Calorie Counter

Message Boards Debate: Health and Fitness
You are currently viewing the message boards in:

What new or revised public policy/law would make it easier for people to maintain a healthy weight?

1171820222328

Replies

  • lemurcat2lemurcat2 Member Posts: 5,413 Member Member Posts: 5,413 Member
    How many calories does doing my taxes burn?
  • tbright1965tbright1965 Member, Premium Posts: 845 Member Member, Premium Posts: 845 Member
    First, great job on the loss of 27kg.

    The question is how can doctors help in a "don't offend me" world?

    I've lost 50# and my doctor told me he wishes even half of his patients took it seriously.

    Like most anything else, others cannot do it for you. One cannot be coached if they are not willing to be coached.

    As someone said above, anyone with a 4th grade education should know to eat fewer chips(crisps) snack cakes and soda and more fruits, vegetables and drink water.

    But a casual glance in the typical shopping cart will see people are spending more time in the snacks and soda aisle than they do in the produce aisle.

    People have to want to make changes for any help from the doctor to become effective.
    Or prevent obesity?

    From a maintenance perspective, I wish calorie disclosure would go further. I would like to see mandatory calorie counts for all restaurants and shops selling food items, regardless of number of locations. Not to the extent of sending food to a lab for measurement, but at least calculating calories for all the ingredients and dividing by their serving size.

    I would like to see doctors tell there patients all about weight loss when overweight and helping there patients before they get to obesity. Everyone usually goes to the doctor. And I think if doctors help there patients get to a healthy weight and stay at a healthy weight there would be less people getting obese and overweight. I think the food companies sell to much junk food and should be working on making nice foods that are healthy with less calories and foods that fill people up. My doctor suggested to try and lose some weight and since he said that I’ve gone from 104kgs to 77kgs. Best thing my doctor said to me because now I’m trying to lose weight and get healthy and get in good shape. I’m grateful to my doctor for helping me. Now I’m learning about weight loss walking and eating less and drinking more water and cut out most junk food and try to stick to drinking water sugar free energy drinks and coffee and bike riding and not interested in getting my license back because I’m happy walking most places and walking to public transport to go thirty minutes or more out of town by bus and train. I really think doctors should help there patients so the world can be happier and healthier and fitter.

  • CSARdiverCSARdiver Member Posts: 6,279 Member Member Posts: 6,279 Member
    ceiswyn wrote: »
    ceiswyn wrote: »
    It is my understanding that a significant number of the 'emergencies' seen in US hospitals wouldn't have been emergencies had they been treated earlier. But the health insurance model makes people, especially on low incomes, reluctant to seek said early medical treatment.

    Maybe, instead of forcing hospitals to absorb the costs of emergency care, the costs are owed by those getting the care. Since patients can ignore the bill for emergency care, you may lower costs by changing the system so the patient is on the hook for the costs, period, making it a better choice for them to get care early, when the costs to them are lower.

    When costs are shifted to others, there is no incentive to change behavior.

    When costs are borne by those who incur them, they tend to seek lower cost solutions.

    Except that people are already trying to avoid incurring costs - by avoiding getting healthcare in the hope that the problem will go away / wait until they can get to a physician that will cost them less.

    In other words, people trying to avoid incurring costs is actually the problem. You're not going to fix that by making it worse.

    I see this argument brought up when attempting to pitch for socialized structures, but there isn't much truth to this.

    By doing this you aren't addressing the root cause of unlimited demand and decreasing supply. In fact you are making the problem considerably worse.

    If you actually want to help the healthcare problem you can either address the demand problem by reducing the need for care...or increase the number of practitioners.
    edited April 2019
  • ceiswynceiswyn Member Posts: 2,222 Member Member Posts: 2,222 Member
    I don't wish to bring back debtors prison.

    If hospitals can just pass along the costs of those who don't pay to others, what is their incentive to keep costs low?

    Don't allow them to pass those costs along to others.

    If they are really losing money, they will have far more incentive to find a way to lower costs than if they can just pass them along.

    Finally, nothing prevents those from believing something needs to be done to help those who cannot pay from opening their wallets and living out their values.

    It's easy to say "the rich" or "the government" or some other group should pay. That's not generosity. Spending other people's money is never generosity or caring.

    Generosity and caring is what you personally do with YOUR time, YOUR talent and YOUR treasure.

    So what happens to people who actually can't afford to pay?
  • CSARdiverCSARdiver Member Posts: 6,279 Member Member Posts: 6,279 Member
    kimny72 wrote: »
    CSARdiver wrote: »
    ceiswyn wrote: »
    ceiswyn wrote: »
    It is my understanding that a significant number of the 'emergencies' seen in US hospitals wouldn't have been emergencies had they been treated earlier. But the health insurance model makes people, especially on low incomes, reluctant to seek said early medical treatment.

    Maybe, instead of forcing hospitals to absorb the costs of emergency care, the costs are owed by those getting the care. Since patients can ignore the bill for emergency care, you may lower costs by changing the system so the patient is on the hook for the costs, period, making it a better choice for them to get care early, when the costs to them are lower.

    When costs are shifted to others, there is no incentive to change behavior.

    When costs are borne by those who incur them, they tend to seek lower cost solutions.

    Except that people are already trying to avoid incurring costs - by avoiding getting healthcare in the hope that the problem will go away / wait until they can get to a physician that will cost them less.

    In other words, people trying to avoid incurring costs is actually the problem. You're not going to fix that by making it worse.

    I see this argument brought up when attempting to pitch for socialized structures, but there isn't much truth to this.

    By doing this you aren't addressing the root cause of unlimited demand and decreasing supply. In fact you are making the problem considerably worse.

    If you actually want to help the healthcare problem you can either address the demand problem by reducing the need for care...or increase the number of practitioners.

    So are you saying the reason health care is so expensive in the US is a supply/demand issue? Honest question, I know my opinions in this area involve a lot of emotion, so I try to keep my yapper shut and soak up info :lol:

    Aren't the insurance companies a primary driver of the costs right now?

    I agree and find that emotional response usually ends up badly. There are several issues at play and what is needed is a balanced approach.

    The US system took on the worst points of both worlds. Heavily regulated on price (via insurance and government) and supply (regulations and education). The only thing keeping the system going is innovation, which is on the decline.

    Insurance is a primary driver because it has too much control over the process. To address this you simply remove the influence on the system. ...but change brings fear and few people have the stomach to change even if it means things will likely be better.

    Compare the cost of medical treatments outside of insurance coverage - eye correction and cosmetics/aesthetics medicine. These industries must evolve and adapt as they have no insurance or government safety net. The cost of goods is continually driven down via innovation and follows consumer price index. Medicine covered by insurance however exceeds this index by a monumental margin.
Sign In or Register to comment.