This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Healthcare discounts to thin non-smokers

Jump to new


sufferers who have been paying up to $150 a month will now pay less than $30.
Click to expand...

Yes, great, more money will be left over for junk food, OK and health insurance.

How about looking into life habits and taking kids away from potential Diabetes-bomb.
Almost unfair proposal, like Stolen generation 3.

On the other hand, medical improvements can fix this too, why worry.
 
Happy said:
How about looking into life habits and taking kids away from potential Diabetes-bomb.
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting that only overweight people get diabetes??
 
Happy said:
No, only big percentage.
Click to expand...

Although being overweight, smoking and having little exercise are likely to increase any tendency to diabetes, plenty of people are affected who don't fit this description.

Both my grandfather and my mother died from diabetes-related problems. Neither were even slightly overweight, both had really good diets and both exercised. So it's no guarantee.

Apart from any question of relationship with disease, I honestly don't know why people don't look after themselves properly simply because they would feel better than if dragging round rolls of fat which must make it hard to exercise, thus perpetuating the vicious circle.

Julia
 
There are different types of diabetes, not all types are caused by bad diet.
Also, look at this longer term. Say I have been living healthily for 80-90 years, carefully watched by the healthpolice so my premiums were reduced. Eventually something is going to give. My knees. My hips. My ears. My eyes. All of this costs fortunes in healthcare costs to fix. While my heart is beating strongly and I refuse to die, thanks to my healthy lifestyle. Harldy seems fair that I'm costing so much in healthcare while paying so little premium...
 


And if percentage of overweight obese and morbidly obese people in Australia tips over 50% of total population we can help a lot of people before they develop their acquired type of this dreadful disease.

Same slogan as one used in road fatality prevention and few other campaigns – if one life can be saved it is worth it.
 


So now you are interested in saving lives.
In youre first post it all about the money.

You think getting a few hundred dollars a year off their Medicare bill is really going to make smokers and seriously overweight people turn their lives around?
 
Bloveld said:
So now you are interested in saving lives.
In youre first post it all about the money.

You think getting a few hundred dollars a year off their Medicare bill is really going to make smokers and seriously overweight people turn their lives around?
Click to expand...

What do you think would make smokers and overweight people turn their lives around, Bloveld?

Julia
 

Rub92me

That is probably the best point made on this thread. Medical science is finding cures for so many diseases which once killed us at around 65 or 70 (e.g. heart disease, stroke, cancer) but now as you so correctly point out we are going to live much longer and therefore need the "wear and tear" orthopaedic surgery. In addition, most people won't have saved enough to fund their retirement years, so will be receiving a government age pension.
Hard to know where the funds are going to come from unless we all start paying a lot more tax than we do now.'

Perhaps the Medicare levy should be increased?

Julia
 


Finding cures?
They dont even know what causes these diseases yet.

You cant turn people around, its got to come from within.
 
Bloveld said:
Finding cures?
They dont even know what causes these diseases yet.

You cant turn people around, its got to come from within.
Click to expand...

Bloveld

So you don't think people are living longer these days because of successful treatment for major diseases? A couple of generations ago heart transplants and bypass surgery etc hadn't been thought of.

Of course a change in lifestyle has to come from within but that's not to say the motivation should not be externally produced.

You seem to be very negative on the whole subject of health and taking responsibility for one's own outcomes. Why?

Julia
 

Julia

Isn't there two distinct types of diabetes, one of which is diet and lifestyle-related, while the other is not?
Maybe your relatives had the latter type?

A doctor told me of a group of people who had an enforced stay on an island for several months as a result of being shipwrecked.
One of them was a diabetic who managed to salvage his supply of insulin. He was concerned about what would happen once his insulin supply ran out in a month, if they weren't rescued before then.
After a month of enforced healthy eating of oysters, crabs, fish, berries, wild fruit, coconuts etc, the diabetic no longer needed unsulin - his diabetes had been cured by his new healthy diet.
Once they were rescued and he returned to civilisation and his former diet and lifestyle, he redeveloped diabetes.
The doctor who told me this story claims it's completely true and is well documented.

Talking of longevity, a man of 104 was recently interviewed on TV. When asked the secret of his longevity, his reply was "A rum and a woman each day"!
Great sense of humour, some of these oldies!
Another centenarian was interviewed on radio a couple of years back. The female reporter asked him what sort of work he'd done during his life. He said he'd had many jobs, the first of which was working on a dairy farm.
She asked him how he liked the dairy farm work. He replied "I didn't like it much at all - there was only one decent job on that dairy farm".
The reporter asked "What job was that"?
The old bloke replied "The bloody bull had it"!

Hopefully I'll have that sort of humour if I live to a ripe old age.

Bunyip
 

Sure people are living longer with heart disease. Better surgery and drugs, but thats not a cure. It actually contributes to the cost of medical care.

If I am negative on this subject its because no one really knows how to eat a healthy diet. Its just a battle between powerful industries trying to make profits, and health comes last. The governments just try to appease all these groups and come out with wishy washy recommendations and regulations.
Do you think the drug companies want us healthy?
Do you think the sugar industry wants us to cut out soft drinks?
Yet these powerful groups have a big say in government policies.

I believe that I know how to eat correctly. But it goes against everything that the orthodox medicine has been preaching for 50 years.
 

I doubt that a person who actually injects insulin would survive without it. Thats usually Type 1 diabetes and the person would not be producing any of their own insulin.
But there are plenty of cases where Type 2 diabetics have gotten off their drugs when they get on this type of diet.
This is very much what I believe to be the correct diet. Based on traditional and primitive ways of living and no highly processed foods.
A few people are promoting the Paleolithic Diet. But there is disagreement between some of them as to some of the ratios of foods eaten.
 
Happy said:
I would really love that.

As it is now, sensible diet, healthy lifestyle only makes me to subsidise irresponsible people.
Click to expand...

Geez Happy you better sit down before looking at this one.

http://www.mercola.com/2006/aug/26/do_you_have_a_heavy_baby.htm

Look at these irresponsible little rugrats.
Not only is it healthcare that you have to subsidise but think of your taxes going into their education. And not only that, some of them will turn into teenage hooligans, more of your taxes to keep them in the slammer.
What do you rekon we can do with these topheavy toddlers?
Bootcamp? Bit of corporal punishment?
Spare the rod an spoil the child.
Maybe lethal injection is the way to go?
 
Doing some research on Parkinsons Disease and found this on Michael J fox website... maybe we will all be having some nicotine soon (in a cocktail thanks).

Nicotine Slows Parkinson's Disease

By Daniel DeNoon, WebMD Medical News

August 11, 2006

Nicotine protects brain cells most affected by Parkinson's disease, studies in monkeys show.

The findings, by Maryka Quik, PhD, and colleagues at The Parkinson's Institute in California, indicate nicotine might slow Parkinson's if given very early in the disease process.

They also help explain why cigarette smokers get Parkinson's disease less often than nonsmokers.

Parkinson's disease occurs when brain cells that produce dopamine -- an important chemical messenger -- die off.

Nicotine may protect these cells from toxic damage.

In their study, Quik and colleagues spiked squirrel monkeys' drinking water with nicotine so the animals' blood levels of the drug were similar to that in human smokers.

After six months on nicotine, the researchers gave the monkeys a toxin that kills the dopamine-producing cells and mimics the effects of Parkinson's.

The toxin did 25% less cell damage to the brains of the nicotine-treated monkeys.

Quik and colleagues note that people don't get Parkinson's symptoms until 80% to 90% of their dopamine-producing cells are dead.

"This means that a reduction in [brain cell] damage from 80% to 60% can mean the difference between having disease symptoms and being symptom-free," Quik says, in a news release.

People worried about Parkinson's disease should not start smoking, warns David A. Schwartz, MD, director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, the agency that funded the Quik study.

"While we would never recommend that people smoke, these results suggest that nicotine promotes the survival of dopamine-producing cells in animals with no overt Parkinson's symptoms," Schwartz says, in a news release. "These findings have implications for its use in slowing the progression of Parkinson's."

It's not clear how nicotine protects these crucial brain cells. Quik and colleagues suggest the drug may stimulate release of brain chemicals that help nerve cells grow and recover from injury.

The study appears in the early online edition of the Journal of Neurochemistry.
 
By 2000 I lost interest in what is in cigarette smoke.

But at the time there were more than 100 chemical compounds identified and surprisingly nicotine was 4-th strongest poison present.

In other words there were 3 stronger than nicotine.
 
Dear Bloveld,
I did not say 2000 whatever you are trying to put in my mouth.

Run out of edit time but to avoid confusion it should read

AD 2000, f

or those who don't have a clue what AD is, lets have an easier explanation

By 1-st of January 2000

Sincere apologies for being not clear in my original post.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...