Re: Yippee!!
- From: wsnell01@xxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 14 Nov 2009 05:13:38 -0800 (PST)
On Nov 12, 8:31 pm, Quadibloc <jsav...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Nov 12, 12:19 pm, Chris L Peterson <c...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
No, I'm not suggesting that at all. What I'm suggesting is that
statistics and economics should be what drives public health care. The
public should pay for works. It should not pay for procedures that have
low success rates, or for extending life for short times. It should
require that smokers and the obese get treated.
Given the context, you might be misunderstood.
Do you mean that smokers should receive treatment when they get lung
cancer, and the obese get treated when they have heart attacks...
or that smokers receive treatment to help them quit smoking, and the
obese receive treatment to help them lose weight?
Since nicotine is an addictive drug, and cigarettes have been, and
are, legal, I would recommend that rather than fighting a losing
battle, we simply:
- offer help in quitting smoking free to those who want it;
Except that offering help to quit isn't an incentive to quit. And
remember, most people don't smoke and never did.
- phase out legal tobacco by having the legal smoking age increase by
one day every day; that is, after day X, only those people who were 18
years of age or older on day X may legally posses tobacco for the
purpose of personal use.
Oh, great, now we have something else for drug dealers to sell, not to
mention the fact that the government would be treating people
differently under the law.
However, while I don't smoke, I've heard that some people, such as
schizophrenics, but many other clinically normal people as well, have
trouble concentrating - and tobacco is the only over-the-counter drug
that is effective in helping that. Also, it's an effective appetite
suppressant.
As for too much weight, it's all very well to say that people should
eat a healthy diet and get plenty of exercise. The demands of work,
problems with sleep, and the kinds of recreation people can afford to
engage in, however, create obstacles.
The rich go swimming, the poor do push-ups?
The poor can walk or ride a bike. Or take the stairs, not the
elevator. Snack on fruits and vegetables instead of doughnuts and
potato chips (which cost something on the order of $15 per pound when
purchased from a vending machine.) All of these things will help.
The poor get fired for
being asleep on the job after junk food is made illegal?
Hunger makes one sleepy??
Personal responsibility *is* a good idea, but not when it is handled
in a hypocritical and inequitable fashion.
One can still take personal responsibility in an "inequitable"
situation, even if other people are perceived to be "hypocritical."
.
- References:
- Re: Yippee!!
- From: wsnell01
- Re: Yippee!!
- From: Dennis Woos
- Re: Yippee!!
- From: Chris L Peterson
- Re: Yippee!!
- From: Dennis Woos
- Re: Yippee!!
- From: Chris L Peterson
- Re: Yippee!!
- From: Dennis Woos
- Re: Yippee!!
- From: Chris L Peterson
- Re: Yippee!!
- From: Dennis Woos
- Re: Yippee!!
- From: Chris L Peterson
- Re: Yippee!!
- From: Quadibloc
- Re: Yippee!!
- Prev by Date: Re: what's your bet?
- Next by Date: Re: Yippee!!
- Previous by thread: Re: Yippee!!
- Next by thread: Re: Yippee!!
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|