Chronic Fructose Exposure

[a completely inoffensive name]

I'm not evading anything, I merely pointed out that using the cost a vaguely meat-like product from McDonalds is a bad example to use in a thread like this. Apart from the health costs of fast food, live cattle prices are actually at record highs right now.

I see, I see. My apologies. I believe the higher cattle prices comes from the increased cost of a barrel of oil, which doesn't have much to do with corn subsidies. Also, demand for meat has risen a lot since the 1970s.

Using corn as cattle feed is generally considered a bad thing, it's not digested properly. Most good beef cattle is grass-fed, if I remember correctly corn is used mainly on dairy cattle.

Now this is a really good point. Cows really cant handle the corn in their diets. However, to me this only says that corn is not the optimal crop we should be subsidizing. If we subsidize some other crop that is healthier for cows and still has starches to be broken into sugars, that would be a better plan.

[gaelic cowboy]

I see, I see. My apologies. I believe the higher cattle prices comes from the increased cost of a barrel of oil, which doesn't have much to do with corn subsidies. Also, demand for meat has risen a lot since the 1970s.

Whenever oil goes up the price per kilo goes up naturally cos your inputs are obviously dearer.

Water, meal, diesel, electricity, vet bills and AI costs it all goes into the mix of the price of your steak.

Now this is a really good point. Cows really cant handle the corn in their diets. However, to me this only says that corn is not the optimal crop we should be subsidizing. If we subsidize some other crop that is healthier for cows and still has starches to be broken into sugars, that would be a better plan.

Grass is cheap in temperate areas with the right management you can get two possibly three crops of the stuff for winter and still have some for eating beforehand.

The corn fed stuff requires a few things which skew it's production, it's mainly shed based the corn requires input of diesel to successful grow and process, you need a lot of water and electricity and lastly your vet bill increase.

You avoid high cost here by offloading your enviromental costs downstream both litterally and figuratively(ie slurry), you need high volume to reduce you cost and you need cheap corn.

For a long time cereals did not really keep pace with there inputs and this probably kept corn fed beef low, however thats ending now as beef is a good price and replacement animals are following upwards.

Incidently that 1970s hamburger is dearer because today agriculture has developed better animals that fatten quicker and also shed production is on a much bigger scale today reducing your input cost.(as long as your output is not too heavily regulated)

Ireland uses a grass based system which is cheap and we manage to supply all of europe with mcdonalds burgers

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I have to face facts. I don't care if people smoke. But we clearly have an obesity problem. Let's throw the kitchen sink at it and repeal the sin taxes later when we can afford to think about such things. The cig taxes were fine for a while too. So let's triple the price of coke by taxing the added sugar and see what happens.

[gaelic cowboy]

I have to face facts. I don't care if people smoke. But we clearly have an obesity problem. Let's throw the kitchen sink at it and repeal the sin taxes later when we can afford to think about such things. The cig taxes were fine for a while too. So let's triple the price of coke by taxing the added sugar and see what happens.

I was walking home from work yesterday and decided to get a bottle of 500ml coke and a chocolate bar for later. (twas a cadbury double decker if you must know)

Anyway while watching telly I spotted that the bottle of coke as 26.5g of sugar per 250ml serving meaning the full bottle has 53g of sugar in total.

In case you wondering 25g would be about six teaspoons of sugar so a full 500ml bottle has twelve.

No wonder diabetes is on the rise.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Very few people give their children cigarettes and they have very limited exposure to them. Thus the cigarette sin taxes are largely aimed at adults. But parents feed their kids sweets constantly, and school bans of vending machines etc will only have limited effect. Thus the need for a tax on added sugar.

" In a study of 548 children over a 19 month period the likelihood of obesity increased 1.6 times for every additional soft drink consumed per day.[27]" etc

Yes yes ideally parents would be good parents, but they need a wake up call right now.

[Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla]

Ridiculous. Its denying someone a pleasurable activity that puts only THEMSELVES at risk. If the justification is that the state has to pay for your sins, then its an inadequate one. Especially in a society where law is based on precedent.

Of course, the crux is choice. If you implement a state healthcare system, then punish people for doing things that are not cost-effective SIMPLY because they are not cost-effective (which is the excuse we're using in this case to impose our views on others, right?) WITHOUT allowing them to opt out, then it is opressive and a slippery slope and should not be supported by any free thinking person.

Yeah.... we have exactly that here.

We tax smokes and booze, and everybody gets healthcare without going bankrupt. The NHS is not a mythical temple of Asclepios, but it works whether you are rich or poor - the evidence of this is in the relatively low levels of private health insurrence in the UK.

In the US, if you're poor - you don't get proper healthcare, you litterally have charities set up for Third World Africa working the US Rust Belt to provide free consultations, it was on the news hear the other night

There was an army doctor, he saw a roofer with a hernia, the roofer said, "I can't go to the emergancy room, they'll give me a bill, I can't pay".
The doctor said, "you'll go septic, then you'll probably die."
His wife said, "I'm scared."
He went to the Emergancy Room, they told him the operation would cost $20,000 dollars, that's twice what he makes in ayear, so he went home.

Just so we're clear on the mental image - this was a middle aged "WASP".

Over here, that guy would go to the doctor, get the hernia looked at, get the operation, stay in hospital until recovered and go home. End of story, he'd also get sick leave from his job for that, provided he wasn't cash in hand.

So: UK = Sorted vs US = still sick, probably die early and in great pain.

What use is your "Freedom" there?

The "State" is just the organ of the body politic that keeps the pwer on, the water flowing and the roads clear - it should also provide healthcare for citizens, because sick people can't work and can't pay taxes, so they are a social and financial burdan on the "state" and therefore on YOU.

[Vladimir]

Bla bla bla US healthcare sucks and all the poor people are going to die horrible deaths...

Emergency room treatment is free. Or at least in states like Arizona. They can't refuse treatment and many people, mostly illegal immigrants, just skip out on the bill. That's why the state attempted to sue the federal government.

Care to tell me how much it would cost to insure 300 million people?

[rory_20_uk]

Preventative medicine is a hell of a lot cheaper than merely treating emergencies. That principle is how every other country on the planet has lower medical costs as a percentage of GDP.

[Vladimir]

Preventative medicine is a hell of a lot cheaper than merely treating emergencies. That principle is how every other country on the planet has lower medical costs as a percentage of GDP.

Preventive care is good but I'd like to see the numbers on it. I suspect it's less a structural problem and more of a personal problem. People can choose to eat better and exercise but many people choose not to do so.

It may be an American cultural thing, but I blame English food. I can't sympathize.

[Strike For The South]

I would have a hard time beleiving the English excersise much more than us.

[rory_20_uk]

No. We treat early diabetes with metformin. We treat high blood pressure with ace inhibitors. We treat high cholesterol with statins.

You ignore it for a few years, then treat the heart attacks, cut off the limbs and acutely treat the kidney failure.

[Vladimir]

I would have a hard time beleiving the English excersise much more than us.

Food, English food. "Southern" food is probably the most classically English and it's horrible.

Now Tex-Mex is a separate category and it's awesome.

[Strike For The South]

I like sheppards pie

I also like a good fry up after some road work.

When else can you have eggs AND tomatoes

No. We treat early diabetes with metformin. We treat high blood pressure with ace inhibitors. We treat high cholesterol with statins.

You ignore it for a few years, then treat the heart attacks, cut off the limbs and acutely treat the kidney failure.

That's becuase people wait till the last minute becuase they don't have health insurance and when the big ER bill comes it gets dumped on the taxpayer anyway

We are doing it wrong

[Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla]

Emergency room treatment is free. Or at least in states like Arizona. They can't refuse treatment and many people, mostly illegal immigrants, just skip out on the bill. That's why the state attempted to sue the federal government.

Care to tell me how much it would cost to insure 300 million people?

Not much, if they're all one pool. The bigger the pool in an insurrance policy, the lower cost per-capita. We also have a less litigacious medical culture because doctors are seen as public servants and don't charge you for their time. You can litterally go and just have a moan at the doctor, walk out with some general health advice and that's it.

Also, your ER's aren't free, they just don't pay and eventually declare bankruptcy - here they pay before they even get sick.

Preventive care is good but I'd like to see the numbers on it. I suspect it's less a structural problem and more of a personal problem. People can choose to eat better and exercise but many people choose not to do so.

It may be an American cultural thing, but I blame English food. I can't sympathize.

American food is not like English food, American "chedder" is orange for Pete's sake, and bendy!

So far as "Classical" English food goes, it's not processed, it's cooked from base ingredients, has less sugar and less salt.

As far as numbers, you sepnd 16% of GDP on healthcare, we spend 8.5%, and we treat everyone - including the American women who come over here to have their babies.

I would have a hard time beleiving the English excersise much more than us.

Well, a friend of mine went to Atlanta for a month and she said what she DID notice was that you people seem to drive everywhere, where I never used any form of transport other than my feet when I lived in a city of 120,000 people.

Food, English food. "Southern" food is probably the most classically English and it's horrible.

It so isn't. For starters, we eat less, and probably less half-raw red meat.

That's becuase people wait till the last minute becuase they don't have health insurance and when the big ER bill comes it gets dumped on the taxpayer anyway

We are doing it wrong

And there you go.

+1 cookie.

Now go to Law School and sue the Federal Government for the right to healthcare.

[Gelatinous Cube]

Public Healthcare is a good thing. I've never made the argument on these forums before, but here it is: Access to Healthcare should be a universal right. But only so long as it remains a right, and not some kind of "Well, now you have to follow our rules and impositions." If a Public Healthcare system demands you stop smoking, or eating badly, or something else dumb, then you should have the right to opt out of it (i.e. no pay for it and not partake in it).

Unfortunately I fear a Public Healthcare system would seek to infringe on individual rights, which is why I prefer Oregon's approach. The Oregon Health Plan has long been one of the best public healthcare services for the poor in the nation, and only suffered under the Bush Administration (although I'm not sure why). It is optional, and for the poor--not for everyone. Lots of Homeless people wind up on it, which saves the state lots of money compared to the constant emergency room visits they would otherwise need.

[rory_20_uk]

OK... so:

No free ambulances
No free immunisations
No free treatment for heart attacks etc.

The whole point is savings are made by preventing bad outcomes. You can't have people opting out and then expecting free emergency treatment when things go wrong. That is a large part of the mess the USA is in at the moment.

[Gelatinous Cube]

OK... so:

No free ambulances
No free immunisations
No free treatment for heart attacks etc.

The whole point is savings are made by preventing bad outcomes. You can't have people opting out and then expecting free emergency treatment when things go wrong. That is a large part of the mess the USA is in at the moment.

I don't understand your argument. You're saying people who disagree with the terms of the Healthcare system should be forced to pay for it and partake in it even if they don't want to? That's not free healthcare, that's an imposed situation.

[rory_20_uk]

No, I'm saying those that are out are... out: one can not pick and choose. So, it's not enforced on you, but if you need an ambulance that's £500 a pop and emergency treatment will be hundreds or even thousands. When one gets old it'll get really expensive for treatment. You can't opt-in right after you think you'll get more out of it than you would be putting in.

Freedom is also includes the freedom to die from disease, to be undiagnosed, and to be free from help and support. I'm fine with choice. As long as people are OK with living with the consequences of that choice.

[Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla]

No, I'm saying those that are out are... out: one can not pick and choose. So, it's not enforced on you, but if you need an ambulance that's £500 a pop and emergency treatment will be hundreds or even thousands. When one gets old it'll get really expensive for treatment. You can't opt-in right after you think you'll get more out of it than you would be putting in.

Freedom is also includes the freedom to die from disease, to be undiagnosed, and to be free from help and support. I'm fine with choice. As long as people are OK with living with the consequences of that choice.

Right, this is the system we have in the UK. You can go private and pay, or you can go public, but if you go public you have to go by public rules.

Even then, we fit gastric bands for obese people who ate so many pies they'll choke on their own tounge.

[rory_20_uk]

I agree that the NHS covers a lot of things that it should not but it is getting better IVF is still an area that I think should be paid for by oneself. I think that there should be more account taken to other activities that patients undertake before accessing treatment - basically, if you've clearly been a major cause of the problem and have taken no steps to help, you go down the list for treatment.

I refer anyone privately who asks without a second thought - it's their money. The specialist they see will of course be responsible for the decisions that they make.

Gastric bands for fatties should not be required - but doing so is cheaper than these disgusting creatures cost if they are allowed to continue to gain weight. Of course, some manage to pile in the calories with one in place.

I think that GC would want a more extreme version of this where persons do not pay taxes towards a National Health Service and therefore would have no entitlement whatsoever to any treatment.

[Gelatinous Cube]

I think that GC would want a more extreme version of this where persons do not pay taxes towards a National Health Service and therefore would have no entitlement whatsoever to any treatment.

GC's ideal situation would be multi-layered:

1.) No need to get rid of private insurance. For those that can afford it, its a good option.
2.) Government subsidies to a wide variety of affordable health insurance, to promote variety and low prices.
3.) Because people will always fall through the cracks, some kind of system for the poor. I have no problem paying for such a system, because it is actually quite cheap when reasonable insurance is affordable for most people. The Oregon Health Plan is remarkably fair for everyone.

I don't see a need to make the entire thing one national system. That's asking for a massive increase in the level of government involvement in your life, and certainly you're a fool if you believe the government will handle the responsibility of a national healthcare system well.

[Papewaio]

Medicare is open to all in Aus.

Private health is encouraged by stick and carrot. The carrot is 30% rebate for private health. The stick is another 1% rise in taxes if you are earning above the threshold but have no private health. The other stick is for every year after thirty that you don't have private health the premiums rise 1%.

There is also various items that allow medical expenses to be capped if you are poor.

[rory_20_uk]

Medicare is open to all in Aus.

Private health is encouraged by stick and carrot. The carrot is 30% rebate for private health. The stick is another 1% rise in taxes if you are earning above the threshold but have no private health. The other stick is for every year after thirty that you don't have private health the premiums rise 1%.

There is also various items that allow medical expenses to be capped if you are poor.

That is a really good idea. Politically impossible in the UK, of course. The way the NHS was started was a massive mistake. By creating an absolute - no private involvement - it is incredibly difficult to have a hybrid system.

Previously I have thought that a system where things are much more transparent - you see one's GP and get the options for what is 100% paid for, what is subsidised and what is 100% private - and make one's choice in the same adult, informed way that sees me drive a Ford Focus, not a BMW M5. The phrase "life is cheap" is of course completely wrong. Death is cheap, life is increasingly expensive, and there comes a point when some people are probably too poor to live on the state's ticket.

The Australian system seems more finesse on this which I think is even better, and I think that both could be done together.

This reinforces my belief that there are things from around the world that the UK could learn from. Perhaps the powers that be do long for a situation where such things would not mean they would be voted out at the next election.

[Papewaio]

Sensible people look at other working systems.

Unfortunately politicians look at such as opportunity for a junket.

[Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla]

Medicare is open to all in Aus.

Private health is encouraged by stick and carrot. The carrot is 30% rebate for private health. The stick is another 1% rise in taxes if you are earning above the threshold but have no private health. The other stick is for every year after thirty that you don't have private health the premiums rise 1%.

There is also various items that allow medical expenses to be capped if you are poor.

How is this "30 years" counted? If it's from 18 that means your premiums start rising at age 48, about the time your health starts to slide.

That doesn't seem very fair, is it capped or does it keep rising until you die?

[catheres]

Let's get back to the topic. According to the most article I've read. fructose is deadlier than sugar. It is linked to lots of health problems according to those health experts and they have evidence.

[Major Robert Dump]

The biggest two threats of fructose is:
1) out of control corn subsidies that make our agricultural heirarchy retarded
2) thread necromancy

Just kidding. Welcome to the backroom. I assume the NRA nutters brought you here for the gun thread.

[rory_20_uk]

Let's get back to the topic. According to the most article I've read. fructose is deadlier than sugar. It is linked to lots of health problems according to those health experts and they have evidence.

Fructose is a sugar.
Sucrose is 50% fructose.
Deadlier is not a helpful term.
Evidence is best shared.

Welcome to the Backroom, fresh fish.

[Papewaio]

How is this "30 years" counted? If it's from 18 that means your premiums start rising at age 48, about the time your health starts to slide.

That doesn't seem very fair, is it capped or does it keep rising until you die?

Sorry about the late reply.

Increase starts at age 30.

Each 365 days you are without cover it increases by 2% a year to a maximum of 70%. If you hold private health for ten years the percentage increase gets reset to zero.