Is this true? Will americans be required to have microchips?

[poptones]

the fact is that people who deliberately make poor health lifestyle choices do cost the economy (and the health system) a lot of money

But that's the American way. It's what drives the economy. It's not in the doctor's interest for their patients to be healthy because then they never get paid. It's not in the hospital's interest. It's not even in the insurance company's, because they get to drop you when you go over your limit or you become a risk.

Obesity is what drives our economy. Bigger cars, bigger meals selling more food, corporate farms that use more fertilizer to grow more food so we can buy bigger portions, then buy drugs and lipsuction and gym memberships and stomach stapling to get the weight off. more sugar, more fat.. MORE BEANS!

[EEVblog]

It's not in the hospital's interest.

And that folks, is why hospitals (and health care) should be not-for-profit publicly funded and owned.
Oops, sorry, that's socialism isn't it? 

Dave.

[Bored@Work]

Not exactly, but you could reward people for living a healthy lifestyle in some way. I know that sounds just like a wording difference, but the fact is that people who deliberately make poor health lifestyle choices do cost the economy (and the health system) a lot of money.

Well, addictions are not a lifestyle choice and are not easily reverted. It is no longer the addict's choice. Medicine has nor real cure for addictions, so what is left is to treat the symptoms.

The right ones to blame are the alcohol, tobacco, and if you like, the fast food industry. Instead of just taxing them, I would send every alcohol or smoking related health bill their way and make them pay through their nose for every damage they are doing. Further I would let them, and not society, pay for any anti-alcohol, anti-smoking campaign. The same, by the way, should happen for dangerous sports. Those benefiting from it should pay for the damage.

[G7PSK]

All addictions start with a lifestyle choice. Same is being drunk, the number of times I have seen court reports where the mitigation has been the perpetrator was drunk or under the influence of whatever, the person had a choice to take that first drink or drug that led to the downward spiral,People are responsible for their actions.
The fast food outlets should certainly be made to pay higher local taxes/rates due to the extra amount of rubbish that they produce and all alcohol outlets and producers should be made to pay for the damage they cause to society.   

[poptones]

In orgeon, virginia and washington spirits are taxed over 20 bucks a gallon. Here in AZ they're taxed at 3 a gallon. Most places seem to have them less than five, but it appears every state has a spirits tax. And most states except those where tobacco is produced have at least a 2 buck a pack tax. That's state taxes, no idea what feds charge

I have a huge weight problem, have most of my life. I was a sick kid until tonsils removed, then basically doubled in weight by the time I was in 2nd grade and it's been a struggle ever since. A couple times I smoked for a few months but I usually got over that pretty quick. Don't drink at all really, once or twice a year but I usually have some beer on hand for cooking. My cousin who's a couple years older than me once told me quite emphatically he was going to outlive me even while being a smoker because I am fat. Meanwhile I don't have diabetes or heart disease and he has had four heart attacks.

[EEVblog]

Well, addictions are not a lifestyle choice

They are fully a lifestyle choice at the start.
I don't think that blame goes away when you get addicted (which is well known/demonstrated will happen before you make the choice).

The right ones to blame are the alcohol, tobacco, and if you like, the fast food industry. Instead of just taxing them, I would send every alcohol or smoking related health bill their way and make them pay through their nose for every damage they are doing. Further I would let them, and not society, pay for any anti-alcohol, anti-smoking campaign. The same, by the way, should happen for dangerous sports. Those benefiting from it should pay for the damage.

Please define "dangerous sports". More people die or get wheelchair bound every year in car, motorcycle, and pedestrian accidents than every adventure sport combined.
If it's legal, you should be covered like everyone else for doing ordinary things. "Dangerous sports" accidents are so far down in the cost noise it's not even worth thinking about, and they are just that, "accidents".
I think there is a big difference between a "dangerous sport" and a bad lifestyle choice like smoking or morbid obesity. One is people actually living a fulfilling life when accidents happen (and stats show the accidents rates are very low). The other has concrete evidence that you almost certainly will live a shorter life and ultimately require a lot of medical care as a direct result.
A friend of mine compressed half the vertebrae in his spine and spent a year in a wheelchair and a decade more in rehab. What was he doing? Gardening in his backyard and tripped over!

Dave.

[Bored@Work]

Well, addictions are not a lifestyle choice

They are fully a lifestyle choice at the start.

This is a broad generalization that is simply not true. E.g. peer pressure among youth to pick up smoking or drinking is a decision to be a member of the group - not to be a drinker or smoker. A general acceptance in the society that drinking when done responsible is OK, although the line when it gets irresponsible is blurred. Drinking as a way to deal with anxiety. The sad reality that the poor can often not afford healthy foot, but fat foot is dirt cheap. Psychological conditions and psychological conditioning in early childhood, i.e. early role models showing / claiming that drinking" helps", or usage of sweet fat food used as a pacifier.

If it's legal, you should be covered like everyone else for doing ordinary things.

Drinking is also legal, and a much more ordinary thing. Your argument is in fact a classic "everything I like should be covered, everything I don't like should not".

[G7PSK]

Oxygen is of course both toxic and habit forming so I guess we had better tax it along with its use.

[ptricks]

[
Not exactly, but you could reward people for living a healthy lifestyle in some way.

The problem is who decides what is healthy ? You have some people who think exercising 15 minutes a day is fine while others think a 10 mile run is what everyone should be doing.

[poptones]

When my 14 year old niece had her first baby, her mother refused to "let" her breast feed. I still do not understand the logic to this, but she was adamant about it. So they fed the baby formula and worked cereal into her diet a little at a time. The baby put on weight quickly, in no small part because to boost her caloric intake they replaced the breast milk she should have been getting with - I'm not lying here - sugar water. Pure sugar water. She'd get a bottle or two a day, especially if she was "whiny" or ill tempered. By the time she was six months old her eyes were too close together for her face from all the fat, yet her grandmother (the 14 year old momma's mother) thought she looked great and was so proud of how "healthy" the baby looked.

Yes, we have a weight problem in this country. And that child, now having added all those fat cells early in life, will be plagued by weight issues the entire rest of her life. So don't call it for a minute a lifestyle choice - the choice was not hers to make.

[Achilles]

@poptones: Well, you have  to find the middle.... I think every "developed" country suffers from that issue. I have recently seen an article about Chinese people getting fat and risings in heart-attacks....

My cousin quite the opposite. Normal food wasn't good for her child she thought and gave him just nice organic stuff (mostly vegetables) which was cooked without oil or steamed. No sweets at all, but maybe some rice crackers from time to time.
Well, worked out well as he entered the Kindergarten and got ill if somebody said hallo to him. In the age of four he was diagnosed with a severe diabetes and today (with eight years on his tachometer) he has the fine immune-systeme of a card-house.....

....so a lot of people tend to use extremes and mess it up pretty much

[G7PSK]

An increase of early deaths among the Chinese might be considered a good thing for the worlds environmental health. Particularly if that is predominantly wall wart manufacturers.

[Achilles]

Sounds a bit rough, but I do get your point

Well, and we should stop selling our old factories and plants to China as well.


BTW: to the fun/action sports stuff. It may be a higher risk (downhill mountainbiking, base jumping or whatever), but I think there is more impact because of people which are stupid enough not to care or take safety precautions.
Example: My brother had been a semi-professional MTBer (downhill) for years and NEVER had a severe accident. He was riding on a daily basis, so there were much chances.
Today he is working in marketing and was ill for three weeks, because he cut his hand with a saw. Last accident before that was a burn because he wasn't wearing proper gloves when he was welding....
....and well, nope...he's not doing that stuff daily

[poptones]

I really don't believe the thing about diabetes. I had a friend who was a juvenile diabetic. I weigh 400lbs and don't have diabetes and am 50 years old (yeah, I know). Three of my cousins, all of the same father, all had heart attacks in their forties even though all were avid outdoorsmen and in good shape, meanwhile I weigh 400lbs and have never had a heart attack at 50.

I suspect the thing with the child is more to have a genetic predisposition to being diabetic and not because he was somehow deprived of sweets. The theory (and not at all soundly proven) is that eating too much or too much sugar causes diabetes - not getting too little.

On the other hand, it is well proven that adults do not add fat cells. It's imposible. As we age our bodies lose the ability to add fat cells, so if you are a lean child you'll be a lean adult unless you really screw it up. But children HAVE to be able to add fat cells - it's how the brain develops, because the brain is fat cells. So in children it's a tricky balance between overdoing it and depriving them of brain development. But making a baby obese is not making them "smarter" it's just making them fat - for the rest of their lives. In my opinion, it's fucking child abuse.

[Dago]

I really don't believe the thing about diabetes. I had a friend who was a juvenile diabetic. I weigh 400lbs and don't have diabetes and am 50 years old (yeah, I know). Three of my cousins, all of the same father, all had heart attacks in their forties even though all were avid outdoorsmen and in good shape, meanwhile I weigh 400lbs and have never had a heart attack at 50.

You do realize this is anecdotal evidence ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence ) and doesn't really mean anything? Someone might weigh a thousand pounds and live to a hundred years old, doesn't mean being obese is not unhealthy.

On the other hand, it is well proven that adults do not add fat cells. It's imposible.

At least the first source I dug up says otherwise: "If excess weight is gained as an adult, fat cells increase in size about fourfold before dividing and increasing the absolute number of fat cells present."

[SeanB]

Genetics play a big role. Fat northern European males and fat Indian subcontinental males have a massive life expectancy difference  despite having similar diets and lifestyles. Life insurers have this data in their tables as part of the risk profile. All that can be said is that changing to an Americanised lifestyle is bad for you. worst place to eat is Crappy D or any of the other franchises.

[EEVblog]

This is a broad generalization that is simply not true. E.g. peer pressure among youth to pick up smoking or drinking is a decision to be a member of the group -

Again, a lifestyle choice.
You know that smoking and drinking can be bad for your health, but you chose to ignore that to be in the group. And these decisions are usually made at an age when you are quite capable of reasoning and making your own decisions.
This does not absolve you of personal responsibility.

The sad reality that the poor can often not afford healthy foot, but fat foot is dirt cheap.

Yes, and that's a crime the governments and corporations should be held accountable for.
We as a society should demand that be fixed.

BTW, as an aside, it may come as a surprise to people, but I lived on a high saturated fat and high suger junk food diet for breakfast, lunch and dinner for my entire life until I was in my early-mid 20's. Almost nothing healthy at all.
Yet I was skinniest weediest nerd in the playground. Why? Because I did not over eat.
A lot of people forget this simple fact when they talk about obesity et.al.

Drinking is also legal, and a much more ordinary thing. Your argument is in fact a classic "everything I like should be covered, everything I don't like should not".

I might appear like that on the surface, but you are wrong. Fact is "dangerous sports" are better than drinking or smoking. Because "dangerous sports" are 100% a healthy lifestyle until a (rare) accident happens.
Drinking and smoking et.al are proven to be detrimental to your health and our medical system, and to a vast swath of society.
You still have not said what you consider these "dangerous sports" to be that you want not covered.

Dave.

[poptones]

You do realize this is anecdotal evidence

You don't need to link me to a damn dictionary I'm not illiterate.

I didn't say otherwise. What I DID say is that genetics means far more than people generally give credit. I don't know how many times I've heard people say "don't eat so much sugar you'll get diabetes." My mom put so much sugar in her coffee there was mud in the cup when she finished and she was a) always skinny and b) not diabetic. And before you feel the need to link me to yet another damn dictionary entry I will AGAIN remind you these are not "anecdotes" but in fact cases illustrating my POINT that genetics plays a large role in these things. Do I have to say "I didn't say ONLY genetics?" Because I'm just sure if I leave one little thing out you're going to feel the need to link me to some other entry, like "strawman" or "ad hominem."

At least the first source I dug up says otherwise: "If excess weight is gained as an adult, fat cells increase in size about fourfold before dividing and increasing the absolute number of fat cells present."

The first source? OK even if I give you this whole "first source" thing I'll back away and YET AGAIN illustrate my point for you more clearly, since finding the point doesn't seem to be your strong suit. That point being (Here it is, are you ready?) that fat cells ARE ABSOLUTELY added in childhood. The child's body is made for this, it will even cannibalize itself in the attempt to put on fat to help brain development and to prepare for adolescence. This is another reason kids need exercise, so they can develop "the right kind" of fat without becoming obese. But by adding MORE, needless fat cells early in life you are sentencing that child to a lifelong predilection to obesity. It's little different than chopping off a foot, or starving the child so badly it develops retardation. It's criminal.

[SgtRock]

Greetings EEVBees:

--Now Dave has said that if you do not have Universal Health Care you are stupid. Lets assume for a moment that that is true. That does not mean and any plan whatsoever is a good idea. See below for a link to an article, from The Nations Restaurant News about how restaurants (and other retail businesses) are going to have to cut hours to stay profitable.

http://nrn.com/article/restaurants-mitigate-health-care-costs-cutting-hours

"Specifically, two parts of the PPACA [Patient Protection and Affordable Care] may raise costs for restaurant chains: The definition of full-time employees as those who work 30 or more hours per week, rather than the traditional 37-40 hours per week, and the fact that the law applies to any business with more than 50 employees — a number some say will discourage franchise growth."

--Now, before you blame retail business, keep in mind that this part of the PPACA is intended to get Insurance Companies out of the healthcare business, so that the Government can become the sole supplier. This outcome is part of the strategic calculus. The reason it was done this way was because they could not get Single Payer (Government) passed all in one go, because the disclosed costs would have killed too many votes. So they decided on a two step approach.
In the first few years the fines for not having insurance will be much less than the cost of insurance. Only in 2017, in Hillary Clinton's first term after two successful Obama terms, do all the chickens come home to roost. Then the claims that you can keep your doctor and your plan, will be out the window.

--So, at first some retail workers are going to have their hours cut. But eventually the Government will be the only Insurer standing, and all will be well. As the Russians say "When you are cutting down the forest, chips fly."

"Concentrated power is not rendered harmless by the good intentions of those who create it."
Milton Friedman 1912 - 2006

Best Regards
Clear Ether

[ptricks]

 I don't know how many times I've heard people say "don't eat so much sugar you'll get diabetes.

It is actually a factual statement, the amount of sugar that will do damage varies with the person. There is no lack of scientific data that shows that a good portion of the health problems occurring now like juvenile diabetes are linked to excessive sugar consumption . You might jump to thinking , oh it is the high fructose corn syrup thing, nope, it is ANY sugar in ANY form.  The world consumes about 15X the amount of sugar per person as 100 years ago. Everyone went on the low fat craze, take away the fat and you will be healthy, but it didn't work because fat wasn't the problem, it is the sugar. Everything has tons of sugar in it now, way more than in years past and the rate of cardiac, diabetic, overweight cases are all related to it.  You can't even buy baby food now without it being packed with sugar.  A few years ago I found a video on youtube that explained it so well , the chemistry gets a bit deep but he gets the point across well.  The video is titled sugar the bitter truth, a lecture that a doctor at a children's hospital in California gave. He goes through how the liver has such a hard time with sugar and why that becomes fat, basically the liver doesn't know what the hell to do with the amount of sugar we consume now, it basically treats it like  alcohol except you don't get the mental effects. There are people who are getting liver disease that resembles alcoholism but who never drank alcohol caused by excessive sugar consumption.    After I cut the sugar way back I was no longer type 2 diabetic, my energy went through the roof and the odd headaches I was having went away and I lost 28 lbs in just 2 months. I didn't need to take any special vitamins, pills, or odd diets, just check everything I consumed for the sugar amount and use it sparingly. Just take 1 day and write down the amount of sugar in what you eat, you might be as shocked as I was.

Link to the video:

[poptones]

It is actually a factual statement, the amount of sugar that will do damage varies with the person.

Like I said (third time now) it's genetics.

[SgtRock]

Greetings EEVBees:

--If you do not have national healthcare your are stupid? New program soon coming to your government run hospital. Kill them, save money, and earn bonus!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2223286/Hospitals-bribed-patients-pathway-death-Cash-incentive-NHS-trusts-meet-targets-Liverpool-Care-Pathway.html

"Hospitals bribed to put patients on pathway to death: Cash incentive for NHS trusts that meet targets on Liverpool Care Pathway. Some hospitals set target of two thirds of all deaths should be on LCP. At least £30m in extra money handed to hospitals to achieve these goals.

--So much for letting the doctors decide.
 
“For neither good nor evil can last for ever; and so it follows that as evil has lasted a long time, good must now be close at hand.” from Don Quixote
Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra 1547 - 1616

Best Regards
Clear Ether

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2223286/Hospitals-bribed-patients-pathway-death-Cash-incentive-NHS-trusts-meet-targets-Liverpool-Care-Pathway.html

[tom66]

Please, the Daily Mail? Can't you find a more.. umm... reputable source? Even the Telegraph would be more suitable. The NHS is among the top six healthcare corporations (if it can be called that.) USA no where near the list. There was a case a few months ago about assisted suicide - the courts decided not to allow it. And a cash incentive does not imply malice -- "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."

[SgtRock]

Dear Tom66:

--Your reply would seem to indicate that although you grant the truth of the article, you hate the source. Perhaps you would be willing to supply a source for this information that you approve of? No matter how much you complain, I rather doubt people are going to restrict themselves to publications you approve of. The solution to speech you disagree with is more speech.

--You are correct no malice is indicated, merely murderously callous disregard. If you are going to kill someone in a hospital, would not a couple of injections be preferable to withdrawing food and water?

"Before I came here I was confused about this subject. Having listened to your lecture I am still confused. But on a higher level."
Enrico Fermi 1901 1954

Best Regards
Clear Ether

[tom66]

--Your reply would seem to indicate that although you grant the truth of the article, you hate the source. Perhaps you would be willing to supply a source for this information that you approve of? No matter how much you complain, I rather doubt people are going to restrict themselves to publications you approve of. The solution to speech you disagree with is more speech.

I do not like the Daily Mail. It is a tabloid newspaper, like the Sun, or the US's New York Post. The journalism is sensationalist and often disagrees with factual information. Sales are far more important than accuracy or validity - so if they can print "NHS Kills Patients" or some similar headline, they will.

Yes, here is the source for the ranking (ignore my top six comment, I probably got mixed up with another study): http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/8877412/NHS-among-best-health-care-systems-in-the-world.html

Huh, will you look at that. It is indeed from the Telegraph - a conservative-leaning newspaper. One which I can actually believe, as they are not a tabloid but a serious newspaper. I might not agree with everything they say, but the information is generally accurate.

--You are correct no malice is indicated, merely murderously callous disregard. If you are going to kill someone in a hospital, would not a couple of injections be preferable to withdrawing food and water?

Yes -- and no. It would be definitely my preference, if it were my choice, to die quickly. However, many doctors -do not want- to have this right. It places far too much stress on them (imagine killing a patient, then finding out in the autopsy it was a simple cure, or something like that) and many of them disagree with even the concept because it does not fit with the Hippocratic Oath - of doing no harm -even- if it might be better in the end.