A very important point that nobody really talks about

[yiostheoy]

I feel the least guilty about eating meat when it comes from fish, shellfish, crustaceans, and abalone. These animals (a word that means all moving living things) do not make a sound when you catch and kill them.

I feel really bad about eating beef, veal, lamb, pork, and chicken because I know these animals when being slaughtered cry. Even so I do eat this kind of meat because it is the only kind of meat available in the supermarkets by and large. I would stick to seafood if I could.

People who think they can get all their nutrition from plants (a word that means non-moving living things) are playing Russian roulette with their bodies and risking malnutrition and disease. They don't know it. But they are.

Vegetarians are wacko fanatics who should stay in the closet and not boast about their own stupidity.

Venison is one of my favorite meats because when I kill a deer the 300 RUM bullet that blasts through it kills it immediately before it even falls to the ground dead in its tracks and so it never knows what hit it. It never feels a thing.

However slob hunters who hunt with inferior cartridges that were never intended for hunting big game cause trauma for the animal.

Food

5 Brain Nutrients Found Only in Meat, Fish and Eggs

 

[Boss]

They aren't essential, sorry. It's not about meat having special ingredients that helped increase brain function. It was because the meat was nutrient dense and again, we did not have access to the amount of fruits, vegetables, grains, and legumes we have now. What is so difficult about understanding that? We were not designed to be herbivores/vegetarians, but we are physically designed closer to a herbivore than a carnivore. It doesn't matter what is natural, what matters is what is healthy. Being vegetarian is healthy as so many studies have delineated. With the added environmental benefits, advocating a cut back of meat is more than reasonable.

Again, watch the video I posted, it's NOT healthy. That's a myth. Do you know who mostly promotes this shit? People who are selling supplements. And now, apparently, people who are trying to "Save the Planet!" Good god... can we please stop with the ignorant nonsense?

Accurately, the people that promote less meat and saturated fats in diets are doctors. I'm not saying they give a shit about the planet. They just think it's stupid that so many people are eating themselves into an early grave.

People cram down their big macs, ice cream, fried Twinkies, and they end up at the age 65, obese, on Medicare with blocked arteries, high blood pressure, and diabetes. The rest of use have to pay for their indulgence with millions of dollars in bypasses, transplants, and endless visits to emergency rooms and hospital stays so they can struggle through another 10 or 15 years.

Which is precisely why I don't think government should have a fucking thing to do with healthcare and healthcare isn't a fucking "right!" If people want to eat themselves into an early grave, that's THEIR business... not YOURS!

Subsequently, if kookadoodles want to eat tofu and think they're saving the planet... more power to them! Just don't try to force ME to do it!

LOL Proof is in the pudding. In this case, the rest of the first world nations all have single payer universal health care, and they all live longer and healthier than we do.

Why is it that the Left always assumes the people who oppose them are ill-informed morons who haven't heard their propaganda yet? It's really very annoying to me. Do you REALLY believe that I haven't heard this stupid shit?

I DO NOT AGREE WITH YOUR FUCKING IDEAS!

 

[Old Rocks]

And I don't agree with your bullshit ideas. But I don't need to shout about it. I am quite comfortable not agreeing with someone demonstrably an ignoramus.

 

[Flopper]

They aren't essential, sorry. It's not about meat having special ingredients that helped increase brain function. It was because the meat was nutrient dense and again, we did not have access to the amount of fruits, vegetables, grains, and legumes we have now. What is so difficult about understanding that? We were not designed to be herbivores/vegetarians, but we are physically designed closer to a herbivore than a carnivore. It doesn't matter what is natural, what matters is what is healthy. Being vegetarian is healthy as so many studies have delineated. With the added environmental benefits, advocating a cut back of meat is more than reasonable.

Again, watch the video I posted, it's NOT healthy. That's a myth. Do you know who mostly promotes this shit? People who are selling supplements. And now, apparently, people who are trying to "Save the Planet!" Good god... can we please stop with the ignorant nonsense?

Accurately, the people that promote less meat and saturated fats in diets are doctors. I'm not saying they give a shit about the planet. They just think it's stupid that so many people are eating themselves into an early grave.

People cram down their big macs, ice cream, fried Twinkies, and they end up at the age 65, obese, on Medicare with blocked arteries, high blood pressure, and diabetes. The rest of use have to pay for their indulgence with millions of dollars in bypasses, transplants, and endless visits to emergency rooms and hospital stays so they can struggle through another 10 or 15 years.

Which is precisely why I don't think government should have a fucking thing to do with healthcare and healthcare isn't a fucking "right!" If people want to eat themselves into an early grave, that's THEIR business... not YOURS!

Subsequently, if kookadoodles want to eat tofu and think they're saving the planet... more power to them! Just don't try to force ME to do it!

We have reached a point where the government must be involved in healthcare or millions of people will simply die because they can not afford it. The argument that the free market will bring prices down so low everyone will be able to afford healthcare is simply not true for a number reasons.

People’s needs for health care are unpredictable, unlike food and clothing. The doctor-patient relationship is unique and demands a high level of trust, empathy and care. Providers know much more about medicine than customers do, so the information is hopelessly asymmetric. Patients on a gurney can’t really make normal choices, and payment comes after care, not before. And finally, the free market will only provide services to those that can afford it.

Even if the removal of goverment from healthcare cut health cost in half, it would still be well beyond the reach of millions of Americans.

 

[Flopper]

I feel the least guilty about eating meat when it comes from fish, shellfish, crustaceans, and abalone. These animals (a word that means all moving living things) do not make a sound when you catch and kill them.

I feel really bad about eating beef, veal, lamb, pork, and chicken because I know these animals when being slaughtered cry. Even so I do eat this kind of meat because it is the only kind of meat available in the supermarkets by and large. I would stick to seafood if I could.

People who think they can get all their nutrition from plants (a word that means non-moving living things) are playing Russian roulette with their bodies and risking malnutrition and disease. They don't know it. But they are.

Vegetarians are wacko fanatics who should stay in the closet and not boast about their own stupidity.

Venison is one of my favorite meats because when I kill a deer the 300 RUM bullet that blasts through it kills it immediately before it even falls to the ground dead in its tracks and so it never knows what hit it. It never feels a thing.

However slob hunters who hunt with inferior cartridges that were never intended for hunting big game cause trauma for the animal.

Food

5 Brain Nutrients Found Only in Meat, Fish and Eggs

If you eat animals, be them from sea, the land, or the air. Pain and death are a part of the process. When I was younger living in South Florida, I use to dive in the Keys for lobster. We would usually take them ashore and prepare them but one day we decide we would take care of this before we returned. We would grab the lobster twist the tails off and throw the rest in the water. That day I sat on the edge of the boat watching these creatures fight to survive with only half a body intact which was of course hopeless. They would sink and then for some reason come back to the surface again and again.

Do I eat lobster today? Occasionally, but every time I do I think about those creatures fighting to survive. Make no mistake, when you eat meat, you are killing that animal just as if you had ripped it apart.

 

[HenryBHough]

Power corrupts.

Militant vegetarianism corrupts absolutely.

 

[Flopper]

Power corrupts.

Militant vegetarianism corrupts absolutely.

I have known quite a few vegetarians. I have yet to meet one that was militant.

 

[Boss]

They aren't essential, sorry. It's not about meat having special ingredients that helped increase brain function. It was because the meat was nutrient dense and again, we did not have access to the amount of fruits, vegetables, grains, and legumes we have now. What is so difficult about understanding that? We were not designed to be herbivores/vegetarians, but we are physically designed closer to a herbivore than a carnivore. It doesn't matter what is natural, what matters is what is healthy. Being vegetarian is healthy as so many studies have delineated. With the added environmental benefits, advocating a cut back of meat is more than reasonable.

Again, watch the video I posted, it's NOT healthy. That's a myth. Do you know who mostly promotes this shit? People who are selling supplements. And now, apparently, people who are trying to "Save the Planet!" Good god... can we please stop with the ignorant nonsense?

Accurately, the people that promote less meat and saturated fats in diets are doctors. I'm not saying they give a shit about the planet. They just think it's stupid that so many people are eating themselves into an early grave.

People cram down their big macs, ice cream, fried Twinkies, and they end up at the age 65, obese, on Medicare with blocked arteries, high blood pressure, and diabetes. The rest of use have to pay for their indulgence with millions of dollars in bypasses, transplants, and endless visits to emergency rooms and hospital stays so they can struggle through another 10 or 15 years.

Which is precisely why I don't think government should have a fucking thing to do with healthcare and healthcare isn't a fucking "right!" If people want to eat themselves into an early grave, that's THEIR business... not YOURS!

Subsequently, if kookadoodles want to eat tofu and think they're saving the planet... more power to them! Just don't try to force ME to do it!

We have reached a point where the government must be involved in healthcare or millions of people will simply die because they can not afford it. The argument that the free market will bring prices down so low everyone will be able to afford healthcare is simply not true for a number reasons.

People’s needs for health care are unpredictable, unlike food and clothing. The doctor-patient relationship is unique and demands a high level of trust, empathy and care. Providers know much more about medicine than customers do, so the information is hopelessly asymmetric. Patients on a gurney can’t really make normal choices, and payment comes after care, not before. And finally, the free market will only provide services to those that can afford it.

Even if the removal of goverment from healthcare cut health cost in half, it would still be well beyond the reach of millions of Americans.

We already have a system that provides care for anyone who can't afford care. With Medicaid and indigent care laws, there is no one dying in the streets due to lack of health care. No one. It is a lie and a myth perpetrated by progressives who are insatiable. No amount of health care will ever be enough to satisfy the progressive.

Removing layer upon bureaucratic layer of governmental mandates and regulations on the entire health care industry, would dramatically reduce health care costs. Think of this scenario.... What if we had some kind of cataclysmic event that wiped out most of civilization... all our infrastructure and government is gone... we essentially have to start over again. Do you really think the first makeshift hospitals we build would charge the prices we see today? No, because the market couldn't sustain it. In such a situation, would there be do-gooder liberals out there insisting that facilities meet this standard and that standard... have to provide this and that? No... again, we would consider ourselves fortunate to just have rudimentary care.

All of the expense and cost comes from this notion that we HAVE to provide state-of-the-art everything from top to bottom and nothing else is acceptable. Yes, only the very best will do! Well, the "very best" just so happens to be expensive as fuck! If I am poor and break my foot, I really don't mind going to a clinic with a 30-year-old x-ray machine instead of a million-dollar MRI. Why can't health care have quality levels like every other industry in the marketplace? Because... liberals lay in the floor and writhe in agony over such a thought!

 

[Old Rocks]

SCIENCE & HEALTH > HEALTH & MEDICINE
New study finds 45,000 deaths annually linked to lack of health coverage
Uninsured, working-age Americans have 40 percent higher death risk than privately insured counterparts
September 17, 2009
By David Cecere, Cambridge Health Alliance
EmailTwitterFacebook
Nearly 45,000 annual deaths are associated with lack of health insurance, according to a new study published online today by theAmerican Journal of Public Health. That figure is about two and a half times higher than an estimate from the Institute of Medicine (IOM) in 2002.

The study, conducted at Harvard Medical School and Cambridge Health Alliance, found that uninsured, working-age Americans have a 40 percent higher risk of death than their privately insured counterparts, up from a 25 percent excess death rate found in 1993.

“The uninsured have a higher risk of death when compared to the privately insured, even after taking into account socioeconomics, health behaviors, and baseline health,” said lead author Andrew Wilper, M.D., who currently teaches at the University of Washington School of Medicine. “We doctors have many new ways to prevent deaths from hypertension, diabetes, and heart disease — but only if patients can get into our offices and afford their medications.”

The study, which analyzed data from national surveys carried out by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), assessed death rates after taking into account education, income, and many other factors, including smoking, drinking, and obesity. It estimated that lack of health insurance causes 44,789 excess deaths annually.

Previous estimates from the IOM and others had put that figure near 18,000. The methods used in the current study were similar to those employed by the IOM in 2002, which in turn were based on a pioneering 1993 study of health insurance and mortality.

New study finds 45,000 deaths annually linked to lack of health coverage

You know, Boss, you are one silly asshole. And a liar to boot.

 

[Boss]

SCIENCE & HEALTH > HEALTH & MEDICINE
New study finds 45,000 deaths annually linked to lack of health coverage
Uninsured, working-age Americans have 40 percent higher death risk than privately insured counterparts
September 17, 2009
By David Cecere, Cambridge Health Alliance
EmailTwitterFacebook
Nearly 45,000 annual deaths are associated with lack of health insurance, according to a new study published online today by theAmerican Journal of Public Health. That figure is about two and a half times higher than an estimate from the Institute of Medicine (IOM) in 2002.

The study, conducted at Harvard Medical School and Cambridge Health Alliance, found that uninsured, working-age Americans have a 40 percent higher risk of death than their privately insured counterparts, up from a 25 percent excess death rate found in 1993.

“The uninsured have a higher risk of death when compared to the privately insured, even after taking into account socioeconomics, health behaviors, and baseline health,” said lead author Andrew Wilper, M.D., who currently teaches at the University of Washington School of Medicine. “We doctors have many new ways to prevent deaths from hypertension, diabetes, and heart disease — but only if patients can get into our offices and afford their medications.”

The study, which analyzed data from national surveys carried out by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), assessed death rates after taking into account education, income, and many other factors, including smoking, drinking, and obesity. It estimated that lack of health insurance causes 44,789 excess deaths annually.

Previous estimates from the IOM and others had put that figure near 18,000. The methods used in the current study were similar to those employed by the IOM in 2002, which in turn were based on a pioneering 1993 study of health insurance and mortality.

New study finds 45,000 deaths annually linked to lack of health coverage

You know, Boss, you are one silly asshole. And a liar to boot.

YAAWN... Yep, seen this propaganda about a million times too.

You trolls are so fucking boring.

 

[Old Rocks]

No, we just set liars like you straight.

 

[Skull Pilot]

The human body is designed for digestion, primarily of meat. Biology is against you on this.

No, there have been numerous studies that support the claim that the human body is meant for a plant-based diet with small portions of meat.

the fact that humans need vitamin B12 and that vitamin B12 is only found in animal proteins contradicts the human is a vegetarian myth

The Perfect Human Diet

 

[Flopper]

They aren't essential, sorry. It's not about meat having special ingredients that helped increase brain function. It was because the meat was nutrient dense and again, we did not have access to the amount of fruits, vegetables, grains, and legumes we have now. What is so difficult about understanding that? We were not designed to be herbivores/vegetarians, but we are physically designed closer to a herbivore than a carnivore. It doesn't matter what is natural, what matters is what is healthy. Being vegetarian is healthy as so many studies have delineated. With the added environmental benefits, advocating a cut back of meat is more than reasonable.

Again, watch the video I posted, it's NOT healthy. That's a myth. Do you know who mostly promotes this shit? People who are selling supplements. And now, apparently, people who are trying to "Save the Planet!" Good god... can we please stop with the ignorant nonsense?

Accurately, the people that promote less meat and saturated fats in diets are doctors. I'm not saying they give a shit about the planet. They just think it's stupid that so many people are eating themselves into an early grave.

People cram down their big macs, ice cream, fried Twinkies, and they end up at the age 65, obese, on Medicare with blocked arteries, high blood pressure, and diabetes. The rest of use have to pay for their indulgence with millions of dollars in bypasses, transplants, and endless visits to emergency rooms and hospital stays so they can struggle through another 10 or 15 years.

Which is precisely why I don't think government should have a fucking thing to do with healthcare and healthcare isn't a fucking "right!" If people want to eat themselves into an early grave, that's THEIR business... not YOURS!

Subsequently, if kookadoodles want to eat tofu and think they're saving the planet... more power to them! Just don't try to force ME to do it!

We have reached a point where the government must be involved in healthcare or millions of people will simply die because they can not afford it. The argument that the free market will bring prices down so low everyone will be able to afford healthcare is simply not true for a number reasons.

People’s needs for health care are unpredictable, unlike food and clothing. The doctor-patient relationship is unique and demands a high level of trust, empathy and care. Providers know much more about medicine than customers do, so the information is hopelessly asymmetric. Patients on a gurney can’t really make normal choices, and payment comes after care, not before. And finally, the free market will only provide services to those that can afford it.

Even if the removal of goverment from healthcare cut health cost in half, it would still be well beyond the reach of millions of Americans.

We already have a system that provides care for anyone who can't afford care. With Medicaid and indigent care laws, there is no one dying in the streets due to lack of health care. No one. It is a lie and a myth perpetrated by progressives who are insatiable. No amount of health care will ever be enough to satisfy the progressive.

Removing layer upon bureaucratic layer of governmental mandates and regulations on the entire health care industry, would dramatically reduce health care costs. Think of this scenario.... What if we had some kind of cataclysmic event that wiped out most of civilization... all our infrastructure and government is gone... we essentially have to start over again. Do you really think the first makeshift hospitals we build would charge the prices we see today? No, because the market couldn't sustain it. In such a situation, would there be do-gooder liberals out there insisting that facilities meet this standard and that standard... have to provide this and that? No... again, we would consider ourselves fortunate to just have rudimentary care.

All of the expense and cost comes from this notion that we HAVE to provide state-of-the-art everything from top to bottom and nothing else is acceptable. Yes, only the very best will do! Well, the "very best" just so happens to be expensive as fuck! If I am poor and break my foot, I really don't mind going to a clinic with a 30-year-old x-ray machine instead of a million-dollar MRI. Why can't health care have quality levels like every other industry in the marketplace? Because... liberals lay in the floor and writhe in agony over such a thought!

Government does add to the cost of healthcare, but there is no way to tell how much and there is no way to put a price tag on important safeguards provided by goverment regulation. One can draw correlations between numbers of government healthcare regulations and rising healthcare cost or the amount government spends on healthcare but correlation is not the same as cause and effect. There are many other factors at work.

Free market supply and demand forces might bring cost down but at what cost to quality of care and at what cost to equitable distribution of quality care.

Quality in the free market depends on knowledgeable buyers being able to evaluate cost vs the quality of products. It would be just about impossible for most people to determine the best medical care for the cost.

The availability of medical care would be similar to the availability of other consumer products like automobiles. The best goes to those with the most money.

 

[Boss]

Government does add to the cost of healthcare, but there is no way to tell how much and there is no way to put a price tag on important safeguards provided by goverment regulation. One can draw correlations between numbers of government healthcare regulations and rising healthcare cost or the amount government spends on healthcare but correlation is not the same as cause and effect. There are many other factors at work.

Free market supply and demand forces might bring cost down but at what cost to quality of care and at what cost to equitable distribution of quality care.

Quality in the free market depends on knowledgeable buyers being able to evaluate cost vs the quality of products. It would be just about impossible for most people to determine the best medical care for the cost.

The availability of medical care would be similar to the availability of other consumer products like automobiles. The best goes to those with the most money.

Okay... So let's imagine we mandated that all cars must meet the quality standards of a Rolls Royce. How much would a car cost? Would liberals demand government provide free cars to all? Could we not agree that quality can vary without compromise to safety? We currently have all levels of quality in automobiles and they all have to meet specific safety standards. Why is the same thing unacceptable with health care?

Yes, the best goes to the wealthy... this is an altruism. It doesn't matter, even with the current health care system, the wealthiest will obtain the very best health care because they can afford it. The left thinks we should make this available to everyone and we can't afford to do that any more than we could afford to build cars to the standards of Rolls Royce and give everyone a car.

I'm just suggesting it might be possible... kind of how we've done with the "primary care" places all over the country... to provide consumers with lower-cost alternatives without all the bells and whistles. We don't have to compromise safety, we can still maintain high standards without going bat shit crazy. I mean, I don't really care if my hospital bed is 15 years old and doesn't have temperature controlled mattresses and memory foam. I don't care if there's not a pretty artistic fountain in the lobby or a world-class chef in the cafeteria. I'm fine with vending machines and a water cooler.

 

[Flopper]

Government does add to the cost of healthcare, but there is no way to tell how much and there is no way to put a price tag on important safeguards provided by goverment regulation. One can draw correlations between numbers of government healthcare regulations and rising healthcare cost or the amount government spends on healthcare but correlation is not the same as cause and effect. There are many other factors at work.

Free market supply and demand forces might bring cost down but at what cost to quality of care and at what cost to equitable distribution of quality care.

Quality in the free market depends on knowledgeable buyers being able to evaluate cost vs the quality of products. It would be just about impossible for most people to determine the best medical care for the cost.

The availability of medical care would be similar to the availability of other consumer products like automobiles. The best goes to those with the most money.

Okay... So let's imagine we mandated that all cars must meet the quality standards of a Rolls Royce. How much would a car cost? Would liberals demand government provide free cars to all? Could we not agree that quality can vary without compromise to safety? We currently have all levels of quality in automobiles and they all have to meet specific safety standards. Why is the same thing unacceptable with health care?

Yes, the best goes to the wealthy... this is an altruism. It doesn't matter, even with the current health care system, the wealthiest will obtain the very best health care because they can afford it. The left thinks we should make this available to everyone and we can't afford to do that any more than we could afford to build cars to the standards of Rolls Royce and give everyone a car.

I'm just suggesting it might be possible... kind of how we've done with the "primary care" places all over the country... to provide consumers with lower-cost alternatives without all the bells and whistles. We don't have to compromise safety, we can still maintain high standards without going bat shit crazy. I mean, I don't really care if my hospital bed is 15 years old and doesn't have temperature controlled mattresses and memory foam. I don't care if there's not a pretty artistic fountain in the lobby or a world-class chef in the cafeteria. I'm fine with vending machines and a water cooler.

I've never seen any regulation requiring hospitals to replace beds after a specific number of years, nor a requirement for artistic fountains, or world class cafeterias. For the most part, these are business decisions. In most cities, hospital have completion. Patients choose hospitals not based on their quality of healthcare because it's almost possible to tell who has best healthcare. So patients choose their hospital based on little things like food service, size of the rooms, friendliness of staff, food service, decor, etc..

Government regulations both state, federal and local have significantly eliminated really bad healthcare quality via certifications, inspections, and healthcare quality requirements. Insurance companies, Medicare, and Medicaid have narrowed the range of reimbursements for doctors and hospitals. In my area, a GP is likely to be reimbursed for an intermediate office visit in range of $65 to $95. So there is little reason for a doctor to specialize in wealthy patients. That was certainly not the case a hundred years ago when a doctor that served the wealthy might well charge ten times what a doctor that served the poor. Today, I go to the same doctors and use the same hospitals as the most wealthy people in town. Again, that has not always been the case.

The various requirements governments puts on healthcare providers has made it possible for anyone with insurance today regardless of their financial situation to get excellent healthcare in the treatment of serious medical conditions. If healthcare was sold in a totally free market that would not be the case.