In countries with Socialized Medicine, should Government legislate what people eat?

Aren't we already paying for people who are obese, people who smoke or drink to excess, drive too fast etc. through higher insurance rates and copayments?

 

Maybe, but that's not a tax. That's not a gov't mandate. Nobody has to purchase insurance and pay the inflated premiums.

 

To a certain degree, they already do.
Food generally has to be approved to be allowed on the shelf.

I doubt it would take much to tighten up the rules and a lot of foods would be denied access...

 

Japan has the longest life expectancy of any nation. And that, liberals, aficionados of universal health care say, makes Japan's health care system the best in the world. Wikipedia doesn't seem to agree.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Japan
Just as some EU countries have longer life expectancies than the US, and some have the same or shorter life expectancies than the US. But ALL of the EU nations have some version of government run universal health care. So universal health care is not responsible for the duration of one's life.
To paraphrase Wiki, Japan's MANDATORY universal health care is a poorly enforced, ungodly expensive, OVER USED, long waiting time MESS. But they have the longest life expectancy.

Japan is showing us the future of obamacare. obama idolizers won't be able to see what is clearly being shown. Japan's health care system officially started in 1937. But I think it is safe to say that its present day system could not have started before September 1951 when our occupation of Japan ended. So in some time less than 60 years, Japans, government run, universal health care has become a mess. But they had and still have the longest lives, for whatever reasons!

 

The Japanese longevity is due to DNA and culture, not their hospitals.

 

I'm certainly going to agree with you on that point, and it highlights a very important issue - relying on a few simplistic statistics, or a few reports, or any other general lack of complete information across the whole area of healthcare is never going to be a good idea. It's not going to give a complete picture of things and how they are working - where they are doing well as well as where they are doing badly. Much more information and research is needed to truly compare the positives and negatives of any systems (and all of them will have both positives and negatives).

That said, of course, it doesn't mean that those individuals statistics are completely meaningless or should be ignored - they probably mean something, but it can't just be assumed that they mean what we'd like them to mean.

This brings it back to the OP, and the question of draconian food control in a country with a UHC system (and any suggestion that the two inevitable go hand in hand). To see if that is a necessary part of the picture we need to look at those countries with various UHC systems to see if it has ever happened. Since, to the best of my knowledge, serious limitations on food consumption have not happened anywhere, I suggest it's reasonable to state that all the evidence suggests that food major restrictions are not a necessary component or inevitable result associated with UHC systems.

That, of course, doesn't make UHC 'right', or 'right for the USA' - it's only a tiny part of the picture. It is, however, one potential argument that has been raised by those opposing UHC that has been pretty conclusively proved erronious (as much as life expectancy being hugely improved by UHC has been). Obviously, that shouldn't mean that those opposing UHC, or with reservations about UHC, should immediately give up in the light of that argument not holding water, it just means that they should be aware that the argument doesn't hold water, so move on to discussing other aspects of reservations to explore their validity.

The same is obviously true with UHC supporters who have tried to argue that lifespan is necessarily improved by having UHC - the evidence suggests it isn't necessarily the case and that there are other factors involved (that doesn't mean it isn't a factor, but it certainly can't be the only factor), so it's time to explore other areas in dicussion.

Ultimately, if both 'sides' of the argument start to work in such a way, such myths can be dispelled and a reasoned discussion basen actual evidence and information can ensue. Whatever people's opinions on the subject are, and whether they keep those opinions or change them, surely they should be able to agree that logical discourse based around real facts, not myths, rumours and vague fears about what might happen, is the way to proceed with the discussions and considerations?

 

That may or may not be true. I suspect that it IS an important factor among an unknown number of factors.

But it should be quite clear that Japan's universal government run health care is not much of a factor, if any at all.

 

Yup.

extra nonsense added to appease the post-length nazi

 

Genetics and lifestyle play a role here. I'm also thinking diet.

Japanese longevity can be attributed to many things.

 

Coming to a tyranny soon...

 

How is that untrue, exactly?

Why? It fits the definition of excessive saving which is extremely detrimental to an economy.

Have you, or any of the other anti-UH bums actually lived in a Europeanised country?

 

Health insurance companies dont need to exist at all, they only suck out resources that could be used for direct health care. They do nothing but get in the way of people getting health care whereas a public entity thats created and funded by the public for their own use doesnt come with that built in hindrance.

The original purpose the US govt was to stop being a colony and create their own seperate community which required a govt. I would also suggest it would be downright assbackwards to stick with premises that worked or were intended hundreds of years ago. Its best to stick with is needed NOW and how to best address those needs NOW.

Its as if you are arguing for stagnation and lack of progression and development.

Its taking responsibility for a community to create a system that will protect their health. We are social creatures and we live in a social setting together and taking this individualism to such an extreme is counter productive to our development and health as a species.

I am guessing you are also all for getting rid of public schools, police, millitary, courts, prisons etc.

You live in some dream world if you dont even realize that people are struggling just to pay their monthly bills each month. Even the things you mention arent things all people have. Not eveyone has cable, internet or full coverage insurance...or even a car.

But even for those who do, that doesnt mean they can save enough money to pay for a surgery or chronic illness.

Actually it much smarter to come up with a solution that will make sure all in the community have access to health care, something feasible and humane.

I think its much more irresponsible to be part of a social species and live in a social group but advocate for such anti social policies.

There are programs to help those who cant afford those basics. What you fail to take into account is those costs are predictable and manageable unlike health care costs. You could get into an accident tommarrow and end up with a medical bill in the hundreds of thousands. A home doesnt suddenly cost that amount overnight without warning or planning.

 

diet and lifestyle (both of which can be culturally shaped) are the most significant variables influencing health outcomes.

as people here seem to resent the idea that they might be encouraged to eat more sushi and less macdonalds, it would be interesting to see a comparison of people with similar health levels in the US, with one group having private helath cover and the other not, and see how much health it influences health outcomes.

 

Where'd you get that leap??

 

I've been a lover of sushi for 40,50 years and haven't eaten at Mickey D's since I was in the service in the early 60's and McBurgers were 15 cents. But also ate a goodly number of large steaks. And did smoke. A heart attack, 11 years ago, was my reward! Just saw my cardiologist this morning. Says I could live out the rest of the week. Will have a stress test in 2012, that tells me I'm doing good. Down 11 lbs. in 6 months.

 

What I find most disingenuous are all the know-it-alls who think they have the answer. The fact is, non-smokers, and healthy eaters, and people with no family history of a specific disease, get lung cancer, have heart attacks, strokes, organ failure, diabetes, etc. No one can predict what if any malady's one may come down with, caused perhaps by genetics, environmental, emotional, etc., even with significant anecdotal evidence. Until science catches up with politics, I'm afraid some people had better be careful of what they say, lest they make themselves a fool.

 

the evidence is still that lifestyle factors play a significant part in most of these conditions.

this is very well known and not in dispute.

 

That's true. A public entity comes with a whole different set of hindrances:

• No choice of providers so that you can find the one that best fits you.
• No accountability. You can't fire the government.
• One size has to fit all, which is simply unrealistic, so many suffer needlessly.
• Decisions are made based on political, rather than medical bases.
• etc etc

The original purpose was stated clearly in the preamble of the document that established the US gov't: to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity.

Something is not "assbackwards" simply because it has stood the test of time. It would be assbackward, unwise, and downright stupid to reject something on the premise that it worked. What is needed NOW is exactly what was needed THEN, which is independence from government, self-responsibility, and self-determination.

Not at all. I argue that what you call progression and development are exactly the opposite of what you claim.

To what extreme?? You and those that argue like you seem to think that if the government doesn't do it then it doesn't get done, when history shows time and again that dependence on the government is what brings the stagnation and lack of progression and development that you fear.

You are not more compassionate than others. You are not more caring than others. You are not smarter or wiser than others. Why do you presume to be? Before you deny it, ask yourself: If the government weren't there to help your neighbor, wouldn't you do what you can? Of course you would, and so would your fellow citizen.

There's no need to force others to do what you yourself would do. Government takeover of such basic social duties relieves individuals of their responsibility, not ensures it. When it comes time to step up they have the excuse that they've already done their part by paying taxes and build resentment toward the idea that they should do more. Your social programs destroy what's best in society. It breaks individuals apart; there's your individualism.

Start a thread. I'll be glad to discuss it with you.

True, but those that do still claim poverty. Far more people claim to be struggling than actually are.

I've already addressed this to you.

All have access to health care. Your implication is incorrect.

I see that. What you ignore is that your policies shunt responsibility and breed antisocial behavior, and what you call "anti social [sic] policies" actually serve to bring people together.



eta: oops missed this one:

I don't fail to take that into account. We have safety nets in place to help people who fall on hard times, though health catastrophe, natural disaster, or plain bad luck.

 

I don't understand your question.

Excessive government spending is likewise detrimental. I'd rather err on the side that leaves people with a bit of a net egg.

Yes.

 

How is saving for healthcare not a silly idea.

Not in the least, government spending still creates jobs and still ultimately generates wealth. Excessive saving only encourages recession.

 

Only?

.....

 

As in it is its inevitable outcome, and it has no other economic benefits.

 

ITEM: Governments create only Government jobs. Only private industry creates "real" jobs.

ITEM: Democrats are claiming that obama policies and spending have created 2 million jobs.

ITEM: This administration has spent well in excess of $3 trillion since 1/20/2009.

ITEM: $3,000,000,000,000.00 Dollars spent/2,000,000. jobs "created" = $1,500,000.00 PER JOB.
At that rate, getting jobs for the 9% unemployed will cost in the neighborhood of $20 TRILLION MORE govt spending before obamalama is sent back to the Chicago corruption from which he emerged.

Just a bit difficult on an income of just over $2 trillion and a GDP of $15 trillion.

 

Sorry is recieving money in exchange for producing a product not regarded as a job anymore?

Please cite where I claimed this.

How much of it has been on the obscene defense budget.

Ibid.

 

Government jobs are a burden, not a benefit to the economy.

R U Democrats? I quote, "Democrats are claiming that obama policies and spending have created 2 million jobs."

That is down considerably from when they were claiming obama's policies would create between 3.5 and 6.5 million jobs,"IMMEDIATELY."

The obscene, but essential Defense spending IS included in the budget. This administration has spent over $3 trillion in DEFICIT spending. All spending is in the $7+ trillion range.

Who would not?