- Moderator
- #21
But Mrs. Obama gets crucified for suggesting that Americans eat healthier.
That criticism is just partisan politics, but I do agree with the critics that what we eat is none of the government's business.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
But Mrs. Obama gets crucified for suggesting that Americans eat healthier.
Enlighten us....what is it due to then?
See post 12.
Thanks and combine that all with the fact that over 40 million people have no, or inadequate health insurance sure does add to the problem.
You're welcome to your opinion. But discounting the problems and inefficiencies we have with administering health care in this country is just naive.
It's not because of Healthcare, the end........
Yup.
Miz Obama is all about dictating to others that they do without...not actually doing without herself.
It because Americans work harder, are under more stress on average and eat like shit. The obesity levels are horrible in this country which leads to horrible things like heart disease and diabetes. Many people in America just don't take care of themselves. Not a enough sense of personal responsibility when it comes to health.
It's not because of Healthcare, the end........
Well..yeah it is.
The English have a piss poor diet..they smoke like chimneys and drink far more then their American counter parts.
The difference is they see their doctors more often.
Compare Nicaragua and Costa Rica. Costa Rica has a very good preventative socialist health care setup.It's not because of Healthcare, the end........
Actually I know the answer. The same reason liberals blame everyone else for everything else. Because they don't believe individuals are responsible for their outcomes.
Actually I know the answer. The same reason liberals blame everyone else for everything else. Because they don't believe individuals are responsible for their outcomes.
Pointing out that the development of reliable quality outcome indicators is in its infancy (if you look at popular measure sets like HEDIS you'll notice that it's almost entirely process measures, not outcome measures) is one thing. That's a very fair statement.
But then transitioning into the suggest that health outcomes in the aggregate have no connection to a nation's health care system--well, that's just silly. There wouldn't be much reason to train more doctors or build more hospitals on the margin if there's no connection between quality of health services and national (i.e. summation of individual) health outcomes; there certainly wouldn't be any reason to spend $2 trillion+ per year on health care. That isn't to say we don't have lots of people making unhealthy choices; the point is that if health outcomes are completely disconnected from your health system, then that's a serious problem. It's one thing to spend massive of amounts of money to get decent or good outcomes, it's quite another to spend massive amounts of money and get exactly the same outcomes you would get without spending anything.
The real disconnect of note is that health itself isn't priced as an output good; we generally don't pay for health outcomes, we pay for procedures--this despite the fact that most of us are after health when we interact with the health care system. And that's very much related to the first point on the relative development of process and outcome measures (as well as the current state of quality reporting in the U.S.). I'd love to see a day when we stop paying for proxies and start paying for that which we actually want. Some of the infrastructure for that is being laid down now but that's a long way off.