<p>Maybe we need regular medical care and education.</p>
<p>Well, the area of diet is very tricky. And, I’m not a fan of food police, btw. But, any doctor will tell you that education is not the answer since most people have already heard this advice and even current patients don’t follow it. So, if these self-inflicted medical issues become a bigger burden on taxpayers it would not be at all surprising to see limits on ice cream consumption, ect. It’s comparable to smoking.</p>
<p>I’ll go with LasMa on this one. The sentiments behind “food police” don;t begin to explain why Asians in the US are seeing high and rising prevalence, despite low BMI. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I strongly disagree. Sure, it’s nice to know age, race/ethnicity, sex and other demo factors for targeting solutions (and clinics), but If you are a state health czar planning for health care services, the current gross number is a place to start. And that to me, is very useful. In other words, does it really matter if 100% of the increase is in the growth in the Martian population, for example? The simple fact is that such people are ‘residents’ of the state and thus, will be accessing/needing health care services for DII. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>OTOH, pretty much all journalism is “sloppy” – they are trained generalists – few with even rudimentary math – in a specialist society. (Heck some of our top news anchors only have had a HS education!)</p>
<p>LF - It’s not just BMI. It’s diet. TOFI. </p>
<p>Flossy- “any doctor will tell you that education is not the answer since most people have already heard this advice”
Actually, if you do dig, they are finding more direct contact and education IS effective. And identifying those either most at risk today or statistically most likely to develop diabetes, is how they learn where to point certain efforts.</p>
<p>Since you feel “any doc” would say this, maybe that explains why some of the education is apparently being pointed at doctors and other medical pros.</p>
<p>Well, I’ll agree with you that physicians are not usually the best place to go for nutritional advice. The personal responsibility part is a tougher nut to crack. </p>
<p>Well, since ya all brought up dialysis…this is from 2010 but since Medicare covered dialysis for all was put into place in 1972 - it is 4 decades worth of data. A foreshadowing of things to come…</p>
<p><a href=““God Help You. You're on Dialysis.” - The Atlantic”>“God Help You. You're on Dialysis.” - The Atlantic;
<p>Inefficient, lack of quality control, small providers being gobbled up to make big providers, limited access…oh…and it costs more than anywhere else in the world Oh yeah…let’s do it again!</p>
<p>Limits on how food stamps can be used could cut some of the obesity related diabetes. No restaurants, no sodas, no candy, no chips, no bakery products, no ice cream, etc. etc. </p>
<p>T - and there go individual freedoms some are already yonking about. What is it? Separate rules for food stamp users, but not for others? Maybe you want market navigators. </p>
<p>I don’t disagree in theory. But (agreeing with whoever already said it,) all the fuss about personal freedoms, “big government” and how they already pry too much- I don’t think this fits easily. And, what limits- no birthday cake for Junior because Grandma is at risk? You’ll need a tribunal to reevaluate some guy who has his food act together but a diabetic relative. Who complained this too soviet? </p>
<p>Subsidizing the consumption of junk food which isn’t nutritious and leads to obesity and diabetes is like subsidizing tobacco farmers whose product leads to cancer. Makes no sense. Food stamps are not allowed to be used for alcohol or tobacco. Is that ‘soviet’?</p>
<p>I don’t like big government either, but when the taxpayers are paying for bad habits beginning to end, something has to change.</p>
<p>I would love to see an actual statistical breakdown of what food stamps are spent on. </p>
<p>“GP, are you talking about setting up high-risk pools?”</p>
<p>Not really. I can think of many ways to insure people with preexisting conditions without necessarily eliminating personal responsibility and/or changing the nature of insurance or eliminating underwriting altogether. The problem is if you tell insurers that you can’t underwrite and price policies based on risk, then you are now providing a service which is not insurance in the traditional sense. </p>
<p>I think MaineLonghorn is on to something with people not having to be underwritten as long as you have been continuously covered. In Ca., before Obamacare, you could move to a policy with a higher deductible without underwriting as long as there wasn’t a break in coverage. I would provide for some exceptions to this policy. For example, anyone coming off their parent’s policy would be given a one-time exception from underwriting. Also, you would be allowed to move from your employer to an individual policy without underwriting. However, if you decided to forgo insurance because you are irresponsible or just don’t want to pay for it and then get sick, an insurance company should be allowed to deny coverage for that person. Now this may seem harsh but people need to take some responsibility for their lives and the decisions they make. This is the price you pay to live in a free society where you get to make choices about how you choose to live your life. </p>
<p>As I have repeatedly said, I also think everyone should be able to choose what benefits they want from an insurance policy. If I don’t want all the so-called essential benefits, I shouldn’t have to purchase all of them. Also, sell insurance across state lines so I have more than 2 choices. Let me choose what I want. In other words, get the bureaucrats and the do-gooders out of the transaction between me, the insurance company and the doctor, so I can decide what is best for me and my family. I know this attitude is an anathema to the progressives out there who think all us need the nanny state to hold our hands and make all the decisions for us. But if the rules are clear and transparent, I trust Americans to make these decisions far more than some distant bureaucrat in Washington.</p>
<p>According to this article, the feds won’t reveal the information.</p>
<p><a href=“Top secret: $80B a year for food stamps, but feds won't reveal what's purchased - Washington Times”>Top secret: $80B a year for food stamps, but feds won't reveal what's purchased - Washington Times;
<p><a href=“http://www.yaleruddcenter.org/resources/upload/docs/what/economics/snap_ssb_purchases_ajpm_10.12.pdf”>http://www.yaleruddcenter.org/resources/upload/docs/what/economics/snap_ssb_purchases_ajpm_10.12.pdf</a></p>
<p>Showing the large amount of sugar-sweetened beverages being purchased with food stamps, estimated at 2 billion annually.</p>
<p>Well, back in the early 80’s when I was working in bakeries (to help pay for college). The bakery was in an um…underprivileged…part of town. Way back then we sold a hand full of large sheet cakes - which ran about $25 to those paying with food stamps on weekly basis. I think minimum wage was about $1.75 at that time.</p>
<p>WalMart every other Friday is the best place to gather this data. But, it’s going to be crowded.</p>
<p>GP, once you allow buyers to pick what benefits they want, selling insurance across state lines stops making any sense. The only reason to sell insurance across state lines is to evade a states’ regulations-- but if you get rid of the regulations, that no longer has any use. It’s not like you’re going to buy a policy all of whose doctors are at the Mayo Clinic. They’re great doctors, no doubt, but it would be inconvenient for you to fly to Minnesota every time you had a sprained wrist or strep throat.</p>
<p>And the anecdotal insults of persons using SNAP are the reason I’d like an accurate study. </p>
<p>It is interesting that at least as of 2012 that information was not available to the public. The sweetened beverage study was also interesting, although I’m willing to bet that $7 per month of sweetened beverages is not the root cause of the rise in health care spending in the US. I could be wrong.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Huh? Since this is cc, and many college students attend college OOS…</p>