Americans are lifestyle idiots. If it feels good, do it. If doing "it" makes you sick then so be it. Go to the doctor for treatment and then second guess the treatment plan from the guy with decades of education. Americans smoke, eat lousy diets, decide how to take their medications, do not exercise, etc, etc....... Then they complain about medical care. Its too expensive, it hurts, it didn't cure me instantly, I had to wait too long, etc, etc.....

The fix? Socialize medicine and make having a crappy lifestyle even easier. Yeah right............

But . . . but . . . what does this article have to do with socialized medicine?

Seriously:

But . . . but . . . what does this article have to do with socialized medicine?

Fanatic: one who won't change his mind, and won't change the subject.

Because it reports another fact on how the population deals with their medical concerns. And the answer is they are largely irresponsible. But they expect medical care to immediately remedy their failings. Since the current medical system isn't satisfactory then lets fix it by making it free for everyone. That won't fix it.

Americans want the best in healthcare when they give themselves the worst in sickness prevention and management. That imbalance makes any successful nationwide healthcare plan unfeasible. This article is just another "F" on this nations healthcare report card and its because the students refuse to study.

Scoot'r-d:

Because it reports another fact on how the population deals with their medical concerns. And the answer is they are largely irresponsible. But they expect medical care to immediately remedy their failings. Since the current medical system isn't satisfactory then lets fix it by making it free for everyone. That won't fix it. Americans want the best in healthcare when they give themselves the worst in sickness prevention and management. That imbalance makes any successful nationwide healthcare plan unfeasible. This article is just another "F" on this nations healthcare report card and its because the students refuse to study.

you're right about all this of course, but to get from here to the depravity of "socialized medicine".... sssssttttttttrrrrrrrreeeeeeeec­cccccchhhhhhhh

Okay, Scoot'r-d. Let's say you're right. What do you propose doing about it?

Some of the problems should be in the realm of the government to control. Tops on that list is tobacco. It is clearly a public health problem along the lines that legal cocaine once was. Tobacco could be phased out slowly.

Fiscal motivation might work in other arenas. There could be economic incentives placed on body composition. Some countries actually pay people to lose weight. Tax incentives for sports participation maybe?

Establish and maintain a public health channel with programing directed at educating the public about things like the importance of adhering to prescription directions, healthy diets and the benefits of exercising.

Health education is pitiful in this country. One class in high school is what most people get, if they're lucky. Good health is something most people naturally have in their youth but few understand how to live better to perpetuate a quality healthy life, longer.

But do you have any ideas for phasing out tobacco that would get better results than attempted prohibitions of alcohol, cocaine and other such drugs? And what do you suggest for health problems that aren't lifestyle related?

feline74...

I have a plan about tobacco. No it could not be instantly banned to have ay chance for successful elimination. But, it could be gradually eliminated as follows.

Make the legal age to purchase and use tobacco the same in every state. Then increase that age limit by one year, every year. In this fashion those who could legally use tobacco would continue to be allowed that option while the rest would never attain that status. Simultaneously stop all tobacco advertising and begin detailed education programs. There's more to it, but I think you get the idea.

How do you deal with underage usage? To whatever extent your education programs don't work, the people who aren't old enough to get through your sliding age window will be in the same situation as teenagers are currently. Another analogy to remember are those 18,19 and 20 year-olds who lost the right to drink when they raised the legal drinking age to 21. That didn't stop their drinking.

The idea isn't complete, my explanation was too brief. I do not expect that our youth will immediately stop using illegally tobacco just because we enacted a law. But, in time, as the age of legal tobacco usage rises tobacco will become further and further removed from our youth. In time tobacco would hopefully be something used only in adult circles and off the youth radar screen entirely. A bigger chink in the concept would be the counter influence from other countries with less strict tobacco policies.

There's no question but what a plan like this would take a lot of effort to implement. But doing nothing should not be an option. You sound like you're aware of the misery and financial costs tobacco has on our country. If so, then you know that 1,300 Americans die each day from tobacco. You understand that tens of millions more are in the tobacco illness queue costing billions in healthcare dollars. Something has got to be done.

"In time tobacco would hopefully be something used only in adult circles and off the youth radar screen entirely"

Problem is, many decades of youth WOULD have tobacco on their radar screens via their own adult friends and relations or through the media. With this exposure comes the question: "Why are they allowed, but not I?" Some would take the illegal status as sufficient reason. Others would be turned off by the smell of the stuff or be persuaded by the educational efforts. But some would want to try for themselves. Lacking the ability to purchase tobacco legally, they would get adult accomplices to purchase for them, steal it or find a dealer untroubled by scruples. I won't burden you with a slippery-slope argument at this point, but I will ask: Given the ease with which tobacco can be grown and the number of other cultures (as you've noted) which produce and consume tobacco products, what tactics and strategies could governments seeking to eliminate tobacco use employ at this point in the scenario? What tactics and strategies, that is, that have not been tried with alcohol in the past and a variety of drugs in the present, all with dismal results?

My apologies. I know you're trying to make people's lives better. And, to your credit, you came up with an idea I've never heard before. But I cannot help but suspect the results of such a program would be not the gradual eradication of tobacco use but the gradual transition of tobacco to an underground status such as that currently possessed by cocaine, marijuana, et al. Thank you.

Well I would disagree. If this was accompanied by a serious public education thrust tobacco would rightly be understood for the horrors it reaps. Americans do not understand the depth of control big tobacco has on this country. There are several cable channels dedicated to health topics but none have ever highlighted the ills of tobacco. I strongly suspect that is part of big tobaccos long arm of control. If the public genuinely knew and understood tobacco related diseases they would gladly work to accept its ultimate demise. Consider for a moment the terror people hold for cancers in general. Billions are spent on OTC dietary supplements to help contain the prospect of getting cancer. Few understand that lung cancer is almost exclusively caused by cigarettes: Oropharygeal cancers by cigars and chewing tobacco. Lung cancer was extremely rare until the cigarette became available in cheap and accessible quantities through mechanized production. Today it is a easing cause of death for men and the liberated women. From a public health policy this time in Americas history will one day be considered shameful for the lack of proactive tobacco controls. Open any phone book, in any American city and peruse it for vendors of medical oxygen. You'll find them in every town, regardless of size across this country. Thank tobacco and pathetic gov't policy. Whether you use tobacco or not, you will spend a sizable portion of money providing for the care of those who do.

If you want to know where he's headed with this, rent and watch "Equilibrium" and "THX-1138". The goal here is a Totalitarian world government which controls absolutely every aspect of your life "for your own good", and makes non-compliance, creativity, original thought, or just plain being different punishable by death.

Karma.... Right now, today, the federal gov't keeps your food safe, protects your from unscrupulous medicines and from many toxic products. You no longer get exposed to asbestos and the possibility of mesothelioma. Your family well never use lead based paints or eat off of lead tainted plates. The list goes on and on.

The governments role in public health is to prudently apply policy when a health hazard becomes understood. We now understand that tobacco is such as hazard ad we also understand that it is an addiction. Free enterprise is not the freedom to knowingly addict and harm your customers. If you feel that big tobacco should be allowed to kill American citizens then why shouldn't Taco Bell decide where they can get the cheapest lettuce, regardless of the consequences?