@Duncan And yet this is the commonly suggested course of action for those overweight. Eat 1000-1200 calories a day, and exercise. That's a recipe for disaster. Further, your claim that if you intake fewer calories than you expend you will lose weight. This is not necessarily true. Your body is not a bunsen burner. That's why we have terms like "metabolism" as in so and so has a high metabolism or a low metabolism. In other words, some people can eat and eat and eat, and their body will simply convert the excess energy into heat. For others, that energy is stored as fat. My claim is that there are people for whom prolonged caloric restriction will not result in continued weight loss. Instead the body will continue to store the energy it receives as fat and your brain will be deprived of the energy it needs to allow activity levels necessary to burn anything off. Even with continued restriction. There are cases (e.g. with OCD patients) that prolonged weight loss can be achieved, but often it's simply impossible.

With regards to "life-style change," I agree. It's necessary. However, losing weight isn't. Much more success has been reported encouraging an active lifestyle. Eat until you are sated. That's okay (assuming you don't have a broken sensory system in that regard). People that pursue this approach will usually not lose weight, but they will become healthy. All of their bio-markers (e.g. cholesterol) often come into check. They are active, happy, and healthy. Yet still, people would somehow feel justified sending them a letter telling fatty to get off their ass.

I'll give an example. I watched my girl eat 1200 calories a day for six months. She's 5'2" at 180. The first month of this brought her down to 165/170, but the following five brought her no further. I watched her. She measured every meal with a measuring cup. She's also a geneticist, so she knows a thing or two about the relevant biochem. She was depressed as hell, and her activity level dropped. She was miserable and didn't even really lose substantial weight.

Now, she bikes at least 10-12 hilly miles a day, swims a couple miles three times a week, and does yoga. She eats when she's hungry and stops when she's full. She eats healthily for the most part, but rewards herself with a sweet now and again. Every measure known to correlate with health shows that she is healthy despite her weight. People call her fat all the time. There's just no need. Her doctor doesn't, because many doctors these days know BMI is a bullshit measure. She's not a weird case. I mentioned by buddy the pullup champ in a previous post. The dude was vegetarian in boot camp. He doesn't have an ounce of fat on him, and can do effectively perpetual pushups. He's technically "obese." For a medical term, it's about as useful as "idiot."

The fact is evidence is mounting that your disposition towards retaining fat probably has more to do with what was eaten by your mother during pregnancy than anything you do in your lifetime (other than maybe early childhood). Your body has a weight it would like to keep, and it will succeed in keeping it. If people would just change the societal pressure towards becoming healthy rather than losing weight people doomed to carry extra pounds wouldn't have to feel like outcasts, and would probably be more likely to pursue the correct goal. Instead, most people here seem to think it's okay to berate strangers about their weight. Let them talk to their doctor. If their doctor is good with it, you probably should be too.

@scannex Dude... are you really citing a marketing campaign for weight loss pushers? I bet you I could find data that shows the effectiveness of penis enhancement pills too. If you took a few you might find you like 'em thick ;-). Try some primary literature, and I'll respond in kind.

Try to refute this claim: "Overweight or mildly obese individuals with otherwise normal bio-markers show no decrease in life expectancy from normal."

If you can't, then tell me why it is okay to berate someone about their weight knowing nothing about their health overall?

You keep using the word diet as something you can just go on and off of. That's the problem; 'Going on a diet' implies that it's temporary. What's needed to eat and live healthy is a permanent lifetstyle change. In other words, you don't stop the diet. The previous diet is what led to getting overweight in the first place, so of course they gain the weight back if they start eating like that again. Exercise all you want, if you take in more calories than you expend, you will gain weight. If you expend more calories than you take in, you will lose weight. It doesn't matter if you have a problem with that, or if people get depressed, or if you just straight up don't think it's a health issue (it is), that's how it works. That's why this argument takes place when this issue is brought up. It really is just a matter of will power and education on nutrition. How much will power's needed depends on the person, along with their knowledge on nutrition and eating well. Breaking these long standing habits can be incredibly tough, but not impossible.

There's a lot of grey area in the discussion of being overweight and healthy/fit/etc. If you have terrible eating habits, exercise will only make things a bit better; it wont magically counteract all the negative aspects of your body composition, or of the food you eat. The effect food can have on a person astronomically outweighs the potential effects of exercise. That's in no way saying exercise is pointless, but if you're diet's not in check, the exercise alone is like ordering a diet coke with your ten cheeseburgers.
>> ^bmacs27:

You guys aren't listening to what I'm saying. There is nothing wrong with eating right and exercising. I have a problem with caloric restriction, or as it is commonly called "dieting." Further, I have a problem with judging health from weight or BMI. There is very little data to back that up, and in fact the data suggest that a low BMI is actually more problematic than a moderately high 30ish BMI in terms of life expectancy. My issue is that it's been so ingrained in people to associate weight loss (an aesthetic issue) with fitness (a health issue). There are plenty of people that are fit, and no matter what they do, will carry extra weight.
To me "eating right" means eating healthy foods, e.g. whole foods, fruits, vegetables, proteins as your primary nutrition rather than fatty and heavily sweetened foods. Exercise is the most important part of the equation. The data shows that so long as you are not sedentary you can pretty much eat and weigh whatever with little to no health consequence.
The depression does not come simply from the lack of eating, and thus the cessation of a rewarding activity. It comes from the diversion of energy away from active use (e.g. in the nervous system) and towards the restocking of fat stores. In other words, you'll never lose weight, and instead will just be bummed out all the time.
You talk of "millions of people" that have successfully lost weight. I'd like to see a data that shows a diet emphasizing caloric restriction leading to long term reductions in weight. Every study I've seen shows that diets of that sort yield short term weight loss although subjects generally reacquire the weight within a year of stopping the diet, and report depression during the diet. Prove me wrong.

You guys aren't listening to what I'm saying. There is nothing wrong with eating right and exercising. I have a problem with caloric restriction, or as it is commonly called "dieting." Further, I have a problem with judging health from weight or BMI. There is very little data to back that up, and in fact the data suggest that a low BMI is actually more problematic than a moderately high 30ish BMI in terms of life expectancy. My issue is that it's been so ingrained in people to associate weight loss (an aesthetic issue) with fitness (a health issue). There are plenty of people that are fit, and no matter what they do, will carry extra weight.

To me "eating right" means eating healthy foods, e.g. whole foods, fruits, vegetables, proteins as your primary nutrition rather than fatty and heavily sweetened foods. Exercise is the most important part of the equation. The data shows that so long as you are not sedentary you can pretty much eat and weigh whatever with little to no health consequence.

The depression does not come simply from the lack of eating, and thus the cessation of a rewarding activity. It comes from the diversion of energy away from active use (e.g. in the nervous system) and towards the restocking of fat stores. In other words, you'll never lose weight, and instead will just be bummed out all the time.

You talk of "millions of people" that have successfully lost weight. I'd like to see a data that shows a diet emphasizing caloric restriction leading to long term reductions in weight. Every study I've seen shows that diets of that sort yield short term weight loss although subjects generally reacquire the weight within a year of stopping the diet, and report depression during the diet. Prove me wrong.

"You should stop staring and start learning!"

But, people who stare are learning. They're learning her face and the visible symptoms of her condition, and becoming comfortable with it. She's confounding formal education with learning. The extra info about her condition would be great too, but you can't expect me not to look. I'd want to stare at her if I saw her. I'd do it subtly, if I could. I stared at her intently when I was watching the video, glad she couldn't see me. It wasn't because she was ugly, but because she was different looking, and anything outside my experience gets more attention.

"What is beautiful?"

It's a genetically evolved emotion-based assessment of the appearance of things. Animals use it to instantly and subconsciously assess physical health, emotional health, physical strength, life expectancy, and genetic quality. In this case, our beauty assessment function instantly tells potential mates that Ms. Velasquez is an unhealthy person, not the best choice for procreation, and it's right. Cruel world, I know, but that's one way species survive.

>> ^Fade:

Stop saying god is great you dumb cunts. God did jack shit.


It's a catch all that means everything from Fuck me to Oh My God to Gitsum!

Also, when western life expectancy was at that level we were on the whole pretty dementedly religious too..

For the reasons that I agree with you and believe you are correct, I have achieved a Masters degree in transpersonal psychology and a doctorate in clinical psychology in the hopes of working clinically with these powerful psychoactive sacraments.

For the time being, I serve as the Executive Director for the Association for Transpersonal Psychology and am in collaboration with the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies, both of which are worth supporting and participating, if only for the cognitive liberties both organizations represent!

(feel free to contact me off-line with questions.)>> ^CreamK:

Very interesting take. Amphetamines are a ticking time bomb for your heart that is true. you can use them for years without noticing anything wrong and you may just drop dead at any time. Every time you take them you are cutting your life expectancy. They do have some therapeutic use but the fact is that pulse and blood pressure shoot so high that it's dangerous.
LSD and MDMA are much better for therapeutic uses, i've experimented with both, first recreationally but after realizing their potential have found them to be good tools. With LSD you can decrease depression for long periods of time, we are talking about months. MDMA is good for traumatizations, it enables the person to talk about his/her issues in a non-judgemental way, it kind of detaches the emotions from that trauma and gives closure. Both should be studied really carefully, i truly believe that hallucinogens are the answer to a lot of problems created by the modern high paced world and the lack of spirituality.

Very interesting take. Amphetamines are a ticking time bomb for your heart that is true. you can use them for years without noticing anything wrong and you may just drop dead at any time. Every time you take them you are cutting your life expectancy. They do have some therapeutic use but the fact is that pulse and blood pressure shoot so high that it's dangerous.

LSD and MDMA are much better for therapeutic uses, i've experimented with both, first recreationally but after realizing their potential have found them to be good tools. With LSD you can decrease depression for long periods of time, we are talking about months. MDMA is good for traumatizations, it enables the person to talk about his/her issues in a non-judgemental way, it kind of detaches the emotions from that trauma and gives closure. Both should be studied really carefully, i truly believe that hallucinogens are the answer to a lot of problems created by the modern high paced world and the lack of spirituality.

real ninjas roll.

but then again, really real ninjas have only been seen by those with a life expectancy measured in seconds.

also, survivors of realllly long falls typically hit the ground lying flat (apparently). You know, so all the bones in your legs don't suddenly end up trying to occupy the same space as your liver, intestines, lungs, heart...all that shit that kinda keeps you alive basically.

I was also told once that even in short falls often somebody who is drunk or unconscious comes away with less injuries than somebody who is alert and awake, altho I think on balance I'd rather break and arm or a wrist than fall on my head.

Anyway. Thats my quota of stuff I have heard thats probably complete bullshit passed onto the next guy. Its probably all true. Probably.

Disease rates

"During the past two decades, an explosive growth in both the prevalence and types of sexually transmitted diseases has occurred. Up to 55 percent of homosexual men with anorectal complaints have gonorrhea; 80 percent of the patients with syphilis are homosexuals. Chlamydia is found in 15 percent of asymptomatic homosexual men, and up to one third of homosexuals have active anorectal herpes simplex virus"

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrezDb=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=2242700&ordinalpos=4&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_Resul
tsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

Higher rates of AIDS - 63 percent of new cases

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5424a2.htm


Drug use

Among homosexual men, ages 18 to 25: 79.2 percent have used marijuana; 75 percent have used psychotherapeutics for nonmedical reasons; 65.2 percent have used stimulants such as dexedrine and benzedrine; 62.5 percent have used inhalants such as amyl or butyl nitrate; and 50.2 percent have used hallucinogens such as LSD. Rates among lesbians: marijuana, 82 percent; psychotherapeutics, 58.8 percent; stimulants, 52.9 percent; inhalants, 41.2 percent; and hallucinogens, 41.2 percent. Comparing current usage to national usage, homosexuals were found to use drugs with greater frequency: "Among adults aged 18-25, 16.5 percent of men and 9.1 percent of women have used marijuana in the past month, compared with 37.5 per-cent of gay men and 23.5 percent of lesbians."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1615476/

20 times higher rate of meth use (quoted from LA Times article)

http://www.narth.com/docs/methuse.html

Domestic violence

"Rates of battering victimization among urban MSM are substantially higher than among heterosexual men and possibly heterosexual women. Public health efforts directed toward addressing intimate partner battering among these men are needed."

http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.92.12.1964

http://www.springerlink.com/content/r130ql0471892435/

Depression, suicide, mental health

LGB people are at higher risk of mental disorder, suicidal ideation, substance misuse, and deliberate self harm than heterosexual people

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18706118

Findings support recent evidence suggesting that gay, lesbian, and bisexual young people are at increased risk of mental health problems, with these associations being particularly evident for measures of suicidal behavior and multiple disorder.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10530626

Life expectancy of homosexuals

"In a major Canadian centre, life expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 20 years less than for all men. If the same pattern of mortality were to continue, we estimate that nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently aged 20 years will not reach their 65th birthday. Under even the most liberal assumptions, gay and bisexual men in this urban centre are now experiencing a life expectancy similar to that experienced by all men in Canada in the year 1871"

http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/26/3/657.abstract

Statistics on Amsterdam

According to a study in the Netherlands where homosexuality has been accepted and mainstreamed for years, homosexual behavior significantly increases the likelihood of psychiatric, mental and emotional disorders, negating the mindset that society’s lack of tolerance of homosexual behavior and lifestyle produces these psychoses Youth are four times as likely to suffer major depression, almost three times as likely to suffer generalized anxiety disorder, nearly four times as likely to experience conduct disorder, four times as likely to commit suicide, five times as likely to have nicotine dependence, six times as likely to suffer multiple disorders, and more than six times as likely to have attempted suicide.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11146762

That covers all of my claims. I think you'll find all of the evidence I have provided is from unbiased sources. This refutes the claim that homosexuality does not harm anyone. It clearly harms the individual, the community and society at large.

Here are some more statistics that I don't have direct links to. .

An Amsterdam study found that the average homosexual relationship lasts only 18 months and that "men in homosexual relationships, on average, have eight partners a year outside those relationships." By comparison, more than two-thirds of heterosexual marriages in America last longer than ten years. Maria Xiridou et al.,

"The Contribution of Steady and Casual Partnerships to the Incidence of HIV Infection Among Homosexual Men in Amsterdam,"
AIDS 17, 7 (2003): 1029-1038.

Ricky Behaviors:

Researchers from the University of California, San Francisco found that thirty-six percent of homosexuals engaging in unprotected oral, anal, or vaginal sex failed to disclose that they were HIV positive to casual sex partners.

"Some With HIV Aren't Disclosing Before Sex; UCSF Researcher's 1,397-person Study Presented During aids Conference," The San Francisco Examiner (July 15, 2000)"

A CDC report revealed that, in 1997, 45 percent of homosexuals reporting having had unprotected anal intercourse during the previous six months did not know the HIV serostatus of all their sex partners. Even more alarming, among those who reported having had unprotected anal intercourse and multiple partners, 68 percent did not know the HIV serostatus of their partners

Gay and Bi Men Less Likely to Disclose They Have HIV," GayHealth News (July 18, 2000).

Promiscuity

A.P. Bell and M.S. Weinberg, in their classic study of male and female homosexuality, found that 43 percent of white male homosexuals had sex with 500 or more partners, with 28 percent having 1,000 or more sex partners.

A. P. Bell and M. S. Weinberg, Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1978), pp. 308, 9; see alsoBell, Weinberg and Hammersmith, Sexual Preference (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1981)

Paul Van de Ven et al., "A Comparative Demographic and Sexual Profile of Older Homosexually Active Men," Journal of Sex Research 34 (1997): 354. Dr. Paul Van de Ven reiterated these results in a private conversation with Dr. Robert Gagnon on September 7, 2000

In their study of the sexual profiles of 2,583 older homosexuals published in Journal of Sex Research, Paul Van de Ven et al., found that only 2.7 percent claimed to have had sex with one partner only. The most common response, given by 21.6 percent of the respondents, was of having a hundred-one to five hundred lifetime sex partners.

Survey Finds 40 percent of Gay Men Have Had More Than 40 Sex Partners," Lambda Report, January/February 1998, p. 20.

A survey conducted by the homosexual magazine Genre found that 24 percent of the respondents said they had had more than a hundred sexual partners in their lifetime. The magazine noted that several respondents suggested including a category of those who had more than a thousand sexual partners.[11]

M. Pollak, "Male Homosexuality," in Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times, edited by P. Aries and A. Bejin, pp. 40-61, cited by Joseph Nicolosi in Reparative therapy of Male Homosexuality (Northvale, New Jersey: Jason Aronson Inc., 1991),

In his study of male homosexuality in Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times, M. Pollak found that "few homosexual relationships last longer than two years, with many men reporting hundreds of lifetime partners."

David P. McWhirter and Andrew M. Mattison, The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1984), pp. 252, 3.

>> ^curiousity:

@renatojj

Corporations already use force. They are more subtle about it than the Somolis, sure, that's an extreme example, but why do you think Foxconn employees commit suicide in such high numbers? They are forced to work long hours, the company forces them to live on-site, the company forces them to develop no social contact.

Companies in the States even use force on the government. They threaten to pull up stakes if a state won't change the laws to their liking. They pay billions of dollars to force their message down the throats of gullible people (such as yourself).

You want companies to have more freedom, to what end? Perhaps it would mean an increase in GDP, but a larger share of that GDP would go to a smaller number of people. If 95% of the people are worse off, 4% are the same and 1% do better, is that good policy? Look at Sweden, which has high taxes and strict laws governing how corporations must act. Are they suffering? Nope, the people are doing way better than America. Same for Japan. In spite of all their economic troubles, the PEOPLE of Japan are doing quite well. Americans? Not so much. One of the highest crime rates in developed countries, one of the highest infant mortality rates, near the lowest education and literacy levels, near the highest in poverty rates, near the lowest life expectancy. Is that the place where you want to live? More freedom for corporations means more gulf oil spills, more union busting, lower wages, lower employee benefits, more offshoring of American jobs.

Finally, China is not doing as well as most people suppose. Much of their economic boom has been real-estate driven and it is in a bubble which will make the US look like a joke by comparison. There are whole cities in China with space for two million people that are completely empty. All of it was driven by government legislation (ie. not free). In fact China has a much more restrictive business environment than America in many ways, they just have rock-bottom wages, a near endless supply of people and moderate education levels. That is why they're doing well (for now, we'll see what happens when their bubble pops).

>> ^quantumushroom:

"Racism" has multiple definitions. Part of definition #1 at Dictionary.com works for me. Racism is "a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement."
This is really the starting point for all the discussions to follow. You can only believe one or the other following statements:
1) The __________ race, taken as a whole, is inferior to other races and standards of society, and always will be. There is no way the ______ race can or will ever "make it" without outside help.
2) The __________ race, taken as a whole, facing historical challenges, is fully capable of the same achievements as other races. The most that society can give to anyone--aside from temporary financial aid--is equality of opportunity.
I believe the second statement, and not because I secretly want to end all government assistance for Blacks, Whites or anyone else.

Heh, the very definition of a false dichotomy. That said, you pretty obviously believe #1, not #2.

For proof, just re-read what you say in the rest of the comment:

>> ^quantumushroom:
The stats I listed show a disproportionate use of welfare services and out-of-wedlock births for Black Americans. There are additional stats indicating disproportionately high incarceration rates, specifically among Black males.
My interpretation of these FACTS is there is something seriously wrong with modern American Black cultural values, primarily a lack of personal responsibility.
If Newt, in his quote, was addressing only Black Americans, it was likely because of their disproportionate use of welfare services to their being only 13% of the population...and possibly he was attacking the overall acceptance of unsustainable welfare dependency as the norm. NO ONE of ANY race should be satisfied enough to live forever on handouts, and after 50 years of the welfare state and now whole family generations on welfare, isn't enough enough?

Let's cut the crap about "if" Newt was talking about black people -- he was, and so were you, and are again in this post. You are very clearly saying #1: that African-Americans apparently are inferior to other races, because their race can't even "make it" with 50 years worth of help, and that the rest of us should just cut our losses.

To go back to your false dichotomy, let me just add an option #3:

3) The __________ race, taken as a whole, is fully capable of the same achievements as other races, given the same opportunities. However, they don't get the same opportunities, because they are being treated by the rest of the society they live in as if they were inherently inferior. This is because, contrary to popular belief, racism isn't dead. As a result, it is easy for people to look at overall statistics, and proclaim that the inferiority is real, since the members of the __________ race tend to be poorer, have lower life expectancy, less stable families, lower grades, etc. People who point to these statistics as if they are some sort of justification for ending government services that are made available to all who are in need, regardless of race, are only perpetuating the stereotypes that are so harmful to this race.

What's more, I haven't even gone back and pushed back on your so-called factual rebuttal to the premise of the cartoon way back up at the top of the page. It's still true that more white people collect food stamps than any other race. It's still true that white people are the majority of medicaid recipients. It's still true that white people are the majority of recipients of subsidized housing. Hell, it's even primarily rural whites, as opposed to urban whites (hence the bit about "backwoods meth-heads").

Yet anytime the right talks about these programs there's always some sort of comment about minorities who participate in them, and usually they talk about these programs as if it's only minorities who rely on them, which isn't even close to true. Yeah, minorities wind up needing these programs disproportionately more than whites. But that's because they're disproportionately poorer than whites on average. So what? Unless you're trying to win support of racists, what the fuck does the race of the people participating in these programs have to do with the worthiness of the effort itself?

If you think welfare is bad for economic reasons, then just say that. Don't try to spin a program that takes from the rich to give to the poor and make it sound like it's actually about black people voting to make the government steal money from whites to give to blacks so they can keep being lazy.

That's what the cartoon's point is. That's why your response pissed me off so much.

Conquest is a bit of a strange beast. On one hand you can extrapolate Sagemind's argument and say that we should respect the wishes of the existing indigenous population. But then on the other, what if another population of humans had existed before the Native Indians, shouldn't it be their land because they were there first?

That was the case in NZ, the country was colonized by the British and a great deal of the native land was taken for the Commonwealth. However the Maori's took a portion of NZ (the Chattham Islands) from an earlier tribe, the Moriori's - by pretty much butchering them, and keeping the prisoners captive and disallowing them to mate with each other so the race has dwindled out.

Was it ok for the Maori's to do that at the time because they didn't have the in depth written philosophy of ethics and morality that is available to us today. Is it worse that the European-Americans do this to the Indian tribes now that we have a better understanding of right and wrong available to us?

I know what seems right to me, but examining this argument in the context of history really muddies things up a lot.

As an example of why I don't think John (Fire) Lame Deer's argument can be used at face value is that while the native Americans may have had a fantastic and peaceful lifestyle a lot of the time, they killed and scalped their enemies and also appeared to have a really low life expectancy. Also, would the Native American's have done the same to Europeans if the roles were reversed? There were hundreds of Native American tribes, should they all be considered equally?

To remedy the destruction of their way of life what should be done? Should all Europeans leave America, (and every settler in every country for that matter). This is the only thing that would begin to give them complete autonomy the way they used to have it. Should we say "what's done is done" and try to make better decisions moving forward?

Mostly anecdotal babble. Health outcomes are heavily influenced by cultural habits of eating, drinking (alcohol), drug abuse, physical activity, and genetics. The great majority of US citizens with private health insurance are "safe", to use her term, although certain policies may have lifetime caps on certain types of care, like mental health, which is BS in my opinion. The US leads the world in outcomes in many of the most complex diseases, such as hematologic malignancies.
She is right about a few things. The major reason health-care expenditures have greatly outpaced inflation is the rapid advancement of technology. The true health benefit of all this technology is questionable. The life expectancy in Mexico is just short of the US, despite spending about 10% of what the US spends per capita.
National Health care systems control expenditures by making budgets. Budgets = rationing. Ultimately, US citizens will have to come to grips with the fact that health care spending cannot be an open-ended account. Judging by my interactions with patients, that's not going to be anytime soon. Several things that could be done right away that would make a great difference in overall health-care spending are; eliminate coverage for any medical therapy lacking outcome data to support its efficacy, tort law reform, and PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR ONE'S OWN HEALTH. Quit smoking, lose weight, and exercise. Bariatric surgery should not have to be a substitute for will power. But, such is the American way.

What's the average life expectancy for freeclimbing?

3. My answer is meant to show that your question is laden with faulty assumptions. (Your initial post is a textbook example of begging the question.) But, again, to humor you, I'll address what would happen without farming subsidies in the United States: (a) Americans would eat more healthfully; (b) no, farming would not become unprofitable (except maybe for the huge corporations who wastefully produce the once-subsidized products, namely corn); (c) the average percentage of income spent on food might go up, though it wouldn't necessarily cut "heavily into the income of poorer people."

By the way: farming is profitable for many farmers, and to suggest that it isn't ("would it become profitable again") is misleading.


2. I'll spell it out for you: I choose not to address it. There are legitimate arguments to be made in favor of labor laws. To suggest that, in their absence, people would be "fired on a whim" is not one of them, and it relegates this conversation to something unworthy of my time.


1. The point of the link was to show, without engaging with your assumption-laden imaginative dystopia, that there are many defensible positions for those who question the wisdom and necessity of antitrust laws.


4. "That text says on the first page (paraphrased): "46 million USAsians have no health insurance: Not a problem: 40 percent of those are young, 20% are wealthy." Yes, fuck the poor and the young, they don't need health insurance."

That's worse than a bad paraphrase; it's intellectual dishonesty. You and I gain nothing from this kind of conversation if we interpret information with that strong a bias. Read it again and see if you can't come up with a more intellectually honest response:


"A common argument advanced in support of greater government intervention in the American healthcare market is that a large and growing fraction of the gross domestic product (GDP) is spent on healthcare, while the results, such as average life expectancy, do not compare favorably to the Western nations that have adopted some form of universal healthcare.

This argument is spurious for two reasons:

A growing fraction of GDP spent on healthcare is not a problem per se. In the early half of the twentieth century, the fraction of GDP spent on healthcare grew significantly as new treatments, medical technology, and drugs became available. Growth in spending of this nature is desirable if it satisfies consumer preferences.

Attributing national-health results to the healthcare system adopted by different countries confuses correlation with causation and ignores the many salient variables that are causal factors affecting aggregate statistics (such as average life expectancy). Factors that are likely to be at least as important as the healthcare system include the dietary and exercise preferences of a population.

Another argument commonly used in healthcare-policy debates is that there are almost 46 million people who have no health insurance at all. Again, this is not a problem in and of itself. According to the National Health Interview Survey, 40 percent of those uninsured are less than 35 years old, while approximately 20 percent earn over $75,000 a year. In other words, a large fraction of those who are uninsured can afford insurance but choose not to buy it or are healthy enough that they don’t really need it (beyond, perhaps, catastrophic coverage). The real problem with the American healthcare system is that prices are continually rising, greatly outpacing the rate of inflation, making healthcare unaffordable to an ever-increasing fraction of the population—particularly those without insurance.

If prices in the healthcare market were falling, as they are in other markets such as computers and electronics, the large number of uninsured would be of little concern. Treatments, drugs, and medical technology would become more affordable over time, allowing patients to pay directly for them. Identifying the cause of rising healthcare costs should be the first priority for anyone who seeks solutions to America’s broken healthcare system."


Again, the full article: http://mises.org/journals/fm/june10.pdf.
>> ^DerHasisttot:
Of course the post is highly speculative ...