldi on North Keystone in Indianapolis. I've shopped there because it's cheap. But unlike lots of desperately poor people, I could get there.)

With every point you make you more conclusively establish that you have no idea what you're talking about. Read more. Think more. Talk less. Actually, until you learn a very great deal more, you should just stop talking altogether.
According to Reuters, obesity in the US is responsible for up to 21% of health care costs, or 190 billion per year. 34% of Americans are obese, 6% morbidly obese. This compares to France, who BTW, has the lowest rate of obesity in Europe, at 11%. Is it any wonder, to anyone without an agenda, to see one of the reasons France has better health outcomes than the U.S. Their Mediterranean diet, complete with wine, is often discussed as part of their healthy lifestyle.

You seem to want to continue to focus on only the lowest of the low to defend your POV, those that evidently can't get to or find a grocery store. I can promise you, there are plenty of fat people strolling around our communities that can. I don't know where you live, but I am quite sure you see them also, and they can find any grocery store they want.

You always want facts. The linked piece has some additional information on the issues of obesity. Our country would be a considerably better place to live and work if this issue was taken seriously.

http://www.phitamerica.org/News_Archive/10_Flaggergasting_Costs.htm
 
According to Reuters, obesity in the US is responsible for up to 21% of health care costs, or 190 billion per year. 34% of Americans are obese, 6% morbidly obese. This compares to France, who BTW, has the lowest rate of obesity in Europe, at 11%. Is it any wonder, to anyone without an agenda, to see one of the reasons France has better health outcomes than the U.S. Their Mediterranean diet, complete with wine, is often discussed as part of their healthy lifestyle.

You seem to want to continue to focus on only the lowest of the low to defend your POV, those that evidently can't get to or find a grocery store. I can promise you, there are plenty of fat people strolling around our communities that can. I don't know where you live, but I am quite sure you see them also, and they can find any grocery store they want.

You always want facts. The linked piece has some additional information on the issues of obesity. Our country would be a considerably better place to live and work if this issue was taken seriously.

http://www.phitamerica.org/News_Archive/10_Flaggergasting_Costs.htm
Innumeracy is a serious problem.

Anytime you affect to begin a serious analysis of comparative health care systems, you can't begin with "according to Reuters". So for example, Reuters says that 21 percent of our health care costs are attributable to obesity, but according to the Center For Medicare and Medicaid Services we spend a total of about $3 trillion on health care, and if Reuter's $190 billion is attributable to obesity, we're already down to about 15 percent -- assuming Reuter's source has it right.

But that isn't really the issue because of course you can find data to show that obesity increases Americans' health care costs, This is a point that's not in dispute. Likewise, it should not be in dispute that the much higher levels of alcohol consumption and cigarette smoking in other developed countries raise their health care costs relative to ours. How do these effects net out? Who knows and you don't say. You just keep yammering about American obesity in isolation, without addressing the adverse affects of other unhealthy behaviors or the voluminous evidence that we pay more for every single thing than every other developed country pays regardless of the insured populations' health.

Apparently you hate fat people. You have data that they suck. But so do cigarette smokers (much more prevalent abroad), heavy drinkers (much more prevalent abroad), and people who get shot by guns (much more prevalent here). How do these factors net out? You don't know and you don't care. You just shit on the poor and the afflicted.

Until you can prove me wrong, I will reiterate that the rest of the developed world does it in some version of my way, and they all pay about half of what we pay, while they cover everyone, and they all get benefits we'd regard as generous. You'd pay less and get more under such a system.

Your response is to punch the punchless. That makes you a heartless asshole.
 
Innumeracy is a serious problem.

Anytime you affect to begin a serious analysis of comparative health care systems, you can't begin with "according to Reuters". So for example, Reuters says that 21 percent of our health care costs are attributable to obesity, but according to the Center For Medicare and Medicaid Services we spend a total of about $3 trillion on health care, and if Reuter's $190 billion is attributable to obesity, we're already down to about 15 percent -- assuming Reuter's source has it right.

But that isn't really the issue because of course you can find data to show that obesity increases Americans' health care costs, This is a point that's not in dispute. Likewise, it should not be in dispute that the much higher levels of alcohol consumption and cigarette smoking in other developed countries raise their health care costs relative to ours. How do these effects net out? Who knows and you don't say. You just keep yammering about American obesity in isolation, without addressing the adverse affects of other unhealthy behaviors or the voluminous evidence that we pay more for every single thing than every other developed country pays regardless of the insured populations' health.

Apparently you hate fat people. You have data that they suck. But so do cigarette smokers (much more prevalent abroad), heavy drinkers (much more prevalent abroad), and people who get shot by guns (much more prevalent here). How do these factors net out? You don't know and you don't care. You just shit on the poor and the afflicted.

Until you can prove me wrong, I will reiterate that the rest of the developed world does it in some version of my way, and they all pay about half of what we pay, while they cover everyone, and they all get benefits we'd regard as generous. You'd pay less and get more under such a system.

Your response is to punch the punchless. That makes you a heartless asshole.
All of this is to avoid the debate none of us want to have.

At least 10%, and as much as 25-30% of all health care spending in the US is spent on the last six months of our lives.

No matter how we change the system we have set up for paying it, the debate is eventually going to come down to, "Do we want to spend this much energy hanging on as long as we can?"
 
  • Like
Reactions: DrHoops
All of this is to avoid the debate none of us want to have.

At least 10%, and as much as 25-30% of all health care spending in the US is spent on the last six months of our lives.

No matter how we change the system we have set up for paying it, the debate is eventually going to come down to, "Do we want to spend this much energy hanging on as long as we can?"
That's wrong, even though it's right, First, we could fix end-of-life care decisions by requiring Medicare beneficiaries to have living wills that specify what they actually want done. Although this was demonized by partisan Republicans, it would vastly improve the status quo. In practice, most people really don't want the pointless crazy expensive stuff with which guilty families now afflict their dying days.

Meanwhile, and because I apparently haven't said it enough to get everyone's attention:

IT IS A MATTER OF DOCUMENTED EFFING FACT THAT WE JUST PAY WAY TOO MUCH FOR EVERYTHING, WHETHER IT'S THE STUFF WE NEED AND WANT OR THE STUFF WE DON'T NEED AND DON'T WANT. WE SHOULD STOP PAYING SO EFFING MUCH FOR EVERYTHING.
That is all. (For now.)
 
That's wrong, even though it's right, First, we could fix end-of-life care decisions by requiring Medicare beneficiaries to have living wills that specify what they actually want done. Although this was demonized by partisan Republicans, it would vastly improve the status quo. In practice, most people really don't want the pointless crazy expensive stuff with which guilty families now afflict their dying days.

Meanwhile, and because I apparently haven't said it enough to get everyone's attention:

IT IS A MATTER OF DOCUMENTED EFFING FACT THAT WE JUST PAY WAY TOO MUCH FOR EVERYTHING, WHETHER IT'S THE STUFF WE NEED AND WANT OR THE STUFF WE DON'T NEED AND DON'T WANT. WE SHOULD STOP PAYING SO EFFING MUCH FOR EVERYTHING.
That is all. (For now.)
I agree with you on that point. I just wish people had the balls to own up to what we're really talking about. Even if we magically slashed costs overall, end-of-life care would still, percentage-wise, represent a major chunk of those costs. You can't undo that with payment structure. It is what it is.
 
I stand by my original post, and that is that the VAST majority of obesity is due to lazy and sedentary lifestyle many have come to live. If that make me an asshole, fine.

Why does it always come to that? Everyone is an asshole. Why can't you just say that yes, people need to get off their ass and move a little.

And these people that can't find grocery stores somehow still find the ability to stuff 5000 calories a day into their gut. Shocking!!
 
I agree with you on that point. I just wish people had the balls to own up to what we're really talking about. Even if we magically slashed costs overall, end-of-life care would still, percentage-wise, represent a major chunk of those costs. You can't undo that with payment structure. It is what it is.

Correct

Which is why we must have death panals connected with any flavor of public payment for care. Or, give the patients skin in the game. Maybe if medicare had a large HSA component that could be passed on to one's heirs, we wouldn't have all this needless and expensive end of life care. Right now the family has nothing to lose by ordering all the care possible for granny. With skin in the game, after a couple of generations, some families could have a sizeable reserves to meet medical bills.
 
I stand by my original post, and that is that the VAST majority of obesity is due to lazy and sedentary lifestyle many have come to live. If that make me an asshole, fine.

Why does it always come to that? Everyone is an asshole. Why can't you just say that yes, people need to get off their ass and move a little.

And these people that can't find grocery stores somehow still find the ability to stuff 5000 calories a day into their gut. Shocking!!

Rockfish is being a self-entitled jerk, as usual. He is the great moral authority, here to tell any and all, whom they are allowed to disparage, and why.

Hey Rock, Jim is correct. You are wrong. I have been a physician in Indiana for the past 47 years. I see the health care problems everyday caused by laziness and poor diet. Don't punch up or down, just go punch yourself, and then leave the rest of us alone, you self-important prick.
 
  • Like
Reactions: IUJay1
Then you are really missing the boat. You are depriving yourself of Stone, Victory, Surly, Ballast Point, Toppling Goliath, and so many others. Shame on you!

I've had all those except for Toppling Goliath out of Iowa. I've heard good reviews. Plus I have friends that keep Stone and Surly brews on hand so I have access.
 
I've had all those except for Toppling Goliath out of Iowa. I've heard good reviews. Plus I have friends that keep Stone and Surly brews on hand so I have access.
I've not had that one either, nor Surly. But all the others that you and IUJIM mentioned are top notch beers. Ever had any beers from Saugatuck Brewing? Their distribution is not that great (Michigan, Indiana and Ohio I think, maybe Chicago as well), but they have some really good beers. I'm not much of a brown ale drinker, but their Bonfire Brown is one of the best I have ever had. Their Neapolitan Milk Stout is extraordinary, however, they will not put it in bottles as it's served under nitrogen. But, if you are ever in the Saugatuck area their brewery/restaurant is well worth a visit.
 
Hey Rock, Jim is correct. You are wrong. I have been a physician in Indiana for the past 47 years. I see the health care problems everyday caused by laziness and poor diet. Don't punch up or down, just go punch yourself, and then leave the rest of us alone, you self-important prick.
Okay, Dr. Welby. Surely your 47 years of experience have given you the basis to do something more useful than diss me and express contempt for your patients. I'm sure you must be chock full of helpful policy suggestions. By all means, heal both our discourse and our policy. I'm all ears.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Circlejoe
I've not had that one either, nor Surly. But all the others that you and IUJIM mentioned are top notch beers. Ever had any beers from Saugatuck Brewing? Their distribution is not that great (Michigan, Indiana and Ohio I think, maybe Chicago as well), but they have some really good beers. I'm not much of a brown ale drinker, but their Bonfire Brown is one of the best I have ever had. Their Neapolitan Milk Stout is extraordinary, however, they will not put it in bottles as it's served under nitrogen. But, if you are ever in the Saugatuck area their brewery/restaurant is well worth a visit.

No, but I'll try anything when it comes to brew. I know Zombie Dust is the most hyped beer from Three Floyds and while it's delicious their best beer, IMHO, is their Arctic Panzer Wolf. If you EVER have a chance to try it, you won't be disappointed. I can get it locally for $12 a bottle and it only comes in the 22oz bottles. Worth every penny. It's how an Imperial IPA should taste. The best example I've ever found.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT