Printable View
[QUOTE=omen;954559]depends on what metric you're using[/QUOTE]
By most metrics the US doesn't do well -- infant mortality, premature deaths, longevity, medical mishaps, etc... I think we do well on cancer survival. We do have some of the finest cancer facilities in the world. So that can be said for the US system.
But, overall, we're not doing well.
[QUOTE=Rojo;955547]By most metrics the US doesn't do well -- infant mortality, premature deaths, longevity, medical mishaps, etc... I think we do well on cancer survival. We do have some of the finest cancer facilities in the world. So that can be said for the US system.
But, overall, we're not doing well.[/QUOTE]
Abortions count in infant mortality rates? We have plenty of those.... I know that Cuba doesn't report problem pregnancies that are voluntarily terminated by medical staff when there's a high probability of complications. There are plently of reasons why I generally consider these "metrics" nonsense.
Most agencies who put together these "studies" lend most importance to "access". Socialized medical systems are nessecarily classified as "universal access". In a system like ours where people, particularly the young poor (been there and done exactly this), were free to forgo insurance in favor of other opportunity costs those people would count against an overall "rating".
This makes me a. nervous and b. angry! I support an individuals right to eat whatever he or she wants! If I had a nickel for every time someone told me that "eating all that fat is unhealthy"... Ri got dang diculous! Of course the difference is that our food choices are good, but not everyone sees it that way. How long before our saturated fats are taken away and we are force fed "healthy whole grains"? It's a slippery freakin slope.
[QUOTE=Rojo;953300]
I'm sorry I'm not buying the slippery slopes and teachable moments. It's soda pop. I don't have a problem with regulating it, just as I'd have no problem if they outlawed corn syrup. I'm going to stick the real abuses.[/QUOTE]
The problem with your method is that everybody has a different opinion of what constitutes a "real" abuse. And as these "petty" abuses add up year after year, what seemed like a "real" abuse a decade ago looks instead like the perfectly "reasonable" next step. Bloomberg is a Nazi and a thug, and the people of New York should not only resist this outrageous law, they should shower their petty tyrant of a mayor with Big Gulps whenever he deigns to appear in public.
[QUOTE=FlyingPig;952697]As a non-American I find this thread quite an eye-opener. In Europe after the second world war something called the welfare state was built: affordable housing, free healthcare, public schools of very good quality, etc. By the evil government, yes. Now right-wing neoliberals all over Europe who follow the so-called "invisible hand" of the "market" want to destroy those achievements and go the American "free for all" way. Soon ordinary working people in Europe too won't be able to afford going to a hospital, give our kids decent education. Think about that for a second before you paint "government" (as if it doesn't matter what politics they have) with the evil brush.[/QUOTE]
Oh, I love this argument. How's the European debt crisis going? Still able to pay for your welfare state or is the populace too busy protesting that they only get a month of vacation?
I am concerned that this could lead to taxing "bad" fat, I really don't want my grass fed butter to go up in price while canola oil crackers go down in price.
[QUOTE=Mr. Anthony;952091]This is terrible. I mean, I agree that soda is super bad for you, and people shouldn't be drinking mass quantities of it, but this is absolutely not an issue for legislation. If they start taking stuff like this away, half the stuff we love is next. Butter. Bacon. Heavy Whipping Cream. Fatty cuts of meat (say hello to boneless skinless chicken breast only!). Ugh. Bloomberg thinks the job of the government is to micromanage every aspect of the filthy unwashed masses' lives. Irritating.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, basically I think you should be allowed to consume arsenic if thats what floats your boat. I'm not excited about the government getting involved in any manner and would be quite happy to see them less entangled with things they already got their fingers in.
From Big Gulps to the Nazi's, all of you still hitting the slippery slope pipe pretty hard.
I guess you guys probably don't believe in vaccinations either. "Freedom of choice" -- until your kid makes mine sick.
[QUOTE=Rojo;956614]From Big Gulps to the Nazi's, all of you still hitting the slippery slope pipe pretty hard.
I guess you guys probably don't believe in vaccinations either. "Freedom of choice" -- until your kid makes mine sick.[/QUOTE]
Way to get off topic....go troll that in the vaccine thread if you like. Good job on adding NOTHING to the current discussion.
This is not a "slippery slope pipe"....there is no slope.....they have made a decision for you regarding what you may ingest. Precedent is set. I don't see how anyone can miss that point? Government deems it unhealthy? Banned.