ObamaCare…coming soon

[CA renter]

I also have to address the notion that you can avoid health problems by “eating right and getting exercise.”

We’ve known a surprisingly large number of young people (under 50 years old) who’ve been diagnosed with cancer — just estimating, maybe ~20 people or so. The first overweight person is this group was a cousin of mine who died from colon cancer this year. Every single other person was young, fit, and very health-conscious, even to the extreme of only eating organic foods and running/riding bikes 15+ miles per day. Many of these people had the same arrogant attitude toward overweight people and sickness that I see here. I’m not saying it’s healthy to be overweight, and it’s certainly not healthy to be obese, but too many people seem to miss the fact that genetics are a much bigger risk factor than simply being overweight (and obesity is most certainly genetic, in many cases, BTW). Don’t forget accidents and illnesses that are caused by other risky behaviours like drinking, smoking, or having unprotected sex. Add to that the expensive surgeries required by athletes who are injured while participating in sports (we know a number of these, too!). Don’t forget those who get in car or motorcycle accidents, or who fall off a ladder when doing home repairs, etc.

Anecdotally, another good friend who has always exercised religiously and “taken good care of herself” had a stroke earlier this year. She was in her 30s. Another very fit friend in his 40s just recently had a heart attack…while exercising.

Trying hanging around a chemo room someday. You’ll see very few “obese” people. Sadly, you’ll see a surprising number of very young, very fit people in there.

People who think they control their own fate WRT their health are very naive. If you remain uninsured simply because you are young or fit, you’re asking for serious problems, IMHO.

[sunny88]

[quote=CA renter]I also have to address the notion that you can avoid health problems by “eating right and getting exercise.”

We’ve known a surprisingly large number of young people (under 50 years old) who’ve been diagnosed with cancer — just estimating, maybe ~20 people or so. The first overweight person is this group was a cousin of mine who died from colon cancer this year. Every single other person was young, fit, and very health-conscious, even to the extreme of only eating organic foods and running/riding bikes 15+ miles per day. Many of these people had the same arrogant attitude toward overweight people and sickness that I see here. I’m not saying it’s healthy to be overweight, and it’s certainly not healthy to be obese, but too many people seem to miss the fact that genetics are a much bigger risk factor than simply being overweight (and obesity is most certainly genetic, in many cases, BTW). Don’t forget accidents and illnesses that are caused by other risky behaviours like drinking, smoking, or having unprotected sex. Add to that the expensive surgeries required by athletes who are injured while participating in sports (we know a number of these, too!). Don’t forget those who get in car or motorcycle accidents, or who fall off a ladder when doing home repairs, etc.

Anecdotally, another good friend who has always exercised religiously and “taken good care of herself” had a stroke earlier this year. She was in her 30s. Another very fit friend in his 40s just recently had a heart attack…while exercising.

Trying hanging around a chemo room someday. You’ll see very few “obese” people. Sadly, you’ll see a surprising number of very young, very fit people in there.

People who think they control their own fate WRT their health are very naive. If you remain uninsured simply because you are young or fit, you’re asking for serious problems, IMHO.[/quote]

You’re citing anecdotal cases. Looking at the “big” picture it is clearly evident that being obese poses a significantly higher risk compared to people who are normal weight and live healthy.

[sunny88]

[quote=CA renter]I also have to address the notion that you can avoid health problems by “eating right and getting exercise.”

We’ve known a surprisingly large number of young people (under 50 years old) who’ve been diagnosed with cancer — just estimating, maybe ~20 people or so. The first overweight person is this group was a cousin of mine who died from colon cancer this year. Every single other person was young, fit, and very health-conscious, even to the extreme of only eating organic foods and running/riding bikes 15+ miles per day. Many of these people had the same arrogant attitude toward overweight people and sickness that I see here. I’m not saying it’s healthy to be overweight, and it’s certainly not healthy to be obese, but too many people seem to miss the fact that genetics are a much bigger risk factor than simply being overweight (and obesity is most certainly genetic, in many cases, BTW). Don’t forget accidents and illnesses that are caused by other risky behaviours like drinking, smoking, or having unprotected sex. Add to that the expensive surgeries required by athletes who are injured while participating in sports (we know a number of these, too!). Don’t forget those who get in car or motorcycle accidents, or who fall off a ladder when doing home repairs, etc.

Anecdotally, another good friend who has always exercised religiously and “taken good care of herself” had a stroke earlier this year. She was in her 30s. Another very fit friend in his 40s just recently had a heart attack…while exercising.

Trying hanging around a chemo room someday. You’ll see very few “obese” people. Sadly, you’ll see a surprising number of very young, very fit people in there.

People who think they control their own fate WRT their health are very naive. If you remain uninsured simply because you are young or fit, you’re asking for serious problems, IMHO.[/quote]

You’re citing anecdotal cases. Looking at the “big” picture it is clearly evident that being obese poses a significantly higher risk compared to people who are normal weight and live healthy.

[sunny88]

[quote=CA renter]I also have to address the notion that you can avoid health problems by “eating right and getting exercise.”

We’ve known a surprisingly large number of young people (under 50 years old) who’ve been diagnosed with cancer — just estimating, maybe ~20 people or so. The first overweight person is this group was a cousin of mine who died from colon cancer this year. Every single other person was young, fit, and very health-conscious, even to the extreme of only eating organic foods and running/riding bikes 15+ miles per day. Many of these people had the same arrogant attitude toward overweight people and sickness that I see here. I’m not saying it’s healthy to be overweight, and it’s certainly not healthy to be obese, but too many people seem to miss the fact that genetics are a much bigger risk factor than simply being overweight (and obesity is most certainly genetic, in many cases, BTW). Don’t forget accidents and illnesses that are caused by other risky behaviours like drinking, smoking, or having unprotected sex. Add to that the expensive surgeries required by athletes who are injured while participating in sports (we know a number of these, too!). Don’t forget those who get in car or motorcycle accidents, or who fall off a ladder when doing home repairs, etc.

Anecdotally, another good friend who has always exercised religiously and “taken good care of herself” had a stroke earlier this year. She was in her 30s. Another very fit friend in his 40s just recently had a heart attack…while exercising.

Trying hanging around a chemo room someday. You’ll see very few “obese” people. Sadly, you’ll see a surprising number of very young, very fit people in there.

People who think they control their own fate WRT their health are very naive. If you remain uninsured simply because you are young or fit, you’re asking for serious problems, IMHO.[/quote]

You’re citing anecdotal cases. Looking at the “big” picture it is clearly evident that being obese poses a significantly higher risk compared to people who are normal weight and live healthy.

[sunny88]

[quote=CA renter]I also have to address the notion that you can avoid health problems by “eating right and getting exercise.”

We’ve known a surprisingly large number of young people (under 50 years old) who’ve been diagnosed with cancer — just estimating, maybe ~20 people or so. The first overweight person is this group was a cousin of mine who died from colon cancer this year. Every single other person was young, fit, and very health-conscious, even to the extreme of only eating organic foods and running/riding bikes 15+ miles per day. Many of these people had the same arrogant attitude toward overweight people and sickness that I see here. I’m not saying it’s healthy to be overweight, and it’s certainly not healthy to be obese, but too many people seem to miss the fact that genetics are a much bigger risk factor than simply being overweight (and obesity is most certainly genetic, in many cases, BTW). Don’t forget accidents and illnesses that are caused by other risky behaviours like drinking, smoking, or having unprotected sex. Add to that the expensive surgeries required by athletes who are injured while participating in sports (we know a number of these, too!). Don’t forget those who get in car or motorcycle accidents, or who fall off a ladder when doing home repairs, etc.

Anecdotally, another good friend who has always exercised religiously and “taken good care of herself” had a stroke earlier this year. She was in her 30s. Another very fit friend in his 40s just recently had a heart attack…while exercising.

Trying hanging around a chemo room someday. You’ll see very few “obese” people. Sadly, you’ll see a surprising number of very young, very fit people in there.

People who think they control their own fate WRT their health are very naive. If you remain uninsured simply because you are young or fit, you’re asking for serious problems, IMHO.[/quote]

You’re citing anecdotal cases. Looking at the “big” picture it is clearly evident that being obese poses a significantly higher risk compared to people who are normal weight and live healthy.

[sunny88]

[quote=CA renter]I also have to address the notion that you can avoid health problems by “eating right and getting exercise.”

We’ve known a surprisingly large number of young people (under 50 years old) who’ve been diagnosed with cancer — just estimating, maybe ~20 people or so. The first overweight person is this group was a cousin of mine who died from colon cancer this year. Every single other person was young, fit, and very health-conscious, even to the extreme of only eating organic foods and running/riding bikes 15+ miles per day. Many of these people had the same arrogant attitude toward overweight people and sickness that I see here. I’m not saying it’s healthy to be overweight, and it’s certainly not healthy to be obese, but too many people seem to miss the fact that genetics are a much bigger risk factor than simply being overweight (and obesity is most certainly genetic, in many cases, BTW). Don’t forget accidents and illnesses that are caused by other risky behaviours like drinking, smoking, or having unprotected sex. Add to that the expensive surgeries required by athletes who are injured while participating in sports (we know a number of these, too!). Don’t forget those who get in car or motorcycle accidents, or who fall off a ladder when doing home repairs, etc.

Anecdotally, another good friend who has always exercised religiously and “taken good care of herself” had a stroke earlier this year. She was in her 30s. Another very fit friend in his 40s just recently had a heart attack…while exercising.

Trying hanging around a chemo room someday. You’ll see very few “obese” people. Sadly, you’ll see a surprising number of very young, very fit people in there.

People who think they control their own fate WRT their health are very naive. If you remain uninsured simply because you are young or fit, you’re asking for serious problems, IMHO.[/quote]

You’re citing anecdotal cases. Looking at the “big” picture it is clearly evident that being obese poses a significantly higher risk compared to people who are normal weight and live healthy.

[surveyor]

CA:

It is interesting you bring up the AMA union because the discussion in the AMA mirrors the discussion that goes on in my profession, land surveying. Every year the land surveyors talk about the lack of surveyors and how we should solve it by weakening the standards and letting anybody (or more) practice. The issue has always led to the fact that if you loosen the standards for a profession, you generally get more people whose qualifications, knowledge, and expertise are “questionable.”

So I actually do side with the AMA because of their standards and honestly with the life and death issue we should have good standards. For my profession, at least the question of loosening standards is not a life or death issue. For doctors, it is.

But I do agree with you that it would be nice to increase the numbers of people in medical school, open up more medical schools, and help pay for the providers’ educations. However, here is the sticking point: what would the purpose of this be for? The people you put into these schools can’t make enough money to pay for their long education because “for profit” is bad! Why should anyone stick out school for 8 years plus pretty bad pay for a few years so that they can become a doctor?

Here’s the flip side of your medicare argument. Maybe the reason why there isn’t any private insurance for it available is because the government is doing it. In many instances, competition with the government is a losing battle. That’s why most companies prefer not to do it.

Consider also that many doctors refuse to take any Medicare patients. By directing medicare towards the entire population of the United States, this situation will be common place, and there will be fewer providers.

[quote=CA renter]
Seriously, there is no evidence that shows our system is in any way superior to a “socialized” system. To the contrary, everything I’ve ever seen shows that socialized medicine is superior to our for-profit system. If you or anyone else has **evidence** to the contrary, I’d love to see it.[/quote]

One of the things that has made America great is that there is a general recognition that profiteers (yes, for-profits) are generally the most efficient model for creating innovation and reducing costs.

Well, as for this assertion, here is something to ponder:

http://blog.heritage.org/2009/06/22/pri-government-run-health-care-costs-rise-faster-than-private-sector-care/

“The results are clear: Since 1970 — even without the prescription drug benefit — Medicare’s costs have risen 34% more, per patient, than the combined costs of all health care in America apart from Medicare and Medicaid, the vast majority of which is purchased through the private sector.

Since 1970, the per-patient costs of all health care apart from Medicare and Medicaid have risen from $364 to $7,119, while Medicare’s per-patient costs have risen from $368 to $9,634. Medicare’s costs have risen $2,511 more per patient.”

Not exactly a counter to your argument, but it does seem to show that a private sector driven solution would be a heck of a lot better than the government.

[img_assist|nid=11577|title=Medicare Chart|desc=|link=node|align=center|width=1110|height=600]

[surveyor]

CA:

It is interesting you bring up the AMA union because the discussion in the AMA mirrors the discussion that goes on in my profession, land surveying. Every year the land surveyors talk about the lack of surveyors and how we should solve it by weakening the standards and letting anybody (or more) practice. The issue has always led to the fact that if you loosen the standards for a profession, you generally get more people whose qualifications, knowledge, and expertise are “questionable.”

So I actually do side with the AMA because of their standards and honestly with the life and death issue we should have good standards. For my profession, at least the question of loosening standards is not a life or death issue. For doctors, it is.

But I do agree with you that it would be nice to increase the numbers of people in medical school, open up more medical schools, and help pay for the providers’ educations. However, here is the sticking point: what would the purpose of this be for? The people you put into these schools can’t make enough money to pay for their long education because “for profit” is bad! Why should anyone stick out school for 8 years plus pretty bad pay for a few years so that they can become a doctor?

Here’s the flip side of your medicare argument. Maybe the reason why there isn’t any private insurance for it available is because the government is doing it. In many instances, competition with the government is a losing battle. That’s why most companies prefer not to do it.

Consider also that many doctors refuse to take any Medicare patients. By directing medicare towards the entire population of the United States, this situation will be common place, and there will be fewer providers.

[quote=CA renter]
Seriously, there is no evidence that shows our system is in any way superior to a “socialized” system. To the contrary, everything I’ve ever seen shows that socialized medicine is superior to our for-profit system. If you or anyone else has **evidence** to the contrary, I’d love to see it.[/quote]

One of the things that has made America great is that there is a general recognition that profiteers (yes, for-profits) are generally the most efficient model for creating innovation and reducing costs.

Well, as for this assertion, here is something to ponder:

http://blog.heritage.org/2009/06/22/pri-government-run-health-care-costs-rise-faster-than-private-sector-care/

“The results are clear: Since 1970 — even without the prescription drug benefit — Medicare’s costs have risen 34% more, per patient, than the combined costs of all health care in America apart from Medicare and Medicaid, the vast majority of which is purchased through the private sector.

Since 1970, the per-patient costs of all health care apart from Medicare and Medicaid have risen from $364 to $7,119, while Medicare’s per-patient costs have risen from $368 to $9,634. Medicare’s costs have risen $2,511 more per patient.”

Not exactly a counter to your argument, but it does seem to show that a private sector driven solution would be a heck of a lot better than the government.

[img_assist|nid=11577|title=Medicare Chart|desc=|link=node|align=center|width=1110|height=600]

[surveyor]

CA:

It is interesting you bring up the AMA union because the discussion in the AMA mirrors the discussion that goes on in my profession, land surveying. Every year the land surveyors talk about the lack of surveyors and how we should solve it by weakening the standards and letting anybody (or more) practice. The issue has always led to the fact that if you loosen the standards for a profession, you generally get more people whose qualifications, knowledge, and expertise are “questionable.”

So I actually do side with the AMA because of their standards and honestly with the life and death issue we should have good standards. For my profession, at least the question of loosening standards is not a life or death issue. For doctors, it is.

But I do agree with you that it would be nice to increase the numbers of people in medical school, open up more medical schools, and help pay for the providers’ educations. However, here is the sticking point: what would the purpose of this be for? The people you put into these schools can’t make enough money to pay for their long education because “for profit” is bad! Why should anyone stick out school for 8 years plus pretty bad pay for a few years so that they can become a doctor?

Here’s the flip side of your medicare argument. Maybe the reason why there isn’t any private insurance for it available is because the government is doing it. In many instances, competition with the government is a losing battle. That’s why most companies prefer not to do it.

Consider also that many doctors refuse to take any Medicare patients. By directing medicare towards the entire population of the United States, this situation will be common place, and there will be fewer providers.

[quote=CA renter]
Seriously, there is no evidence that shows our system is in any way superior to a “socialized” system. To the contrary, everything I’ve ever seen shows that socialized medicine is superior to our for-profit system. If you or anyone else has **evidence** to the contrary, I’d love to see it.[/quote]

One of the things that has made America great is that there is a general recognition that profiteers (yes, for-profits) are generally the most efficient model for creating innovation and reducing costs.

Well, as for this assertion, here is something to ponder:

http://blog.heritage.org/2009/06/22/pri-government-run-health-care-costs-rise-faster-than-private-sector-care/

“The results are clear: Since 1970 — even without the prescription drug benefit — Medicare’s costs have risen 34% more, per patient, than the combined costs of all health care in America apart from Medicare and Medicaid, the vast majority of which is purchased through the private sector.

Since 1970, the per-patient costs of all health care apart from Medicare and Medicaid have risen from $364 to $7,119, while Medicare’s per-patient costs have risen from $368 to $9,634. Medicare’s costs have risen $2,511 more per patient.”

Not exactly a counter to your argument, but it does seem to show that a private sector driven solution would be a heck of a lot better than the government.

[img_assist|nid=11577|title=Medicare Chart|desc=|link=node|align=center|width=1110|height=600]

[surveyor]

CA:

It is interesting you bring up the AMA union because the discussion in the AMA mirrors the discussion that goes on in my profession, land surveying. Every year the land surveyors talk about the lack of surveyors and how we should solve it by weakening the standards and letting anybody (or more) practice. The issue has always led to the fact that if you loosen the standards for a profession, you generally get more people whose qualifications, knowledge, and expertise are “questionable.”

So I actually do side with the AMA because of their standards and honestly with the life and death issue we should have good standards. For my profession, at least the question of loosening standards is not a life or death issue. For doctors, it is.

But I do agree with you that it would be nice to increase the numbers of people in medical school, open up more medical schools, and help pay for the providers’ educations. However, here is the sticking point: what would the purpose of this be for? The people you put into these schools can’t make enough money to pay for their long education because “for profit” is bad! Why should anyone stick out school for 8 years plus pretty bad pay for a few years so that they can become a doctor?

Here’s the flip side of your medicare argument. Maybe the reason why there isn’t any private insurance for it available is because the government is doing it. In many instances, competition with the government is a losing battle. That’s why most companies prefer not to do it.

Consider also that many doctors refuse to take any Medicare patients. By directing medicare towards the entire population of the United States, this situation will be common place, and there will be fewer providers.

[quote=CA renter]
Seriously, there is no evidence that shows our system is in any way superior to a “socialized” system. To the contrary, everything I’ve ever seen shows that socialized medicine is superior to our for-profit system. If you or anyone else has **evidence** to the contrary, I’d love to see it.[/quote]

One of the things that has made America great is that there is a general recognition that profiteers (yes, for-profits) are generally the most efficient model for creating innovation and reducing costs.

Well, as for this assertion, here is something to ponder:

http://blog.heritage.org/2009/06/22/pri-government-run-health-care-costs-rise-faster-than-private-sector-care/

“The results are clear: Since 1970 — even without the prescription drug benefit — Medicare’s costs have risen 34% more, per patient, than the combined costs of all health care in America apart from Medicare and Medicaid, the vast majority of which is purchased through the private sector.

Since 1970, the per-patient costs of all health care apart from Medicare and Medicaid have risen from $364 to $7,119, while Medicare’s per-patient costs have risen from $368 to $9,634. Medicare’s costs have risen $2,511 more per patient.”

Not exactly a counter to your argument, but it does seem to show that a private sector driven solution would be a heck of a lot better than the government.

[img_assist|nid=11577|title=Medicare Chart|desc=|link=node|align=center|width=1110|height=600]

[surveyor]

CA:

It is interesting you bring up the AMA union because the discussion in the AMA mirrors the discussion that goes on in my profession, land surveying. Every year the land surveyors talk about the lack of surveyors and how we should solve it by weakening the standards and letting anybody (or more) practice. The issue has always led to the fact that if you loosen the standards for a profession, you generally get more people whose qualifications, knowledge, and expertise are “questionable.”

So I actually do side with the AMA because of their standards and honestly with the life and death issue we should have good standards. For my profession, at least the question of loosening standards is not a life or death issue. For doctors, it is.

But I do agree with you that it would be nice to increase the numbers of people in medical school, open up more medical schools, and help pay for the providers’ educations. However, here is the sticking point: what would the purpose of this be for? The people you put into these schools can’t make enough money to pay for their long education because “for profit” is bad! Why should anyone stick out school for 8 years plus pretty bad pay for a few years so that they can become a doctor?

Here’s the flip side of your medicare argument. Maybe the reason why there isn’t any private insurance for it available is because the government is doing it. In many instances, competition with the government is a losing battle. That’s why most companies prefer not to do it.

Consider also that many doctors refuse to take any Medicare patients. By directing medicare towards the entire population of the United States, this situation will be common place, and there will be fewer providers.

[quote=CA renter]
Seriously, there is no evidence that shows our system is in any way superior to a “socialized” system. To the contrary, everything I’ve ever seen shows that socialized medicine is superior to our for-profit system. If you or anyone else has **evidence** to the contrary, I’d love to see it.[/quote]

One of the things that has made America great is that there is a general recognition that profiteers (yes, for-profits) are generally the most efficient model for creating innovation and reducing costs.

Well, as for this assertion, here is something to ponder:

http://blog.heritage.org/2009/06/22/pri-government-run-health-care-costs-rise-faster-than-private-sector-care/

“The results are clear: Since 1970 — even without the prescription drug benefit — Medicare’s costs have risen 34% more, per patient, than the combined costs of all health care in America apart from Medicare and Medicaid, the vast majority of which is purchased through the private sector.

Since 1970, the per-patient costs of all health care apart from Medicare and Medicaid have risen from $364 to $7,119, while Medicare’s per-patient costs have risen from $368 to $9,634. Medicare’s costs have risen $2,511 more per patient.”

Not exactly a counter to your argument, but it does seem to show that a private sector driven solution would be a heck of a lot better than the government.

[img_assist|nid=11577|title=Medicare Chart|desc=|link=node|align=center|width=1110|height=600]

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=CA renter]I also have to address the notion that you can avoid health problems by “eating right and getting exercise.”

We’ve known a surprisingly large number of young people (under 50 years old) who’ve been diagnosed with cancer — just estimating, maybe ~20 people or so. The first overweight person is this group was a cousin of mine who died from colon cancer this year. Every single other person was young, fit, and very health-conscious, even to the extreme of only eating organic foods and running/riding bikes 15+ miles per day. Many of these people had the same arrogant attitude toward overweight people and sickness that I see here. I’m not saying it’s healthy to be overweight, and it’s certainly not healthy to be obese, but too many people seem to miss the fact that genetics are a much bigger risk factor than simply being overweight (and obesity is most certainly genetic, in many cases, BTW). Don’t forget accidents and illnesses that are caused by other risky behaviours like drinking, smoking, or having unprotected sex. Add to that the expensive surgeries required by athletes who are injured while participating in sports (we know a number of these, too!). Don’t forget those who get in car or motorcycle accidents, or who fall off a ladder when doing home repairs, etc.

Anecdotally, another good friend who has always exercised religiously and “taken good care of herself” had a stroke earlier this year. She was in her 30s. Another very fit friend in his 40s just recently had a heart attack…while exercising.

Trying hanging around a chemo room someday. You’ll see very few “obese” people. Sadly, you’ll see a surprising number of very young, very fit people in there.

People who think they control their own fate WRT their health are very naive. If you remain uninsured simply because you are young or fit, you’re asking for serious problems, IMHO.[/quote]

CA: I don’t disagree with your last statement, but I want to point out that, medically speaking, it DOES benefit one to eat properly and exercise.

My remarks about diet and exercise weren’t meant to single out overweight people. However, as a youth coach, I will tell you that kids nowadays ARE, generally speaking, more likely to be overweight and, more importantly, out of shape. They tend to be more sedentary than we were as kids (I’m 44, so we’re talking about growing up during the 1970s) and tend to eat more and more poorly, both in terms of volume and dietary choices.

Obesity in this country is endemic, and especially among the youth. Saying that is not a condemnation of overweight people, but it does underscore that, as a nation, we’re doing a pretty crappy job of looking after our health and our children’s health.

Add the reduction or elimination of PE and physical fitness programs at the elementary and middle school levels and you now have the whipsaw effect of overworked parents feeding their kids McDonalds due to time constraints and the kids not getting a decent amount of physical exercise as part of a daily routine.

The effects are pernicious, and a simple glance at the skyrocketing rates of juvenile diabetes supports this statement. When you look at the data and start targeting groups like kids from single parent families, or minorities, or lower end socio-economic backrounds/geographies, it becomes even more glaring.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=CA renter]I also have to address the notion that you can avoid health problems by “eating right and getting exercise.”

We’ve known a surprisingly large number of young people (under 50 years old) who’ve been diagnosed with cancer — just estimating, maybe ~20 people or so. The first overweight person is this group was a cousin of mine who died from colon cancer this year. Every single other person was young, fit, and very health-conscious, even to the extreme of only eating organic foods and running/riding bikes 15+ miles per day. Many of these people had the same arrogant attitude toward overweight people and sickness that I see here. I’m not saying it’s healthy to be overweight, and it’s certainly not healthy to be obese, but too many people seem to miss the fact that genetics are a much bigger risk factor than simply being overweight (and obesity is most certainly genetic, in many cases, BTW). Don’t forget accidents and illnesses that are caused by other risky behaviours like drinking, smoking, or having unprotected sex. Add to that the expensive surgeries required by athletes who are injured while participating in sports (we know a number of these, too!). Don’t forget those who get in car or motorcycle accidents, or who fall off a ladder when doing home repairs, etc.

Anecdotally, another good friend who has always exercised religiously and “taken good care of herself” had a stroke earlier this year. She was in her 30s. Another very fit friend in his 40s just recently had a heart attack…while exercising.

Trying hanging around a chemo room someday. You’ll see very few “obese” people. Sadly, you’ll see a surprising number of very young, very fit people in there.

People who think they control their own fate WRT their health are very naive. If you remain uninsured simply because you are young or fit, you’re asking for serious problems, IMHO.[/quote]

CA: I don’t disagree with your last statement, but I want to point out that, medically speaking, it DOES benefit one to eat properly and exercise.

My remarks about diet and exercise weren’t meant to single out overweight people. However, as a youth coach, I will tell you that kids nowadays ARE, generally speaking, more likely to be overweight and, more importantly, out of shape. They tend to be more sedentary than we were as kids (I’m 44, so we’re talking about growing up during the 1970s) and tend to eat more and more poorly, both in terms of volume and dietary choices.

Obesity in this country is endemic, and especially among the youth. Saying that is not a condemnation of overweight people, but it does underscore that, as a nation, we’re doing a pretty crappy job of looking after our health and our children’s health.

Add the reduction or elimination of PE and physical fitness programs at the elementary and middle school levels and you now have the whipsaw effect of overworked parents feeding their kids McDonalds due to time constraints and the kids not getting a decent amount of physical exercise as part of a daily routine.

The effects are pernicious, and a simple glance at the skyrocketing rates of juvenile diabetes supports this statement. When you look at the data and start targeting groups like kids from single parent families, or minorities, or lower end socio-economic backrounds/geographies, it becomes even more glaring.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=CA renter]I also have to address the notion that you can avoid health problems by “eating right and getting exercise.”

We’ve known a surprisingly large number of young people (under 50 years old) who’ve been diagnosed with cancer — just estimating, maybe ~20 people or so. The first overweight person is this group was a cousin of mine who died from colon cancer this year. Every single other person was young, fit, and very health-conscious, even to the extreme of only eating organic foods and running/riding bikes 15+ miles per day. Many of these people had the same arrogant attitude toward overweight people and sickness that I see here. I’m not saying it’s healthy to be overweight, and it’s certainly not healthy to be obese, but too many people seem to miss the fact that genetics are a much bigger risk factor than simply being overweight (and obesity is most certainly genetic, in many cases, BTW). Don’t forget accidents and illnesses that are caused by other risky behaviours like drinking, smoking, or having unprotected sex. Add to that the expensive surgeries required by athletes who are injured while participating in sports (we know a number of these, too!). Don’t forget those who get in car or motorcycle accidents, or who fall off a ladder when doing home repairs, etc.

Anecdotally, another good friend who has always exercised religiously and “taken good care of herself” had a stroke earlier this year. She was in her 30s. Another very fit friend in his 40s just recently had a heart attack…while exercising.

Trying hanging around a chemo room someday. You’ll see very few “obese” people. Sadly, you’ll see a surprising number of very young, very fit people in there.

People who think they control their own fate WRT their health are very naive. If you remain uninsured simply because you are young or fit, you’re asking for serious problems, IMHO.[/quote]

CA: I don’t disagree with your last statement, but I want to point out that, medically speaking, it DOES benefit one to eat properly and exercise.

My remarks about diet and exercise weren’t meant to single out overweight people. However, as a youth coach, I will tell you that kids nowadays ARE, generally speaking, more likely to be overweight and, more importantly, out of shape. They tend to be more sedentary than we were as kids (I’m 44, so we’re talking about growing up during the 1970s) and tend to eat more and more poorly, both in terms of volume and dietary choices.

Obesity in this country is endemic, and especially among the youth. Saying that is not a condemnation of overweight people, but it does underscore that, as a nation, we’re doing a pretty crappy job of looking after our health and our children’s health.

Add the reduction or elimination of PE and physical fitness programs at the elementary and middle school levels and you now have the whipsaw effect of overworked parents feeding their kids McDonalds due to time constraints and the kids not getting a decent amount of physical exercise as part of a daily routine.

The effects are pernicious, and a simple glance at the skyrocketing rates of juvenile diabetes supports this statement. When you look at the data and start targeting groups like kids from single parent families, or minorities, or lower end socio-economic backrounds/geographies, it becomes even more glaring.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=CA renter]I also have to address the notion that you can avoid health problems by “eating right and getting exercise.”

We’ve known a surprisingly large number of young people (under 50 years old) who’ve been diagnosed with cancer — just estimating, maybe ~20 people or so. The first overweight person is this group was a cousin of mine who died from colon cancer this year. Every single other person was young, fit, and very health-conscious, even to the extreme of only eating organic foods and running/riding bikes 15+ miles per day. Many of these people had the same arrogant attitude toward overweight people and sickness that I see here. I’m not saying it’s healthy to be overweight, and it’s certainly not healthy to be obese, but too many people seem to miss the fact that genetics are a much bigger risk factor than simply being overweight (and obesity is most certainly genetic, in many cases, BTW). Don’t forget accidents and illnesses that are caused by other risky behaviours like drinking, smoking, or having unprotected sex. Add to that the expensive surgeries required by athletes who are injured while participating in sports (we know a number of these, too!). Don’t forget those who get in car or motorcycle accidents, or who fall off a ladder when doing home repairs, etc.

Anecdotally, another good friend who has always exercised religiously and “taken good care of herself” had a stroke earlier this year. She was in her 30s. Another very fit friend in his 40s just recently had a heart attack…while exercising.

Trying hanging around a chemo room someday. You’ll see very few “obese” people. Sadly, you’ll see a surprising number of very young, very fit people in there.

People who think they control their own fate WRT their health are very naive. If you remain uninsured simply because you are young or fit, you’re asking for serious problems, IMHO.[/quote]

CA: I don’t disagree with your last statement, but I want to point out that, medically speaking, it DOES benefit one to eat properly and exercise.

My remarks about diet and exercise weren’t meant to single out overweight people. However, as a youth coach, I will tell you that kids nowadays ARE, generally speaking, more likely to be overweight and, more importantly, out of shape. They tend to be more sedentary than we were as kids (I’m 44, so we’re talking about growing up during the 1970s) and tend to eat more and more poorly, both in terms of volume and dietary choices.

Obesity in this country is endemic, and especially among the youth. Saying that is not a condemnation of overweight people, but it does underscore that, as a nation, we’re doing a pretty crappy job of looking after our health and our children’s health.

Add the reduction or elimination of PE and physical fitness programs at the elementary and middle school levels and you now have the whipsaw effect of overworked parents feeding their kids McDonalds due to time constraints and the kids not getting a decent amount of physical exercise as part of a daily routine.

The effects are pernicious, and a simple glance at the skyrocketing rates of juvenile diabetes supports this statement. When you look at the data and start targeting groups like kids from single parent families, or minorities, or lower end socio-economic backrounds/geographies, it becomes even more glaring.

[Author]

Posts