13 urgent suggestions for a healthy USA

[Savage]

Can Obama's Win Lead to Meaningful Health Care Reform? 13 Urgent Suggestions for a Healthy USA

[JMan]

Great suggestions. The suppression of natural food and vitamin education by the drug industry is very ugly and I hope that something is done about it.

There was a time when Vitamin C was being considered to be labeled a 'drug' because of its claims to combat things like the cold and fatigue.

As I understand it, If something is claimed to 'cure' an ailment, the FDA is required to label it a 'drug'.

Once it's labeled a 'drug', all sorts of pretty government regulation and subsequent monetary costs to consumers are applied as the warm wing of the FDA wraps its feathers around it.

A $10 bottle of Vitamin C could all of a sudden cost $100 and require a prescription.

If the government steps in and begins to describe natural remedies as cures for ailments, the FDA will be forced to label them as 'drugs'.

Until that requirement is addressed, the government will not prop up natural remedies and educate the public.

[ns123]

as much as these suggestions are mainly positive (healthy eating, healthy choices, exercise, etc), it still doesn't seem free to me.

Government taking away my choice to eat cheetos for my own health, doesn't sound too free. As long as we are going to be free entities, we should be free to choose to eat snickers without having to buy them on the black market.

I guess you can punish me for smoking by not treating my lung cancer, but that doesn't sound too loving or free either.

[Lara]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

Can Obama's Win Lead to Meaningful Health Care Reform? 13 Urgent Suggestions for a Healthy USA

Thank you (((Steve))), I was going to begin doing research on this topic today. Your links will help.

Lara

[Lara]

Originally Posted by ns123

as much as these suggestions are mainly positive (healthy eating, healthy choices, exercise, etc), it still doesn't seem free to me.

Government taking away my choice to eat cheetos for my own health, doesn't sound too free. As long as we are going to be free entities, we should be free to choose to eat snickers without having to buy them on the black market.

I guess you can punish me for smoking by not treating my lung cancer, but that doesn't sound too loving or free either.

Take what you need, leave the rest. You have a choice and a voice. I agree, we should not be told what to eat and what not to eat, but that doesn't mean we can't do with a bit of advice about how to stay healthy.

Peace,
Lara

[The David]

Originally Posted by JMan

There was a time when Vitamin C was being considered to be labeled a 'drug' because of its claims to combat things like the cold and fatigue.

It can also combat amphetamines. It's powerful stuff. Brr.

[Gabo]

Good article. I absolutely agree with all the suggestions to get rid of pharmaceutical interests in Washington, and to promote the use of natural remedies over (often detrimental) chemical compounds.

However, I disagree with prohibiting people from eating and drinking whatever they want. If the natural products are truly better alternatives, then people will buy them for their benefits.

It is the government endorsement of one type of product over another that got us into this whole fiasco in the first place. We should not be banning anything, but rather allow people to research which products are the best for their health.

[Fullcrum]

Perhaps government is not the best way to go about this change. As we do not live in a dictatorship, whatever we think does not become law. Instead, there must be consensus among the majority.

Now, there are other ways to mass-influence public opinion, and it is these methods we need to exploit so that people will opt to eat healthier, not buy junk food, exercise, and live healthy lives.

How did these junk food corporations acquire their money in the first place? This is what we need to study.

[Brutha]

The best idea to combat big pharma in that article is probably to disallow patents.

I generally don't think that insurance should pay for stuff that isn't clinically proven to work.

[ns123]

but... isn't this the system we have now?

I mean, right now, today, we can eat whatever we want, without the gov punishing us (via not treating your obesity) and without the gov banning cheetos.

I daresay, people know that cheetos are unhealthy, but, like me, choose to eat them anyway.

but that doesn't mean we can't do with a bit of advice about how to stay healthy.

yeah, that's what we are doing now. People who choose to eat the cheetos are not wanting anyone's advice, just to be left alone to eat their cheetos. People who choose to eat healthy seek that advice.

I guess my issue is... I'm tired of unwanted advice (in general). I'm tired of all the should's and need-to-do's. If I want anyone's eating advice, I'll ask for it. If I want religious advice, I'll ask for it. (Which is why I'm here on this site, I WANT the advice).

But... gov doing it is another matter - or forcing it is another matter. banning bad foods? That doesn't sound too free to me.

[Dan.Linehan]

Originally Posted by ns123

But... gov doing it is another matter - or forcing it is another matter. banning bad foods? That doesn't sound too free to me.

Right now I subsidize insurance for everyone who is unhealthy. That's not fair either.

There needs to be "fitsurance" -- where you have to be able to do some pushups and eat vegetarian to join.

[ns123]

Originally Posted by Dan.Linehan

Right now I subsidize insurance for everyone who is unhealthy. That's not fair either.

Actually, that's called socialism. Which I actually thought you preferred.

And it's not a question of what's fair, it's what's more free. Banning bad foods is not a very free. I believe there is a huge difference between banning fatty foods (ie, not allowing me to eat it) vs insurance.

Please save me from people who want to do keep me from making my own choices for my own good.

[Dan.Linehan]

Originally Posted by ns123

Actually, that's called socialism. Which I actually thought you preferred.

And it's not a question of what's fair, it's what's more free. Banning bad foods is not a very free. I believe there is a huge difference between banning fatty foods (ie, not allowing me to eat it) vs insurance.

Currently, the rich get to rob freely from the working class in dozens of sneaky ways. They literally purchase influence and legislative change that benefit only a very select few. The rich also blatantly duck taxation. Most large corporations don't pay any taxes at all. That's theft. Not to mention deficit spending to do it all. It's not fair for the rich / corporations to steal from the working classes, and run up outlandish deficits to benefit themselves -- so future generations will have to pay back? I mean, we are $10T in debt, are you kidding me? That was theft. Nearly all of it.

Did you know there are Billions of dollars unaccounted for from the Iraq war spending? Billions. Where do you think that money went?

Anyway, back to health insurance. I'm fit. Why should I have to help pay for someone's totally preventable $150k quad bypass surgery? I get lower insurance rates for safe driving, I don't see why I shouldn't get lower insurance rates for fit living?

[JMan]

Originally Posted by Dan.Linehan

Anyway, back to health insurance. I'm fit. Why should I have to help pay for someone's $150k quad bypass surgery? I get lower insurance rates for safe driving, I don't see why I shouldn't get lower insurance rates for fit living?

I'm with ya on this.

I may be healthy - why should I pay for the unhealthy? I work hard at my health and I've earned it.

I may be wealthy - why should I pay for the unwealthy? I work hard for my wealth and I've earned it.

Both are taking from the haves and giving to the have nots.

[Savage]

Originally Posted by Dan.Linehan

There needs to be "fitsurance" -- where you have to be able to do some pushups and eat vegetarian to join.

I've often though that would be a great idea too. At the very least, those who choose to abuse their health with things like smoking and drinking and eating fast food should pay extra for health coverage. This can also be accomplished with additional taxes on unhealthy foods, which would probably be an easier way to enforce it. That's already done with some items like cigarettes, but the tax money is often squandered.

[Brutha]

Actually, that's called socialism. Which I actually thought you preferred.

Political stances can be a bit more complicated. Creating incentives in that way for good behavior doesn't come into conflict with providing everyone access to health care.

I may be healthy - why should I pay for the unhealthy? I work hard at my health and I've earned it.

There are people who are unhealthy for genetic reasons or because they have had an accident.

In general I think there are a few things you can do against unhealthy things like excess of processed sugar.
1) Create additional sales taxes on those products to make them more expensive than healthy alternatives.
2) Improve information of th customer by requiring big warning labels on the products that specify the amount of processed sugar in the product
3) Preventing advertising of those products
4) Eliminate all intellectual property right about the brand. If everybody can produce coca cola as long as there's processed sugar in it you produce a real incentive for them to switch to unprocessed sugar or they lose their multimillion dollar brand.

I personally like the idea of 4) a lot.

I also wouldn't like to let politicians that are untrained in science to make decisions about which things are healthy enough to eat.
I think the only type of institution that should make a decision like this should be staffed with scientists.
That would probably mean that the decision that the body makes are different from the decision that a altanative medizin site wants to have.

[Dharma]

Ok, what if.... say me for instance, likes to eat anything, and does, and has an inner constitution that allows me to eat anything and still beat all my friend's scores on their blood work.

Why should I pay more for insurance, or sugar, or fat? Do I get a good constitution waiver? Or maybe a backpacker waiver, so I can skip the tax on calorically-dense but lightweight food on the trail? Methinks that would be very hard to implement.

[Savage]

Originally Posted by Dharma

Ok, what if.... say me for instance, likes to eat anything, and does, and has an inner constitution that allows me to eat anything and still beat all my friend's scores on their blood work.

Why should I pay more for insurance, or sugar, or fat? Do I get a good constitution waiver? Or maybe a backpacker waiver, so I can skip the tax on calorically-dense but lightweight food on the trail? Methinks that would be very hard to implement.

Depends on how old you are. It's easier to eat junk in your 20s and 30s and get away with it, but it just catches up to you later in life. By eating junk when you're young, you'll simply deplete your enzyme potential much sooner, and that will come back to bite you decades later, even though it may seem at the time that everything is fine.

But as long as you're willing to end it quickly instead of drawing it out with a slow death at someone else's expense, go for it.

[fountainAtlas]

I know several people from the home health industry and they say that occasionally they encounter completely lucid people in their 90s who drink and smoke excessively. Likewise they meet people with great eating habits, relative to SAD, not Steve and yet are suffering from all kinds of ills (these people are in their 60s). I post this only to highlight that some people really do have a better constitution and tolerance.

P.S. How much produce would someone need to buy to go raw for 48 hours? I am guessing around 3 pounds per day?

-FountainAtlas

[Savage]

Originally Posted by fountainAtlas

I know several people from the home health industry and they say that occasionally they encounter completely lucid people in their 90s who drink and smoke excessively. Likewise they meet people with great eating habits, relative to SAD, not Steve and yet are suffering from all kinds of ills (these people are in their 60s). I post this only to highlight that some people really do have a better constitution and tolerance.

P.S. How much produce would someone need to buy to go raw for 48 hours? I am guess around 3 pounds per day?

-FountainAtlas

I ate 8-1/2 pounds of produce the first day of my raw food trial in January. 3 pounds would barely have gotten me through breakfast.

[fountainAtlas]

Thank you Steve.

When I decide to go through with it. I will post it on your forum.

-FountainAtlas

[dorothy hanna]

That article said that stevia was illegal in the U.S.? Since when? I've been buying and using stevia for years. I get it at my local healthfood store and more recently a local grocery store chain carries it.

On the ideas of punitive actions to keep people from certain lifestyles. I don't agree with it. I think incentives should be the focus. Incentives for those things most beneficial to the most people.

For the person who thinks they should not have to pay into a system because he is healthy and wealthy, so why should he have to pay for someone who is not? "There but for the grace of God, go I". In other words, you may be that way, today, but stuff happens, and you will be well cared for should your circumstances regretably take a turn for the worse. It's called insurance, isn't it?

[Lauxa]

I'm not fond of insurance. When Ron Paul was campaigning, he talked about how he used to work in a charity hospital and they never turned anyone away. Now the charity hospitals are closing down.

100 years ago doctors would make house calls.

Doctors, especially in small communities, used to barter or offer reduced cost services for those who couldn't pay.

I also don't like that doctors and hospitals don't advertise their rates for services. I think relying on insurance to pay the bills causes poor economic choices by medical care consumers.

What I would like to see is more doctors by reducing the cost of a medical degree. I think it should be possible to specialize in stitching wounds or setting bones or swabbing kids' sore throats without 10-12 years of education. I think more computer-based educational programs should be available for medical education, and this would also reduce the cost of becoming a doctor.

I also think local hospital equipment such as x-ray machines and defibrillators should be subsidized by the community and the use of such should be free except for the doctor's (or lab tech's) time.

[openeyes]

Originally Posted by Lauxa

What I would like to see is more doctors by reducing the cost of a medical degree. I think it should be possible to specialize in stitching wounds or setting bones or swabbing kids' sore throats without 10-12 years of education.

For simpler things, one can look into being a nurse practitioner or physician's assistant.

Originally Posted by Lauxa

Doctors, especially in small communities, used to barter or offer reduced cost services for those who couldn't pay.

One bothersome experience I had while a student with insurance was finding that some local healthcare places were open to charging on a sliding scale based on income, but with anyone who has insurance they're required by law to charge the maximum rate. For me this meant I paid three times what I would have been expected to pay had I not had insurance.

Originally Posted by Lauxa

100 years ago doctors would make house calls.

Some enterprising ones still do, though insurance won't cover their travel costs.

Doctors Making Housecalls

For anyone with Netflix I recommend checking out "Frontline: Sick Around the World". It discusses the healthcare systems in the U.K., Japan, Switzerland, Germany and Taiwan.

[ar81]

Originally Posted by Fullcrum

Perhaps government is not the best way to go about this change. As we do not live in a dictatorship, whatever we think does not become law. Instead, there must be consensus among the majority.

Consensus of 300 million...?? 300 million americans can't even gain consensus about who they wanted for president...

There are several actors n an economy:
-Government
-Corporations
-Banks
-Consumers

Who should lead the change?

[funchy]

Thanks for posting the link. I'm waiting while it sends me an email so I can read the full article.

That article said that stevia was illegal in the U.S.? Since when? I've been buying and using stevia for years. I get it at my local healthfood store and more recently a local grocery store chain carries it.

I have not read the article yet. Could it have said SALVIA not stevia?

[liamona]

Originally Posted by funchy

I have not read the article yet. Could it have said SALVIA not stevia?

I think stevia is only allowed to be sold as a supplement in the U.S., not as a food product (i.e., a sweetener). Because it's dangerous and all.

[Inthon]

Keep your money and your power. The goobermint will always be manipulated by special interests, it is inevitable, no matter which party is in power.

[funchy]

Originally Posted by Lauxa

Doctors, especially in small communities, used to barter or offer reduced cost services for those who couldn't pay.

Doctors also didn't have massive malpractice/liability insurance premiums to pay. Doctors back then also didn't have the higher taxes, high payroll taxes, zoning restrictions, etc. In olden times the town doctor may have worked out of a spare room in his home and used his family car to do house calls. Now he needs to lease a "medical office" zoned building, pay $$$$ more in taxes, pay extra for auto insurance if he uses it for work, etc. Same is true for many self-employed services: we're no longer allowed to do it from our home, so services become expensive.

What I would like to see is more doctors by reducing the cost of a medical degree. I think it should be possible to specialize in stitching wounds or setting bones or swabbing kids' sore throats without 10-12 years of education. I think more computer-based educational programs should be available for medical education, and this would also reduce the cost of becoming a doctor.

Many of those duties are being shifted to RNs, PAs, and others. For example, my local college has an accelerated RN program that will get you into nursing in under 2 years and for very reasonable tuition rates. PAs only need a Master's degree, and have most of the powers of a doctor including signing prescriptions.

I feel it's not the doctor's salary so much as the overhead of the big hospital or doctor office, related support staff, billing staff, and modern (fancy expensive) diagnostics.

I also think local hospital equipment such as x-ray machines and defibrillators should be subsidized by the community and the use of such should be free except for the doctor's (or lab tech's) time.

What's the difference between me paying for the MRI machine when I use it vs paying for it in my taxes? Either way we the people are paying. Socialized health services are not "free"; you pay now or you pay later.

What I'd like to see is more people taking personal responsibility for their own health. An example are the people would rather lose feet or die from diabetes than stop eating SAD food.

[funchy]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

Can Obama's Win Lead to Meaningful Health Care Reform? 13 Urgent Suggestions for a Healthy USA

I still can't read the full article. I waited a full day and checked my email box including spam folder -- nothing. I re-sent my email address and still nothing.