OPINION
U.S. health care hurt by unhealthy lifestyles
Gary Parker writes in the N&R that other countries’ health care systems and life expectancies are better because they have national health systems.
Much of the difference in life expectancy between the U.S. and other countries is a result of our unhealthy lifestyles. Obesity is rampant even among the young, which leads to many health problems. I once saw a U.S. tour group in China with a very overweight woman member. The Chinese stopped to stare, then laughed hysterically. They seldom see fat people, except foreign visitors.
We smoke, as do people in other countries. When someone gets lung cancer here, they are treated. Often this isn’t true in countries with national health. The only way to control national health care costs is to ration and refuse care to those over a certain age or with costly diseases. This is done in countries with universal care.
If you only treat people who will do well with treatment and don’t treat those who could have marginal results, statistics are skewed.
Lastly, if national health will be so wonderful, why does the Democratic plan making its way through Congress specifically exempt Congress and federal employees from participating in it?
Phyllis Picklesimer
High Point
What do you think?
Comments
This letter has been closed to new comments. Comments on letters to the editor are only accepted for 24 hours.
Inappropriate content? Please notify us.
Slaan
July 4, 2009 - 3:57 am EDT"We smoke, as do people in other countries. When someone gets lung cancer here, they are treated. Often this isn’t true in countries with national health. The only way to control national health care costs is to ration and refuse care to those over a certain age or with costly diseases. This is done in countries with universal care."
Errrr... you have it backwards. In national health care areas, everyone gets treated for their cancer, no matter their sickness or ability to pay. In America, if you have insurance you are treated... and hope that you don't get dumped by the insurance, and if you don't have insurance, you die. This is done in countries without universal care.
J D R
July 4, 2009 - 6:26 am EDT"In national health care areas, everyone gets treated for their cancer, no matter their sickness or ability to pay."
... at half the cost
Doug Johnson
July 4, 2009 - 5:12 am EDTFrom what I hear and read, if you are over certain ages in other countries, you just die.
I talked to a man, from Canada his wife had been in pain for a length time.
She had been waiting for 6 months to get a MRI.
He brought her to SC and got one next day.
If we go to this stand in line health care, I agree with the writer, let a federal employees enjoy it.
I ask again if our health care is so bad, why do other people come to USA for health care.
zeus80
July 4, 2009 - 5:40 am EDTdoug, good morning! Now I believe I understand what you "hear" most often on this site (and probably TV FOX news and Limbaugh radio), but I'm really curious to know what you "read" re "health care systems" in the world. So, if you don't mind, please tell me your favorite print publications. Thanks. And have a safe and happy Fourth of July 2009!
J D R
July 4, 2009 - 6:24 am EDT"Is America's current system sustainable? If not, what do you suggest?"
Why is question never addressed?
Rufus_T.Firefly
July 4, 2009 - 9:42 am EDTJDR,
Healthcare rises are currently doubling the rate of inflation and have be for some time. Our industry is losing out to foreign competition because business' has to cover the cost of healthcare in our country & don't in other countries. The model we have right now isn't working but as you said that doesn't seem to be part of the debate.
I've been pondering what the term conservative means for some time but denying reality while shooting the messenger seems to be two defining traits.
rbennet
July 4, 2009 - 11:00 am EDT"Why is question never addressed?"
Is the "what do you suggest" question not being addressed or are answers just being ignored because your mind is made up and all other suggestions are unimportant (see administration positions on cap/trade, stimulus bill, GM, "is not an option," etc. for examples)? I haven't counted or kept up, but, just from memory, I've read posts suggesting:
- Being able to cross state lines to increase insurance competition and lower prices,
- Redirecting lawsuit-driven care so that doctors don't assume they need to preemptively defend themselves against any and every unforeseen malpractice charges, driving up price of treatment just to pay for potentially useless CYA procedures,
- Making insurance plans more patient-specific and less expensive by cutting out useless riders unless you actually need them (Serious question- What pregnancy terms does your J.D.R.-specific plan spell out for you? Why?)
- Encouraging cash-only doc-in-a-box practices to handle non-emergencies
- Enforcing existing immigration laws
- Why an all-inclusive and immediate change? Why not have multiple states partner together to try different approaches. We could have 3-5 tactics tried nationwide for the next five years and decide which is the best approach after the end of the experimentation.
How is the topic not being addressed? Those are a few responses an old man could remember, and, prior to turning the entire healthcare system up on its end and merely hoping for the best, each could be experimented with locally to see if they'd help lessen costs and expand coverage. Which is what they're trying to convince us is their plan, right?
I'm not posting to argue the specifics of each, but to wonder how you can say a question is "never addressed."
(Stick with the 6:26am first post if you respond, please. Things get lost in this new format.)
J D R
July 4, 2009 - 11:21 am EDTWhy is question never addressed?
"Stick with the 6:26am first post if you respond, please. Things get lost in this new format."
Yes, I asked it several times in this thread .. I also asked it several times in previous threads' ... yours is the first response I've seen.
"I haven't counted or kept up, but, just from memory, I've read posts suggesting":
"- Being able to cross state lines to increase insurance competition and lower prices,"
Isn't that the part of the Portability currently proffered by the "Universal Plans" circling DC?
"Redirecting lawsuit-driven care ... "
I think we all agree that's 3% direct cost and 10% CYA procedures.
"Making insurance plans more patient-specific ... cutting out useless riders .. "
I think I have that .. and it affects my monthly premium. If a Fed plan included that, would you support it?
"What pregnancy terms does your J.D.R. specific plan spell out for you?"
I always thought that was included in women up to the age of menapause .. unless expressly eliminated by choice. As I recall over the years the different programs we've purchased had several "pregnacy coverage" options.
FWIW - I'm a huge porponent of pre-natal care - the insurance companies should GIVE that away 'cause it's a heck of a lot cheaper to deal with issues early than face later disaster .. seems there are alot of issues like that.
"Encouraging cash-only doc-in-a-box practices to handle non-emergencies."
I think I have that .. it's called a Deductable - and it affects my monthly premium.
"Enforcing existing immigration laws"
I guess that's related, but it's also not related.
"Why an all-inclusive and immediate change? Why not have multiple states partner together to try different approaches. We could have 3-5 tactics tried nationwide for the next five years and decide which is the best approach after the end of the experimentation."
I'm all for that.
"How is the topic not being addressed? Those are a few responses an old man could remember ... "
When I said "never addressed", I was talking specifically about this blog because I assume (ass-me, perhaps) this blog is somewhat reflective of the local citizenry ..
So where are these ideas being proffered, Roger? Show me they are part of the national debate in DC. I'm not saying they are bad ideas nor that they are not being put forth. Perhaps the Lame Stream media is infact ignoring the issue .. perhaps Partisan HATE drowns it out .. or perhaps I'm just deaf.
Show us.
rbennet
July 5, 2009 - 9:33 pm EDTI have more written, but it might not need posting.
Rufus mentioned "trimming the edges," which ties in with you mentioning 3% regarding malpractice what-nots.
To Rufus- hopefully you'll agree that percentage represents edge-trimming fairly well, too.
This is addressed to both of you in hopes that you'll both answer:
3% isn't enough?
Rufus_T.Firefly
July 4, 2009 - 12:40 pm EDTRB,
I congratulate you for throwing some substance out. I think your suggestions are trimming around the edges and wouldn't change the nature of the beast but all good thoughts. We're currently doubling inflation so we need fundamental change.
One that I did like is the multi-state pilot projects. I've often thought that experimenting with an approach is a good idea before rolling it out. All plans tarnish in the harsh glow of reality & it's better to work out the bugs on a small scale than a big scale.
rbennet
July 5, 2009 - 9:31 pm EDT"I congratulate you for throwing some substance out"
Seriously? Yeah, I considered my normal .govs and .edus, but I was tired of posting all the virtually-linkless and emotional fluff that I'm so renowned for. I thought posting unlinked ideas that weren't mine, and that I might not even agree with, was the solution to my persistent substance-deficit.
To strengthen it even more, I was considering following up with irrational and unrelated answers right before I start calling other posters racists and then quit posting on the thread altogether.
zeus80
July 4, 2009 - 5:21 am EDTMs. Pickelsimer, I feel confident that the "Democratic plan that makes its way through Congress" will resolve most concerns re a "universal health care system" for our nation. And I trust that soon you will be confident re the system also.
ghost from white oak
July 4, 2009 - 8:45 am EDTYou display a great amount of faith in the current clowns in DC, which I do not possess.
J D R
July 4, 2009 - 9:16 am EDTWhy do you keep ignoring the question, Ghost?
"Is America's current system sustainable? If not, what do you suggest?"
rbennet
July 4, 2009 - 11:01 am EDT"Why is question never addressed?"
Is the "what do you suggest" question not being addressed or are answers just being ignored because your mind is made up and all other suggestions are unimportant (see administration positions on cap/trade, stimulus bill, GM, "is not an option," etc. for examples)? I haven't counted or kept up, but, just from memory, I've read posts suggesting:
- Being able to cross state lines to increase insurance competition and lower prices,
- Redirecting lawsuit-driven care so that doctors don't assume they need to preemptively defend themselves against any and every unforeseen malpractice charges, driving up price of treatment just to pay for potentially useless CYA procedures,
- Making insurance plans more patient-specific and less expensive by cutting out useless riders unless you actually need them (Serious question- What pregnancy terms does your J.D.R.-specific plan spell out for you? Why?)
- Encouraging cash-only doc-in-a-box practices to handle non-emergencies
- Enforcing existing immigration laws
- Why an all-inclusive and immediate change? Why not have multiple states partner together to try different approaches. We could have 3-5 tactics tried nationwide for the next five years and decide which is the best approach after the end of the experimentation.
How is the topic not being addressed? Those are a few responses an old man could remember, and, prior to turning the entire healthcare system up on its end and merely hoping for the best, each could be experimented with locally to see if they'd help lessen costs and expand coverage. Which is what they're trying to convince us is their plan, right?
I'm not posting to argue the specifics of each, but to wonder how you can say a question is "never addressed."
(Stick with the 6:26am first post if you respond, please. Things get lost in this new format.)
Lakeshia
July 4, 2009 - 7:05 am EDTUnhealthy fat people are everywhere you look so the govmint needs to step in to curb our obesity epidemic - just as seat belt laws are enforced and just as health laws govern the use of tobacco products and just as it is illegal to serve alcohol to intoxicated people the govmint needs to step in and shut down those all-you-can-eat binge places - if people don't care enuf and have enuf sense to take care of their own health and safety it's only right for the govmint to step in 'cause ill health and obesity costs all of us -
huck
July 4, 2009 - 7:38 am EDTYou're right - unless we start taking care of ourselves, our health care costs will continue to rise, no matter what kind of "health plan" we implement. A national plan is not the answer to lowering our costs. The answer to controlling costs starts with ourselves.
J D R
July 4, 2009 - 9:21 am EDTI'm OK with limiting public health funding for folks that don't take care of themselves, e.g., those that smoke for over 5 years will be exempted from coverage for all but very basic lung-care issues .. I'd like to see ADM pick up the costs for diabeties (sp) .. companies handling toxic or noxious chemicals and process pick up full life-time costs for healthcare for all workers as well as those within a 5 mile radius of the stacks and 15 miles down-stream .. etc.
Also .. public health limited to 85 years of age.
rbennet
July 4, 2009 - 11:07 am EDT"I'm OK with limiting public health funding for folks that don't take care of themselves, e.g...."
Neat. You just solved our problem and we don't have to spend a single dime to "improve" things from today. We might even be able to save money. From now on, anyone living in public housing and/or not paying for all of their own food can have one (1) visit to a nurse practitioner each quarter and low-grade generic painkillers if needed. After all, they're not taking care of themselves.
And "public health limited to 85 years of age" can also have a GPA, SAT and IQ element tied to it regardless of age. Not bright? Sorry, you're not worth keeping around.
Why not? If the old ones are the most expensive because of their age (measured by a number), aren't the dumb ones, also capable of measurement, probably the most expensive because of their, well, dumbness? (Not exercising, smoking, drinking, excessive procreation, STDs in pursuit of excessive procreation, etc.).
Done. I commend you on a fine plan. Next.
J D R
July 4, 2009 - 11:28 am EDT"... anyone living in public housing ... "
" ... don't take care of themselves .. " becomes an issue. For example, The House of McDonalds is MUCH more prevelant in "ghettos" for teh somple reason they are less pron to theft than the typical grocery store.
"And 'public health limited to 85 years of age' can also have a GPA, SAT and IQ element tied to it regardless of age. Not bright? Sorry, you're not worth keeping around."
No - after 85 you reach approach the era of "Died of Old Age" .. which of cours no-one does any more .. yet we spend 30% of out total health care monies on the last year of peoples' lives. 30% dwarfs by a factor of 3 the 10% spent on tort defense.
You other "ideas" are just strawmen. I see no corrolation between GPA, SAT and IQ and "exercising, smoking, drinking, excessive procreation, STDs in pursuit of excessive procreation, etc."
rbennet
July 5, 2009 - 9:45 pm EDTI was just agreeing with your number aspect and looking for other similar and rational ways to save money.
Anyway, it was written in jest, but we can toss it around if you want. And thanks for the McD's comment. You're very right that they'll be more expensive health-wise, and I hadn't thought of that. Good call.
Anyway, dumb people breed more than intelligent and/or better decision makers do, often establishing a genetic cycle. As such, healthcare-wise, a single dumb person not only costs more than a single bright person during the course of his/her lifetime, but each individual dumb person is more likely to produce subsequent expenses (progeny) which cost significantly more than an individual 85 year old since the multiple dumb offspring will continue to breed indefinitely, with each brood continuing the cycle.
Old people only die once. Dumb families grow and grow and grow. Tell me again which would be most expensive.
danagain
July 4, 2009 - 8:13 am EDT"Errrr... you have it backwards. In national health care areas, everyone gets treated for their cancer, no matter their sickness or ability to pay."
Errrr....Read this article from the UK Times Slaan, it's quite interesting:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/scotland/article6088122.ece
Just the title:
Smokers and obese could be refused cancer treatment.
From Dr. John Smyth, a leading UK oncologist:
Professor Smyth said before the event that the billions spent on treatments could not be sustained and choices would have to be made. The NHS was already stretched to its limit treating those suffering from cancer, heart disease and stroke, and the discovery of new technologies and medicines was putting increased pressure on the health service's limited resources.
He added that society was facing a moral dilemma over lifestyle issues such as obesity, smoking and substance abuse. Such issues must be taken into consideration when a patient was in need of medical treatment, he said. “We've reached the stage where these difficult issues can no longer be ignored. Fast-forward five years and this problem is only going to get worse.
He added: “Public expectation is relentless - people want and expect more and more. But in the current economic climate there are fewer people earning money and contributing tax so the income for the Government goes down as the costs go up.”
The demand for drugs that are unavailable on the NHS on the grounds of cost has been a huge source of conflict in recent years. The issue was highlighted by the case of Mike Gray, 53, a bowel cancer sufferer from Moray, whose health board refused to supply him with the drug Cetuximab to prolong his life.
BTW, notice the picture of the fat ass on the page. If that's the UK definition of a fat ass then we need an entirely new definition. I've seen rear ends 2 to 3 times larger than that right here in Greensboro.
J D R
July 4, 2009 - 8:59 am EDT"Is America's current system sustainable? If not, what do you suggest?"
Why is question never addressed?
http://www.news-record.com/content/2009/07/02/article/it_s_time_to_fix_n...
danagain
July 4, 2009 - 9:01 am EDTNot forever, but I don't buy the Obama admin's contention that this is a crisis that must be dealt with this summer or the entire world will come crashing down. Even Sen. John (Lurch) Kerry suggested monitoring private companies over a 10 year period before implementing a public plan.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/25/kerry-pushes-for-public-o_n_220...
Legislation in the name of a "crisis", with a few exceptions, does not produce sound legislation. Just look at the stimulus bill.
Something does need to be done, but do you think rushing legislation through congress, most of it's members not even reading the legislation, in the name of a "crisis" is a sound idea?
J D R
July 4, 2009 - 9:08 am EDT"Legislation in the name of a "crisis", with a few exceptions, does not produce sound legislation. Just look at the War on Terrorism .. or Oxley Sarbanes .. or .. TARP .. heck this could go on a while.
btw there's a classic Conservative book, "Crisis or Leviathan?" that studies this phenom back to WWI.
J D R
July 4, 2009 - 9:42 am EDT"... what do you suggest?"
I find it so frustrating this is never addressed. Hannity and Rush are good at throwing stones, but not suggesting alternatives ... and I suspect many "on the right" have only "what ever they say is wrong" as an idea .. and these "leaders" on the right, being short on ideas are not spoon feeding their flock.
Show me to be wrong .. PLEASE
rbennet
July 4, 2009 - 11:01 am EDT"Why is question never addressed?"
Is the "what do you suggest" question not being addressed or are answers just being ignored because your mind is made up and all other suggestions are unimportant (see administration positions on cap/trade, stimulus bill, GM, "is not an option," etc. for examples)? I haven't counted or kept up, but, just from memory, I've read posts suggesting:
- Being able to cross state lines to increase insurance competition and lower prices,
- Redirecting lawsuit-driven care so that doctors don't assume they need to preemptively defend themselves against any and every unforeseen malpractice charges, driving up price of treatment just to pay for potentially useless CYA procedures,
- Making insurance plans more patient-specific and less expensive by cutting out useless riders unless you actually need them (Serious question- What pregnancy terms does your J.D.R.-specific plan spell out for you? Why?)
- Encouraging cash-only doc-in-a-box practices to handle non-emergencies
- Enforcing existing immigration laws
- Why an all-inclusive and immediate change? Why not have multiple states partner together to try different approaches. We could have 3-5 tactics tried nationwide for the next five years and decide which is the best approach after the end of the experimentation.
How is the topic not being addressed? Those are a few responses an old man could remember, and, prior to turning the entire healthcare system up on its end and merely hoping for the best, each could be experimented with locally to see if they'd help lessen costs and expand coverage. Which is what they're trying to convince us is their plan, right?
I'm not posting to argue the specifics of each, but to wonder how you can say a question is "never addressed."
(Stick with the 6:26am first post if you respond, please. Things get lost in this new format.)
miktay
July 4, 2009 - 9:01 am EDTThe right loves to use Canada and the U.K. as a whipping boy to trash public health care. Yet, in spite of all the anecdotal horror stories, a couple of facts remain true. According to a recent CBS News report, in the U.K. they spend about $2600 per year per person on health care. In the United States, we spend about $6300 per person per year. Over twice as much.
So people in the US should be twice as happy with their health care, right. Wrong. In the U.K. 90% of people are satisfied with their health care. In the US, 49% are satisfied with their health care. If you break the US numbers down further, you find that of Americans with corporate health insurance, 44% are satisfied. Meanwhile, 54% of Americans on Medicare are satisfied with their health care. So, people with the govmint plan are more satisfied than the people with corporate plans.
What the right is trying to do with these anecdotes is stir fear of health care rationing. As I and others on this blog have repeatedly pointed out, we already have health care rationing in America. If you don't have health insurance, you generally don't get health care until it is too late to do any good. If you do have health care, you are at the mercy of corporate bureaucrats who decide whether you get care or not.
Finally, let me point out that, by law, corporations are obligated to maximize profits for their shareholders. Legally, they may not do anything else. They are not in business to provide health care. They are in business to make money. So, if your health care conflicts with them making money, they are obligated to choose making money over your health.
Some things are just too important to be left to the tender mercies of corporate bureaucracies. Health care is one of those things.
News & Record Network Sites
Triad Weather
- Current Condition: CLOUDY
- Current Temperature: 48°
- UV Idx: 0
- Forecast High/Low: H: 0° L: 44°
User Tools
- Social Networking
- RSS
- Share
-
Sign in to MyNRWelcome, User
Search News-Record.com
closeSearch News & Record Article Archives
Not all of the newspaper's content appears online.
*There is a fee for downloading some older articles.
- Advertising
- Jobs @ News & Record
- e-AdPost
- About Us
- Privacy Policy
- Terms of Use
- Purchase Photos and Page Reprints
- Subscribe
Please contact us.
- 200 E. Market Street, Greensboro, NC 27401 (336) 373-7000 (800) 553-6880
- 155 Northpoint Ave., Suite 101, High Point, NC 27262 (336) 883-4422
- 203 E. Harris Place, Eden, NC 27288 (336) 627-1781
- 4213 S. Church Street, Burlington, NC 27215 (336) 449-7064
