Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : A US National Health Care System? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Road Walker who wrote (4246)	2/4/2008 2:20:53 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

Yes "intrinsic or necessary" was my term, but you disagreed with it. I just think government is more likely to promote healthy living if they are paying the bills They are paying a lot of the bills anyway, and they are already active in trying to promote healthy lifestyles (sometimes in mistaken ways). I'm not sure there is a lot to gain from such government promotion.

To: Road Walker who wrote (4246)	2/4/2008 3:31:17 PM
From: Joe NYC	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

John, "Intrinsic of necessary" are your words, not mine. I just think government is more likely to promote healthy living if they are paying the bills. There is no question government can promote things. But the question is: "Can government figure out what healthy lifestyle is?" - which is what should be asked before we decide government should go out and start promoting things. The answer has been "No" so far. Can things change in the future, and can government figure things out? I am a pessimist. What makes me pessimistic is that in the ongoing contest of science, politics, lobbying by vested interests, science is barely a contestant. Answers will not be found, mainly because proper questions will not be asked. Just look at the obsession of the government with saturated fat. The government has been promoting the idea that Americans should be eating less saturated fat in order to cut their risk of heart disease. This promotion has been going on for over 35 years. Is there any science behind this recommendation? Well, countries that are #1 and #2 in consumption of saturated fat (France and Switzerland) also have the lowest rates of heart disease. The same applies for Eskimos (who are not exactly a country, but a sub-population in US and Canada). That could be enough of a hint (even for a non-scientist) that you are barking up the wrong tree. Never mind that, the government promoted this idea for years, with no scientific backing. Then the Surgeon General commissioned a study (or a serious of studies) to prove beyond reasonable doubt that saturated fat causes heart disease. After about 5 years or so, they threw in the towel, unable to prove anything. So the government went on for ~25 years promoting an idea with no science (only politics) behind it, then in the following ~5 years found out for sure that there is no science behind the recommendation. But there was no change, the government is still dispensing the same dubious recommendation. Would you empower these clowns to do more of this type of promotion, and give them money to do so? I would not. Joe