"given some of the best medical care in the world for free"

Nope, that's just not true. Obviously you've never been to an emergency room.

"while the cop would be put on leave with pay during a 2 week investigation, and probably get some sort of suspension for drawing and firing a weapon in a crowded space"

He should be suspended for risking other peoples lives needlessly, to save a motorcycle are you kidding me? If the guy had shot someone than I'd agree take him down, but he was just taking the bike so you shouldn't just fire off shots that could hit anyone. Seriously use your head.

nah...In America he would have been whisked off to a hospital in under 3 minutes and given some of the best medical care in the world for free, while the cop would be put on leave with pay during a 2 week investigation, and probably get some sort of suspension for drawing and firing a weapon in a crowded space on a perp that was not threatening at that moment. If the perp lives, he sues the city and gets a wad of cash, if the perp dies, then the family would sue the city for wads of cash.

I recently read an interesting anecdote that illustrates some reasons why American healthcare is more expensive and at the same time, the only place in which you can get "better" care than in some of the European "socialist utopias." The reason for this is because socialized medicine restricts what medical services you can get in order to keep the costs low. In the U.S.A., people don't want that so they ask for both unlimited medical care and socialized medicine. At inflated prices. So the U.S.A. ends up spending much more than other places for medical care. But you have access to more services. This is the result of the unsustainable system in which we're living. It's an interesting anecdote, if you have the time to read it.

Also, you had said that "poor" people cannot afford the preventive approach, alternative ways to stay healthy. This is an inaccurate generalization, and completely untrue. But, still, even so, do you honestly think that the socialized healthcare systems in the European utopias that you mention would pay for preventative care like eating healthy food, doing yoga, seeing an acupuncturist regularly, buying herbs from a naturopath, going to the gym, or anything else that's not the "standard" and "approved" medicine that those health systems recognize as "legitimate" healthcare?

My Italian visiting friend happens to be a Feldenkrais practitioner. Do you think that European socialized healthcare pays for people to go see him to prevent later knee or hip replacements or back surgeries? Do you know what health "insurance" in these countries pays for or what it doesn't?

If anything, health insurance encourages people to not do these preventive things and just go see a doctor and/or take some pills because doing that is cheaper as insurance pays for it while they have to pay for the preventive stuff out of pocket. "Cut it or drug it" is the insurance company's motto. A socialized healthcare system would be no different.

>> with all kinds of drama and tests, and poking and prodding.

In the western world, infant and maternal mortality has plummeted thanks to improved hygiene and good medical care, but these days there is a big emphasis on offering choice to the woman. In the UK If the pregnancy is deemed low risk then midwife only hospital delivery is offered as a basic right and the women can choose often choose pool birth, or home birth if they wish.
The latest NICE guidelines even go so far as to say that a woman should be able to ask for a c-section even if not medically indicated.
If the woman opts for something like opiate pain relief or an epideural then of course it becomes more medicalised but again it's a choice.

When you are on your second or third child, it often just pops out with little fuss where as the first baby is much more of an unknown. I'd be a lot less worried about a lady like this who has had 3 normal deliveries which i assume were uncomplicated.

The only think i'd say here is that babies get cold very quickly and so should be dried quickly rather than doused in brook water.

Hey Stormsinger,

There are plenty of studies on how the diet affects heart and circulatory health. Here is a compilation of some of them:

http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/105/7/893.full

They conclude:

The most important dietary recommendations are as follows:

Keep an energy balance, indicated by a body mass index below 25 kg/m2.

Consume <10% of energy from saturated fat.
Consume <2% of energy from trans fat.
Eat (fatty) fish at least once a week.

Eat ≥400 g of vegetables and fruits per day.

Limit salt consumption to <6 g/d.
If these recommendations are followed, coronary heart disease can be eliminated to a large extent in the population aged <70 years, and by implementing these recommendations at middle-age, there will be lower annual costs for medical care in older age.

The data continues to pour in that diet can prevent and reverse heart disease. To the extent people eat healthily, they can benefit from the truth those studies serve to illuminate.

So, military produces people with psychological illness. Obama wants to shrink the military. Shrinking the military will produce less psychological illness. Therefore, Romney wants to increase the military.

His argument is sound if he means military medical care. Simply increasing the military only serves to create more people with psychological illness.

Logic fail.

^@ bobknight33

Your 50 million is way off the # was 30 Million and that doesn't divide who can afford but choose not to get it and whose who really cant afford healthcare. (At least with the individual mandate those who can pay but choose not to are required to pay back into the system).

That # is reported around 12 million. (Where did you find this percentage i have yet to see it in an official report?).

Now is it worth you paying 2600 more in insurance just to cover 12 Million? (Covered below).

Amount of Deaths due to the absence of healthcare: More than 26,000 working-age adults die prematurely in the United States each year because they lack health insurance, according to a study by the consumer advocacy group Families USA, estimates that a record high of 26,100 people aged 25 to 64 died for lack of health coverage in 2010, up from 20,350 in 2005 and 18,000 in 2000. also 22,000 deaths nationwide in 2006.

"Lives are truly on the line," said Families USA Executive Director Ron Pollack, who supports the reform law. "If the Affordable Care Act moves forward and we expand coverage for tens of millions of people, the number of avoidable deaths due to being uninsured will decrease significantly."

What is the republican healthcare solution?.

Source: Reuters, 6/20/2012 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/47892292/ns/health-health_care/t/report-uninsured-americans-die-each-year/#.UEKmKdbiZO8.

the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation has analyzed census data to provide a closer look at the people without health insurance in the U.S. Its report, focused on people younger than age 65, found 45.7 million "nonelderly" uninsured people in the U.S. last year (including the elderly, the number of uninsured was 46.3 million). Low-income adults without dependent children — who generally do not qualify for government programs like Medicaid — were hit hardest. Despite heated rhetoric on the issue, immigrants are not driving the problem; 80% of the uninsured under age 65 are native-born or naturalized citizens. The uncompensated cost of providing health care to the uninsured last year was $57 billion, three-quarters of which was picked up by the Federal Government.

Most uninsured Americans work: Of those under age 65 without insurance, 8 in 10 are members of working families. Only 19% are in families with no one working. However, 62% of the uninsured have no education beyond high school, limiting their ability to boost their incomes or advance to jobs that may offer health care. The uninsured were three times more likely to have trouble meeting basic monthly expenses like rent and food.

Of those without health insurance, 11% reported being in fair or poor health, compared with 5% with private coverage. Nearly a quarter of the uninsured say they've forgone medical care in the past year due to its cost, compared with 4% who receive private care. As a result, the uninsured are more likely to be hospitalized for avoidable health problems.

Government programs are making a difference for children: Despite overall increases, the number of uninsured children last year fell by 800,000, to 8.1 million, thanks to expansions in Medicaid and state programs covering minors. (The total in 2006 was 9.4 million).

Young adults with no children are especially vulnerable: Programs such as Medicaid and Medicare insure millions of parents, children and disabled people. But low earners without dependent children are offered few resources when it comes to health insurance; they comprise 58% of uninsured Americans as a result. At 30%, those ages 19 to 29 have the highest uninsured rate. Racial minorities are also disproportionately represented; about one-third of Hispanics and one-fifth of blacks go without insurance, compared with 13% of whites.

Most people know that millions of Americans lack health insurance, but this report helps give that enormous group a human face. That many unemployed workers lack health insurance is not a surprise, but many of us may not realize that so many working people do as well — a troubling fact that lends credence to the reform efforts under way.

Source: TIME, Oct. 14, 2009 http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1930096,00.html#ixzz25GkXZCFq

>> ^RFlagg:

I am confused by the people blaming the woman for getting pregnant and saying she chose to have sex... so did the guy, who also chose to have sex without adequate measures to prevent the pregnancy. Why is the guy always absolved of guilt when a woman gets pregnant? "Oh she got pregnant just to trap him." Really? He chose to have sex too, he chose to have sex without wearing protection and pulling out and insuring she was up to date on her birth control. Is abortion the best outcome? No, but it has to remain a valid choice, especially in cases of incest and rape... and any ass who would deny it when the mother's life is in danger should just be denied any sort of medical care (even Tylenol) for the rest of their lives. The best way to counter abortion is to do the things Republicans hate, increase education (and I'm not just talking sex education here, though that should be included, but education as a whole) and increase access to affordable health care, including contraception for both parties.
A few points to clarify my position.


- I don't think this is about choosing to have unprotected sex. It's about choosing to have sex. Few methods of birth control are infallible. Condoms break, people forget to take a pill. The choice to engage in sexual intercourse is a choice which carries consequences. Contraceptives decrease the risk of pregnancy, dramatically, but the risk still exists.
- I don't consider this an issue of blame or guilt. It's about responsibility. It's not a woman's "fault" she got pregnant. Pregnancy is a potential consequence of her choice, which, again, it is her right to make.
- The male in this picture is also free to choose whether to have sex. Is it fair that he can up and split, because he is not physically carrying a developing human being? No, it's not fair, but it's the reality of the situation. Even so, the courts acknowledge that he must take responsibility as well. Jerry Springer made a sideshow out of paternity testing.

- Which raises a counterpoint I'd never considered before - should a man be allowed to compel a woman to have an abortion, because he does not feel capable of supporting the child? If the woman carries and delivers the child and he abandons them, the courts will hold him responsible for child support, even if he strongly advocated the pregnancy be terminated.

I am confused by the people blaming the woman for getting pregnant and saying she chose to have sex... so did the guy, who also chose to have sex without adequate measures to prevent the pregnancy. Why is the guy always absolved of guilt when a woman gets pregnant? "Oh she got pregnant just to trap him." Really? He chose to have sex too, he chose to have sex without wearing protection and pulling out and insuring she was up to date on her birth control. Is abortion the best outcome? No, but it has to remain a valid choice, especially in cases of incest and rape... and any ass who would deny it when the mother's life is in danger should just be denied any sort of medical care (even Tylenol) for the rest of their lives. The best way to counter abortion is to do the things Republicans hate, increase education (and I'm not just talking sex education here, though that should be included, but education as a whole) and increase access to affordable health care, including contraception for both parties.

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

Nobody has brought up doping yet. I have absolutely no idea how vast it's influence is or how little it may be sought after due to the literal pride of the athletes themselves may be influencing these decisions among their own community (and I do think that the athletes and how they handle those that have done it, might do it, and haven't yet but are just hearing about the possibilities of doping; how they talk and act to stop it when they can amongst themselves and their community is what fights it the best).

I know some of the athletes have been suspended up to four years, but are still allowed to play again. I don't know if it matters what they were doing (as anabolic steroids and its effects will be lifelong if you keep up your routine) as some doping schemes are quick fixes like someone trying to use adrenaline. I mean do they check for that type of thing, a neurotransmitter carrier drug stuck in something like a false tooth; you bite down and in 5-10 seconds your adrenaline shoots forward for 30 seconds... I guess I should look and see how far they've taken this process; I know they are very vigilant, as much as possible. But, I really don't know were the holes are and how big they possibly are.

Training has most defiantly given athletes a superb edge. Not only do they run and work out, but they WATCH themselves run and can see what they are doing run. They just compare it to the best and modify themselves in that fashion gaining seconds, upon seconds. Eventually they learn to add a new twist and soon people are watching HIM or HER for inspiration to win a medal.

I know many athletes get their medals the old-fashioned hard way, proudly and resolute, for their country. It just makes me wonder how far doping has truly influenced the athletes and what areas of their training and structure actually test them correctly with the possibility that there may always be an area, with many athletes all doping (they are tested at the Pre-Olympic qualifiers, The Olympics, but then a shady organization "passes" them all at their home training camp). I hope that it never reaches that scale, but I always have problems when there are some Olympic coaches that have had about six athletes under them, three of them have been caught doping and three are OK--kind of disconcerting...

-edit

I forgot one point I was going to make. You can obviously see from the info-graphic that even training and in absolutely NO WAY can doping account for the 8 year old to the rest of the teenage field of sprinters. It shows to me that perhaps a very long change in diet stopping any malnutrition, FAR better medical care (also limiting disease to a LARGE extent) has lead to a BETTER populace, even genetically which just due to this little clip you could make the case, to some degree. Then you have some of the intangibles like better shoes, better surfaces to run on, and other like changes in our lives that were mentioned and the ones you can think about that weren't. Then you find the cream of the crop athletes, give them superb training, and I truly do think you can see why we have increased those three seconds.

I just merely hope doping isn't behind many victories. I actually wouldn't care if it was someone genetically modified--not grotesquely (to go out of your way to destroy the human form is up to you, but as scientists I don't think we should aim for that--we should aim within that, I also have a feeling that someone grotesque may not be exactly happily received at The Olympics...), just suited to run faster with muscles that are far more dense than usual. As long as genetic changes like this eventually come to almost all of us, changes that enrich and make our lives better (not The Hulk™).

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^westy:
-Good DNA
( just a dice roll if you are to born with or without any of the shit)
-Healthy food - preferably low calorie diet and diverse lots of frute vegetables , fish and small amounts of red meat.

-Daily low impact exercises

-Low stress environment ( probably due to wealth)

- low polution enviromnt thorgh life ( sum one living in a city or in a high povity area is unlikely to last to old old age)
-support infrastructure , family , friends , community

Those are the factors that allow for long life Its quite simple but the fact is you don't control allot of them so might as well just kill your self and be done with it.

I honestly think it could be up to 80% DNA.


lol probably although people in general are living longer due to healthy low stress living and good medical care but yah to be as fit as she is at that age she probably rolled the lucky dice.

There have been some interesting documentaries about age and how some islands of people live longer because there bodies have evolved due to the environment and food sources around them and that happens to coincidently benefit them for old age.

There are people dying around the world because of lack of funding for adequate medical care. Fuck these people and their cloner scientist enablers.

Chilaxe, sometimes you scare me. Sometimes I think you would favor a "final solution". Maybe I'm not creative enough to envision how you solve these problems you outline with useless eaters without extermination.>> ^chilaxe:

@longde
Yeah, above a certain income level, they contribute more than they consume, but there are a lot of externalized costs.
We subsidize their exorbitant 21st century medical care and use of the education system, penal system, and everything else.
Many resources are becoming much more expensive. Diminishing oil supplies will probably skyrocket in price again once industry and consumers pull out of the current recession. Increases in the cost of oil increase the price of everything, and oil is only one out of endless diminishing resources. The trillions of dollars of costs for green tech and pollution mitigation only have to spent because we have so many people who contribute so little but consume & pollute at the same rate.
L.A., for example, wouldn't be an environmental and pollution catastrophe if the amount of people living there was the same as it was in 1970, and that's the same basic story around the world. The total number of high contribution people doesn't increase and most people don't actually improve over time.