• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Single payer, higher wait times, more suffering. The Democrats want this for America.

America's present system is SO much better than single-payer..Not! Nobody in the UK EVER had their prosthetic legs repossessed!

US army veteran has prosthetic legs repossessed after government refuses to cover cost | The Independent

" A survivor of both cancer and diabetes, Mr Holliman’s right leg was amputated following a bout of gangrene in November 2018 – while the left was taken the following April."

"On the day before Christmas Eve he was asked to sign paperwork for Medicare – the federal health insurance programme for the elderly and people with disabilities – while being told to put forward his own money as a co-payment. Instead, the veteran declined, saying the legs should instead be paid for by the VA’s office in full. In response, a Hanger employee removed his legs."

"Medicare did not send me to Vietnam," Mr Holliman told the newspaper. "I was sent there by my country ... with the understanding that if something bad happened to me, that it would be covered by the VA."

So, some clarification here is in order. The guy looks refuses to pay any part of his healthcare? Then claims the VA should pay for 100% of his care because he went to 'Nam? You didn't lose your legs to a landmine, you lost them to your inability to manage your diabetes.
 
" A survivor of both cancer and diabetes, Mr Holliman’s right leg was amputated following a bout of gangrene in November 2018 – while the left was taken the following April."

"On the day before Christmas Eve he was asked to sign paperwork for Medicare – the federal health insurance programme for the elderly and people with disabilities – while being told to put forward his own money as a co-payment. Instead, the veteran declined, saying the legs should instead be paid for by the VA’s office in full. In response, a Hanger employee removed his legs."

"Medicare did not send me to Vietnam," Mr Holliman told the newspaper. "I was sent there by my country ... with the understanding that if something bad happened to me, that it would be covered by the VA."

So, some clarification here is in order. The guy looks refuses to pay any part of his healthcare? Then claims the VA should pay for 100% of his care because he went to 'Nam? You didn't lose your legs to a landmine, you lost them to your inability to manage your diabetes.

He had the wrong sort of amputation, so it was OK they took his legs back. These veterans are SO entitled!
 
He had the wrong sort of amputation, so it was OK they took his legs back. These veterans are SO entitled!

His being a veteran has nothing at all to do with this. He lost his legs from poorly managed diabetes and obesity. Medicare was set to cover them, he just didn't want to pay his copay.

I am not sure where the outrage here is?
 
The pie chart in your link states that only 16% of Canadians and only 7% in Great Britain are very satisfied with "availability of affordable care". Those percentages seem to be ridiculously low considering these countries have free universal healthcare. Why do you suppose the percentages are so low?

It's not free.
 
It's free when they go to the hospital, hence "availability of affordable care" shouldn't even be an issue.

It isn't an issue it is a data point of a survey that shows Canadians and British are far more satisfied with the availability of health care than in the US which refutes your contention that they are suffering untreated.
 
It isn't an issue it is a data point of a survey that shows Canadians and British are far more satisfied with the availability of health care than in the US

No, the question on the survey specifically states "availability of affordable care", and the percentage of those who are "very satisfied" is extremely low. Go read it for yourself.

which refutes your contention that they are suffering untreated.

Do you deny that there are waiting lists for medical procedures in Canada?
 
This is precisely my point. They know they are fat, they know it is causing tons of problems, and they don't do a damned thing about it. Obesity is the easiest thing in the world to solve, you just have to have the drive to solve it. Eat less, work out more. Solved. If you could solve that our healthcare problems would be a shadow of what they are.
D.
If obesity was the "easiest thing to solve"..it wouldn't have been a problem for decades. And yes.. people do all sorts of things about their obesity. The problem is that its not as simple as "eat less work out more".

Great.. work out more. When? My patient who is overweight works sometimes 14 hours a day. usually sitting on machinery. either a tractor or loader. When he gets home.. his wife is often leaving for work and he is left with the kids. Neither has enough time to cook properly so they use prepared type meals.. like frozen chicken nuggets and a frozen vegetable entrée..
But your advice to him... just eat less and work out more... cuz that guy working 8- 14 hours a day.. to feed his family.. and who then gets home to help his kids with their homework..get then ready for bed.. etc.. Why he is a lazy guy right?

You don't have a clue what you are talking about.

Really? Do you remember back 20 years ago what a summer in a neighborhood looked like? Or every day after school? Kids were outside riding bikes, playing pickup games, and running around. I *never* see that anymore. Instead I see a bunch of pallid waxy fat kids waddling around. Again, it's not a mystery how this happened. Kids 20 years ago ate like crap, they always have, and they get away with it because of a racing metabolism... until you let them sit at home playing video games all day.

Yeah I do. And I know that someone has to teach kids how to ride a bike. They have to teach kids how to play ball.. how to do a lot of things. but.. in your mind.. kids should be able to go out and buy a bike on their own at 3 and start learning to ride. Preferably on a busy street right? Sorry man..but the kids today are fat because of their parents. and because of society.

I am currently raising kids now. I am rich, and a doctor, and yet I struggled with getting my kids in shape and fighting off obesity in my children. You say.. but but.. kids playing... What kids? You have to have other kids to play with.. to play those pickup games. I can and did drive the 30 minutes to the towns playgrounds in the summer. And guess what.. no one there. So who are my kids to play these pickup games with? They go to school.. and what are they fed in the morning breakfast? Frozen breakfast burritos.. and for lunch..its pizza and fries. I tried to get my kids to eat salads.. I mean surely the school offers SOME healthy choices right? Well..they do.. they do a limited number of salads... THAT THE LUNCH STAFF RESERVE FOR THE TEACHERS!. So I had to take extra time packing a healthy lunch for my kids. WHICH.. isn't that easy by the way since there is no way for the kids to refrigerate their lunches. And healthy food costs!. Lucky for the kids that I mountain bike.. so I started them on bikes when they were little. Except..they have no one to ride with unless I get home early enough. I ski.. and have the money to afford skis and ski lessons.. and mountain passes and a vacation home near the mountain. I do martial arts.. and have the means to afford the martial arts classes.. the equipment, and a home dojo. I play tennis competitively and can afford the racquets and the lessons..and the tennis club membership. IF I didn't have the means to do that.. and the knowledge and time...…

My kids would be in the same boat as many as their overweight and or out of shape friends. Cripes..even the "think kids".. can't hike more than a mile.. and they are kids in sports.
Kids aren't growing up in the world that was 20-30 years ago.

What makes people fat then? What % of obesity is beyond the control of the individual?

Probably about 80%.

Yes, convince more states to jump onto the federal largesse program that is bankrupting the nation, that's it.

Actually its not bankrupting the nation. In fact.. its helping the economy.

What part of the constitution determines the nature in which we provide welfare programs again

14th amendment.
 
His being a veteran has nothing at all to do with this. He lost his legs from poorly managed diabetes and obesity. Medicare was set to cover them, he just didn't want to pay his copay.

I am not sure where the outrage here is?

Actually in all likelihood..yes.. being a veteran did. This fellow was exposed to AGENT ORANGE during Vietnam. AGENT ORANGE is linked to causing cancer and other diseases like diabetes.

In fact.. this is what the VA says about it.

Veterans who develop type 2 diabetes mellitus and were exposed to Agent Orange or other herbicides during military service do not have to prove a connection between their diabetes and service to be eligible to receive VA health care and disability compensation.

Diabetes Mellitus Type 2 and Agent Orange - Public Health

You never seem to tire of being wrong..
 
No, the question on the survey specifically states "availability of affordable care", and the percentage of those who are "very satisfied" is extremely low. Go read it for yourself.



Do you deny that there are waiting lists for medical procedures in Canada?

No, but on the other hand everyone gets seen. That isn't so in the US. If you can't afford treatment your wait time is infinite.
 
No, but on the other hand everyone gets seen. That isn't so in the US. If you can't afford treatment your wait time is infinite.

In other words, both are awful, but in different ways. I agree.

Gee, if there were only some economic system that consistently and ruthlessly drives down prices to rock bottom. What a benefit that would be to sick or injured people who need healthcare.
 
If obesity was the "easiest thing to solve"..it wouldn't have been a problem for decades. And yes.. people do all sorts of things about their obesity. The problem is that its not as simple as "eat less work out more".

For 99% of obese people, that is precisely the problem. It is very simple math PretendMD, negative caloric balance. If you burn more than you take it, you lose weight, it really is that simple.

Great.. work out more. When? My patient who is overweight works sometimes 14 hours a day. usually sitting on machinery. either a tractor or loader. When he gets home.. his wife is often leaving for work and he is left with the kids. Neither has enough time to cook properly so they use prepared type meals.. like frozen chicken nuggets and a frozen vegetable entrée..

Working long hours doesn't require you eat garbage. It doesn't stop you from eating a salad, or just plain chicken or tuna. You are trying to excuse laziness, what's new.

But your advice to him... just eat less and work out more... cuz that guy working 8- 14 hours a day.. to feed his family.. and who then gets home to help his kids with their homework..get then ready for bed.. etc.. Why he is a lazy guy right?

Ooooooohhhhh no, an 8 hour day is too much? Last I checked if you work 8 hours, sleep 8 hours, you have 8 hours left. Doing 30min of cardio a day and 30min a day of meal prep isn't a huge ask. If you want to be morbidly obese, that's fine, just don't expect society to pay for it.

You don't have a clue what you are talking about.

Thanks PretendMD.

Yeah I do. And I know that someone has to teach kids how to ride a bike. They have to teach kids how to play ball.. how to do a lot of things. but.. in your mind.. kids should be able to go out and buy a bike on their own at 3 and start learning to ride. Preferably on a busy street right? Sorry man..but the kids today are fat because of their parents. and because of society.

Isn't that what I said? But kids absolutely need an instructor to be taught how to play dodge ball, right? Jesus christ.

I am currently raising kids now. I am rich, and a doctor, and yet I struggled with getting my kids in shape and fighting off obesity in my children... and a home dojo.…

Oh wow, now you are raising young children, as an MD, as a business owner, as a healthcare CEO. How did you manage all of that while finishing your astronaut training between SEAL missions? Jesus you liar.

A home dojo, lol. Seriously, what is that a basement with an old mattress?

My kids would be in the same boat as many as their overweight and or out of shape friends. Cripes..even the "think kids".. can't hike more than a mile.. and they are kids in sports.
Kids aren't growing up in the world that was 20-30 years ago.

So you have fat kids because you are a bad parent and you think that excuses everyone? Got it. How about you get off the internet and go raise your children if you can't manage. Try that for a change.


Probably about 80%.

EIGHT in TEN people can't help getting fat? Your whole household must be fatties. Get on a treadmill, eat some vegetables, it's not hard.


Actually its not bankrupting the nation. In fact.. its helping the economy.

PretendCEO at it again. Helping the economy by spending taxpayer money, to fund healthcare which accomplishes nothing. Nice. Why not just build roads and bridges to nowhere?


14th amendment.

I assume you are referring to the portion about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Ok, please note the word "deprive". It says the state cannot *deprive* you of that. it doesn't mean they must *provide* it to you.

In fact.. this is what the VA says about it.

You never seem to tire of being wrong..

From your own link PretendMD:

The Health and Medicine Division (formally known as the Institute of Medicine) of the National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine concluded in its 2000 report, Veterans and Agent Orange: Herbicide/Dioxin Exposure and Type 2 Diabetes, as well as in 2002 and 2004 updates, that there is limited/suggestive evidence of an association between exposure to herbicides and type 2 diabetes.

Jesus.

Edit: You think the type2 diabetes might be more related to his 45 BMI?
 
For 99% of obese people, that is precisely the problem. It is very simple math PretendMD, negative caloric balance. If you burn more than you take it, you lose weight, it really is that simple.

Actually no. you ridiculous dude..its not that simple. Because number one.. if you burn more than you take in.. and you happen to be genetically prone to gain weight.. your metabolism can slow down so that yet again your weight stabilizes or worse you begin to "yo yo"..with losing weight..then gaining the weight back and more.

Also when you cut calories..if its done improperly a person with metabolic issues (or even ones without ).. it can cause the body to begin to cannibalize its own systems like muscle or internal organs. Causing more harm to the person..

Working long hours doesn't require you eat garbage. It doesn't stop you from eating a salad, or just plain chicken or tuna. You are trying to excuse laziness, what's new.
Well lets start with your ridiculous assumption that the fellow working 8-14hours a day to feed his family. and coming home to take care of the kids . is by definition "lazy"...

Please... you don't even realize just how ridiculous you are.

Second... surely it cause an issue with time. "eat a salad or chicken".. What do you think takes more time? Nuking chicken nuggets.. or chopping up salad, carrots, and all the other ingrediants.. not to mention cooking chicken..?

You are talking out your butt.

Ooooooohhhhh no, an 8 hour day is too much? Last I checked if you work 8 hours, sleep 8 hours, you have 8 hours left. Doing 30min of cardio a day and 30min a day of meal prep isn't a huge ask. If you want to be morbidly obese, that's fine, just don't expect society to pay for it.
BWAHHHHHH... you think that eating healthy.. only takes 30 minutes on average ? Not to mention breakfast lunch and dinner.. not only for you but for your kids. That's funny. And 30 minutes of cardio? Please.. how many calories do you think are burned in 30minutes. A 300 pound man.. walking at 4 miles an hour.. which is very rigorous. burns 340 calories. A Mcdonalds cheeseburger is about that. Just one of those little happy meal cheeseburgers.


Isn't that what I said? But kids absolutely need an instructor to be taught how to play dodge ball, right? Jesus christ.
Ummm.. yes.. they do. Someone has to teach them the rules.. how to play.. purchase those dodge balls.. oh..and you have to have a bunch of other kids that can play.

Of course.. you also have to be allowed to play as well...
A New Hampshire school district recently voted to eliminate “human target” activities from its schools over concerns about violence and bullying, including dodgeball, “bombardment,” and “slaughter.”

N.H. School Bans Dodgeball, ‘Human Target’ Games | National Review

But.. its all those lazy kids right?

o you have fat kids because you are a bad parent and you think that excuses everyone? Got it. How about you get off the internet and go raise your children if you can't manage. Try that for a change.

yeah.. my 16 year old just took second place in a full contact martial arts tournament in the ADULT division. Against blackbelts. He is 6 foot 2 and weights 190 pounds of solid muscle.
My 18 year old is 6 2 and 210 pounds and just took first in a judo tournament and got his next belt in Kajukembo. I would gladly let you call them fatties and get into a sparring ring or on a tatami with them.. and we'll just see how in shape you are tough guy.

You are so full of your own arrogance that you failed to see the point I made.. which is that in todays world..in our society.. its very hard to raise kids who are NOT obese. It takes a lot of effort and extra money and time... frankly that most families don't have.

EIGHT in TEN people can't help getting fat? Your whole household must be fatties. Get on a treadmill, eat some vegetables, it's not hard.

Nope..its not what I said. You asked what portion is outside a persons control..and I said about 80%. Which means that someone that's predisposed to be overweight that genetics, culture, etc.. account for about 80% of the weight problem.. which means to NOT be obese.. they have to work extremely hard at that 20%.. that they CAN control.. (like diet and exercise).. much more so than someone who is NOT predisposed to be obese.
 
PretendCEO at it again. Helping the economy by spending taxpayer money, to fund healthcare which accomplishes nothing. Nice. Why not just build roads and bridges to nowhere?

Well.. first..healthcare is a valuable service. A healthy population is a working population. A worker that now has health insurance and becomes sick and sees the doctor.. is more likely to return to work earlier. The same with an musculoskeletal injury.. particularly if appropriate therapies are ordered. Or if the person blows a knee and needs knee surgery.
People having access to that healthcare.. pays large dividends in the work force...
Then there is the fact that people with healthy children or healthy elderly parents.. .. are also more likely to be in the workforce, take less time off etc.

then there is the advantage of preventative medicine.. thinks like getting that persons diabetes under control with medication before he ends up in the hospital in a coma.. etc.

I assume you are referring to the portion about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Ok, please note the word "deprive". It says the state cannot *deprive* you of that. it doesn't mean they must *provide* it to you.

Sure.. I was not talking about providing.. I was talking about depriving.
You said you were okay with a government single payer with strict things against cultural/societal issues..or some such. IF the only insurance plan that a person can purchase or have is the single payer.. and the single payer denies you care for the reasons you suggest.. well then.. they are depriving you.

The Health and Medicine Division (formally known as the Institute of Medicine) of the National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine concluded in its 2000 report, Veterans and Agent Orange: Herbicide/Dioxin Exposure and Type 2 Diabetes, as well as in 2002 and 2004 updates, that there is limited/suggestive evidence of an association between exposure to herbicides and type 2 diabetes.
Sweet baby jesus.. exactly.. in other words.. THERE IS A LIMITED AND SUGGESTIVE LINK.. that exposure to herbicides is linked to type 2 diabetes.. which is WHY THE VA ACCEPTS AGENT ORANGE EXPOSURE AS THE CULPRIT and will cover a veteran exposed to agent orange.

AND in addition.. Agent orange is linked to cancer.. and the fellow had cancer as well.. and that CANCER... could have CAUSED the diabetes OR.. the medications and treatments that were used to kill the cancer.. could have CAUSED the diabetes as well.

Good god man... if I am pretending to be a doctor.. you should be ashamed.. because you are then getting schooled by someone uneducated in medical issues. Just goes to show you how ignorant you are...
 
Well.. first..healthcare is a valuable service. A healthy population is a working population. A worker that now has health insurance and becomes sick and sees the doctor.. is more likely to return to work earlier. The same with an musculoskeletal injury.. particularly if appropriate therapies are ordered. Or if the person blows a knee and needs knee surgery.
People having access to that healthcare.. pays large dividends in the work force...
Then there is the fact that people with healthy children or healthy elderly parents.. .. are also more likely to be in the workforce, take less time off etc.

If this went according to plan, I agree. However in reality people don't take the basic steps first. I have told you a hundred times now, people would be 10x healthier if they did the basic things they know to do, but don't want to do. Instead, surgery, medication becomes the easy solution.

then there is the advantage of preventative medicine.. thinks like getting that persons diabetes under control with medication before he ends up in the hospital in a coma.. etc.

Uncontrolled diabetics grow on trees, especially with medicare/medicaid. Why is it? Their care is nigh free, but they still can't stay in compliance. Why? They want to drink their coke, sit on their ass, and slowly rot away feet first.

Sure.. I was not talking about providing.. I was talking about depriving.
You said you were okay with a government single payer with strict things against cultural/societal issues..or some such. IF the only insurance plan that a person can purchase or have is the single payer.. and the single payer denies you care for the reasons you suggest.. well then.. they are depriving you.

Fair enough. Let them pay cash then. Solved? I would be *far* more amenable to the idea of universal care if we really had some hard and fast rules on the expectations of people receiving benefits. If you smoke and don't quit in X time, you are done. If you are obese and don't show improvement in X time, you are done. Etc. I am tired of watching vast sums of taxpayer resources thrown to lost causes.

Sweet baby jesus.. exactly.. in other words.. THERE IS A LIMITED AND SUGGESTIVE LINK.. that exposure to herbicides is linked to type 2 diabetes.. which is WHY THE VA ACCEPTS AGENT ORANGE EXPOSURE AS THE CULPRIT and will cover a veteran exposed to agent orange.

AND in addition.. Agent orange is linked to cancer.. and the fellow had cancer as well.. and that CANCER... could have CAUSED the diabetes OR.. the medications and treatments that were used to kill the cancer.. could have CAUSED the diabetes as well.

Good god man... if I am pretending to be a doctor.. you should be ashamed.. because you are then getting schooled by someone uneducated in medical issues. Just goes to show you how ignorant you are...

Right. A "physician" here suggesting that a report suggesting "limited evidence" somehow draws a link. In publication land, limited evidence means to say "unlikely caused".

Further, diabetes has been show to be linked to cancer, but not the other way around (ex: pancreatic). Call it a hunch, the obese guy sitting there had T2 diabetes from being obese, that's what caused his legs to rot off. See above, obesity and our healthcare problems.

Again, spend less time on the internet and more time running your imaginary business, acting as CEO for a major health system, and getting your obese kids some exercise.
 
If this went according to plan, I agree. However in reality people don't take the basic steps first. I have told you a hundred times now, people would be 10x healthier if they did the basic things they know to do, but don't want to do. Instead, surgery, medication becomes the easy solution.

And I would agree with you.. MR obtuse.. yes.. we would be much healthier as a population if we had less stress.. took more vacations, worked less, ate less and exercised more.

BUT.. that's not the benefit from healthcare. Healthcare.. benefits you from things like when you hurt your back.. the medication, the therapy, the injection and even the surgery.. get you back to working.
Healthcare benefits you when you have diabetes.. and now you have a medication that helps you.. so you don't end up in a diabetic coma.
Healthcare benefits you from by giving inoculations against polio.. measles.. etc.

That's where healthcare benefits you.. not from a doctor saying "your fat.. lose weight"...

You are purposely being obtuse about this....

Uncontrolled diabetics grow on trees, especially with medicare/medicaid.
Actually no,, it doesn't.. because they ARE controlled with medications.

SURE.. a few of them could be controlled without medication if they lost weight and exercised. But my 80 year old patient who is 5 foot 4 and weighs 110 pounds is not diabetic because of her lifestyle.. you ridiculous dude.
And the ones that could be controlled without meds.. but choose not to lose weight and exercise etc? Well..its still cheaper to medicate them.. than to say.. "oh well.. to bad for them".. and then have to deal with an hospital stay for a diabetic coma.

Fair enough. Let them pay cash then. Solved?
No.. not solved.

You have taken away their healthcare insurance.. for the governments and then you have taken away the healthcare from them because the government doesn't approve of their lifestyle.

How far you willing to go? No treatments for venereal diseases because it due to "lifestyle?"
No treatments for heart problems because you smoked for 20 years ago?
I bet I could find a lot of medical issues that you have or will have do to your lifestyle.

Right. A "physician" here suggesting that a report suggesting "limited evidence" somehow draws a link. In publication land, limited evidence means to say "unlikely caused".

Actually no.. in medical literature.. limited and suggestive evidence indicates that there is as distinct possibility of a link.

NO evidence.. would suggest just that.

Its why the VA accepts it.

Further, diabetes has been show to be linked to cancer, but not the other way around
Not true since many cancer treatments can lead to changes in sugar levels and diabetes.

Again, spend less time on the internet and more time running your imaginary business, acting as CEO for a major health system, and getting your obese kids some exercise.

You seem to have severe cognitive dissonance here sir. OR tremendous problems with reading comprehension. My children are NOT obese. They are extremely fit actually.

The problem is that they are PRONE to obesity and it takes considerable lengths to prevent them from becoming obese.

Something that I made extremely clear.. but you seem to miss it.

Like I said..anytime you want to spar with my kids... you are welcome to do it. I even suggest you call them fatties.. so then you can see just how out of shape they are..

Better yet.. if they dislocate your shoulder or elbow,.. you can then go without healthcare and return to work.. because of course healthcare has no value.

:doh
 
Actually no. you ridiculous dude..its not that simple. Because number one.. if you burn more than you take in.. and you happen to be genetically prone to gain weight.. your metabolism can slow down so that yet again your weight stabilizes or worse you begin to "yo yo"..with losing weight..then gaining the weight back and more.

Show me one picture of an Auschwitz occupant that gained weight, just one.
 
And I would agree with you.. MR obtuse.. yes.. we would be much healthier as a population if we had less stress.. took more vacations, worked less, ate less and exercised more.

BUT.. that's not the benefit from healthcare. Healthcare.. benefits you from things like when you hurt your back.. the medication, the therapy, the injection and even the surgery.. get you back to working.
Healthcare benefits you when you have diabetes.. and now you have a medication that helps you.. so you don't end up in a diabetic coma.
Healthcare benefits you from by giving inoculations against polio.. measles.. etc.

That's where healthcare benefits you.. not from a doctor saying "your fat.. lose weight"...

You are purposely being obtuse about this....

Oh, I am not saying losing weight solves everything, but it solves a hell of a lot. For instance, the morbidly obese patient who loses 150 pounds is going to have a much easier time managing T2 diabetes. Their back is going to have a far easier time etc. More importantly, they are going to have less complications in everything. Just look at the correlations between obesity and complications/readmission. Fat people are less healthy, full stop. Less healthy people are much more expensive to treat. It really is that simple at a point.

Vaccinations? I am happy to pay for that as a nation, no beef there. I am just not ok with paying for other people's healthcare when they are not actively involved in taking care of themselves. If you want to eat, drink, smoke, or stupid yourself to death that's fine just don't ask me to pay for it. I am 100% fine with letting the unmanaged diabetic suffer the consequences.

Actually no,, it doesn't.. because they ARE controlled with medications.

Sure, in theory. The problem is you still need compliance. You need to check your blood sugars, you need to watch what you eat, you need to lose weight etc. None of those things happen with a huge segment of the population. The Oregon study shows *exactly* this. The diabetics in that 5 year study all showed no better control of diabetic management in that period, despite 100% free care and insulin.

SURE.. a few of them could be controlled without medication if they lost weight and exercised. But my 80 year old patient who is 5 foot 4 and weighs 110 pounds is not diabetic because of her lifestyle.. you ridiculous dude.

And she represents ~2% of the diabetic population. The vast majority of diabetics are diabetics because of decisions they made, not because of randomly bad genes.

You have taken away their healthcare insurance.. for the governments and then you have taken away the healthcare from them because the government doesn't approve of their lifestyle.

How far you willing to go? No treatments for venereal diseases because it due to "lifestyle?"
No treatments for heart problems because you smoked for 20 years ago?
I bet I could find a lot of medical issues that you have or will have do to your lifestyle.

Venereal disease: cheap, don't really care.
If you are an active smoker, drinker, drug addict, or obese and you don't show progress to improvement then you are off the program. It is not our responsibility to waste scarce public resources on those who will not help themselves.
As for me? I doubt that.

Actually no.. in medical literature.. limited and suggestive evidence indicates that there is as distinct possibility of a link.

Haha, that's hilarious for someone who pretends to be a physician to not understand how to read a publication. Yes, it means there is a possibility, but it is remote and highly unlikely and certainly not supported by any evidence to date.
 
Show me one picture of an Auschwitz occupant that gained weight, just one.

Actually..probably if you were to find the ones that SURVIVED Aushwitz.. you would find out that it was the ones that were clinically obese or were prone to be obese.. before going in to Auschwitz that were more likely to survive.

You sir are just to funny. Do you ever think before you post.
 
Oh, I am not saying losing weight solves everything, but it solves a hell of a lot. For instance, the morbidly obese patient who loses 150 pounds is going to have a much easier time managing T2 diabetes. Their back is going to have a far easier time etc. More importantly, they are going to have less complications in everything. Just look at the correlations between obesity and complications/readmission. Fat people are less healthy, full stop. Less healthy people are much more expensive to treat. It really is that simple at a point.

.

And who is arguing that? Mr obtuse? Cuz it certainly is not me.

However.. you claim that healthcare has no benefit. And getting that obese patient his back treatments.. or controlling his diabetes.. or his knee surgery.. not only helps return that patient to work but it also cuts down on the cost of treating the diabetic coma.

I am 100% fine with letting the unmanaged diabetic suffer the consequences.
Define exactly "unmanaged diabetic and define exactly how you determine whether they should die or not".

Please give your definitely criteria.. so that when that person comes into the emergency room.. a provider can make the determination on whether they should die or not.

The Oregon study shows *exactly* this. The diabetics in that 5 year study all showed no better control of diabetic management in that period, despite 100% free care and insulin.
No it actually doesn't. It doesn't show that the person coming in without any medication on board.. was just as out of control after receiving medication.

What it showed was that the person who came in and had diabetes.. did not improve enough to get off medication.. etc.

And she represents ~2% of the diabetic population. The vast majority of diabetics are diabetics because of decisions they made, not because of randomly bad genes.
That's patently false.

Venereal disease: cheap, don't really care.
Why not.. and no venereal disease care is not cheap.. especially if you are talking about something like HIV or hepatitis.

If you are an active smoker, drinker, drug addict, or obese and you don't show progress to improvement then you are off the program. It is not our responsibility to waste scarce public resources on those who will not help themselves.

Hmmm.. please give the criteria you would use.. so that when the person who has obesity. or overdoses on medication, or uses alcohol.. or smokes or smoked.. comes into the the ER with a heart attack, or other emergency.. the physician can make a determination on whether they should let them die or save their life.

Haha, that's hilarious for someone who pretends to be a physician to not understand how to read a publication. Yes, it means there is a possibility, but it is remote and highly unlikely and certainly not supported by any evidence to date.

Too funny.. yes.. you don't understand how to read the publication. It means there there is ENOUGH EVIDENCE.. to suggest a causational link...

Which is why the VA is willing to cover it..

OR are you contending that the VA gives its veterans any care they think they need? Hmmm..is that it.. that the VA gives care willy nilly to veterans without even a shred of evidence that they have a condition caused by service?

Gee.. maybe you contend that the VA is the best healthcare in America with the most comprehensive coverage?
 
There were several proposals floating before Dems took the House. Trump has done some work allowing group plans not bound by ACA requirements.

Show me a bill.
 
Do your own research. I don't care if you believe it or not.

That's what I thought.

Numerous bills to repeal the ACA, none that provided real protections for pre-existing conditions. (they did have a bill or two that provided *optional* protections for pre-existing conditions, which is the same thing as not protecting pre-existing condiitions...)
 
Back
Top Bottom