What are the chances this will lead to more fruit, non-GMO foods and healthier people? Zero. Anyone ever think about the most obvious way to control a people: food and drink. People think it's about media. How retarded am I. If you can control people's health, you can control them. By feeding them what the government wants, people in control can do precisely what they like. Sadly, no one seems to care that this is happening. I really think this guy should be dethroned.
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.
Why would that be "much better"? I think you need to make the case that a voluntary system would be an improvement over the current one before I'll agree with you.
Can you quantify how a voluntary system would improve patient care, or make monetary savings?
If you can't then it seems pointless to change a system that works, or do you think that the effort it takes to get a repeal of one bill and the substitution of another would be time and money well spent, especially at this particular point in history when, it is my belief, our politicians could be better employed on other matters.
Not a doctor wrote:
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.
He doesn't have to explain. He read a blog by someone with a 2 day cross-fit certification in nutrition, and that is what they stated. Therefore, he decided it was true.
only me wrote:
Why would that be "much better"? I think you need to make the case that a voluntary system would be an improvement over the current one before I'll agree with you.
It would be more free.
Mr. Obvious wrote:
Hey Bud wrote: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.
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.
One could argue that given the restrictions imposed on becoming a Dr. (med school requirements, board examinations, certification, etc), that Dr.'s operate in an industry partly protected from competition by the government (which limits the number of Dr's by forcing med schools to become certified). Given the essential and life saving nature of emercency care, one could then argue that it makes sense that society could require certain activities from Dr's given the protected nature of their industry. Think about it, in order to practice medicine you need to meet certain, government set, standards. Why is it wrong that one of those standards be, "I will save someone's life even if they can't pay for it."
Mr. Obvious wrote:
only me wrote:Why would that be "much better"? I think you need to make the case that a voluntary system would be an improvement over the current one before I'll agree with you.
It would be more free.
Just like I am more equal than some. Thank China for slanted playing fields.
Eh..... wrote:
Why is it wrong that one of those standards be, "I will save someone's life even if they can't pay for it."
Ever hear of the Hippocratic Oath?
Hippo wrote:
Eh..... wrote:Why is it wrong that one of those standards be, "I will save someone's life even if they can't pay for it."
Ever hear of the Hippocratic Oath?
Yeah, I refer to it as the hypocrites oath these days. Ever try reading the Hippocratic oath in the original form, not its bastardized current version.
Hippo wrote:
Ever hear of the Hippocratic Oath?
This is stupid. The hippocratic oath is a ceremonial part of med school graduation. Nothing more and nothing less. It does not require a doctor to do anything.
There is a reason doctors will not treat patients for non-emergency conditions unless there is a means of payment. Try going to your local Internist, gastroenterologist, neurologist, etc. and say, "I want you to treat me even though I have no intent to pay the bill." See how far that gets you.
He doesn't understand the difference between eating sugary snacks and complex carbs as they effect the insulin response. I would be willing stack 10000 random vegans (i.e. very few of them have high fat/high protein diets) against 10000 Atkins people (low carbs) and compare diabetes and heart disease rates after 10 year. If you look at the trends the % of fat in the diet has dropped slightly. However the total amount of fat has gone up since between 1970 and 2000 calorie consumption went up by 25% (~500 calories). I sort of think that matters a heck of a lot more than if your getting 50% carbs or 60%.
Not a doctor wrote:
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.
Eh..... wrote:
One could argue that given the restrictions imposed on becoming a Dr. (med school requirements, board examinations, certification, etc), that Dr.'s operate in an industry partly protected from competition by the government (which limits the number of Dr's by forcing med schools to become certified). Given the essential and life saving nature of emercency care, one could then argue that it makes sense that society could require certain activities from Dr's given the protected nature of their industry. Think about it, in order to practice medicine you need to meet certain, government set, standards. Why is it wrong that one of those standards be, "I will save someone's life even if they can't pay for it."
This argument could take us very far afield from what we have been discussing and I would rather not get sidetracked so I will only note that under this sort of justification the government could force doctors to provide any sort of service without compensation. There is a reason GPs, neurologists, hematologists, etc. won't treat non-emergency patients without any means of payment. It is bad business.
This is amazing. The correlation between wheat consumption and heart disease is very robust. The correlation between saturated fat consumption and heart disease is nonexistent. And yet the Odumbos want us to eat MORE WHEAT and LESS SATURATED FAT!!!!!!!!
LORDIE wrote:
This is amazing. The correlation between wheat consumption and heart disease is very robust. The correlation between saturated fat consumption and heart disease is nonexistent.
Link please?
A simple request wrote:
LORDIE wrote:This is amazing. The correlation between wheat consumption and heart disease is very robust. The correlation between saturated fat consumption and heart disease is nonexistent.
Link please?
You know any post referencing supporting claims is automatically deleted right? Have you not been on lrc very long?
It would be more free.
And why would that be "much better"? You are equating "freedom" with "better" without demonstrating how, or why, freedom is better.
The Real UncleB wrote:
You know any post referencing supporting claims is automatically deleted right? Have you not been on lrc very long?
Been here for years and have seen plenty of links to support claims.
Waiting....
I will point my Assange at you and press some things if you aren't careful. All links will reach out of the machine like a sci-fi flick and slap you silly little girl. What are you thinking?
The Real UncleB wrote:
I will point my Assange at you and press some things if you aren't careful. All links will reach out of the machine like a sci-fi flick and slap you silly little girl. What are you thinking?
I might be worried, if I knew what you were talking about.
Mr. Obvious wrote:
Eh..... wrote:One could argue that given the restrictions imposed on becoming a Dr. (med school requirements, board examinations, certification, etc), that Dr.'s operate in an industry partly protected from competition by the government (which limits the number of Dr's by forcing med schools to become certified). Given the essential and life saving nature of emercency care, one could then argue that it makes sense that society could require certain activities from Dr's given the protected nature of their industry. Think about it, in order to practice medicine you need to meet certain, government set, standards. Why is it wrong that one of those standards be, "I will save someone's life even if they can't pay for it."
This argument could take us very far afield from what we have been discussing and I would rather not get sidetracked so I will only note that under this sort of justification the government could force doctors to provide any sort of service without compensation. There is a reason GPs, neurologists, hematologists, etc. won't treat non-emergency patients without any means of payment. It is bad business.
Yes but if they did so they would risk driving qualified, motivated people away from the medical profession. I am merely representing the laws governing medical practice as what they are: a contract between two parties, the physician and society. The latter provides the former with a protected status as a provider of good of public interest/need (difference between an actual public good, obviously) and in exchange for this protection the physician agrees to meet certain qualifications: attain a certain degree of schooling, abide by FDA rulings, provide care to people in emergencies, etc. The terms of the "contract" are up for negotiation between the two parties but it seems foolish to admit that there is not mutual benefit. And yes, I am saying that Dr's would be worse off without any government regulation of the medical business.
A simple request wrote:
LORDIE wrote:This is amazing. The correlation between wheat consumption and heart disease is very robust. The correlation between saturated fat consumption and heart disease is nonexistent.
Link please?
Google is your friend, here's a start:
http://www.ajcn.org/content/41/5/1163.full.pdfWilliam Davis and Denise Minger are doing great work on wheat as we type.