Healthcare is not a right!?

[briansd1]

[quote=pri_dk][quote=briansd1]Actually, most of the nurses of all races are fat.[/quote]

Got any more of these? I need a few more laughs today…[/quote]

You don’t need to take my word. Go check it out for yourself at the hospital – UCSD in La Jolla and Hillcrest.

[scaredyclassic]

it is intriguing how hefty (or cigarette smoking) health professionals are difficult tot ake seriously on those issues. Not sure why. If Johnnie Cochran was an embezzler, and you needed legal advice, you’d not hold his criminality against him — indeed, it could be a selling point if he were successfully getting away with it. if fat really were purely genetic, not the result of choices, then we wouldn’t ahve any negative reaction to a heavy doctor giving advice on obesity, just like we wouldnt lift an eyebrow to an amputee doctor giving advice on how to live without legs. But it’s unlikely that anyone could take seriously a doctor telling you that you gotta quit smoking while he’s puffing away, or to change your diet when he can’t fit through the door. Kinda like how it’s difficult tot ake financial advice froma lot of people, for personal failures, even if the advice is perfectly valid.

[scaredyclassic]

it is intriguing how hefty (or cigarette smoking) health professionals are difficult tot ake seriously on those issues. Not sure why. If Johnnie Cochran was an embezzler, and you needed legal advice, you’d not hold his criminality against him — indeed, it could be a selling point if he were successfully getting away with it. if fat really were purely genetic, not the result of choices, then we wouldn’t ahve any negative reaction to a heavy doctor giving advice on obesity, just like we wouldnt lift an eyebrow to an amputee doctor giving advice on how to live without legs. But it’s unlikely that anyone could take seriously a doctor telling you that you gotta quit smoking while he’s puffing away, or to change your diet when he can’t fit through the door. Kinda like how it’s difficult tot ake financial advice froma lot of people, for personal failures, even if the advice is perfectly valid.

[scaredyclassic]

it is intriguing how hefty (or cigarette smoking) health professionals are difficult tot ake seriously on those issues. Not sure why. If Johnnie Cochran was an embezzler, and you needed legal advice, you’d not hold his criminality against him — indeed, it could be a selling point if he were successfully getting away with it. if fat really were purely genetic, not the result of choices, then we wouldn’t ahve any negative reaction to a heavy doctor giving advice on obesity, just like we wouldnt lift an eyebrow to an amputee doctor giving advice on how to live without legs. But it’s unlikely that anyone could take seriously a doctor telling you that you gotta quit smoking while he’s puffing away, or to change your diet when he can’t fit through the door. Kinda like how it’s difficult tot ake financial advice froma lot of people, for personal failures, even if the advice is perfectly valid.

[scaredyclassic]

it is intriguing how hefty (or cigarette smoking) health professionals are difficult tot ake seriously on those issues. Not sure why. If Johnnie Cochran was an embezzler, and you needed legal advice, you’d not hold his criminality against him — indeed, it could be a selling point if he were successfully getting away with it. if fat really were purely genetic, not the result of choices, then we wouldn’t ahve any negative reaction to a heavy doctor giving advice on obesity, just like we wouldnt lift an eyebrow to an amputee doctor giving advice on how to live without legs. But it’s unlikely that anyone could take seriously a doctor telling you that you gotta quit smoking while he’s puffing away, or to change your diet when he can’t fit through the door. Kinda like how it’s difficult tot ake financial advice froma lot of people, for personal failures, even if the advice is perfectly valid.

[scaredyclassic]

it is intriguing how hefty (or cigarette smoking) health professionals are difficult tot ake seriously on those issues. Not sure why. If Johnnie Cochran was an embezzler, and you needed legal advice, you’d not hold his criminality against him — indeed, it could be a selling point if he were successfully getting away with it. if fat really were purely genetic, not the result of choices, then we wouldn’t ahve any negative reaction to a heavy doctor giving advice on obesity, just like we wouldnt lift an eyebrow to an amputee doctor giving advice on how to live without legs. But it’s unlikely that anyone could take seriously a doctor telling you that you gotta quit smoking while he’s puffing away, or to change your diet when he can’t fit through the door. Kinda like how it’s difficult tot ake financial advice froma lot of people, for personal failures, even if the advice is perfectly valid.

[Anonymous]

[quote=treehugger]The question was is healthcare a right. I say no it is not.[/quote]

I’m not entirely sure it’s a right either. Never said it was. But it still might be an area where government should play a role. Most of the functions of government do not involve rights.

Either way, I don’t think we should let one unusual example influence national policy.

We all know that someone can lose weight by eating less. Burn more calories than you take in and you will lose weight. So it’s easy to conclude that others could/should lose weight, because it is always physically possible.

Look at the situation from a different angle: If the difference in weight between you and your sister is purely a matter of behavior, then it should be possible for you to gain 200 pounds just by eating more and exercising less. Do you think if you just started eating junk food and bigger meals that you would eventually gain 200 pounds? Could you easily triple your weight? If you actually set a goal to gain that much weight, would the extra eating be pleasurable, or would you have to force it down?

No, I’m not challenging you to gain 200 pounds. That would be silly. I know that there’s no way I could do it, and that I would just make myself miserable if I tried (and I’m sure this is true for most other folks). So that’s enough evidence for me that one’s weight is not just a matter of choice.

[Anonymous]

[quote=treehugger]The question was is healthcare a right. I say no it is not.[/quote]

I’m not entirely sure it’s a right either. Never said it was. But it still might be an area where government should play a role. Most of the functions of government do not involve rights.

Either way, I don’t think we should let one unusual example influence national policy.

We all know that someone can lose weight by eating less. Burn more calories than you take in and you will lose weight. So it’s easy to conclude that others could/should lose weight, because it is always physically possible.

Look at the situation from a different angle: If the difference in weight between you and your sister is purely a matter of behavior, then it should be possible for you to gain 200 pounds just by eating more and exercising less. Do you think if you just started eating junk food and bigger meals that you would eventually gain 200 pounds? Could you easily triple your weight? If you actually set a goal to gain that much weight, would the extra eating be pleasurable, or would you have to force it down?

No, I’m not challenging you to gain 200 pounds. That would be silly. I know that there’s no way I could do it, and that I would just make myself miserable if I tried (and I’m sure this is true for most other folks). So that’s enough evidence for me that one’s weight is not just a matter of choice.

[Anonymous]

[quote=treehugger]The question was is healthcare a right. I say no it is not.[/quote]

I’m not entirely sure it’s a right either. Never said it was. But it still might be an area where government should play a role. Most of the functions of government do not involve rights.

Either way, I don’t think we should let one unusual example influence national policy.

We all know that someone can lose weight by eating less. Burn more calories than you take in and you will lose weight. So it’s easy to conclude that others could/should lose weight, because it is always physically possible.

Look at the situation from a different angle: If the difference in weight between you and your sister is purely a matter of behavior, then it should be possible for you to gain 200 pounds just by eating more and exercising less. Do you think if you just started eating junk food and bigger meals that you would eventually gain 200 pounds? Could you easily triple your weight? If you actually set a goal to gain that much weight, would the extra eating be pleasurable, or would you have to force it down?

No, I’m not challenging you to gain 200 pounds. That would be silly. I know that there’s no way I could do it, and that I would just make myself miserable if I tried (and I’m sure this is true for most other folks). So that’s enough evidence for me that one’s weight is not just a matter of choice.

[Anonymous]

[quote=treehugger]The question was is healthcare a right. I say no it is not.[/quote]

I’m not entirely sure it’s a right either. Never said it was. But it still might be an area where government should play a role. Most of the functions of government do not involve rights.

Either way, I don’t think we should let one unusual example influence national policy.

We all know that someone can lose weight by eating less. Burn more calories than you take in and you will lose weight. So it’s easy to conclude that others could/should lose weight, because it is always physically possible.

Look at the situation from a different angle: If the difference in weight between you and your sister is purely a matter of behavior, then it should be possible for you to gain 200 pounds just by eating more and exercising less. Do you think if you just started eating junk food and bigger meals that you would eventually gain 200 pounds? Could you easily triple your weight? If you actually set a goal to gain that much weight, would the extra eating be pleasurable, or would you have to force it down?

No, I’m not challenging you to gain 200 pounds. That would be silly. I know that there’s no way I could do it, and that I would just make myself miserable if I tried (and I’m sure this is true for most other folks). So that’s enough evidence for me that one’s weight is not just a matter of choice.

[Anonymous]

[quote=treehugger]The question was is healthcare a right. I say no it is not.[/quote]

I’m not entirely sure it’s a right either. Never said it was. But it still might be an area where government should play a role. Most of the functions of government do not involve rights.

Either way, I don’t think we should let one unusual example influence national policy.

We all know that someone can lose weight by eating less. Burn more calories than you take in and you will lose weight. So it’s easy to conclude that others could/should lose weight, because it is always physically possible.

Look at the situation from a different angle: If the difference in weight between you and your sister is purely a matter of behavior, then it should be possible for you to gain 200 pounds just by eating more and exercising less. Do you think if you just started eating junk food and bigger meals that you would eventually gain 200 pounds? Could you easily triple your weight? If you actually set a goal to gain that much weight, would the extra eating be pleasurable, or would you have to force it down?

No, I’m not challenging you to gain 200 pounds. That would be silly. I know that there’s no way I could do it, and that I would just make myself miserable if I tried (and I’m sure this is true for most other folks). So that’s enough evidence for me that one’s weight is not just a matter of choice.

[scaredyclassic]

from the CDC website:

American society has become ‘obesogenic,’ characterized by environments that promote increased food intake, nonhealthful foods, and physical inactivity. Policy and environmental change initiatives that make healthy choices in nutrition and physical activity available, affordable, and easy will likely prove most effective in combating obesity.

The Division of Nutrition, Physical Activity, and Obesity (DNPAO) is working to reduce obesity and obesity-related conditions through state programs, technical assistance and training, leadership, surveillance and research, intervention development and evaluation, translation of practice-based evidence and research findings, and partnership development.

[i don’t see anything in there about gene therapy, thyroids, or other metabolism changes…]

also, the rate of obesity is climbing, as has been beat to death in MSM, i think (from CDC website):

the national health objectives for 2010 is to reduce the prevalence of obesity among adults to less than 15 percent. The NHANES 2005-2006 data for persons age 20 years and over suggest an increase, between the late 1980s and today, in obesity in the United States, with the estimated age-adjusted prevalence moving upward from a previous level of 23 percent in NHANES III (1988-94) to approximately 34 percent. The change between 2003-2004 and 2005-2006, however, was not statistically significant. Data Brief No 1 PDF 366 KB

that’s 11% higher obesity post real-estate bubble. maybe inflated real estate prices are to some extent making people heavier, in some way –like some sort of wealth-fat effect. we went from less than a quarter of the population obese to over a third in 15 years. if the trend continues, half the nation will be obese in less than 2 decades.

is this just genetically predestined?

seems like any real discussion of the nation’s health has to include moving that trend back down to under 25%, where obesity is not a regular condition, and not letting it just continue to climb and figure, well, we’ll all have health insurance and it’ll pan out. sure, have national health insurance, but I’d rather see a War on Obesity than a war on drugs, terrorism or so forth.

[scaredyclassic]

from the CDC website:

American society has become ‘obesogenic,’ characterized by environments that promote increased food intake, nonhealthful foods, and physical inactivity. Policy and environmental change initiatives that make healthy choices in nutrition and physical activity available, affordable, and easy will likely prove most effective in combating obesity.

The Division of Nutrition, Physical Activity, and Obesity (DNPAO) is working to reduce obesity and obesity-related conditions through state programs, technical assistance and training, leadership, surveillance and research, intervention development and evaluation, translation of practice-based evidence and research findings, and partnership development.

[i don’t see anything in there about gene therapy, thyroids, or other metabolism changes…]

also, the rate of obesity is climbing, as has been beat to death in MSM, i think (from CDC website):

the national health objectives for 2010 is to reduce the prevalence of obesity among adults to less than 15 percent. The NHANES 2005-2006 data for persons age 20 years and over suggest an increase, between the late 1980s and today, in obesity in the United States, with the estimated age-adjusted prevalence moving upward from a previous level of 23 percent in NHANES III (1988-94) to approximately 34 percent. The change between 2003-2004 and 2005-2006, however, was not statistically significant. Data Brief No 1 PDF 366 KB

that’s 11% higher obesity post real-estate bubble. maybe inflated real estate prices are to some extent making people heavier, in some way –like some sort of wealth-fat effect. we went from less than a quarter of the population obese to over a third in 15 years. if the trend continues, half the nation will be obese in less than 2 decades.

is this just genetically predestined?

seems like any real discussion of the nation’s health has to include moving that trend back down to under 25%, where obesity is not a regular condition, and not letting it just continue to climb and figure, well, we’ll all have health insurance and it’ll pan out. sure, have national health insurance, but I’d rather see a War on Obesity than a war on drugs, terrorism or so forth.

[scaredyclassic]

from the CDC website:

American society has become ‘obesogenic,’ characterized by environments that promote increased food intake, nonhealthful foods, and physical inactivity. Policy and environmental change initiatives that make healthy choices in nutrition and physical activity available, affordable, and easy will likely prove most effective in combating obesity.

The Division of Nutrition, Physical Activity, and Obesity (DNPAO) is working to reduce obesity and obesity-related conditions through state programs, technical assistance and training, leadership, surveillance and research, intervention development and evaluation, translation of practice-based evidence and research findings, and partnership development.

[i don’t see anything in there about gene therapy, thyroids, or other metabolism changes…]

also, the rate of obesity is climbing, as has been beat to death in MSM, i think (from CDC website):

the national health objectives for 2010 is to reduce the prevalence of obesity among adults to less than 15 percent. The NHANES 2005-2006 data for persons age 20 years and over suggest an increase, between the late 1980s and today, in obesity in the United States, with the estimated age-adjusted prevalence moving upward from a previous level of 23 percent in NHANES III (1988-94) to approximately 34 percent. The change between 2003-2004 and 2005-2006, however, was not statistically significant. Data Brief No 1 PDF 366 KB

that’s 11% higher obesity post real-estate bubble. maybe inflated real estate prices are to some extent making people heavier, in some way –like some sort of wealth-fat effect. we went from less than a quarter of the population obese to over a third in 15 years. if the trend continues, half the nation will be obese in less than 2 decades.

is this just genetically predestined?

seems like any real discussion of the nation’s health has to include moving that trend back down to under 25%, where obesity is not a regular condition, and not letting it just continue to climb and figure, well, we’ll all have health insurance and it’ll pan out. sure, have national health insurance, but I’d rather see a War on Obesity than a war on drugs, terrorism or so forth.

[scaredyclassic]

from the CDC website:

American society has become ‘obesogenic,’ characterized by environments that promote increased food intake, nonhealthful foods, and physical inactivity. Policy and environmental change initiatives that make healthy choices in nutrition and physical activity available, affordable, and easy will likely prove most effective in combating obesity.

The Division of Nutrition, Physical Activity, and Obesity (DNPAO) is working to reduce obesity and obesity-related conditions through state programs, technical assistance and training, leadership, surveillance and research, intervention development and evaluation, translation of practice-based evidence and research findings, and partnership development.

[i don’t see anything in there about gene therapy, thyroids, or other metabolism changes…]

also, the rate of obesity is climbing, as has been beat to death in MSM, i think (from CDC website):

the national health objectives for 2010 is to reduce the prevalence of obesity among adults to less than 15 percent. The NHANES 2005-2006 data for persons age 20 years and over suggest an increase, between the late 1980s and today, in obesity in the United States, with the estimated age-adjusted prevalence moving upward from a previous level of 23 percent in NHANES III (1988-94) to approximately 34 percent. The change between 2003-2004 and 2005-2006, however, was not statistically significant. Data Brief No 1 PDF 366 KB

that’s 11% higher obesity post real-estate bubble. maybe inflated real estate prices are to some extent making people heavier, in some way –like some sort of wealth-fat effect. we went from less than a quarter of the population obese to over a third in 15 years. if the trend continues, half the nation will be obese in less than 2 decades.

is this just genetically predestined?

seems like any real discussion of the nation’s health has to include moving that trend back down to under 25%, where obesity is not a regular condition, and not letting it just continue to climb and figure, well, we’ll all have health insurance and it’ll pan out. sure, have national health insurance, but I’d rather see a War on Obesity than a war on drugs, terrorism or so forth.

[Author]

Posts