<Interesting observations in your last message. I feel that this response is too feeble and unfocused, but maybe I will be able to elaborate later. This thread is to me somewhat removed from our current practicalities (which in any case are so depressing), but in any sort of better future I would see a kind of world government.>
Howdy MH
I think his response and the subject of this thread is about practicalities. He was talking about Health Care having suffered from becoming another profit making machine. What could be more practical than our health!?
Now, guys, I'll like to expand some more on Health Care. *It should not be for profit* because the more sick you get the better it is! No wonder the powers that be remain indifferent to preventive medicine, and, say, feed our children the worst of the worst junk food.
Preventive medicine though would emphasize a healthy life-style and a healthy diet...
> What physicians call prevention is hugely expensive. Most of the gain in
> life expectancy over the past 100 years came from social changes, NOT
> medical interventions. It is vastly cheaper to treat an illness than to try
> to 'prevent' it. Even stopping smoking does not save money because smokers
> tend to die young and don't spend many years in retirement.
I absolutely disagree with it. Prevention is the way to go. Actually
some companies are actively promoting their employees to lead a
healthy lifestyle...
Cost Benefit of Wellness
There are data to justify the benefits of health promotion. Scores of
studies have documented reductions in absenteeism and health care
costs when wellness programs have been implemented. There is also
research that quantifies the costs associated with employees who
exhibit unhealthy lifestyles. A study conducted at Steelcase
Corporation by the University of Michigan determined that for every
Steelcase employee who had excessive alcohol consumption, the company
paid $597 more per year in health care costs. For every Steelcase
employee who was sedentary, the company paid $488 more. For every
Steelcase employee who had hypertension, the company paid $327 more.
Smokers cost the company $285 more, etc. A similar study was conducted
at DuPont and, although the dollar values associated with each risk
factor differed from what Steelcase found, there was collaboration on
the fact that unhealthy employee lifestyles cost the company more in
health care costs.
Employees' Health Status
Researchers have looked at a large number of employee populations to
determine the most common health risks. On the average, for every 100
workers in this country, 27 have cardiovascular disease, 24 have high
blood pressure, 50 or more have high cholesterol, 26 are classified as
being obese, 26 smoke, ten are heavy drinkers, 60 don't wear seat
belts regularly, 50 don't get adequate exercise, and 44 suffer from
excessive levels of stress. (See Table V.) Obviously, employee groups
differ based upon their demographics. If you have employees with a low
education level, a different racial mix, a different age group, more
women than men, etc., your employee risks will differ. You can use
these data, however, as a guide for determining what types of risks
your employees may have and what programs to offer.
full text...
http://www.healthyli...ch/wellprog.aspAlso look at this...
Is obesity a U.S. public policy issue?
By Lou Marano
WASHINGTON, May 14 (UPI) -- Americans are fat. But is obesity a
problem that lends itself to public policy solutions?
Shannon Brownlee, a senior fellow at the New America Foundation, is
inclined to think it does. James Glassman, an economic analyst at the
American Enterprise Institute, thinks it does not. The two presented
their arguments at a New America Foundation forum on Tuesday.
Brownlee said the issue is not whether the government has a right to
interfere with your right to eat Big Macs, but whether it is
contributing to the "epidemic" of obesity in the United States and
whether it should play a role in reducing the rate of obesity.
She said obesity is a public health problem, not a matter of
aesthetics, and asked to what degree government policy is subsidizing
obesity.
Brownlee said the medical establishment defines obesity as being 100
or more pounds over one's optimum Body Mass Index. Obesity rates have
increased dramatically since 1970. Now nearly one-third of the
population is considered obese. Another 35 percent is considered
overweight. "Sixty percent of Americans are at increased risk for all
kinds of diseases," she said.
Brownlee quoted Harvard economist David Cutler as saying that even
small improvements in health can justify the high cost of medical
insurance. "Health is worth an enormous amount to the wealth of this
country," Brownlee said.
"Imagine a disease that kills almost as many people as tobacco kills.
It disables you and kills you slowly, like AIDS. It kills more than
AIDS, drugs and guns combined. Your kids are at risk from this
disease. It's not communicable like AIDS, but is rather the result of
behavior and environment.
"Not only is local, state, and federal government not doing anything
about this disease, they are promoting the disease through taxes and
other policies."
Government is actively encouraging obesity by failing to have any
credible anti-obesity campaign, Brownlee said. "We subsidize the
advertising of junk food, we allow the advertising of all kinds of
food to children, when we don't allow everything to be advertised to
children ... We allow entire subdivisions to be built without
sidewalks or bike paths. We're letting junk food into schools, and
even hospitals have junk food franchises these days.
< I am not a very great believer in the natural goodness of the humankind (or even in the natural badness) - we would best exist within certain accepted and rational structures which most libertarians would undoubtedly reject, but I can't see liberty without community. >
I say to people, "It's not the same to live in Sweden as to live in Zimbabwe," and most of them agree with me, which shows that society if not perfect, can be *perfectible*.
As for the sense of community and individual freedoms I think it's like Yin and Yang--too much of either can be bad and each one contains an element of the other.
Also some people are more cooperative and some more competitive. Let's make room for everybody, without sacrificing each individuality. Sadly the way the jungle is set up now you either compete or die...
You get a trip from roaring? Go ahead and do it, just don't eat me!

<It's just that I think that I see your causes as concequences, and in many respects current Western symptoms of the illness are actually less severe than what went before.>
True, but not good enough to save us. Actually those policies of health-for-profit, war-for-profit are killing us--literally!:confused:
http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote