Obama Obeseonomics

So long as the government is willing to reimburse me for my services (as they do under EMTALA), then yes.

Ralphy wrote:

All Hail Obama wrote:

It's lovely, isn't it? The high-carb, low fat diet has made Americans incredibly fat and sick since 1980, so let's give America more of it, that way the big AgroCorps make money on the food end and the big DrugCorps make money on the disease end.

I've heard similar things in documentaries, news articles, and books about the "high-carb & low-fat diet" being the cause of obesity/diabetes in the USA. What I'm concerned about is my diet is basically ALL carb, no fat. I run 60-85mpw year-round, and am 5'10'' 136.

It's because you run, dumbass.

Mr. Obvious wrote:

Hey Bud wrote:

Mr. Obvious, start talking in plain English. EMTALA makes hospitals provide emergency care to people without regard to their ability to pay. Are you arguing that the hospital shouldn't have to provide this emergency care?

Absolutely.

I don't know what you do, but I assume you are OK with the government ordering you to provide your professional services to anybody without regards to their ability or willingness to pay?

Mr. Obvious, Thanks for coming out from behind the acronym to make your point.....and your point is an interesting one. A cost for a non payer at a hospital is absorbed by 1) the hospital 2) existing patients with insurance (assuming your insurance goes up to cover the non-payer) 3) Government(society as a whole)...

My initial question to you was should the Hospital be able to turn someone away in an emergency situation if they don't have the ability to pay? Let's say someone slips on the sidewalk and comes to the emergency room with a head wound that's still bleeding. They don't have any health insurance and are essentially destitute. I would argue that society as a whole here in the United States would want the hospital to treat that individual and would be willing to pay for that.

In no other situation is your life in danger if a service is not provided. If I'm a nail salon and don't provide a manicure, the non-payer customer's health is not in danger from the lack of this service.

When I was running and didnt know any better, a typical dinner for me was a big plate of pasta followed by a pint of Ben and Jerrys. I once ate a 12 oz can of coconut paste I found in my cabinet.

I now crave mainly vegetibles and protien. Korean BBQ !!!

only me wrote:

So long as the government is willing to reimburse me for my services (as they do under EMTALA), then yes.

I guess you would be okay w/ the federal government reimbusing you at a vastly lower rate than other customers do? There is some (minimal) compensation to hospitals under EMTALA but they do not directly reimburse for the cost of services. Currently about 55% of Emergency care provided by hospitals is not collected.

You seem uninformed on the subject. You can start with some reading here:

There are lots of others.

Yes, hospitals should be able to turn away patients who have no ability to pay for their services. Health care is a service just as other things are and is not exempt from the laws of economics.

Requiring hospitals to provide treatment for somebody hwo cannot pay is theft of service, pure and simple.

Funny thing that - it may surprise you to learn that governments pay vastly under the odds for a lot of their contracts. This doesn't stop companies from queueing up for government contracts, I wonder why?

Is it because a company knows that, if the government has said it will pay you, you get paid? Even if a hospital only gets paid a percentage of what you can charge an insured person, a guaranteed payment is a guaranteed payment.

Say you've got health insurance, but your carrier refuses to pay for your treatment (emergency or otherwise) - the hospital (not the insurance company) is obliged to pursue you for the money.

The hospital may have to treat two people to get the same amount of money from the government as they would from an insured patient, but it only takes one refused claim and a default to make those two government patients seem like a good deal (because a hospital is not only out the treatment fees, they have to invest more money in lawyer's fees to chase you through the courts - and if you have no assets, they are definitely throwing good money after bad.).

Free market fundamentalism that makes no distinction between various kinds of goods and services might allow you feel righteous and pure, but it's a detriment to the health and productivity of a nation. Plenty of productive members of society are unable to pay for proper medical care. Letting them die or become disabled is stupid, counterproductive and immoral.

pet food creatures wrote:

The gist of my argument, here, is........

THANK GOD she is finally getting to her "point" -

pet food creatures wrote:... that the war on healthy, necessary fat – yes, saturated fat – in favor of nutrient-lacking, inflammatory carbs, is taking on a whole new form as the government now gets to control what gets onto the lunch trays of millions of kids who have parents that refuse to take responsibility for their child’s meals."

"war on healthy saturated fat..." Too funny.

Ok, really the "gist of her argument" is twofold. It is:

a) she doesn't want the gov't involved in kids lunches, or well, anything, and

b) she REALLY doesn't want them involved in kids lunches if they are not gonna abide by her fad diet high fat Atkins style beliefs

Yes, I am really going to take my nutrition advice from some Ron Paul nut whose background is "Certified Public Accountant and freelance writer who is devoted to the causes of liberty, individualism, and the free market". CLEARLY she is qualified to speak on the subject of nutrition! It's amazing how people convince themselves that they are experts on subjects they know virtually nothing about. In her case, as in many cases, her whole "knowledge base" comes down to: 'the so-called experts and gov' scientists say one thing, so therefore I will believe the opposite.' That's it! Oh, and throw in a sprinkling of: I found some nobody with no background in a subject who writes things on their blog that I agree with, so there is the "research" I fall back on to defend my beliefs.

What a moron.

Why are you always so angry? Is that how you always are, or is letsrun your place to vent? I hope the later, for your sake and those that know you.

Sir Lance-alot wrote:

THANK GOD she is finally getting to her "point" -

"war on healthy saturated fat..." Too funny.

Ok, really the "gist of her argument" is twofold. It is:

...

In her case, as in many cases, her whole "knowledge base" comes down to: 'the so-called experts and gov' scientists say one thing, so therefore I will believe the opposite.' That's it! Oh, and throw in a sprinkling of: I found some nobody with no background in a subject who writes things on their blog that I agree with, so there is the "research" I fall back on to defend my beliefs.

What a moron.

asdasd wrote:

Why are you always so angry? Is that how you always are, or is letsrun your place to vent? I hope the later, for your sake and those that know you.

My questions to you:

1) why do you care? Or are you pretending to care just to "slam" me? Or are you trying to point out my supposed anger just because you don't agree with me?

2) what was soooo "angry" about my post? If there is some anger there, yes, I get angry about ignorant people trying to tell the world what's what about subjects they know nothing about. Yes, this is annoying. Like people who post on blogs that vaccines cause autism. And read her blog post! SHE is the one that is coming off "so angry." Did yo happen to note her anger....are you worried about her too?

3) why are you too lazy to come up with a more original posting name than "asdasd" ?

M.C. Confusing wrote:

Nope, you have never subsidized my health care thank you. I have paid every cent of every health care cost of my own out of my own pocket. What you are arguing is the possibility that you have to pay for my possible future healthcare costs. Under the assumption that everyone that doesnt have healthcare will eventually incur devastating healthcare costs (not necessarily the case) and will NOT be able to afford it (also not necessarily the case).

Then you and I have both subsidized the health care of others. There is no "possiblity" involved. People who are unable or unwilling to pay for their medical treatments are getting treated at every moment of every day. Who pays for it? You, me, and the rest of the paying health seekers.

You can rephrase the terms if it makes you feel better. Is the republican position on abortion forcing woman to have kids or preventing them from having them? Is the democrat position preventing people from not having insurance or forcing them to buy insurance. There is no difference.The problem has always been figuring out where your rights end and mine begin. A huge chunk of that comes down to how interconnected you think you are with the rest of society. And in the school lunch case no rights are being violated. You can still eat all the junk food you want. The government just will not provide it.

You certainly are.

Amanda Huginkiss wrote:

What a moron.

You certainly are.[/quote]

wow, what a refutation of my arguments. Brilliant!

I don't disagree with you, most times. I was, more or less, just curious. I think you would reach a lot more people if you took a less harsh approach. If you take the less harsh approach in your real life, then more power to you, use the internet to vent all you want. If think is how you are in the real world, I think you probably have ended/strained many relationships unnecessarily.

"Schools will have to use more whole grains, and milk will need to be low-fat or nonfat. Limits will be set on saturated fat"

Oh cool. So diabetes and heart disease will follow these kids the rest of their lives.

If this system of government reimbusements is so good that hospitals will just queue up for it than we should make the entire program voluntary. Remove the mandate and the liability from those who choose not to participate and allow those hospitals to receive their meager reimbursement from EMTALA if they agree to treat everybody. Not my preferred solution but much better than it is now. And surely no hospitals (or physicians who are also mandated providers of service under EMTALA) would opt out since the reimbursement deal is as good as you say it is.

Oh cool wrote:

http://articles.lancasteronline.com/local/4/321115

"Schools will have to use more whole grains, and milk will need to be low-fat or nonfat. Limits will be set on saturated fat"

Oh cool. So diabetes and heart disease will follow these kids the rest of their lives.

You're going to have to explain that to me. Thanks in advance.