Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
American-seniors-are-sicker-than-global-peers story.
Options
Replies
-
From the W.H.O. from their paper on overall efficiency of healthcare systems of member states.
http://www.who.int/healthinfo/paper30.pdf
Scroll down to get the rankings. U.S.A. ranked 37th.
A comparison of quality of care of the U.S. healthcare system to other countries.
https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/quality-u-s-healthcare-system-compare-countries/#item-start
Healthcare expenditure rankings.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_health_expenditure_per_capita
The U.S. healthcare system of the most expensive on the world by a factor of 1.5 to the next most expensive. Overall quality and efficiency of care rank is 37th. What conclusions would you draw from this about U.S. healthcare, the government, the providers and the insurance and pharmaceutical companies compared to the other most industrialized nations of the world?
3 -
Tort reform5
-
From the W.H.O. from their paper on overall efficiency of healthcare systems of member states.
http://www.who.int/healthinfo/paper30.pdf
Scroll down to get the rankings. U.S.A. ranked 37th.
A comparison of quality of care of the U.S. healthcare system to other countries.
https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/quality-u-s-healthcare-system-compare-countries/#item-start
Healthcare expenditure rankings.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_health_expenditure_per_capita
The U.S. healthcare system of the most expensive on the world by a factor of 1.5 to the next most expensive. Overall quality and efficiency of care rank is 37th. What conclusions would you draw from this about U.S. healthcare, the government, the providers and the insurance and pharmaceutical companies compared to the other most industrialized nations of the world?
Bingo.
I would love to see a detailed reconciliation of the difference between the US cost/person vs the industrialized world average. As an experienced business analyst/cost accountant, give me $750k, unlimited access to data and in a year, I'd have a full report
Might question the 1.5 factor vs the next highest. From the chart in the article linked Switzerland isn't far behind
We do have a cost problem vs the rest of the industrialized world.
1 -
I'm not sure how much pap smears, FOBT's, vaccinations, skin checks cost in US - but anyway my post that you quoted wasn't arguing about relative costs of health care, it was just answering post above me which claimed it was the lifestyle - poor diet and lack of excercise.
Lifestyle is more than just diet and exercise - the biggest lifestyle choice you can make for your health is don't smoke.
And don't drink to excess, and sun safety.
And there are cancers and other diseases with no correlation to lifestyle and there are genetic risks etc.
My point was that health outcomes are not as simple as just diet and exercise. They are a factor but not the whole story.
altnough, if 6 out of 7 Americans have access to health care (your figure) then 1/7 do not - that is millions of people without access to primary health care.2 -
janejellyroll wrote: »tbright1965 wrote: »Kind of playing devil's advocate, but technically having access to health care and being able to afford utilizing that access are two different things. Lots of Americans who have insurance wait until a health concern becomes insurmountable before going to a doctor, because even with insurance they can't afford to go.
I passed out a few months ago at my nephews baseball game. Turns out it was dehydration and heat exhaustion. But someone called 911 and the paramedics wanted to take me to the ER. I turned down the ambulance ride due to cost, but my dad insisted on driving me to the ER. They checked me in, did an EKG, and told me I was fine. After my insurance paid what it would, I ended up with @ $800 in bills. Probably would have been closer to $1500 if I'd gotten in the ambulance. If I had been home by myself, honestly, I wouldn't have gone to the ER at all for exactly that reason, scared of how much it would cost.
In the US, insurance means technically you have access to health care. It doesn't mean that it won't bankrupt you if you choose to use it. It's been awhile since I looked at the stats, but 10 or so years ago, the leading cause of bankruptcy in the US by a long shot was medical debt.
Having said that, I do totally agree that we make plenty of lifestyle choices here that would be easy to change and would vastly improve health outcomes. But I wonder - just thinking out loud - does a society where preventative medical care is too expensive contribute to a cultural norm of ignoring the need to take care of yourself? Like, "if our medical community doesn't prioritize preventative care, why should I? I'll just get everything checked out when I'm 50."? I don't know, I have to think about that
But how much does REAL prevention cost? You know, eating from the perimeter of the market, staying away from the foods in the center designed to taste really good, but most of us are tempted to eat too much? Moving more, eating less. Getting your annual exam, and so on.
Co pay for my annual visit is on the order of $25. My Dr weighs me, takes my BP, listens, probes, looks, and looks at the lab test results I do in advance. Maybe another $25-$50 in co-pays.
I mean I'm into it for less then $100 for that visit. I know my 19 year old pays more than that for an hour in the tattoo chair, so is it really that people don't have the money, or that they choose to spend it on other things? Does someone with a 2 pack a day smoking habit really not have the money for medical care? Just a few examples.
I spend less than $1/day dealing with my T2D as I'm to test 1x/day and I take 1 500mg Metformin (for now) in addition to my diet changes. (I was already exercising.)
So how much does it really cost?
I do realize other ailments may be more pricey. However, I think for most people, it's not an unbearable expense. It's just not a priority. Look at how many want insurance to pay for so much. One of the reasons things are expensive is because people want OTHERS to pay for them. That's usually the most expensive means of getting something.
Lifestyle choices that support disease prevention are important. They don't cancel out the importance and value of screening tests like regular cancer checks or preventative measures like vaccinations. They work hand-in-hand to support our health so if people are financially limited from getting all the recommended checks and preventative care, it can seriously impact their health.
I think all of us know people who did everything "right" and still wound up with medical conditions. In my case, the people were fortunate enough to have access to medical care that caught their conditions early enough to make a difference. I'd like to think everyone is that fortunate, but I know that isn't the case.
And even people with fully paid health care die.
The bottom line question is how are people responding with what they have? Are they making health a priority or not? As I said before, it's hard to expect others to care more than one cares for themselves.
And I get it. I've survived some major health issues in my 20s, in the era of HMOs.
And I get it, it's tempting to just say *kitten* it and eat little chocolate donuts for breakfast everyday. (Well, not really everyday, usually just those weeks I was on-call and out late. More tempting than keeping some almonds and an apple in my car like I do today.)
It takes some mental energy. And I still may be taken out by a motorist who decides they don't need to stop at stop signs anymore, even though I wear a day-glow yellow bike jersey with matching bright shoes, and lights on the front and back of my bike.
I'm not promised tomorrow. None of us are.
I don't expect SOCIETY to take care of me. That's MY job. Now if the motorist takes me out due to their inattentiveness at stop signs, I expect them (the motorist) to make me and my family whole. But that's not a social responsibility, it's on the at fault motorist for running over the cyclist who had the right of way, for example. (Just thinking of a near miss this weekend by some knucklehead who didn't stop at a "T" intersection where my group had the right of way crossing. Two of us went down avoiding the motorist who wasn't paying attention. All it cost was a pair of bike shorts, some cuts and scrapes and a trip to the LBS to sort out a bent derailleur. We were back on the road Sunday.)
So I'm just asking for people to do their part, which is take care of what is in their control. No one is forced to smoke. No one is forced to eat little chocolate donuts, breakfast, lunch and dinner. Few are forced to sit on the couch all weekend and do nothing. They may not be able to go out and ride 50-100 miles in a day or weekend. But they probably can get up and walk around the block a few times a day or similar. Or at least they can park furthest from the market and walk to the door and stop using the drive through.
How much would we have to take care of those who genetics dealt a bad hand if those who really have no excuse would do their part and fix what is in their control right now, such as diet, exercise and bad habits like smoking?
Well that, and what was mentioned above, where we spend so much at the end of life to grant a few low quality days, weeks or months of life.
If I'm terminal, don't go to heroic measures to give me a few low quality days. Buy me a nice bottle of scotch, and keep me well fed and let me go comfortably. Not hooked to a bunch of machines that are sucking mine or someone's wallet dry.
If I can't live, I don't want to be alive. Hooked to every machine that goes bing isn't living.6 -
tbright1965 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »tbright1965 wrote: »Kind of playing devil's advocate, but technically having access to health care and being able to afford utilizing that access are two different things. Lots of Americans who have insurance wait until a health concern becomes insurmountable before going to a doctor, because even with insurance they can't afford to go.
I passed out a few months ago at my nephews baseball game. Turns out it was dehydration and heat exhaustion. But someone called 911 and the paramedics wanted to take me to the ER. I turned down the ambulance ride due to cost, but my dad insisted on driving me to the ER. They checked me in, did an EKG, and told me I was fine. After my insurance paid what it would, I ended up with @ $800 in bills. Probably would have been closer to $1500 if I'd gotten in the ambulance. If I had been home by myself, honestly, I wouldn't have gone to the ER at all for exactly that reason, scared of how much it would cost.
In the US, insurance means technically you have access to health care. It doesn't mean that it won't bankrupt you if you choose to use it. It's been awhile since I looked at the stats, but 10 or so years ago, the leading cause of bankruptcy in the US by a long shot was medical debt.
Having said that, I do totally agree that we make plenty of lifestyle choices here that would be easy to change and would vastly improve health outcomes. But I wonder - just thinking out loud - does a society where preventative medical care is too expensive contribute to a cultural norm of ignoring the need to take care of yourself? Like, "if our medical community doesn't prioritize preventative care, why should I? I'll just get everything checked out when I'm 50."? I don't know, I have to think about that
But how much does REAL prevention cost? You know, eating from the perimeter of the market, staying away from the foods in the center designed to taste really good, but most of us are tempted to eat too much? Moving more, eating less. Getting your annual exam, and so on.
Co pay for my annual visit is on the order of $25. My Dr weighs me, takes my BP, listens, probes, looks, and looks at the lab test results I do in advance. Maybe another $25-$50 in co-pays.
I mean I'm into it for less then $100 for that visit. I know my 19 year old pays more than that for an hour in the tattoo chair, so is it really that people don't have the money, or that they choose to spend it on other things? Does someone with a 2 pack a day smoking habit really not have the money for medical care? Just a few examples.
I spend less than $1/day dealing with my T2D as I'm to test 1x/day and I take 1 500mg Metformin (for now) in addition to my diet changes. (I was already exercising.)
So how much does it really cost?
I do realize other ailments may be more pricey. However, I think for most people, it's not an unbearable expense. It's just not a priority. Look at how many want insurance to pay for so much. One of the reasons things are expensive is because people want OTHERS to pay for them. That's usually the most expensive means of getting something.
Lifestyle choices that support disease prevention are important. They don't cancel out the importance and value of screening tests like regular cancer checks or preventative measures like vaccinations. They work hand-in-hand to support our health so if people are financially limited from getting all the recommended checks and preventative care, it can seriously impact their health.
I think all of us know people who did everything "right" and still wound up with medical conditions. In my case, the people were fortunate enough to have access to medical care that caught their conditions early enough to make a difference. I'd like to think everyone is that fortunate, but I know that isn't the case.
And even people with fully paid health care die.
The bottom line question is how are people responding with what they have? Are they making health a priority or not? As I said before, it's hard to expect others to care more than one cares for themselves.
And I get it. I've survived some major health issues in my 20s, in the era of HMOs.
And I get it, it's tempting to just say *kitten* it and eat little chocolate donuts for breakfast everyday. (Well, not really everyday, usually just those weeks I was on-call and out late. More tempting than keeping some almonds and an apple in my car like I do today.)
It takes some mental energy. And I still may be taken out by a motorist who decides they don't need to stop at stop signs anymore, even though I wear a day-glow yellow bike jersey with matching bright shoes, and lights on the front and back of my bike.
I'm not promised tomorrow. None of us are.
I don't expect SOCIETY to take care of me. That's MY job. Now if the motorist takes me out due to their inattentiveness at stop signs, I expect them (the motorist) to make me and my family whole. But that's not a social responsibility, it's on the at fault motorist for running over the cyclist who had the right of way, for example. (Just thinking of a near miss this weekend by some knucklehead who didn't stop at a "T" intersection where my group had the right of way crossing. Two of us went down avoiding the motorist who wasn't paying attention. All it cost was a pair of bike shorts, some cuts and scrapes and a trip to the LBS to sort out a bent derailleur. We were back on the road Sunday.)
So I'm just asking for people to do their part, which is take care of what is in their control. No one is forced to smoke. No one is forced to eat little chocolate donuts, breakfast, lunch and dinner. Few are forced to sit on the couch all weekend and do nothing. They may not be able to go out and ride 50-100 miles in a day or weekend. But they probably can get up and walk around the block a few times a day or similar. Or at least they can park furthest from the market and walk to the door and stop using the drive through.
How much would we have to take care of those who genetics dealt a bad hand if those who really have no excuse would do their part and fix what is in their control right now, such as diet, exercise and bad habits like smoking?
Well that, and what was mentioned above, where we spend so much at the end of life to grant a few low quality days, weeks or months of life.
If I'm terminal, don't go to heroic measures to give me a few low quality days. Buy me a nice bottle of scotch, and keep me well fed and let me go comfortably. Not hooked to a bunch of machines that are sucking mine or someone's wallet dry.
If I can't live, I don't want to be alive. Hooked to every machine that goes bing isn't living.
I don't think anybody in this thread is expecting to eliminate death. The point is -- are American seniors sicker than their global peers (as the title claims) and, if so, why?
I've never wanted to eat chocolate donuts for breakfast every day, let alone for every meal. I'm honestly not even sure what that has to do with the subject. Are people really doing that? I'd have to see something indicating that was the case before I concluded that is why our seniors are sicker than others.4 -
janejellyroll wrote: »
I don't think anybody in this thread is expecting to eliminate death. The point is -- are American seniors sicker than their global peers (as the title claims) and, if so, why?
I've never wanted to eat chocolate donuts for breakfast every day, let alone for every meal. I'm honestly not even sure what that has to do with the subject. Are people really doing that? I'd have to see something indicating that was the case before I concluded that is why our seniors are sicker than others.
What does it have to do with the subject? Many eat at the drive through or equally as bad choices, then wonder why they need to be on statins, BP meds, diabetes meds, etc. Their exercise routine consists of running off at the mouth and jumping to conclusions. And when they are sick, they want to take a pill and have it fixed.
Guys who need Viagra probably have some health conditions that at the very least are not helping. At worst, the problem is a symptom of a much bigger issue.
But take the little blue pill instead of doing table pushbacks and making other lifestyle changes that would get things going.
So how much of our resources are devoted to addressing things that are totally preventable? That's how it relates.
Most people are sympathetic to those to whom genetics has dealt a bad hand. But what percentage is that?
People suggest we don't care for those without coverage. Maybe we have cared, but too many have stepped up to the trough and are needy not due to bad luck, but bad choices.
But it's politically incorrect to suggest that we might want to address both sides of the coin, not just the bad luck side.
That's my point. I hope it's clear.
5 -
tbright1965 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
I don't think anybody in this thread is expecting to eliminate death. The point is -- are American seniors sicker than their global peers (as the title claims) and, if so, why?
I've never wanted to eat chocolate donuts for breakfast every day, let alone for every meal. I'm honestly not even sure what that has to do with the subject. Are people really doing that? I'd have to see something indicating that was the case before I concluded that is why our seniors are sicker than others.
What does it have to do with the subject? Many eat at the drive through or equally as bad choices, then wonder why they need to be on statins, BP meds, diabetes meds, etc. Their exercise routine consists of running off at the mouth and jumping to conclusions. And when they are sick, they want to take a pill and have it fixed.
Guys who need Viagra probably have some health conditions that at the very least are not helping. At worst, the problem is a symptom of a much bigger issue.
But take the little blue pill instead of doing table pushbacks and making other lifestyle changes that would get things going.
So how much of our resources are devoted to addressing things that are totally preventable? That's how it relates.
Most people are sympathetic to those to whom genetics has dealt a bad hand. But what percentage is that?
People suggest we don't care for those without coverage. Maybe we have cared, but too many have stepped up to the trough and are needy not due to bad luck, but bad choices.
But it's politically incorrect to suggest that we might want to address both sides of the coin, not just the bad luck side.
That's my point. I hope it's clear.
I'm not accusing you of political incorrectness. I think you're addressing points that others have made. Your responses don't seem to have much relation to what I'm actually typing here.3 -
janejellyroll wrote: »I'm not accusing you of political incorrectness. I think you're addressing points that others have made. Your responses don't seem to have much relation to what I'm actually typing here.
Okay, so because you cannot see the link, I'm not supposed to participate?
4 -
tbright1965 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »I'm not accusing you of political incorrectness. I think you're addressing points that others have made. Your responses don't seem to have much relation to what I'm actually typing here.
Okay, so because you cannot see the link, I'm not supposed to participate?
Whoa, when did I say you shouldn't participate? I never wrote anything close to that.
Again, your responses don't have much to do with what I'm actually typing. And no, that's not me saying you shouldn't participate. That's me sharing my *impression* of your posts, which is perfectly compatible with your continued and robust participation in this thread and any other thread you wish to contribute to.4 -
janejellyroll wrote: »tbright1965 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »I'm not accusing you of political incorrectness. I think you're addressing points that others have made. Your responses don't seem to have much relation to what I'm actually typing here.
Okay, so because you cannot see the link, I'm not supposed to participate?
Whoa, when did I say you shouldn't participate? I never wrote anything close to that.
Again, your responses don't have much to do with what I'm actually typing. And no, that's not me saying you shouldn't participate. That's me sharing my *impression* of your posts, which is perfectly compatible with your continued and robust participation in this thread and any other thread you wish to contribute to.
Well, probably because I was answering others. But I did answer you, and explained how my position related to the topic.
I presume you read my first post in the thread, where I was answering another person.
Now if I need to clarify, I'm happy to do so. But to just say my answer doesn't address what you said doesn't really seem as if you are asking for clarification. It comes across as you are simply saying the answer isn't good. (It may or may not be.)
If you have a particular and specific point you would like me to clarify, I'd be happy to do so.
Perhaps I've not been clear. I'm always willing to clarify if my thoughts are not clear.
If it's simply a matter of disagreement, well, I'm not sure what I can do about that.
You do you, and I'll do me
3 -
tbright1965 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »tbright1965 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »I'm not accusing you of political incorrectness. I think you're addressing points that others have made. Your responses don't seem to have much relation to what I'm actually typing here.
Okay, so because you cannot see the link, I'm not supposed to participate?
Whoa, when did I say you shouldn't participate? I never wrote anything close to that.
Again, your responses don't have much to do with what I'm actually typing. And no, that's not me saying you shouldn't participate. That's me sharing my *impression* of your posts, which is perfectly compatible with your continued and robust participation in this thread and any other thread you wish to contribute to.
Well, probably because I was answering others. But I did answer you, and explained how my position related to the topic.
I presume you read my first post in the thread, where I was answering another person.
Now if I need to clarify, I'm happy to do so. But to just say my answer doesn't address what you said doesn't really seem as if you are asking for clarification. It comes across as you are simply saying the answer isn't good. (It may or may not be.)
If you have a particular and specific point you would like me to clarify, I'd be happy to do so.
Perhaps I've not been clear. I'm always willing to clarify if my thoughts are not clear.
If it's simply a matter of disagreement, well, I'm not sure what I can do about that.
You do you, and I'll do me
Well, let me clarify. Whenever I write to someone that I don't understand why they're writing something in particular to me, I'm always trying to communicate simply that I don't understand. That gives the person a chance to restate it (if they wish) or simply decide it isn't worth the time to try to communicate with me. It never means "You aren't supposed to participate in the conversation."
For the specific points where I said I didn't understand why you were writing something, those were not disagreements. I wrote what I meant: that I didn't understand how your responses related to what I was writing. If I simply disagreed, I would have written that.
If you were answering others in your posts that were quote responses to me, that would certainly contribute to my confusion and if that is part of it, then I apologize for not understanding you were addressing other people in those posts.
At this point, there seems to be such an impasse between what I'm writing and what you're reading that I'm not sure it's worthwhile to continue, so I just hope you have a nice day.4 -
janejellyroll wrote: »tbright1965 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »tbright1965 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »I'm not accusing you of political incorrectness. I think you're addressing points that others have made. Your responses don't seem to have much relation to what I'm actually typing here.
Okay, so because you cannot see the link, I'm not supposed to participate?
Whoa, when did I say you shouldn't participate? I never wrote anything close to that.
Again, your responses don't have much to do with what I'm actually typing. And no, that's not me saying you shouldn't participate. That's me sharing my *impression* of your posts, which is perfectly compatible with your continued and robust participation in this thread and any other thread you wish to contribute to.
Well, probably because I was answering others. But I did answer you, and explained how my position related to the topic.
I presume you read my first post in the thread, where I was answering another person.
Now if I need to clarify, I'm happy to do so. But to just say my answer doesn't address what you said doesn't really seem as if you are asking for clarification. It comes across as you are simply saying the answer isn't good. (It may or may not be.)
If you have a particular and specific point you would like me to clarify, I'd be happy to do so.
Perhaps I've not been clear. I'm always willing to clarify if my thoughts are not clear.
If it's simply a matter of disagreement, well, I'm not sure what I can do about that.
You do you, and I'll do me
Well, let me clarify. Whenever I write to someone that I don't understand why they're writing something in particular to me, I'm always trying to communicate simply that I don't understand. That gives the person a chance to restate it (if they wish) or simply decide it isn't worth the time to try to communicate with me. It never means "You aren't supposed to participate in the conversation."
For the specific points where I said I didn't understand why you were writing something, those were not disagreements. I wrote what I meant: that I didn't understand how your responses related to what I was writing. If I simply disagreed, I would have written that.
If you were answering others in your posts that were quote responses to me, that would certainly contribute to my confusion and if that is part of it, then I apologize for not understanding you were addressing other people in those posts.
At this point, there seems to be such an impasse between what I'm writing and what you're reading that I'm not sure it's worthwhile to continue, so I just hope you have a nice day.
Okay, you asked about my statement that we all die. I didn't really think anyone presumed I thought someone might think we could live forever.
But I think I brought it back around to quality of life. We may not live forever, but what quality of life could we have?
I believe that much of that is incumbent on the person and their choices.
As I said, in other ways, if you choose to smoke unfiltered Camels, watch Honey Boo Boo while eating pork rinds and washing it down with Natty Light (after all, health) then you probably won't have high quality years at the end of your life.
If you eat less and move more, odds are, you'll have more years and more quality years. You have better odds of not dealing with numerous chronic conditions that the Camel smoker described above may have.
The individual has a great deal of control over his choices. He cannot choose his genetics, but he can choose how he lives his life.
Spend some time in a Wal*Mart or watching people at a fast food outlet or a C-store and you will see a large number of people choosing to ignore the professional advice and smoke, dip, chew, eat crap, often move less by choosing the drive through, etc.
And I've been clear that I'm talking about those who have a choice. I don't know of many babies who are born with a nicotine addiction and have to follow in dad's footsteps and smoke Camels with him. Crack babies, yes. Nicotine babies, can't say I've heard of them.
We spend 12 or 13 years teaching kids to not smoke, choose healthy foods, move, have safe sex, and so on. But some ignore the advice and choose otherwise.
When they get older, they are going to cost more.
How does it relate to the topic. Those choices add up. At some point, you have to pay the piper. My comments address the perception that it's because 1/7th of the population doesn't have access to healthcare. How much access to healthcare do you need to follow the advice of your 7th grade health book?
Don't smoke Camels, don't be a couch potato because life and your body is a use it or lose it situation. If you want to have a relatively good old age, you need to develop good habits when you are young and it's relatively easy to develop those habits.
That's my point.
People have had a lifetime to develop good habits. If they don't, there's no quick or inexpensive fix for it when you are 60+ years old. We have more opportunity and I believe many, maybe most let it slip away.
What have people done with the opportunity they had when they were young and how do those choices impact them today when they are senior citizens?
I don't know how else to make it clear how this relates to the topic of American Seniors are Sicker than Global Peers.
3 -
tbright1965 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
I don't think anybody in this thread is expecting to eliminate death. The point is -- are American seniors sicker than their global peers (as the title claims) and, if so, why?
I've never wanted to eat chocolate donuts for breakfast every day, let alone for every meal. I'm honestly not even sure what that has to do with the subject. Are people really doing that? I'd have to see something indicating that was the case before I concluded that is why our seniors are sicker than others.
What does it have to do with the subject? Many eat at the drive through or equally as bad choices, then wonder why they need to be on statins, BP meds, diabetes meds, etc. Their exercise routine consists of running off at the mouth and jumping to conclusions. And when they are sick, they want to take a pill and have it fixed.
Guys who need Viagra probably have some health conditions that at the very least are not helping. At worst, the problem is a symptom of a much bigger issue.
But take the little blue pill instead of doing table pushbacks and making other lifestyle changes that would get things going.
So how much of our resources are devoted to addressing things that are totally preventable? That's how it relates.
Most people are sympathetic to those to whom genetics has dealt a bad hand. But what percentage is that?
People suggest we don't care for those without coverage. Maybe we have cared, but too many have stepped up to the trough and are needy not due to bad luck, but bad choices.
But it's politically incorrect to suggest that we might want to address both sides of the coin, not just the bad luck side.
That's my point. I hope it's clear.
I think some of this is really unfair judgmental things to say.
Stigmatising erectile dysfunction like this to say in effect it is all the persons fault
and genetics is a big percentage of many diseases - most diseases arent single factor.
and suggesting many sick people or people with chronic diseases are just stepping up to the trough??
I'm glad you are healthy.
I am healthy too - but I dont consider that all my own work - some of it is lifestyle factors, genetic factors and just luck of the draw factors.
and fortunately when i did have a problem, I had easy relatively cheap access to tests and surgery and follow up treatment
I certainly needed far more access to health care than reading a school book
I dont know why American seniors are less healthy than those in comparable countries - I would suggest it is a combination of lifestyle and your health system which means poor access to health care for many people (1 in 7 according to your own figure)
7 -
paperpudding wrote: »tbright1965 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
I don't think anybody in this thread is expecting to eliminate death. The point is -- are American seniors sicker than their global peers (as the title claims) and, if so, why?
I've never wanted to eat chocolate donuts for breakfast every day, let alone for every meal. I'm honestly not even sure what that has to do with the subject. Are people really doing that? I'd have to see something indicating that was the case before I concluded that is why our seniors are sicker than others.
What does it have to do with the subject? Many eat at the drive through or equally as bad choices, then wonder why they need to be on statins, BP meds, diabetes meds, etc. Their exercise routine consists of running off at the mouth and jumping to conclusions. And when they are sick, they want to take a pill and have it fixed.
Guys who need Viagra probably have some health conditions that at the very least are not helping. At worst, the problem is a symptom of a much bigger issue.
But take the little blue pill instead of doing table pushbacks and making other lifestyle changes that would get things going.
So how much of our resources are devoted to addressing things that are totally preventable? That's how it relates.
Most people are sympathetic to those to whom genetics has dealt a bad hand. But what percentage is that?
People suggest we don't care for those without coverage. Maybe we have cared, but too many have stepped up to the trough and are needy not due to bad luck, but bad choices.
But it's politically incorrect to suggest that we might want to address both sides of the coin, not just the bad luck side.
That's my point. I hope it's clear.
I think some of this is really unfair judgmental things to say.
Stigmatising erectile dysfunction like this to say in effect it is all the persons fault
and genetics is a big percentage of many diseases - most diseases arent single factor.
and suggesting many sick people or people with chronic diseases are just stepping up to the trough??
I'm glad you are healthy.
I am healthy too - but I dont consider that all my own work - some of it is lifestyle factors, genetic factors and just luck of the draw factors.
and fortunately when i did have a problem, I had easy relatively cheap access to tests and surgery and follow up treatment
I certainly needed far more access to health care than reading a school book
I dont know why American seniors are less healthy than those in comparable countries - I would suggest it is a combination of lifestyle and your health system which means poor access to health care for many people (1 in 7 according to your own figure)
What's unfair about calling out people on their behavior? Especially when there are those who believe in sharing the costs of those behaviors with the general public?
Those who want society to pay for care are subject to the judgments of society.
As long as I'm not paying, I really don't give a rip what someone does.
But when they suggest that "We the People" should be on the hook to pay for their care, then it becomes my business as a member of "We the People."
You can't have it both ways. If you want no judgments from the taxpayer, and that's the point of view I'm taking, then you have to ensure that the taxpayer is not on the hook for the costs of the behavior.
Once the taxpayer is on the hook, the behavior is legitimately subject to judgment.
I don't doubt there are those for whom Viagra or other treatments are addressing a problem that isn't created by the behavior of the person taking it.
However, since that aspect of function depends on the proper function of small blood vessels, the behaviors I've mentioned, smoking, bad diet and lack of exercise are likely the far biggest contributors to the problem, and totally preventable without heroic medical efforts.
I've survived illness that could kill me 24 years ago, so I've seen both sides of the coin. I've also made choices that were not so good. I don't expect society to pick up the tab for me. That's my job.
Type 2 diabetes runs in my family. I have to watch what I eat or my blood glucose will reach diabetic levels. Again, no major medicinal heroics. Stay below 2250 calories/day and 225g of carbs/day 60g/meal and 45g/day in snacks and my BG levels are controlled. My mother and grandmother both are able to control their with diet as well.
How many others could do the same? I have a co-worker in the same boat I am in. Both of us are able to control it by paying attention to what we eat. Getting back down very close to my body weight when I left the Army in 1992 has helped. He is down to his high school graduation weight after a couple of years on the path.
No heroic efforts needed. Just will power and paying attention to what's on the end of the fork. I learned that working out wasn't enough. I was already exercising. But I couldn't out run (well out bike) or out work my fork.
How many others would benefit from the same sort of discipline? But instead of taking some time to research the topic, they just pop a pill and make another lap around the drive through?
As long as there are those out there demanding taxpayers pick up the tab for others, it's not unreasonable for taxpayers to question the circumstances we are being asked to fix with the taxes we pay.
If you want me to stop calling people out for bad choices, then stop asking or expecting government, funded by taxes, to pick up the tab for medical care.7 -
I didnt say it was unfair calling people out on their behaviour - I said it was unfair and judgmental to imply that erectile dysfunction was all the patients fault - it isnt.
It is enough of a stigmatised condition already without that.
Nor are many other diseases - almost all are at least multi factoral
Your whole post sounds smug and judgmental and condescending to me.
Just because your diabetes can be controlled by diet doesn't mean everyone's can.
and yes I am happy with a nationalised medical system - like we have in Australia and UK.
One of the reasons for poorer outcomes for seniors in America, the question posed in OP, is probably poor access to health care because of your health care system.7 -
paperpudding wrote: »I didnt say it was unfair calling people out on their behaviour - I said it was unfair and judgmental to imply that erectile dysfunction was all the patients fault - it isnt.
It is enough of a stigmatised condition already without that.
Nor are many other diseases - almost all are at least multi factoral
Your whole post sounds smug and judgmental and condescending to me.
Just because your diabetes can be controlled by diet doesn't mean everyone's can.
and yes I am happy with a nationalised medical system - like we have in Australia and UK.
One of the reasons for poorer outcomes for seniors in America, the question posed in OP, is probably poor access to health care because of your health care system.
Actually, if you do some reading, ED is often (not always as I clearly stated) due to the choices made by people.
Just this morning, driving in I heard on the radio a study that showed that teens who smoked were already experiencing hardening of the arteries at 17 years of age. You do realize that arterial plaque is one of the causes of ED. Drugs like Viagra are vasodilators, relaxing blood vessel walls.
So they are being used by people who made choices to eat poorly and screw up their circulatory system.
I didn't say those are the ONLY people using them. But it's not correct to say that people are not to blame for ED. Many have no one to blame but themselves for their choices of food, smoking and low to no exercise. All can be contributing factors to ED.7 -
Yes I work in medical field, so, yes, I do realise how these medications work.
I see your condescending tone continues along with your judgement of other peoples medical issues
ED like most diseases is multi factorial - and they are used by many people who have problem of various origin.
That isn't the question asked though and is straying far from topic.
A topic nobody else seems interested in any more - so over and out from me too.
No more from me unless anyone else has anything new to add - you can continue your blaming of everyone else by yourself now.7 -
paperpudding wrote: »Yes I work in medical field, so, yes, I do realise how these medications work.
I see your condescending tone continues along with your judgement of other peoples medical issues
ED like most diseases is multi factorial - and they are used by many people who have problem of various origin.
That isn't the question asked though and is straying far from topic.
A topic nobody else seems interested in any more - so over and out from me too.
No more from me unless anyone else has anything new to add - you can continue your blaming of everyone else by yourself now.
So let's see, I'm asking the question how much does people's own choices contribute to the problem. I didn't just blame others, I owned my own choices. I.E. others didn't make me fat, I did by making poor food choices. I even knew better and did it anyway.
I'm not the only one who has done this. I'm not so special nor so unique as to be the only one who knew better and yet did it anyway. But I have no one to blame but myself. No one OWES me a resolution. It's my problem to solve, not societies. I don't shift the responsibility for my choices on to others.
But you say I'm blaming others?
I'm asking people to step up and own what they own. I have consistently asked the question, are people choosing to control what is in their control.
That is a far cry from blame. And I believe that is the problem. If anyone asks the question, which is a legitimate question, they are marginalized by suggesting they are blaming.
Asking someone if they are doing everything they can do to avoid or correct the problem is a far cry from blame.9 -
If most of us with health issues have them due to our Way Of Eating in part or in total I think that factor has to be a key cause.
Like some forms of blindness ED can have a mental cause but for the most part it's due to failing vascular health.
As I sit here for my annual wellness exam clearly life style choices are a huge factor in the health of seniors.7
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 391 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 922 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions