Free Birth Control; Children Up to 26; Pre-Existing Conditions; Free Mammograms, etc. If these matter to you...

[SparklyUnicorn]

Personally I do the math and endeavor to have the annual oop max set aside. If we don't use it, great.

 

That's not a bad idea and better than no planning, but you can't actually know the true OOP max.... 

[TranquilMind]

Hi, TM, if you'll notice I quoted OhElizabeth and not you. You are different people, right? Not the same poster with two accounts?

 

You did.  My apologies.  I had several responses prior and then saw this and answered it.  But apart from that misunderstanding, I still agree with her. 

 

[Χά�ων]

The continued ignorance that most medical issues can be prevented or treated by lifestyle changes needs to stop right now. It is insulting to many boardies here who have health issues that are not due to lifestyle choices. It is a slap in the face and insulting to everyone. The stance is based in ignorance and needs to be stopped right now.

 

My son, who has been active at a level to rival athetes, who was vegetarian until he was 10, who will not eat fast food, is dealing with degenerative, life threatening illness. The ignorance that a diet change will solve all the problems is incredibly rude and dismissive of the very real health concerns and pain he has to live with on a daily basis.

 

Anyone claiming that the big solution is diet and lifestyle is incredibly ignorant. I hope those who have latched onto this as The Solution end up having to deal with the most painful chronically debilitating illness that cannot be prevented or treated by lifestyle and a diet changes.

[historically accurate]

 

 

I'd love to know what you think caused my mom's cancer.  As I said before, we're baffled.  Only 1 person out of 100 who get cancer get hers and she didn't check any of the boxes that align with it being a lifestyle choice.

 

 

Firstly, I'm very sorry to hear about your mom. Hugs to you. I thought I would throw this info out there because adenocarcinoma is what my father had. They were able to trace his cancer to asbestos (he hadn't ever smoked, was in very good health, etc). Most likely it came from the railroad ties that his father built their home with (my grandfather would drag home railroad ties from the defunct railroad whenever they needed to expand the house- my dad was the youngest of 7) or from the asbestos pad that sat under the stove to heat said house. Most doctors see mesothelioma as the "asbestos cancer", so your mom's doctor may not think to look for that link with adenocarcinoma.

[Spryte]

What I said was that people want some choice when it comes to genetic conditions. I am happy to pay for your genetic Condition treatment, but I want mine covered too,.especially since mine is necessary to life. If i pay a lot for yours, and you refuse to help me in return, i have nothing left oop to pay for mine.Being severly myopic and astigmatic limits my ability to pursue employment.I proposed to waive my coverage for two genetic conditions that don't impair employability in return for including coverage for one that does. You intrepreted that as doing exactly what you have done...exclude one to cover another at the excluded persons expense. Why aren't you willing To pony up for me?

 

But I am willing.  :)  No trade necessary.

 

I have no problem paying my portion of insurance, even for the treatments I know I will never need (see my above post about paying premiums for being a woman of child-bearing age, despite having had a hysterectomy so clearly I will *never* use those benefits, it's physically impossible).  

 

And I did say, in the post you quoted, that it seems your condition should be covered by insurance.  So I'm not sure how you read that I wouldn't "pony up for you"?

[ktgrok]

I don't disagree that it's a debate being had. I just don't happen to have that opinion. Every time I watch people ahead of me in line with stacks of Twinkies and pop while overweight, clearly not making good choices, choices that WILL affect their long-term health, it confirms to me that I don't want universal health care as a right. If I have to pay for your healthcare, I can also dictate the choices you make that affect your health. 

 

And I agree, that's a total debate our society can have about who pays for what and what freedoms people are willing to give up on the way to getting what they want. 

 

Wow, wait? So..if someone eats junk food and can't afford health care, you want them to die? and feel smug about it since it is their own damn fault, and they should have made sure they had enough money for a bypass surgery before buying those cookies with the trans fat in them? If not, well, let those suckers die off, no skin off your nose? Seriously?

 

The morality of that shocks me. 

[Lang Syne Boardie]

The continued ignorance that most medical issues can be prevented or treated by lifestyle changes needs to stop right now. It is insulting to many boardies here who have health issues that are not due to lifestyle choices. It is a slap in the face and insulting to everyone. The stance is based in ignorance and needs to be stopped right now.

 

My son, who has been active at a level to rival athetes, who was vegetarian until he was 10, who will not eat fast food, is dealing with degenerative, life threatening illness. The ignorance that a diet change will solve all the problems is incredibly rude and dismissive of the very real health concerns and pain he has to live with on a daily basis.

 

Anyone claiming that the big solution is diet and lifestyle is incredibly ignorant. I hope those who have latched onto this as The Solution end up having to deal with the most painful chronically debilitating illness that cannot be prevented or treated by lifestyle and a diet changes.

 

I have a son who has three strikes against him, potentially, depending on how the powers-that-be choose to see people like him:

 

1. Struck by disease that is not related to lifestyle, even though weight, strength, habits, everything were ideal,

 

2. life-threatening pre-existing condition, not just any pre-existing but one of those where he will likely die of his disease someday (whether now or in 50 years), and that requires very expensive specialists and hospitalizations sometimes, and

 

3. in college, so not a minor, absolutely relying on our insurance so that he can finish grad school while still having necessary health care coverage. He won't be able to afford good health care until he gets the career associated with finishing school. He MUST have this care, and it's expensive.

 

He cannot pay Doc Baker in chickens for setting his broken arm in this case; it's a completely different chess board. He's concerned about current events, but I'm not even sleeping...

 

So I'm saying I agree with you.

[TranquilMind]

No kidding.  This is going to sounds so Ellis Island, but I had a boil on my finger a year or so ago that would not go away for anything.  Everyone (except my 90 year old dad) told me it required an antibiotic, but I really don't like taking meds unless I have exhausted all other options.  Dad told me to put a poultice on it.  Say what?!?!?  He told me to go find one in an independent drug store.  I just looked at him like he was nuts, because...poultice.  So he told me how to make one of a saturated salt solution, and that boil went away  -  without adding to any antibiotic resistance. 

Yes!  I would always listen to Dad first!  You can then take meds if it doesn't work or if obvious infection is present.

 

That's so awesome.  Reminds me of when my midwife gave me cayenne pepper pills to take right after birth when I started bleeding.  It stopped immediately, just like she said it would. 

[Lang Syne Boardie]

Wow, wait? So..if someone eats junk food and can't afford health care, you want them to die? and feel smug about it since it is their own damn fault, and they should have made sure they had enough money for a bypass surgery before buying those cookies with the trans fat in them? If not, well, let those suckers die off, no skin off your nose? Seriously?

 

The morality of that shocks me. 

 

Betterocracy -- I'm better than you, so I can tell you what to do, and if you don't do it, I will not share humanity with you.

 

Only it's a two way street. Our taxes pay for everyone's roads, hospitals, everything...anyone looking into my cart should by rights be subject to my looking into their management of EVERY aspect of modern life that benefits from public works, before I allow THEM to partake in a shared society.

 

Right?

 

The only way that's not true is if some of us are more equal than others.

[Reefgazer]

I think the factory farming industry is probably responsible for more antibiotic resistance than the medical community; at least in the past 5-10 years or so,.

Yes doctors are partly to blame, but so are patients. For years patients would demand antibiotics when they weren't called for. Doctors, wanting to keep patients happy, prescribed them (although for years doctors didn't know about resistance either). Doctors should have said no, but often when they did patients would just keep doctor shopping until they found someone who would prescribe them. 

 

We've finally reached a point where we don't ask for antibiotics (most of us even avoid them whenever possible) but it took at least a generation or two. I can't tell you how many times my mother would try to get me to go to the doctor and ask for antibiotics for myself or ds, even though I knew they weren't called for. Her generation came of age alongside the development of modern antibiotics. They were miracle drugs. Before that a simple infection could be dangerous. Patients helped  create the problem.

 

[creekland]

The continued ignorance that most medical issues can be prevented or treated by lifestyle changes needs to stop right now. It is insulting to many boardies here who have health issues that are not due to lifestyle choices. It is a slap in the face and insulting to everyone. The stance is based in ignorance and needs to be stopped right now.

 

My son, who has been active at a level to rival athetes, who was vegetarian until he was 10, who will not eat fast food, is dealing with degenerative, life threatening illness. The ignorance that a diet change will solve all the problems is incredibly rude and dismissive of the very real health concerns and pain he has to live with on a daily basis.

 

Anyone claiming that the big solution is diet and lifestyle is incredibly ignorant. I hope those who have latched onto this as The Solution end up having to deal with the most painful chronically debilitating illness that cannot be prevented or treated by lifestyle and a diet changes.

 

Adding a mere like to this was not enough.

 

I'm sorry about your son.   :grouphug:

 

This whole belief that all will be well if only you live the right type of life is the new "Prosperity Gospel" I think - a total fallacy.

 

 

Firstly, I'm very sorry to hear about your mom. Hugs to you. I thought I would throw this info out there because adenocarcinoma is what my father had. They were able to trace his cancer to asbestos (he hadn't ever smoked, was in very good health, etc). Most likely it came from the railroad ties that his father built their home with (my grandfather would drag home railroad ties from the defunct railroad whenever they needed to expand the house- my dad was the youngest of 7) or from the asbestos pad that sat under the stove to heat said house. Most doctors see mesothelioma as the "asbestos cancer", so your mom's doctor may not think to look for that link with adenocarcinoma.

 

Thanks for the idea as we really do wish we knew, but I don't really think that's it.  She was a schoolteacher for all of her working life and none of the houses she's lived in have had asbestos issues - nor the schools she worked in.  I'm sorry about your dad.   :grouphug:

[Reefgazer]

The vast majority of cardiovascular and related diseases (Type II diabetes foe example) are lifestyle diseases.  Fact.  Not all, most.  To not be able to admit that is to not be able to have an honest conversation about preventive medicine and health care.  Helping people to avoid preventable diseases must be part of the conversation about cost in order to get anywhere with this issue. 

Betterocracy -- I'm better than you, so I can tell you what to do, and if you don't do it, I will not share humanity with you.

 

Only it's a two way street. Our taxes pay for everyone's roads, hospitals, everything...anyone looking into my cart should by rights be subject to my looking into their management of EVERY aspect of modern life that benefits from public works, before I allow THEM to partake in a shared society.

 

Right?

 

The only way that's not true is if some of us are more equal than others.

 

Edited January 13, 2017 by reefgazer

[ktgrok]

The vast majority of cardiovascular and related diseases (Type II diabetes foe example) are lifestyle diseases.  Fact.  Not all, most.  To not be able to admit that is to not be able to have an honest conversation about preventive medicine and health care.  Helping people to avoid preventable diseases must be part of the conversation about cost in order to get anywhere with this issue. 

 

Sure, and providing group therapy, interventions that are scientifically shown to work, taxes on high sugar items, etc etc are great ideas. Saying "If you eat twinkies we will just let you die of a heart attack rather than treat you, because you brought it on yourself" is cruel and honestly, so incredibly awful I cannot fathom it. 

[Lang Syne Boardie]

The vast majority of cardiovascular and related diseases (Type II diabetes foe example) are lifestyle diseases.  Fact.  Not all, most.  To not be able to admit that is to not be able to have an honest conversation about preventive medicine and health care. 

 

Nobody has ever been unable to admit that those two areas of disease are related to lifestyle. At least, I've never heard anybody argue that they are not.

 

What's argued instead is that

 

A. those are two out of a billion things that can go wrong, overall illness is like rain, falling on the just and unjust alike, and

 

B. policies predicated entirely upon a belief that people deserve what they get for the choices they make, tend to spread the same sauce for the ganders as for the geese. In other words, lack of compassion for the poor man who started smoking at age 14 before people knew better (and now has heart disease and emphysema, but he's low income and low education so he can't afford much insurance in today's market), leads also to lack of compassion for children who might die without CHIP expansion in their state.

 

We care about people or we don't. We want to alleviate suffering or we don't. There are variegated arguments all over the borders and nuances of policies, based on what is even possible, but the two perspectives of "every man for himself" and "helping you helps me" are moving farther apart by the day in this country.

[Carrie12345]

I take a lot of precautions to prevent fires in my home.  Always have, and even more so now that I live with two firefighters.  I probably won't "need" fire services.  So maybe I shouldn't have to pay my share into it.  And then my spouse and child can stay home instead of risk their own safety while some unfortunate person who also decided not to pay watches their house burn.  Hopefully from the outside.

 

And I'll just pretend there's no risk to me if the houses around me go up.  Because other people's problems can't impact my little bubble, right?

[TranquilMind]

Sure, and providing group therapy, interventions that are scientifically shown to work, taxes on high sugar items, etc etc are great ideas. Saying "If you eat twinkies we will just let you die of a heart attack rather than treat you, because you brought it on yourself" is cruel and honestly, so incredibly awful I cannot fathom it. 

But no one said that at all. You are slipping in a fallacy to bolster your point.

The point is that we cannot pay for everything for everyone unless people try to help themselves for things that are fixable.  How do we get around this? 

 

 

[kiana]

Quite honestly, I can't really think of anyone at all whose lifestyle is so healthy that it can't be improved. The extremes are easy to point at, but in between there are a vast number of people muddling along and making some healthful decisions and some less healthful decisions for a variety of reasons, many of which have little to do with health.

[TranquilMind]

I take a lot of precautions to prevent fires in my home.  Always have, and even more so now that I live with two firefighters.  I probably won't "need" fire services.  So maybe I shouldn't have to pay my share into it.  And then my spouse and child can stay home instead of risk their own safety while some unfortunate person who also decided not to pay watches their house burn.  Hopefully from the outside.

 

And I'll just pretend there's no risk to me if the houses around me go up.  Because other people's problems can't impact my little bubble, right?

 

But this isn't analogous to the argument made. 

 

Now if you let your kid set fires every day inside your house while still contending that your house can't possibly go up in flames - which would be analogous -  you are delusional.  This is how many people treat their health.  They eat awful stuff all the time and when the natural outcome occurs, express surprise. 

 

[creekland]

The vast majority of cardiovascular and related diseases (Type II diabetes foe example) are lifestyle diseases.  Fact.  Not all, most.  To not be able to admit that is to not be able to have an honest conversation about preventive medicine and health care.  Helping people to avoid preventable diseases must be part of the conversation about cost in order to get anywhere with this issue. 

 

I don't see anyone arguing this.  I see schools, etc, working hard to teach kids about healthy diets and lifestyles.  I see tons of PSAs showing the end results of poor choices and those have made differences (smoking rates have decreased, etc).

 

I don't see any of that stopping TBH.  It's been working.  At our local grocery store I see more and more truly healthy things offered for sale.  They wouldn't be there if folks weren't buying them.

 

But I also don't feel the need to tell those lifestyle sinners that they can't have health care and I'm still willing to pay for it.  If they get these diseases due to their lifestyle choices, to me, that's punishment enough.

[TranquilMind]

 

But I also don't feel the need to tell those lifestyle sinners that they can't have health care and I'm still willing to pay for it.  If they get these diseases due to their lifestyle choices, to me, that's punishment enough.

 

Sure, but you do understand that you don't have unlimited funds and we all have to do what we can.  We should want to do what we can.

 

[umsami]

Yes doctors are partly to blame, but so are patients. For years patients would demand antibiotics when they weren't called for. Doctors, wanting to keep patients happy, prescribed them (although for years doctors didn't know about resistance either). Doctors should have said no, but often when they did patients would just keep doctor shopping until they found someone who would prescribe them. 

 

We've finally reached a point where we don't ask for antibiotics (most of us even avoid them whenever possible) but it took at least a generation or two. I can't tell you how many times my mother would try to get me to go to the doctor and ask for antibiotics for myself or ds, even though I knew they weren't called for. Her generation came of age alongside the development of modern antibiotics. They were miracle drugs. Before that a simple infection could be dangerous. Patients helped create the problem.

 

Also want to add that a lot (not all) of the antibiotic resistance is due to antibiotics given to livestock not humans.  

 

https://www.nrdc.org/issues/reduce-antibiotic-misuse-livestock

[Χά�ων]

The vast majority of cardiovascular and related diseases (Type II diabetes foe example) are lifestyle diseases. Fact. Not all, most. To not be able to admit that is to not be able to have an honest conversation about preventive medicine and health care. Helping people to avoid preventable diseases must be part of the conversation about cost in order to get anywhere with this issue.

Like preventing a blood clot? Maybe with daily exercise and healthy eating?

 

I worked out 3 hours a day 5 days a week and was a health nut for years before giving birth to my son resulted in a stroke. How could I have prevented a stroke in my early 20's when I was already working out and eating healthy? I couldn't. And neither could you.

 

Know what happens when you go from that level of physical activity to barely able to walk? Weight gain, and health issues. No avoiding it. I worked my butt off to regain use of my left side while caring for a newborn. It was NOTHING like my workout before and you know what? I gained weight. Anyone would.

 

Exercise and healthy eating were not enough. It is not the end all.

 

I now know that there was early signs when I was 9, but since I ate well and was active the doctors felt that was enough.

[Carrie12345]

But this isn't analogous to the argument made. 

 

Now if you let your kid set fires every day inside your house while still contending that your house can't possibly go up in flames - which would be analogous -  you are delusional.  This is how many people treat their health.  They eat awful stuff all the time and when the natural outcome occurs, express surprise. 

 

 

No, the argument is that $#*! happens, even when precautions are taken.

A fluke electrical issue could burn my neighbor's house to the ground, and it could impact me.

 

And, just for the record, as I sit here eating my chicken wrap while still in my sweaty workout clothes, I refuse to believe that fat and lazy people are more deserving of early deaths (or poverty due to OOP care) than I am.

 

*Edited because I negated myself @@.

Edited January 13, 2017 by Carrie12345

[TranquilMind]

No, the argument is that $#*! happens, even when precautions are taken.

A fluke electrical issue could burn my neighbor's house to the ground, and it could impact me.

 

And, just for the record, as I sit here eating my chicken wrap while still in my sweaty workout clothes, I refuse to believe that fat and lazy people aren't more deserving of early deaths (or poverty due to OOP care) than I am.

 

Saying truthfully that something is statistically more likely is not at all the same as saying someone deserves it. 

 

 

[Carrie12345]

Saying truthfully that something is statistically more likely is not at all the same as saying someone deserves it. 

 

Oh, no argument from me on statistics.  But if we refuse to share in the costs, we're telling others to pay more or live less.  And those who can't pay more will live less.

[SparklyUnicorn]

The vast majority of cardiovascular and related diseases (Type II diabetes foe example) are lifestyle diseases.  Fact.  Not all, most.  To not be able to admit that is to not be able to have an honest conversation about preventive medicine and health care.  Helping people to avoid preventable diseases must be part of the conversation about cost in order to get anywhere with this issue. 

 

To be fair though, in general do you think we are being well taught these things and being given good information from early on?  Do you think we just ignore the good information we are given and are actively seeking to make bad choices?  Do you think that maybe it's not that simple?  That maybe we are being given bad information? 

 

I wasn't taught good habits.  I'm sure you can imagine why, but I did come in contact with government run this or that on a daily basis and they didn't give me good information either.  They also didn't do much to promote better habits.  You know, like giving us no time for physical activity in school, feeding us unhealthy food, etc.

[SparklyUnicorn]

Oh, no argument from me on statistics.  But if we refuse to share in the costs, we're telling others to pay more or live less.  And those who can't pay more will live less.

 

And they already do (live less).

[Carrie12345]

To be fair though, in general do you think we are being well taught these things and being given good information from early on?  Do you think we just ignore the good information we are given and are actively seeking to make bad choices?  Do you think that maybe it's not that simple?  That maybe we are being given bad information? 

 

I wasn't taught good habits.  I'm sure you can imagine why, but I did come in contact with government run this or that on a daily basis and they didn't give me good information either.  They also didn't do much to promote better habits.  You know, like giving us no time for physical activity in school, feeding us unhealthy food, etc.

 

I'll tell you right now, while I'm not the epitome of health, my kids have been raised to have VERY healthy lifestyles.  Sometimes to the point that I get criticized for dumb stuff like not stocking my house with apple juice or Fruit Loops.  But only two of my three teenagers continue to practice healthy lifestyles of their own accord.  It's NOT that simple.

[Guest]

But no one said that at all. You are slipping in a fallacy to bolster your point.

The point is that we cannot pay for everything for everyone

I think we could of the prices werent completely insane.

 

_________________________

 

I agree with the general point that there's a whole mess of folks not wisely prioritizing their health. For a whole host of reasons.

 

But! It's asinine to think any random on-looker knows better what any random person needs to do to be healthier.

[Guest]

I don't see anyone arguing this. I see schools, etc, working hard to teach kids about healthy diets and lifestyles.

Do you really????!!

 

My mom and mil have been lunch ladies in three states and six schools between them and I literally wouldn't give my dog the food they've all served for breakfast and lunch! Sugar with sugar, and also sugar with sugar.

 

And I don't think anyone would describe me as caring about my dog overmuch lol.

[Carol in Cal.]

. I hope those who have latched onto this as The Solution end up having to deal with the most painful chronically debilitating illness that cannot be prevented or treated by lifestyle and a diet changes.

Your excellent points are pretty much ruined by this disgusting wish.

[Reefgazer]

DP

Sure, and providing group therapy, interventions that are scientifically shown to work, taxes on high sugar items, etc etc are great ideas. Saying "If you eat twinkies we will just let you die of a heart attack rather than treat you, because you brought it on yourself" is cruel and honestly, so incredibly awful I cannot fathom it. 

 

Edited January 13, 2017 by reefgazer

[Reefgazer]

...or, perhaps be taught not to make poor choices or pay a higher premium than someone who does make better lifestyle choices.  And before you think that I am one my "high horse" about getting it right, sorry, but no.  I am fat as a house through my own poor choices, and Joe In-Shape down the street should not have to pay for my crappy choices.

Sure, and providing group therapy, interventions that are scientifically shown to work, taxes on high sugar items, etc etc are great ideas. Saying "If you eat twinkies we will just let you die of a heart attack rather than treat you, because you brought it on yourself" is cruel and honestly, so incredibly awful I cannot fathom it. 

 

[Dmmetler]

DH's company plan requires a yearly physical, and if enough health values are in an appropriate range, gives a $200/month credit (so it costs $2400 extra a year if he fails it). Of course, that only works for people who can afford to pay for health coverage in the first place.

[creekland]

No, the argument is that $#*! happens, even when precautions are taken.

A fluke electrical issue could burn my neighbor's house to the ground, and it could impact me.

 

And, just for the record, as I sit here eating my chicken wrap while still in my sweaty workout clothes, I refuse to believe that fat and lazy people are more deserving of early deaths (or poverty due to OOP care) than I am.

 

*Edited because I negated myself @@.

 

Y'all have reminded me that I skipped lunch.  'Tis tough to remember to eat when one never gets hunger pains.  I just peeled a pummelo.  Doesn't mean I'm condemning those who swung by fast food - even if I think folks should eat less fast food.  We'll be on the road super early tomorrow (heading to mom's).  I suspect fast food will be on the docket for breakfast and possibly lunch.  

 

I suppose that means I'm giving up any right I might have to health care later on.  ;)

 

 

Do you really????!!

 

My mom and mil have been lunch ladies in three states and six schools between them and I literally wouldn't give my dog the food they've all served for breakfast and lunch! Sugar with sugar, and also sugar with sugar.

 

And I don't think anyone would describe me as caring about my dog overmuch lol.

 

In our health and science classes (in my school) we emphasize healthy lifestyles far more than ever were done in the past.  Our school has also stopped selling sugary beverages like soda.  Food lines offer healthy options like salad bars.  We can't force kids to eat healthy, so yes, some unhealthy foods are still there (or many kids would go hungry), but compared to my high school days - it's far, far improved.

 

Move on to college and oodles of students eat healthy and work out now - far different again than in my days.

 

I'll never say "we're there."  We'll never actually reach 100% healthy - humans will always be humans - and reference my own schedule today vs tomorrow, but yes, in my school it's far better than just a couple of decades ago.

[creekland]

...or, the patient must be taught to make better choices or pay more in premiums than someone who does make better choices and keeps themselves in shape.  And, no, I'm not on my high horse because I got it "right"; I am as fat as a house and by virtue of that, I am at risk for a lifestyle disease.  Joe In-Shape down the street should not have to pay for my crappy choices.

 

How about higher taxes on unhealthy foods instead - similar to cigarette taxes?  That would only affect those buying these products - and could decrease usage as well due to their higher price.  The extra tax amount would go to funding health care (for all).

 

That would take out the whole issue with determining if it's a lifestyle choice leading to weight (or whatever) or not.  Those using would be paying more.

[Crimson Wife]

 

In the Real World I want babies who are wanted - and paying for birth control is one GOOD way to avoid abortions later - abortion being one thing my pro-life self hates.

 

50% of unplanned pregnancies are the result of contraceptive failure and half of those end in abortion. Sweden with its single-payer health system that covers contraception, generous social safety net, and so-called "comprehensive" sex ed has THE EXACT SAME PERCENTAGE of pregnancies end in abortion as the U.S. (1 in 4).

 

Contraception isn't the solution to ending abortion.

[Guest]

Y'all have reminded me that I skipped lunch. 'Tis tough to remember to eat when one never gets hunger pains. I just peeled a pummelo. Doesn't mean I'm condemning those who swung by fast food - even if I think folks should eat less fast food. We'll be on the road super early tomorrow (heading to mom's). I suspect fast food will be on the docket for breakfast and possibly lunch.

 

I suppose that means I'm giving up any right I might have to health care later on. ;)

 

 

 

In our health and science classes (in my school) we emphasize healthy lifestyles far more than ever were done in the past. Our school has also stopped selling sugary beverages like soda. Food lines offer healthy options like salad bars. We can't force kids to eat healthy, so yes, some unhealthy foods are still there (or many kids would go hungry), but compared to my high school days - it's far, far improved.

 

Move on to college and oodles of students eat healthy and work out now - far different again than in my days.

 

I'll never say "we're there." We'll never actually reach 100% healthy - humans will always be humans - and reference my own schedule today vs tomorrow, but yes, in my school it's far better than just a couple of decades ago.

My high school had relatively good stuff too. But from k-8 you got what you got for lunch, and what we git, was shooga.

[creekland]

50% of unplanned pregnancies are the result of contraceptive failure and half of those end in abortion. Sweden with its single-payer health system that covers contraception, generous social safety net, and so-called "comprehensive" sex ed has THE EXACT SAME PERCENTAGE of pregnancies end in abortion as the U.S. (1 in 4).

 

Contraception isn't the solution to ending abortion.

 

No one said it was "the" solution and would fix everything, but every baby not conceived due to contraception is one less aborted or born into a home where they aren't wanted.

 

To me, that's still a win - and it's still ok with me to make them freebies for anyone wanting them.

[Carrie12345]

50% of unplanned pregnancies are the result of contraceptive failure and half of those end in abortion. Sweden with its single-payer health system that covers contraception, generous social safety net, and so-called "comprehensive" sex ed has THE EXACT SAME PERCENTAGE of pregnancies end in abortion as the U.S. (1 in 4).

 

Contraception isn't the solution to ending abortion.

 

That isn't even statistically accurate, unless we're not supposed to believe the CDC.

[Χά�ων]

Your excellent points are pretty much ruined by this disgusting wish.

When these people look down their noses and declare my son only needs X to be well. Or say I should do Y. Or even worse, deny he has anything wrong because of Z. Then they need to have a huge wake-up call.

 

Obviously, those who hold firm to the lifestyle/diet solution lack even a smidge of empathy and are so steeped in ignorance that they are unable to admit that they are holding onto a flawed concept. When those people continue to ignore or downplay the experiences of so many people that contricts the lifesyle/diet myth then there is nothing left but for them to experience what they claim does not exist.

[SparklyUnicorn]

...or, perhaps be taught not to make poor choices or pay a higher premium than someone who does make better lifestyle choices.  And before you think that I am one my "high horse" about getting it right, sorry, but no.  I am fat as a house through my own poor choices, and Joe In-Shape down the street should not have to pay for my crappy choices.

 

Well and then there is the detail that we need to agree on what exactly are good choices.  Whenever people say this, I'm not entirely sure what they mean. 

[SparklyUnicorn]

I'll tell you right now, while I'm not the epitome of health, my kids have been raised to have VERY healthy lifestyles.  Sometimes to the point that I get criticized for dumb stuff like not stocking my house with apple juice or Fruit Loops.  But only two of my three teenagers continue to practice healthy lifestyles of their own accord.  It's NOT that simple.

 

The school serves Fruit Loops (or similar cereals) and juices every single day to most of the children in the school.  It's free and the population in general is low income so most take them up on that.  These are foods deemed by the government to meet nutritional guidelines.

 

Ok and that aside....if we agree that that is crap food (I do), you walk into any grocery store and gee 75% of it is filled with stuff that's barely food.  That stuff is made to be addictive (taste very very good...contains a lot of sugar and salt).  If you are used to eating that stuff, healthy foods (fresh fruits and vegetables for example) don't taste right or good.  That stuff is low in nutritional value and so you are hungry because your body is trying to get what it needs (and it's addictive...to repeat).  And it's everywhere.  To repeat again.  And when big food companies get called out on how their stuff is killing us they try to promote healthy living.  Like soda companies with their "balanced life" slogans.  Everything in  moderation.  You can have your daily coke if you balance it out.  No...no you can't. First it's hard to have only one (addictive).  Second, it's not healthy in any quantity.  It's a big fat stupid joke as a soda company to claim that soda can be part of your healthy life style. 

[ktgrok]

...or, the patient must be taught to make better choices or pay more in premiums than someone who does make better choices and keeps themselves in shape.  And, no, I'm not on my high horse because I got it "right"; I am as fat as a house and by virtue of that, I am at risk for a lifestyle disease.  Joe In-Shape down the street should not have to pay for my crappy choices.

 

And if they can't afford those higher premiums? Then what? Let them go without treatment, and it serves them right?

[happypamama]

How about higher taxes on unhealthy foods instead - similar to cigarette taxes? That would only affect those buying these products - and could decrease usage as well due to their higher price. The extra tax amount would go to funding health care (for all).

 

That would take out the whole issue with determining if it's a lifestyle choice leading to weight (or whatever) or not. Those using would be paying more.

I support the idea of higher taxes on junk food -- to a degree. I support the idea of higher taxes on candy and soda, for instance. (I'm also fine with them being excluded from food stamps, but I'm fine with them being included as well. There are reasonably valid arguments either way.). It gets tricky when we start defining what "junk food" is. Some people call meat junk food; others call it good protein and iron. Some people think Cheerios are junk food; others call them good fiber and vitamins. I think milk isn't taxed (at least here), but for some people, whole milk is healthier because they need the extra fat (and research in diabetes suggests that whole may be better for that), and for others, the extra fat is problematic. Gets tricky.

 

Along with higher taxes on junk food, we need to make basic healthy food staples cheaper. When a Mom looks at snacks for her kids, she doesn't just think about what's healthiest. She looks at the bag of apples, which runs around $1.30 a pound here ($.88 a pound if she's really lucky, and maybe not the most interesting variety), and she looks at the B2G3F chip deals (I'm serious! I'll buy chips for my crew at those prices, although we don't pretend they're healthy). And she realizes that her 3yo may eat two bites of the apple (and yeah, you can cut them into slices and all, but toddlers are just plain finicky, and some waste just seems to happen sometimes), or the Apple may have bruises or be rotten, or whatever. And she knows that her kids will eat the chips, that they will keep for a long time, and that one burned chip is a small percentage of the bag. Or maybe she has to buy a lot more pounds of apples to get that good price, so she spends more initially, and then she has to store them. There are a ton of reasons why a Mom might opt for a less healthy snack or meal, and they don't necessarily have to do with health understanding or knowledge, and you can make a lot of reasons why the healthier choice really isn't that burdensome (i.e. Apples don't really need refrigeration, etc.), but in reality, you really just don't know what that mother has going in her life. Maybe it only takes two seconds to start hard boiled eggs for breakfast, but maybe that's two seconds in a long string of other two second jobs, and pop tarts are even easier. "Five minute job" fatigue and such like that is real for busy families. Maybe we need to make apples cheaper and the pre-peeled hard boiled eggs cheaper than pop tarts. Just an example. I'm just ranting and probably getting off topic, but I'm just trying to point out that there are a variety of obstacles to healthy lifestyles, some of which sound like poor excuses, but I think we need to hear what people are really saying, which I think a lot of times is, "I am really overwhelmed and just can't conceive of putting in MORE (whether that's energy, time, money, etc.)."

 

(And I'm not picking on you, Creekland. I'm agreeing with you and taking it a little further.)

[Reefgazer]

That might be a start, but it won't be nearly enough.  You could still eat large quantities of good food (this is my thing) and gain weight because of excess good calories.  I rarely touch soda, ice cream, candy, or cheap baked goods, so this wouldn't really affect me.  But I can eat avocados until they are falling out of my ears.

How about higher taxes on unhealthy foods instead - similar to cigarette taxes?  That would only affect those buying these products - and could decrease usage as well due to their higher price.  The extra tax amount would go to funding health care (for all).

 

That would take out the whole issue with determining if it's a lifestyle choice leading to weight (or whatever) or not.  Those using would be paying more.

 

Edited January 13, 2017 by reefgazer

[SparklyUnicorn]

How about higher taxes on unhealthy foods instead - similar to cigarette taxes?  That would only affect those buying these products - and could decrease usage as well due to their higher price.  The extra tax amount would go to funding health care (for all).

 

That would take out the whole issue with determining if it's a lifestyle choice leading to weight (or whatever) or not.  Those using would be paying more.

 

Which mostly punishes the poor.

 

I think what decreased cigarette use the most in NY isn't the cost (it's extremely expensive), but the fact you can't smoke almost anywhere.  Obviously, "I think" is not proof, but if it is harder to use an addictive substance it seems to me that would be a bigger factor than raising the price because addicts will find ways to get what they want.  And although expensive, we aren't talking THAT expensive.

 

I'd be ok with raising the price of junk, but not without lowering the price of healthy stuff.  It shouldn't just be about punishment.  It should be about encouragement.

[Guest]

How about higher taxes on unhealthy foods instead - similar to cigarette taxes?  That would only affect those buying these products - and could decrease usage as well due to their higher price.  The extra tax amount would go to funding health care (for all).

 

That would take out the whole issue with determining if it's a lifestyle choice leading to weight (or whatever) or not.  Those using would be paying more.

 

Not really, because who wants to tell those crossfit people they have to pay special unhealthy taxes on their bacon and butter. We have no cogent consensus about health. LIKELY because people are individuals and need or can healthfully withstand different things.

[Carrie12345]

 

 

I'd be ok with raising the price of junk, but not without lowering the price of healthy stuff.  It shouldn't just be about punishment.  It should be about encouragement.

 

And I raise you increasing food stamps.  Until that happens, I'd rather see a kid eating fast food burgers than eating less, overall.

[SparklyUnicorn]

Not really, because who wants to tell those crossfit people they have to pay special unhealthy taxes on their bacon and butter. We have no cogent consensus about health. LIKELY because people are individuals and need or can healthfully withstand different things.

 

Yeah back to my question of what is healthy?  I know we could all agree on some stuff (although there is disagreement in terms of how much is too much or if small occasional amounts are ok), but otherwise, nope we don't agree.

 

My new doc (not GI, reg doc) told me to eat low fat for weight loss.  She's overweight. I wonder if she follows her own advice.  If she does, it's not working for her.  So I increased my fat intake because I don't believe her.  I lost weight.  Easily.....