(no subject)
In addition to watching the Youtube video I linked to in the previous post (and see counterpoints too like http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/), those of you who care about your health may want to check out this book:
http://www.amazon.com/Traditional-Foods-Your-Best-Medicine/dp/0892817356
Keep in mind that health care spending drives 1/7th of the American economy. Keep in mind that a huge and growing portion of healthcare costs are attributable to obesity, and that the average person in the U.S. weighs 25 pounds more today than the average person 25 years ago (it's slightly lower for men and slightly higher for women, since women consume 335 calories more per day now than back then). Keep in mind that there are many diseases and disorders that are not caused by obesity but by poor nutrition, and that symptoms for things like asthma might not be so bad if we ate better.
So can we all agree that 1/7th is way too much? Does it make ANY sense to take a pill for a condition, and to take ANOTHER pill to counter the side effects of the first pill, when an improved diet and exercise might have prevented the first condition to begin with?
Can we agree that creating market incentives for people to live healthier (e.g., give insurance payers a price break on premiums if they join gyms and eat well or can otherwise demonstrate physical health... maybe $ back if you can take and pass the Army physical exam) helps more than simply adding more and more unhealthy people to a pool of unhealthy people and expecting that to generate much in efficiencies and cost savings?
Can we all agree that by driving health up, we drive the cost of healthcare down? That we can spend much more on subsidies for whole, organic foods and education for nutrition/disease prevention/exercise, and pay for it by raising taxes on alcohol/tobacco* and ending subsidies for the corn, soy, and sugar industries? Can we all agree that paying $millions to keep terminally ill people alive for a few more months is unnatural and a poor use of taxpayer funds?
http://www.amazon.com/Traditional-Foods-Your-Best-Medicine/dp/0892817356
Keep in mind that health care spending drives 1/7th of the American economy. Keep in mind that a huge and growing portion of healthcare costs are attributable to obesity, and that the average person in the U.S. weighs 25 pounds more today than the average person 25 years ago (it's slightly lower for men and slightly higher for women, since women consume 335 calories more per day now than back then). Keep in mind that there are many diseases and disorders that are not caused by obesity but by poor nutrition, and that symptoms for things like asthma might not be so bad if we ate better.
So can we all agree that 1/7th is way too much? Does it make ANY sense to take a pill for a condition, and to take ANOTHER pill to counter the side effects of the first pill, when an improved diet and exercise might have prevented the first condition to begin with?
Can we agree that creating market incentives for people to live healthier (e.g., give insurance payers a price break on premiums if they join gyms and eat well or can otherwise demonstrate physical health... maybe $ back if you can take and pass the Army physical exam) helps more than simply adding more and more unhealthy people to a pool of unhealthy people and expecting that to generate much in efficiencies and cost savings?
Can we all agree that by driving health up, we drive the cost of healthcare down? That we can spend much more on subsidies for whole, organic foods and education for nutrition/disease prevention/exercise, and pay for it by raising taxes on alcohol/tobacco* and ending subsidies for the corn, soy, and sugar industries? Can we all agree that paying $millions to keep terminally ill people alive for a few more months is unnatural and a poor use of taxpayer funds?