View Single Post
Old 29th January 2017, 06:21 PM   #390
Minoosh
Penultimate Amazing
 
Minoosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 12,511
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
How would it be cheaper to just provide the health care?
This link provides the relevant data. It's got nothing to do with whether prevention is cheaper than a cure. Other developed countries have universal health care, spend far less on health care and have better outcomes. It's flat-out cheaper to just take care of everybody. The data is with me.

Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
Do you smoke? Are you obese? Do you use abuse drugs/alcohol?
How 'bout one from Column A, two from Column B?

Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
Those questions are much better predictors of an individual's risk for future health problems than genetics.
Are they, though? Can you provide data? Also, what about my questions re: genetics? Why is it OK to ignore genetic components in obesity, alcoholism, cancer and heart disease?

Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
We know that abuse of alcohol can lead to liver problems, cancer, etc.
And so how much of a person's cancer treatment should be covered if they have also abused alcohol? Does that apply to all cancers, or just certain ones? Do they get a credit if they got sober before they got cancer? Etc.

Look: "Nothing we can do" is pretty cheap. Lung cancer used to be pretty cheap! And, blaming people for pigging out, it's just not that simple. People seek solace where they can find it, and in the U.S. that often means grease, sugar, salt and starch. Most of us get sick and all of us die. I don't see the utility of blaming the patients.
Minoosh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top