Originally Posted By RoadTrip The United Health Foundation's state by state ranking of health put Minnesota in first place for the fourth consecutive year. That wasn't much of a surprise. What was something of a surprise was to find that 8 out of the 10 healthiest states were Blue States in 2004 and 10 out of 10 of the least healthy states were Red. Could it be that government spending more on health care actually works?? Source: <a href="http://www.unitedhealthfoundation.org/ahr2006/Findings.html#Findings" target="_blank">http://www.unitedhealthfoundat ion.org/ahr2006/Findings.html#Findings</a>
Originally Posted By wahooskipper Looking at James Carville and Mary Matalin, I'd say Republicans are healthier hands down.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh I think the criteria used skews the results. One of the main things they look at is whether people have health insurance, so places with more government health care are going to have more people with health insurance. Also, red states tend to have more families with young kids, which increases their chances of having a higher infant mortality rate and more kids in poverty, two other things the study looked at.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip You are correct about more government health care meaning more health insurance. But couldn't you logically conclude that people with health insurance are more likely to seek preventive care and are therefore healthier? Saying the results are skewed because of this is really sidestepping the issue. As for infant mortality and children in poverty rates; they are rates -- not absolute numbers. Because of this there would be no impact from one state having more families with young kids than another.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <But couldn't you logically conclude that people with health insurance are more likely to seek preventive care and are therefore healthier?> Yes. I'm just saying the results might be exaggerated a little - that the differences in actual health might not be as great as the study reported. It's like the child poverty rate. A poor family with one child will affect the rate less than a poor family with three children.
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By fkurucz As you most of you know I'm a pretty conservative kind of guy (but not a Neo-Con). That said, I do think that the time has come for a national health system in the US. I say this because: 1) The number of uninsured increases every year (both in absolute percentage numbers) 2) The cost of healthcare continues to handily outstrip the rate of inflation. I think that #2 happens for a varity of reasons: a) The inefficiencies of having thousands of private insurance plans. b) Americans are expected to bear the full brunt of the costs of developing new drugs (which is why we often pay 2-3x compared to other industrialized nations). I know many naysayers will complain that there will be unbearable waiting lists for treatment, and they use Canada as a poster child for whats wrong with National Health. Yet every time I chat with Canadians they always tell me that they are happy with their healthcare system. Ditto with Germans. I would like to see this system funded through a national sales tax (that way even illegals would make a contribution to the system). I don't expect this to happen anytime soon, but I do think that we will eventually reach a crisis point where the number of uninsured becomes large enough to make this happen.
Originally Posted By mrichmondj I am willing to take on all LP conservatives in a fitness challenge! Name the contest -- we can do pushups, situps, pullups, weight lifting, a 10 mile run! Bring it on!
Originally Posted By DAR I was just looking at the list and have to wonder how Wisconsin is in the top ten. We fry everything here and I mean everything.
Originally Posted By fkurucz As my doctor loves to point out, one can be fit without being healthy. Case in point: 300+lb football players. They are very fit, but their expected life expenctancy hovers around 50.
Originally Posted By tiggertoo I think it’s because you burn more calories when you are cold. And who’s "colder" than a Minnesotan in wintertime?
Originally Posted By tiggertoo <<They are very fit, but their expected life expenctancy hovers around 50.>> Actually they aren't all that "fit". I have a friend who's an offensive lineman for the Kansas City Chiefs, and true to form they are strong as oxen, with pretty good cardio, but they are beaten to a pulp week after week after week for 20+ years. This has plays a serious effect in their later and post-football careers. My friend wakes up every day with serious pain in the back and knees; doctors tell him this will only get worse. This plays a major role in the short life expectancy of professional linemen. <<Name the contest -- we can do pushups, situps, pullups, weight lifting, a 10 mile run! Bring it on!>> How about weight lifting? My current 10 rep max is 345-bench; 1100-leg press; and 270-military press. I can’t run anymore though as I’m having some serious patella tracking issues; the ballistic activity kills me after only a few hundred yards.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Yeah, I can't do any of that stuff anymore due to my patina tracking issues either. But, boy howdy, back in the day, I could do the garlic press, rep theather, the 15 minute mile, you name it. I do sometimes go ballistic, but mostly that happens in traffic.
Originally Posted By mrichmondj <<< How about weight lifting? My current 10 rep max is 345-bench; 1100-leg press; and 270-military press. >>> Wow! Who's your trainer? Pat Robertson? ;-) I'll take you up on that challenge, though.
Originally Posted By tiggertoo <<Yeah, I can't do any of that stuff anymore due to my patina tracking issues either. But, boy howdy, back in the day, I could do the garlic press, rep theather, the 15 minute mile, you name it. I do sometimes go ballistic, but mostly that happens in traffic.>> LOL! Just apply some beware-o-glare ointment and down a bucket of popcorn; you should be fine after that. <<Wow! Who's your trainer? Pat Robertson? ;-)>> All I know is, if Pat Robertson ever asked me to spot him........oh, the temptation; get thee behind me Satan. ;-)
Originally Posted By DVC_dad In reply to the original post. Government spending on healthcare most certainly helps!!! But there is the question of exactly WHO in the population the government healthcare spending helps. It's not you RoadTrip nor any of your contemporaries.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<But there is the question of exactly WHO in the population the government healthcare spending helps. It's not you RoadTrip nor any of your contemporaries.>> I think it helps everyone. I've read that diseases that had been virtually eliminated in the U.S. (smallpox, tuberculosis, polio) are making a comeback because there are so many people without insurance who do not immunize their kids. That is certainly bad for everyone. Also, those without insurance typically get the most expensive medical care there is -- the emergency room of a hospital. This drives healthcare costs up for everyone and increases taxes if it is a county hospital, which is where those without insurance typically go. So, would MY personal health be impacted by greater government spending? Probably not. But as a society we would be healthier and in the long term the cost of health care in the country would decrease.
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>But as a society we would be healthier and in the long term the cost of health care in the country would decrease.<< Yup. Funny how with their "inferior" system Canadians live longer than Americans.
Originally Posted By mrichmondj Longevity is not necessarily an indicator of "good health." I can think of number of health care issues where longevity would lead to adverse affects to a health care system and the quality of life for patients. This isn't meant to poo poo the Canadian health care system, but just a point to make that longevity should not be a single metric to compare the "healthiness" of populations.
