Are you SURE you don't want healthcare for the poor?
Replies
-
Speaking of healthcare, though, just read today a study showing that an uninsured person is about %50 more likely to die in the hospital of a stroke or heart attack than an insured person.
Euthanasia. It is alive and well in America.
I would love to see the study/research behind this statistic. I would venture to say this is a result of other risk factors/life choices commonly shared among those who do not carry insurance (regardless of the reason). I find it hard to believe that care for a single incident alone is so inferior for those without health insurance they are 50% more likely to die.
The reasons listed were:
Having to delay getting care in the first place due to not being able to afford it.
More expensive, potentially life saving procedures are often not done on the uninsured that are done on the insured.
And the all around quality of care is simply lower if you are uninsured.
Here is a news article on the study: http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2010/06/10/uninsured-more-likely-to-die-in-hospital-study-finds/
The quality of my care is going to be lower than a politician, a celebrity, a sports star (even one in high school or college). Steve Jobs was able to get a transplant that pretty much no one else with the same illness as him could get. It is a harsh reality of the world that not everyone is able to get the same things. Should there be some basics that everyone gets? Sure, I don't have a problem with that, but the truth is that people with more resources are going to be able to get more, and they should, otherwise, what is the incentive to keep working for more?0 -
Speaking of healthcare, though, just read today a study showing that an uninsured person is about %50 more likely to die in the hospital of a stroke or heart attack than an insured person.
Euthanasia. It is alive and well in America.
I would love to see the study/research behind this statistic. I would venture to say this is a result of other risk factors/life choices commonly shared among those who do not carry insurance (regardless of the reason). I find it hard to believe that care for a single incident alone is so inferior for those without health insurance they are 50% more likely to die.
The reasons listed were:
Having to delay getting care in the first place due to not being able to afford it.
More expensive, potentially life saving procedures are often not done on the uninsured that are done on the insured.
And the all around quality of care is simply lower if you are uninsured.
Here is a news article on the study: http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2010/06/10/uninsured-more-likely-to-die-in-hospital-study-finds/
The quality of my care is going to be lower than a politician, a celebrity, a sports star (even one in high school or college). Steve Jobs was able to get a transplant that pretty much no one else with the same illness as him could get. It is a harsh reality of the world that not everyone is able to get the same things. Should there be some basics that everyone gets? Sure, I don't have a problem with that, but the truth is that people with more resources are going to be able to get more, and they should, otherwise, what is the incentive to keep working for more?
It's fine if you want to live in a society where low wage workers are deprived of their lives thanks to poor healthcare but I find it both reprehensible from a moral standpoint and foolish from a practical standpoint. Why should anyone work if they can't afford even their lives much less a creature comfort now and then, money to send their children to school so they can have better lives, and the security of knowing they have a safe place to live and transportation to and from work? Smarter people will realize crime pays and will pursue antisocial activities that are more rewarding. And why shouldn't they?
But if we truly are going to be that type of society fine, let's at least know that about ourselves and not pretend that the poor are getting the same care as everyone else because they aren't.0 -
Speaking of healthcare, though, just read today a study showing that an uninsured person is about %50 more likely to die in the hospital of a stroke or heart attack than an insured person.
Euthanasia. It is alive and well in America.
I would love to see the study/research behind this statistic. I would venture to say this is a result of other risk factors/life choices commonly shared among those who do not carry insurance (regardless of the reason). I find it hard to believe that care for a single incident alone is so inferior for those without health insurance they are 50% more likely to die.
The reasons listed were:
Having to delay getting care in the first place due to not being able to afford it.
More expensive, potentially life saving procedures are often not done on the uninsured that are done on the insured.
And the all around quality of care is simply lower if you are uninsured.
Here is a news article on the study: http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2010/06/10/uninsured-more-likely-to-die-in-hospital-study-finds/
The quality of my care is going to be lower than a politician, a celebrity, a sports star (even one in high school or college). Steve Jobs was able to get a transplant that pretty much no one else with the same illness as him could get. It is a harsh reality of the world that not everyone is able to get the same things. Should there be some basics that everyone gets? Sure, I don't have a problem with that, but the truth is that people with more resources are going to be able to get more, and they should, otherwise, what is the incentive to keep working for more?
It's fine if you want to live in a society where low wage workers are deprived of their lives thanks to poor healthcare but I find it both reprehensible from a moral standpoint and foolish from a practical standpoint. Why should anyone work if they can't afford even their lives much less a creature comfort now and then, money to send their children to school so they can have better lives, and the security of knowing they have a safe place to live and transportation to and from work? Smarter people will realize crime pays and will pursue antisocial activities that are more rewarding. And why shouldn't they?
But if we truly are going to be that type of society fine, let's at least know that about ourselves and not pretend that the poor are getting the same care as everyone else because they aren't.
I was a very low wage worker for a long time. My parents were low wage workers the entire time I was growing up. The first time we had any insurance at all was when I was in 8th grade and it was not good insurance at all. Even people with insurance and good jobs have to put off medical procedures until they can afford them. I would love to have no worries about medical bills or procedures. I've been in the position that I had to declare bankruptcy due to medical bills, even with good medical coverage. There have been societies that try to address the issues you stated above, to make everyone equal, to make sure that every citizen, regardless of their input to society, have the same things as everyone else. They fail. It inhibits growth, people aren't happy, and the society fails. Life isn't equal. It never has been.0 -
Speaking of healthcare, though, just read today a study showing that an uninsured person is about %50 more likely to die in the hospital of a stroke or heart attack than an insured person.
Euthanasia. It is alive and well in America.
I would love to see the study/research behind this statistic. I would venture to say this is a result of other risk factors/life choices commonly shared among those who do not carry insurance (regardless of the reason). I find it hard to believe that care for a single incident alone is so inferior for those without health insurance they are 50% more likely to die.
The reasons listed were:
Having to delay getting care in the first place due to not being able to afford it.
More expensive, potentially life saving procedures are often not done on the uninsured that are done on the insured.
And the all around quality of care is simply lower if you are uninsured.
Here is a news article on the study: http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2010/06/10/uninsured-more-likely-to-die-in-hospital-study-finds/
The quality of my care is going to be lower than a politician, a celebrity, a sports star (even one in high school or college). Steve Jobs was able to get a transplant that pretty much no one else with the same illness as him could get. It is a harsh reality of the world that not everyone is able to get the same things. Should there be some basics that everyone gets? Sure, I don't have a problem with that, but the truth is that people with more resources are going to be able to get more, and they should, otherwise, what is the incentive to keep working for more?
It's fine if you want to live in a society where low wage workers are deprived of their lives thanks to poor healthcare but I find it both reprehensible from a moral standpoint and foolish from a practical standpoint. Why should anyone work if they can't afford even their lives much less a creature comfort now and then, money to send their children to school so they can have better lives, and the security of knowing they have a safe place to live and transportation to and from work? Smarter people will realize crime pays and will pursue antisocial activities that are more rewarding. And why shouldn't they?
But if we truly are going to be that type of society fine, let's at least know that about ourselves and not pretend that the poor are getting the same care as everyone else because they aren't.
I was a very low wage worker for a long time. My parents were low wage workers the entire time I was growing up. The first time we had any insurance at all was when I was in 8th grade and it was not good insurance at all. Even people with insurance and good jobs have to put off medical procedures until they can afford them. I would love to have no worries about medical bills or procedures. I've been in the position that I had to declare bankruptcy due to medical bills, even with good medical coverage. There have been societies that try to address the issues you stated above, to make everyone equal, to make sure that every citizen, regardless of their input to society, have the same things as everyone else. They fail. It inhibits growth, people aren't happy, and the society fails. Life isn't equal. It never has been.
There is a difference between making everyone have the same things and making sure everyone has the same opportunities. Currently, the deck is stacked against the least fortunate among us.0 -
Speaking of healthcare, though, just read today a study showing that an uninsured person is about %50 more likely to die in the hospital of a stroke or heart attack than an insured person.
Euthanasia. It is alive and well in America.
I would love to see the study/research behind this statistic. I would venture to say this is a result of other risk factors/life choices commonly shared among those who do not carry insurance (regardless of the reason). I find it hard to believe that care for a single incident alone is so inferior for those without health insurance they are 50% more likely to die.
The reasons listed were:
Having to delay getting care in the first place due to not being able to afford it.
More expensive, potentially life saving procedures are often not done on the uninsured that are done on the insured.
And the all around quality of care is simply lower if you are uninsured.
Here is a news article on the study: http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2010/06/10/uninsured-more-likely-to-die-in-hospital-study-finds/
The quality of my care is going to be lower than a politician, a celebrity, a sports star (even one in high school or college). Steve Jobs was able to get a transplant that pretty much no one else with the same illness as him could get. It is a harsh reality of the world that not everyone is able to get the same things. Should there be some basics that everyone gets? Sure, I don't have a problem with that, but the truth is that people with more resources are going to be able to get more, and they should, otherwise, what is the incentive to keep working for more?
It's fine if you want to live in a society where low wage workers are deprived of their lives thanks to poor healthcare but I find it both reprehensible from a moral standpoint and foolish from a practical standpoint. Why should anyone work if they can't afford even their lives much less a creature comfort now and then, money to send their children to school so they can have better lives, and the security of knowing they have a safe place to live and transportation to and from work? Smarter people will realize crime pays and will pursue antisocial activities that are more rewarding. And why shouldn't they?
But if we truly are going to be that type of society fine, let's at least know that about ourselves and not pretend that the poor are getting the same care as everyone else because they aren't.
I was a very low wage worker for a long time. My parents were low wage workers the entire time I was growing up. The first time we had any insurance at all was when I was in 8th grade and it was not good insurance at all. Even people with insurance and good jobs have to put off medical procedures until they can afford them. I would love to have no worries about medical bills or procedures. I've been in the position that I had to declare bankruptcy due to medical bills, even with good medical coverage. There have been societies that try to address the issues you stated above, to make everyone equal, to make sure that every citizen, regardless of their input to society, have the same things as everyone else. They fail. It inhibits growth, people aren't happy, and the society fails. Life isn't equal. It never has been.
They don't fail, they have the highest standards of living in the world. Look at Norway. Most productive workforce, excellent quality of life.0 -
They don't fail, they have the highest standards of living in the world. Look at Norway. Most productive workforce, excellent quality of life.
Oh Mara! You are going to make me debate you about Norway again aren't ya?!0 -
They don't fail, they have the highest standards of living in the world. Look at Norway. Most productive workforce, excellent quality of life.
Oh Mara! You are going to make me debate you about Norway again aren't ya?!
:laugh:
Nope, I'll just say this:
When we are #1 instead of #16, I will concede that our system, government, and economic culture is #1. Until then, we need to look at what other countries are doing better than us.
Inequality-adjusted HDI
Main article: List of countries by inequality-adjusted HDI
The Inequality-adjusted Human Development Index (IHDI)[8] is a "measure of the average level of human development of people in a society once inequality is taken into account."[9]
Note: The green arrows (Increase), red arrows (Decrease), and blue dashes (Steady) represent changes in rank when compared to the 2012 value (see source - pg. 152)
Norway 0.894 (Steady)
Australia 0.864 (Steady)
Sweden 0.859 (Increase 3)
Netherlands 0.857 (Steady)
Germany 0.856 (Steady)
Ireland 0.850 (Steady)
Switzerland 0.849 (Increase 1)
Iceland 0.848 (Increase 3)
Denmark 0.845 (Increase 3)
Slovenia 0.840 (Increase 7)
Finland 0.839 (Increase 6)
Austria 0.837 (Increase 3)
Canada 0.832 (Decrease 4)
Czech Republic 0.826 (Increase 9)
Belgium 0.825 (Decrease 1)
United States 0.821 (Decrease 13)0 -
They don't fail, they have the highest standards of living in the world. Look at Norway. Most productive workforce, excellent quality of life.
Oh Mara! You are going to make me debate you about Norway again aren't ya?!
:laugh:
Nope, I'll just say this:
When we are #1 instead of #16, I will concede that our system, government, and economic culture is #1. Until then, we need to look at what other countries are doing better than us.
Inequality-adjusted HDI
Main article: List of countries by inequality-adjusted HDI
The Inequality-adjusted Human Development Index (IHDI)[8] is a "measure of the average level of human development of people in a society once inequality is taken into account."[9]
Note: The green arrows (Increase), red arrows (Decrease), and blue dashes (Steady) represent changes in rank when compared to the 2012 value (see source - pg. 152)
Norway 0.894 (Steady)
Australia 0.864 (Steady)
Sweden 0.859 (Increase 3)
Netherlands 0.857 (Steady)
Germany 0.856 (Steady)
Ireland 0.850 (Steady)
Switzerland 0.849 (Increase 1)
Iceland 0.848 (Increase 3)
Denmark 0.845 (Increase 3)
Slovenia 0.840 (Increase 7)
Finland 0.839 (Increase 6)
Austria 0.837 (Increase 3)
Canada 0.832 (Decrease 4)
Czech Republic 0.826 (Increase 9)
Belgium 0.825 (Decrease 1)
United States 0.821 (Decrease 13)
So you're comparing a country with a population of about 5 million people to a country with 315 million......Where does Brazil rank on this list? They have a population close to 200 Million and universal healthcare.0 -
They don't fail, they have the highest standards of living in the world. Look at Norway. Most productive workforce, excellent quality of life.
Oh Mara! You are going to make me debate you about Norway again aren't ya?!
:laugh:
Nope, I'll just say this:
When we are #1 instead of #16, I will concede that our system, government, and economic culture is #1. Until then, we need to look at what other countries are doing better than us.
Inequality-adjusted HDI
Main article: List of countries by inequality-adjusted HDI
The Inequality-adjusted Human Development Index (IHDI)[8] is a "measure of the average level of human development of people in a society once inequality is taken into account."[9]
Note: The green arrows (Increase), red arrows (Decrease), and blue dashes (Steady) represent changes in rank when compared to the 2012 value (see source - pg. 152)
Norway 0.894 (Steady)
Australia 0.864 (Steady)
Sweden 0.859 (Increase 3)
Netherlands 0.857 (Steady)
Germany 0.856 (Steady)
Ireland 0.850 (Steady)
Switzerland 0.849 (Increase 1)
Iceland 0.848 (Increase 3)
Denmark 0.845 (Increase 3)
Slovenia 0.840 (Increase 7)
Finland 0.839 (Increase 6)
Austria 0.837 (Increase 3)
Canada 0.832 (Decrease 4)
Czech Republic 0.826 (Increase 9)
Belgium 0.825 (Decrease 1)
United States 0.821 (Decrease 13)
So you're comparing a country with a population of about 5 million people to a country with 315 million......Where does Brazil rank on this list? They have a population close to 200 Million and universal healthcare.
I'm also comparing a country with more workers and vastly more resources. And we are America, we must be #1, we must be the best, the happiest, the smartest! We must not fail because we are the best country in the world and no one must be permitted to surpass our glorious and happy peoples!
0 -
They don't fail, they have the highest standards of living in the world. Look at Norway. Most productive workforce, excellent quality of life.
Oh Mara! You are going to make me debate you about Norway again aren't ya?!
:laugh:
Nope, I'll just say this:
When we are #1 instead of #16, I will concede that our system, government, and economic culture is #1. Until then, we need to look at what other countries are doing better than us.
Inequality-adjusted HDI
Main article: List of countries by inequality-adjusted HDI
The Inequality-adjusted Human Development Index (IHDI)[8] is a "measure of the average level of human development of people in a society once inequality is taken into account."[9]
Note: The green arrows (Increase), red arrows (Decrease), and blue dashes (Steady) represent changes in rank when compared to the 2012 value (see source - pg. 152)
Norway 0.894 (Steady)
Australia 0.864 (Steady)
Sweden 0.859 (Increase 3)
Netherlands 0.857 (Steady)
Germany 0.856 (Steady)
Ireland 0.850 (Steady)
Switzerland 0.849 (Increase 1)
Iceland 0.848 (Increase 3)
Denmark 0.845 (Increase 3)
Slovenia 0.840 (Increase 7)
Finland 0.839 (Increase 6)
Austria 0.837 (Increase 3)
Canada 0.832 (Decrease 4)
Czech Republic 0.826 (Increase 9)
Belgium 0.825 (Decrease 1)
United States 0.821 (Decrease 13)
So you're comparing a country with a population of about 5 million people to a country with 315 million......Where does Brazil rank on this list? They have a population close to 200 Million and universal healthcare.
I'm also comparing a country with more workers and vastly more resources. And we are America, we must be #1, we must be the best, the happiest, the smartest! We must not fail because we are the best country in the world and no one must be permitted to surpass our glorious and happy peoples!
lol
All true but you still didnt answer the question. 0 -
They don't fail, they have the highest standards of living in the world. Look at Norway. Most productive workforce, excellent quality of life.
Oh Mara! You are going to make me debate you about Norway again aren't ya?!
:laugh:
Nope, I'll just say this:
When we are #1 instead of #16, I will concede that our system, government, and economic culture is #1. Until then, we need to look at what other countries are doing better than us.
Inequality-adjusted HDI
Main article: List of countries by inequality-adjusted HDI
The Inequality-adjusted Human Development Index (IHDI)[8] is a "measure of the average level of human development of people in a society once inequality is taken into account."[9]
Note: The green arrows (Increase), red arrows (Decrease), and blue dashes (Steady) represent changes in rank when compared to the 2012 value (see source - pg. 152)
Norway 0.894 (Steady)
Australia 0.864 (Steady)
Sweden 0.859 (Increase 3)
Netherlands 0.857 (Steady)
Germany 0.856 (Steady)
Ireland 0.850 (Steady)
Switzerland 0.849 (Increase 1)
Iceland 0.848 (Increase 3)
Denmark 0.845 (Increase 3)
Slovenia 0.840 (Increase 7)
Finland 0.839 (Increase 6)
Austria 0.837 (Increase 3)
Canada 0.832 (Decrease 4)
Czech Republic 0.826 (Increase 9)
Belgium 0.825 (Decrease 1)
United States 0.821 (Decrease 13)
So you're comparing a country with a population of about 5 million people to a country with 315 million......Where does Brazil rank on this list? They have a population close to 200 Million and universal healthcare.
I'm also comparing a country with more workers and vastly more resources. And we are America, we must be #1, we must be the best, the happiest, the smartest! We must not fail because we are the best country in the world and no one must be permitted to surpass our glorious and happy peoples!
lol All true but you still didnt answer the question.
Can't even compare the two, America and Brazil aren't remotely similar. Brazil and the rest of Latin America have been used as basically colonies for the US and Europe even up to this day (which is shameful and should stop now!). Their resources and labor are stolen from them, their democratic governments corrupted or overthrown by the US any time they threaten US and corporate interests.
And I did answer your question, yep, I'm comparing America to Norway. They have an easier time probably with administrating properly but again, we have far more natural resources. Besides, American ingenuity can overcome any difficulties in our quest to be the best. USA! USA! USA!0 -
They don't fail, they have the highest standards of living in the world. Look at Norway. Most productive workforce, excellent quality of life.
Oh Mara! You are going to make me debate you about Norway again aren't ya?!
:laugh:
Nope, I'll just say this:
When we are #1 instead of #16, I will concede that our system, government, and economic culture is #1. Until then, we need to look at what other countries are doing better than us.
Inequality-adjusted HDI
Main article: List of countries by inequality-adjusted HDI
The Inequality-adjusted Human Development Index (IHDI)[8] is a "measure of the average level of human development of people in a society once inequality is taken into account."[9]
Note: The green arrows (Increase), red arrows (Decrease), and blue dashes (Steady) represent changes in rank when compared to the 2012 value (see source - pg. 152)
Norway 0.894 (Steady)
Australia 0.864 (Steady)
Sweden 0.859 (Increase 3)
Netherlands 0.857 (Steady)
Germany 0.856 (Steady)
Ireland 0.850 (Steady)
Switzerland 0.849 (Increase 1)
Iceland 0.848 (Increase 3)
Denmark 0.845 (Increase 3)
Slovenia 0.840 (Increase 7)
Finland 0.839 (Increase 6)
Austria 0.837 (Increase 3)
Canada 0.832 (Decrease 4)
Czech Republic 0.826 (Increase 9)
Belgium 0.825 (Decrease 1)
United States 0.821 (Decrease 13)
So you're comparing a country with a population of about 5 million people to a country with 315 million......Where does Brazil rank on this list? They have a population close to 200 Million and universal healthcare.
I'm also comparing a country with more workers and vastly more resources. And we are America, we must be #1, we must be the best, the happiest, the smartest! We must not fail because we are the best country in the world and no one must be permitted to surpass our glorious and happy peoples!
lol All true but you still didnt answer the question.
Can't even compare the two, America and Brazil aren't remotely similar. Brazil and the rest of Latin America have been used as basically colonies for the US and Europe even up to this day (which is shameful and should stop now!). Their resources and labor are stolen from them, their democratic governments corrupted or overthrown by the US any time they threaten US and corporate interests.
And I did answer your question, yep, I'm comparing America to Norway. They have an easier time probably with administrating properly but again, we have far more natural resources. Besides, American ingenuity can overcome any difficulties in our quest to be the best. USA! USA! USA!
Brazil has the 6th largest economy in the world, by GDP, and the only country OF ITS SIZE, in the top 6, to offer universal healthcare. Of the top 6 (the US obviously being No.1) Brazil most closely resembles the US in population and shear land mass. To be able to compare universal healthcare systems in different countries, one must take size of population and size of country into consideration to truly analyze its differences. Just for reference, US population 315M; Brazil population 200M. US land mass 3.7M sq miles; Brazil 3.2M sq miles. I know you know this but it doesn't fit your argument so you choose to ignore it.
By the way. The comparison in my original post was a statement not a question. I ask you again. Where does Brazil rank on your list?0 -
Brazil has the 6th largest economy in the world, by GDP, and the only country OF ITS SIZE, in the top 6, to offer universal healthcare. Of the top 6 (the US obviously being No.1) Brazil most closely resembles the US in population and shear land mass. To be able to compare universal healthcare systems in different countries, one must take size of population and size of country into consideration to truly analyze its differences. Just for reference, US population 315M; Brazil population 200M. US land mass 3.7M sq miles; Brazil 3.2M sq miles. I know you know this but it doesn't fit your argument so you choose to ignore it.
By the way. The comparison in my original post was a statement not a question. I ask you again. Where does Brazil rank on your list?
Brazil isn't even in the top, it ranks as high but not very high. To give you an idea, Chile and Argentina are ranked very high although not as high as the US.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2013_UN_Human_Development_Report_Quartiles.svg
I assume that is because in Brazil most of the wealth is in the hands of a very few. Not a society I want to live in and one I fear America is heading for. No middle class. Just the rich in their enclaves, protected by armed guards, and the poor in the streets. And war, endless war.0 -
yep, i am sure.0
-
yep, i am sure.
care to elaborate?0 -
I thought this was a 'friendly' debate site... Calling someone an idiot for her beliefs is character defining, in my opinion, as is using WIC when you drive a nice car with nice clothes and jewelry. Sell the car and get a cheaper one, sell the jewelry (aside from the sentimental), and consign your nice clothes to pay for things if you have to. I speak from experience as one who works as a teacher and whose husband earns upper middle class income. I have a chronic illness with 'good' medical insurance and sometimes have to do without to pay for the ongoing medical bills. People don't want to sacrifice, and seem to think they have a right to things they can't afford. It's pretty pathetic.
So, wait...you want someone to sell their "nice" car, which may already be paid off (if there's still a loan against it, that's a somewhat different matter, but you have no way of knowing that unless you know the person), for a "cheap" car, which could then raise the car insurance premium (because it's a "less safe" car), possibly a loan (certain cars have depreciate quickly, so even though it's a "nice" car, it doesn't mean it has any trade-in value), lower fuel economy (as most "cheap" cars are older or of poorer quality), and less reliability (thus resulting in costing more, due to the cost of repairing the car), because poor people shouldn't have "nice" things?
Oh, and while we're on the topic of transportation, not having a car at all really only works if you live in an urban, maybe suburban, area. If you're one of the rural poor, you're pretty fully f*cked if you don't have a car, because there is no public transportation to rely on, and there very well may not be anyone to carpool with.
And who says the jewelry she's wearing isn't the sentimental one? For all you know, that nice jewelry is all the jewelry she has left, and it was from her mother, who gave it to her before she passed away, or from her husband, just before he lost his job and was shipped off to Iraq.
Why hasn't this last recession taught people that just because they're poor now, it doesn't mean they've always been that way, and those nice things are the remains of that previous life?I have an idea for a thriller. Obama enlists the NIH to genetically engineer a population of even hungrier, lazier, and more sickly poor people to drain your hard-earned money. Our only hope is Rush Limbaugh and the NRA's army of patriots!
I thought that story became a reality when our population was basically force-fed corn and wheat products in a myriad of different forms and told that the processed foods were good for us?0
