Obama Obeseonomics

LORDIE wrote:

A simple request wrote:

Link please?

Google is your friend, here's a start:

http://www.ajcn.org/content/41/5/1163.full.pdf

William Davis and Denise Minger are doing great work on wheat as we type.

What side are you on here?

From the article:

"The data, both observational

and experimental, do not support the negative

image of carbohydrates. The habitual use of

diets high in complex carbohydrates is asso-

ciated with low risk for cardiovascular diseases

and such diets are uniformly found in pop-

ulations with a very low incidence of the

disease itself."

Again from the journal article you posted:

"Replacement of animal fats and specifically the

saturated fat and cholesterol components with

complex carbohydrates and with unsaturated

fat from vegetable sources appear to be the

major reasons for the reduced levels of serum

cholesterol."

Eh..... wrote:

LORDIE wrote:

Google is your friend, here's a start:

http://www.ajcn.org/content/41/5/1163.full.pdf

William Davis and Denise Minger are doing great work on wheat as we type.

What side are you on here?

From the article:

"The data, both observational

and experimental, do not support the negative

image of carbohydrates. The habitual use of

diets high in complex carbohydrates is asso-

ciated with low risk for cardiovascular diseases

and such diets are uniformly found in pop-

ulations with a very low incidence of the

disease itself."

Not all carbohydrates are bad.

Perhaps, not all _wheat_ is bad

Modern wheat is very, very bad.

Well then perhaps you could educate us on the difference between "modern wheat" and complex carbs? It would seem that "whole wheat pasta" (as mentioned in the program) would be an example of both the former and the latter?

Eh..... wrote:

Well then perhaps you could educate us on the difference between "modern wheat" and complex carbs? It would seem that "whole wheat pasta" (as mentioned in the program) would be an example of both the former and the latter?

I take it you mean modern wheat Vs. wheat prior to modern agriculture.

Look in the comments here

Also look at

Obviously, this is a subject that needs much further exploration. Exactly why modern wheat appears to be so much more unhealthy than wheat, circa 1700, is not a subject many people have investigated.

only me wrote:

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.

Hospitals and tax payers would no longer be required to pay for somebody else's medical care. People would be responsible for their own medical costs.

If people (presumably like you) chose to give to somebody else's medical care then there would be nothing preventing them from doing so.

Way to avoid the question!

I asked you to demonstrate, and quantify, your claim that "freedom" equals "better"; would you care to have another go, or shall we just assume that you can't?

Well, we will have to go back to the original statement I posted to for the context of this debate. The argument was about stealing from people by requiring them to pay for other people's health care. I am against that. There are at least two possible solutions proposed: The O.P. suggested that everybody should be required to have health care insurance so presumably they could pay for their own care (of course this avoids the fact that many people can't pay for their own health insurance either, so you end up stealing from some people to pay for other people's health insurance, instead of their health care). The other solution, which I proposed, is to expand freedom not only for the person who is now required to pay for other people's care but also for the doctors and hospitals required to provide that care for less than full compensation.

By increasing the amount of freedom for all actors you prevent harm to those people. It may be true that the uninsured person is no longer able to get care but he is entitled to care that he cannot pay for, just as he is not entitled to your labor or my labor if he cannot pay for it. His rights are not violated either, and the rights of the other partys are preserved.

Third party actors (possibly including you) are in no way prevented from helping the person who cannot afford his own care through charitable donations. Your freedom to help is likewise preserved.

what did u say? RE: Obama Obeseonomics 12/20/2010 8:43AM - in reply to M.C. Confusing Reply | Return to Index | Report Post

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

M.C. Confusing wrote:

And how does my not having Health Insurance deprive you of your rights?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It harms me because I have to subsidize your health care. You are stealing from me.

[quote]Mr. Obvious wrote:

Well, we will have to go back to the original statement I posted to for the context of this debate. The argument was about stealing from people by requiring them to pay for other people's health care. I am against that. There are at least two possible solutions proposed: The O.P. suggested that everybody should be required to have health care insurance so presumably they could pay for their own care (of course this avoids the fact that many people can't pay for their own health insurance either, so you end up stealing from some people to pay for other people's health insurance, instead of their health care). The other solution, which I proposed, is to expand freedom not only for the person who is now required to pay for other people's care but also for the doctors and hospitals required to provide that care for less than full compensation.

By increasing the amount of freedom for all actors you prevent harm to those people. It may be true that the uninsured person is no longer able to get care but he is entitled to care that he cannot pay for, just as he is not entitled to your labor or my labor if he cannot pay for it. His rights are not violated either, and the rights of the other partys are preserved.

Third party actors (possibly including you) are in no way prevented from helping the person who cannot afford his own care through charitable donations. Your freedom to help is likewise preserved.

Should would get rid of the military and go back to voluntary militias?

Here in Seattle, Obama has distributed "stimulus" money to black churches to fight obesity.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2013706480_guest19kelly.html

The program, called "Moving together in faith and health" is being co-ordinated by local public health depts, the Univ of WA nursing school, the Urban League, and a bunch of churches.

from the Seattle Times op-ed:

"One concern is the access our children and youth have to junk food and soda through our own church-sponsored programs...Goodwill Baptist Church eliminated its soda machine and increased availability to water, tea and lower-calorie drinks. New Direction Missionary Baptist Church decommissioned its soda machine

"

I don't know why you need federal "stimulus" dollars to 'decommision' a church vending machine, or how it stimulates the economy. I'm sure Obama has his reasons.

Eh..... wrote:

Again from the journal article you posted:

"Replacement of animal fats and specifically the

saturated fat and cholesterol components with

complex carbohydrates and with unsaturated

fat from vegetable sources appear to be the

major reasons for the reduced levels of serum

cholesterol."

This is not accurate, or at least the implication is not accurate.

There has been much recent research on saturated fat.

Hey Bud wrote:

Should would get rid of the military and go back to voluntary militias?

There is no doubt that we need to end overseas military adventurism and vastly decrease the size of our military. The amount of corporate welfare dispersed through military contracting is disgusting.

However, national defense is a legitimate function of national government and constitutionally recognized in our country.

Mr. Obvious wrote:

Hey Bud wrote:

Should would get rid of the military and go back to voluntary militias?

There is no doubt that we need to end overseas military adventurism and vastly decrease the size of our military. The amount of corporate welfare dispersed through military contracting is disgusting.

However, national defense is a legitimate function of national government and constitutionally recognized in our country.

The Constitution trumps Ayn Rand?

Hey Bud wrote:

Mr. Obvious wrote:

There is no doubt that we need to end overseas military adventurism and vastly decrease the size of our military. The amount of corporate welfare dispersed through military contracting is disgusting.

However, national defense is a legitimate function of national government and constitutionally recognized in our country.

Can't recall the last time Ayn Rand formed a country.

The Constitution trumps Ayn Rand?

Hey Bud wrote:

The Constitution trumps Ayn Rand?

I have not said anything about Ayn Rand. As we have moved away from the original questions I am going to stop posting to this thread. I hope you have a Merry Christmas, Soltice, Happy Channukah, Merry Kwanzaa, or whatever religious celebration you choose.

Mr. Obvious wrote:

Hey Bud wrote:

The Constitution trumps Ayn Rand?

I have not said anything about Ayn Rand. As we have moved away from the original questions I am going to stop posting to this thread. I hope you have a Merry Christmas, Soltice, Happy Channukah, Merry Kwanzaa, or whatever religious celebration you choose.

That would be Christmas. Enjoy Festivus!

Sorry "LORDIE", but you've done a terrible job of "proving" your point.

1) you begin with sarcastically stating that "google is your friend," and then proceed to google and present us with an article that staunchly DEFENDS increased wheat and grain consumption and states that too much fat and saturated fat are bad for you. Seriously?? You lose the whole debate just with that move alone.

2) Then you move on to a blog post as your evidence, written by some girl with all sorts of pictures of herself smiling and trying to look sexy, and who states that "someday" she might go to grad school for nutrition (but why bother when you are already an expert....and pretty)

3) Finally you move on to post by a Dr whose main goal is to defend his fad diet beliefs in order to sell books.

Not very convincing. You can do better.....or maybe you can't.

There are two possible solutions to the issue of health care costs.

1. Ensure that everyone is able to pay, either by mandating health insurance or instituting a single-payer system

or

2. Refuse to treat people until verifying they can pay. That means when Mr. Jones goes through his car windshield and is bleeding to death on the sidewalk, the EMT's don't move to help until they verify he either has health insurance or sufficient resources. If he doesn't, walk away and let him die. If he dies during the delay for verification, tough cookie.

are you talking about Michael Eades? I always find his work fascinating. I suppose if your goal is to be an ignorant asshole, you are doing a great job, but i really enjoyed that link.