GatewayRedbirds.com

planet pujolsian wrote:Not denying obesity's a big problem, but 50 yrs. ago probably 40% of the adult population smoked. Last I checked, wealthy people still smoke, eat a ton, drink, etc. I am fully supportive of preventative treatment. The problem still lies within our health care system. There are people every day stricken by unpredictable diseases uncovered by insurance.

Oh, I'm not saying people aren't stricken by exotic diseases that aren't covered by insurance everyday. Of course, the best insurance in the world still isn't going to save everyone. I'm just saying there are more people that are requiring stints at the age of 40 because they've been dangerously overweight their whole life. And, that number is going to go up exponentially as obesity rates skyrocket in America.

I just don't get how people will sit here and complain to no end about the system yet not blame parents (or whoever is at fault) for having kids that weight 200 lbs by the time they reach high school. and we see more and more of it every year, yet we sit here and complain that the system is broke. Let's fix the obesity epidemic as well as worry about the system. I think they will go hand in hand.

edit: and, yes, i realize bmi doesn't accurately depict obesity, but they're not mutually exclusive (if i used that term correctly)

Reforming healthcare coverage is a separate and real issue. Nobody has once said that obesity and unhealthy lifestyles are not an enormous problem. They're just one that the government has a limited capacity to effect. We can invest more in education on preventive health care and we can work with insurers to be sure that they are exercising the long term vision to buy into preventive care. These are separate issues, and they are being championed by the same people who are trying to secure universal health care.

I think AW makes a great point. The obesity is probably a bigger problem healthwise than smoking, although I'm not sure in terms of dollars spent if that is true. I mean you drop dead of a heart attack, and it doesn't cost a dime. Fight lung cancer for 2 years and that gets expensive.

I really view fast food restaurants not too far off from tobacco companies in terms of selling an unhealthy product. I think more regulation in that industry is needed.

Start putting slobbishly looking people on the Big Mac lids or something.

These "news" channels really shouldn't be referred to that way. I went from watching Olbermann bash the Republican ticket, which frankly resembled a bad comedy show, to watching Hannity interview McCain and Palin, which is basically an infomercial. Sean can have a new career on late night cable as a pitchman. Maybe Keith could be his comic foil rather than Colmes.

Radbird wrote:These "news" channels really shouldn't be referred to that way. I went from watching Olbermann bash the Republican ticket, which frankly resembled a bad comedy show, to watching Hannity interview McCain and Palin, which is basically an infomercial. Sean can have a new career on late night cable as a pitchman. Maybe Keith could be his comic foil rather than Colmes.

Why do you watch these shows? There are plenty of better places to get news, and at least for me, the entertainment value dried up a long time ago.

It had been awhile since I tuned them in, nothing else was on, and I was curious to hear the debate spin.

docellis wrote:

jim wrote:

docellis wrote:i don't understand why health care is a right.

I don't understand how it isn't. WIth the wealth in this country, how can we not treat our sick? It a moral responsibility to me.

i think health care is something we pay for, and should pay for, I guess. maybe it is semantics, but are people actually NOT getting medical treatment?

People aren't getting medical treatment, then eventually end up getting very expensive treatment in an ER. Then they can't pay. Eventually we all pay this bill somehow.

Its a fact of life- people get sick. And sometimes these people are poor. Sometimes they are kids.

I'm not so sure I'm in favor of univerasal health care, but at least we need a bottom-rung safety net for the worst off. This CHIPS program that has been cut seemed like a good thing to me. Like Dent says, this approach to this issue has always been a non-productive all-or-nothing. Some compromised approaches can be had.

Most of those arguing against healthcare being socialized are making some good arguments why it should be. The main complaint seems to be irresponsible freeloaders. The perennially unemployed are freeloading now and would continue to freeload off of a socialized system, so no difference there. The irresponsible ones who opt out would be forced to pay into it through their taxes.

As far as doc's original question, I do think that it's a right, at least in terms of it should be something that all people in a developed country should have free (or at least very affordable) access to, with coverage for all for catastrophic conditions. You can have differences in terms of how much luxury some people might be willing to pay for, but in terms of basic health care and essential treatments, it should be something there for everyone, regardless of means.

thrill wrote:

jim wrote:I think we need to get over this national obsession with some getting more than their fair share in life.

That's the problem. A lot of people in my generation don't realize that fair share doesn't mean equal share.

I don't have a problem with thinking about equal share when it comes to certain things like education and healthcare.

Arthur Dent wrote:

PujolJunkie wrote:

lol, oklahoma

40%! When leader like Fidel Castro has "elections" - does even he poll as well as republicans do in Okla? Even Alaska is only plus 15 for McCain.

I may plan a road trip to Oklahoma - it would be like getting to experience a foreign country - only cheaper/closer.