• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Romney praises socialised medicine

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,670
6
0
Who 'deserves it'?
It is not hard to come up with a list of how we expect people to behave.

What about those who had to grow up and work around those who smoke cigarettes, and who subsequently gets cancer? Is it their fault because they couldn't afford to move away because their parents couldn't afford an education for them because they were always spending their money on cigarettes?
No.
 

DrPizza

Administrator Elite Member Goat Whisperer
Administrator
Mar 5, 2001
49,619
162
111
www.slatebrookfarm.com
I did not realize that big mac contained a warning on them about causing cancer or heart disease.

When people buy cigarettes here they swipe their driver's license to verify its valid. Seems easy to keep a database of such purchases.
I'm sorry, we didn't feel a warning label was necessary. You were informed of this fact in 8th grade health class.

My brother just bought a couple packs of cigarettes when I was with him the other day. They weren't for him - they were for a guy whose farm we were headed to. The guy asked him to pick them up on our way.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,670
6
0
I'm sorry, we didn't feel a warning label was necessary. You were informed of this fact in 8th grade health class.

My brother just bought a couple packs of cigarettes when I was with him the other day. They weren't for him - they were for a guy whose farm we were headed to. The guy asked him to pick them up on our way.
Except eating hamburgers is not a problem in and of itself. http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html

So I guess people would have to purchase their own cigarettes. The disadvantage of this would be what exactly.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
I find it interesting liberals are arguing for less government intrusion into our health while simultaneously saying the government should control our healthcare.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,670
6
0
I find it interesting liberals are arguing for less government intrusion into our health while simultaneously saying the government should control our healthcare.
That is because they think people should be able to do whatever they want and then get bailed out by the government.
 

modestninja

Senior member
Jul 17, 2003
753
0
76
Except eating hamburgers is not a problem in and of itself. http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html

So I guess people would have to purchase their own cigarettes. The disadvantage of this would be what exactly.
That study doesn't say that eating hamburgers isn't unhealthy, it says that weight gain or loss is based on calories more than say nutrition. That being said, there are plenty of skinny people that eat like crap (aka: lots of fast food) that have heart disease or high blood pressure at a young age. In order to come to the conclusion you did, eating hamburgers (or more generally fast food) isn't bad for your health all things being equal, you'd need a study that controlled for that. The "Twinkie" study doesn't do that.
 

modestninja

Senior member
Jul 17, 2003
753
0
76
I find it interesting liberals are arguing for less government intrusion into our health while simultaneously saying the government should control our healthcare.
I guess reading comprehension isn't something that everyone learns.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,670
6
0
That study doesn't say that eating hamburgers isn't unhealthy, it says that weight gain or loss is based on calories more than say nutrition. That being said, there are plenty of skinny people that eat like crap (aka: lots of fast food) that have heart disease or high blood pressure at a young age. In order to come to the conclusion you did, eating hamburgers (or more generally fast food) isn't bad for your health all things being equal, you'd need a study that controlled for that. The "Twinkie" study doesn't do that.
It also says

Haub's "bad" cholesterol, or LDL, dropped 20 percent and his "good" cholesterol, or HDL, increased by 20 percent. He reduced the level of triglycerides, which are a form of fat, by 39 percent.
So by eating like crap he imagined to improve his cholesterol as well.
 

Mr. Pedantic

Diamond Member
Feb 14, 2010
5,040
0
76
It is not hard to come up with a list of how we expect people to behave.



No.
So can you come up with a list of criteria that will accurately and prospectively predict (PPV >0.9999 and NPV >0.9999) who 'deserves' treatment and who doesn't? I chose the values above because 1) we're talking about applying this to a population of over 300 million people, and 2) even though it is much worse to deny treatment to someone who deserves it, than it is to treat someone who doesn't, I hypothesise that many more people deserve treatment than don't, which is why they're the same precision.

Oh, and also, these criteria should be applicable in the long-term (i.e. at least 10-20 years) and should be difficult to 'game' or exploit.
 
Last edited:

modestninja

Senior member
Jul 17, 2003
753
0
76
It also says

So by eating like crap he imagined to improve his cholesterol as well.
Any time you lose weight those go down. So that doesn't really say anything. Would they have gone down more with a healthier diet? We don't know... This isn't a scientific study you can draw conclusions from because of the tiny sample size.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,670
6
0
So can you come up with a list of criteria that will accurately and prospectively predict (PPV >0.9999 and NPV >0.9999) who 'deserves' treatment and who doesn't? I chose the values above because 1) we're talking about applying this to a population of over 300 million people, and 2) even though it is much worse to deny treatment to someone who deserves it, than it is to treat someone who doesn't, I hypothesise that many more people deserve treatment than don't, which is why they're the same precision.

Oh, and also, these criteria should be applicable in the long-term (i.e. at least 10-20 years) and should be difficult to 'game' or exploit.
I listed several things we should expect people to do to minimize their chances of become burdens to the state previously:

1.) Graduate high school
2.) No children out of wedlock
3.) No drug use or committing violent crimes or theft.
Add in surcharges for those who smoke and are obese and you are probably doing pretty well.
 

techs

Lifer
Sep 26, 2000
28,567
3
0
I'm sorry, we didn't feel a warning label was necessary. You were informed of this fact in 8th grade health class.

My brother just bought a couple packs of cigarettes when I was with him the other day. They weren't for him - they were for a guy whose farm we were headed to. The guy asked him to pick them up on our way.

No, I wasn't. In fact, I was told there was no proof at all. By doctors. In medical journals.

Of course, I am a little older than most here.
 
Nov 29, 2006
14,680
2,494
126
It is not hard to come up with a list of how we expect people to behave.
How would you like it if we came up with a list of how we expect you to behave except you hated everything on the list?

Maybe something like this?
1.) Flunk high school
2.) Have at least 2 children out of wedlock
3.) Heavy drug use or committing violent crimes or theft.
 
Last edited:

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,670
6
0
How would you like it if we came up with a list of how we expect you to behave except you hated everything on the list?
So lets see you hate having to graduate from High school. You hate being expected not to use drugs and not to rob or stab people. You hate being expected not to produce children that have a 5 times greater chance of being in poverty along with a host of other problems. o_O
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY