Look at the people in the video below. Look at their self-satisfied little faces. These are the authors of the toxic sugar article. They are idiots. I do not say that to be insulting, but as a statement of fact. The woman on the right, in particular, should not be trusted with a pair of scissors. She calls herself a “medical sociologist” and works at UCSF. This should disqualify her from going anywhere near a scientific journal. She thinks that sugar is a poison because it is fermented to make alcohol. If you read the Daily Mail, alcohol is made by “distilling sugar”. This is what we’re up against: cretinous arguments made still more ludicrous by a woefully uneducated media.
Read the whole thing. Then send it to 3 random reporters.
Posted by: EBD at February 4, 2012 12:33 PM
Holy crap, EBD, that was a brilliant assembly of words!
Paul
What EBD, Scar and Revnant Dream said.
The rise in health care is due to an aging population coupled with a sharp drop in the birth rate, in other words, demographics. The health care problem will resolve itself as the baby boomers die off.
Euthanasia and assisted suicide will lessen the “burden” plus free up pension and disability money that will no longer need to be paid out despite the fact that the boomers paid into them their entire working lives – they just won’t get to collect – at least for long.
Neither the obese or smokers cost the health care system more – this has been proven time and time again. Who wants to be taxed for the sake of perpetuating an urban legend?
Why do persons visit hospitals and doctor’s offices? Genetic diseases, cancers, and heart problems. What about depression(huge numbers), panic attacks, other mental health issues; suicide attempts? Sports/fitness injuries? Victims of crime: assaults etc. What about work place related injuries, motor vehicle and industrial accidents? Why not tax people who are pregnant, sexually active and at risk for STI’s (51% of cases are gay men)or women who want abortions? No doubt a strong case could be made for taxing sex it is a choice.
North of 60 you and others who think like you need to read the following.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/economy-lab/the-economists/healthy-is-good-but-it-wont-save-health-care-dollars/article2211408/print/
“Lucky Lori: “The health care problem will resolve itself as the baby boomers die off.”
================
You heard it here first, folks. All you gotta do is die, if you’re a boomer, or wait 21 years, if you’re not. The first boomers will turn 65 this year and the last of ’em will turn 45 years old. That’s still a lot of time to be consuming health services.
Lucky Lori: “Neither the obese or smokers cost the health care system more…”
This is a classic case of how Nanny Statism keeps generating more causes for Nanny to fund. Unless you don’t consider all the costs involved in public education campaigns and fighting tobacco smuggling by policing agencies a cost to society generated by some people’s bad habits, then you have to consider these, and others, as part of our health care costs.
Lucky Lori: “Genetic diseases, cancers, and heart problems.” – two of which are caused in large part by stupid, irresponsible behavior, and those who succumb to cancer or heart disease at an early age are simply taxing the health care system at an earlier age. And if they do die earlier, which is quite likely, that’s several years of taxes not paid to the Nanny state, so that those that do live to a ripe old age have paid for the dumbass’s health care, but the dumbasses have not paid for the care of the old folks.
Maybe we should talk about the problems and costs caused by excessive alcohol consumption, too. You forgot to mention that.
Lucky Lori at 11:07 PM, that’s an interesting article but it misses the point. I’ve personally witnessed old people in hospitals being kept alive 15 more minutes though some advanced medical miracle. What’s the point of that? In the old days, it seems to me, people accepted death more than they do today. And they died at home.
I’m not even sure that a patient’s instructions to the medical establishment regarding their desire to be allowed to die are always respected.
As for me, I think I’d prefer to just find a bush somewhere and go there an die. But I suspect, even if I issue an edict before hand, a massive search and rescue mobilization will be undertaken, at the tax payers expense.