Ok, end of insensitive rant. Here's the deal. I think our obesity problem is largely due to our transportation system. I travel to D.C. a lot, and I always notice how there are very few overweight people riding the Metro, same thing in Europe. People who commute by rail are usually walking at least 1 mile a day.

Conservatives often decry many liberal causes as "social engineering", but construction of our highway system, that has led to suburban sprawl and automobile dependant transportation, is/was social engineering, in my view. It radically altered the course of our society.

Change our transportation system and we can radically alter the course of obesity (not to mention improving our energy and pollution situations).

Obesity situation in Europe worsens
By Elitsa Vucheva
Mar 15, 2005, 17:18


EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS - The number of overweight schoolchildren in Europe is rising at an alarming rate, adding to an already critical obesity problem, according to figures released on Tuesday (15 March) by the International Obesity Task Force (IOTF).

The survey shows that the number of overweight schoolchildren is rising by 400,000 per year, joining the already 14 million overweight people in the EU.

The EU's health commissioner, Markos Kyprianou, has described the situation as "an obesity epidemic".

Launching the 'EU Platform on Diet, Physical Activity and Health' in Brussels, the Commissioner warned that "the situation keeps getting worse".

Although the number of obese people in Europe has been rising for many years, the rate of increase amongst children is especially alarming - with Poland and the UK seeing the sharpest increases.

Levels in the UK are now approaching the levels seen in the US.

Amongst adults in Europe, obesity rates range from 10 -27 percent in men and up to 38 percent in women. The corresponding figures in the US stand at 28 percent for men and 34 percent in women.

But some countries - Finland, Germany, Greece, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Malta - have already surpassed the overweight rates in the US.

You are about the only one on this site who takes what you say with a grain of salt anyway.

The unemployment rate is the lowest since September 11, 2001, we have seen 25 consecutive months of job gains, and 15 straight quarters of positive GDP growth. Federal tax revenues are growing and the budget deficit is shrinking

Reno, I don't think we are very far apart on this issue.

I want to clarify a term though. We've been talking about care, and how everyone gets it when they need it. Well to me there's a huge difference between treatment and health care. Treatment is what everyone can get today, after the fact. Health care, to me, means regular checkups and preventative care, as well as treatment. I think the biggest problem with our system is that many people, the poorest people, receive only treatment. We can realize tremendous financial and social benefits if we can change this one factor.

Conservatives often decry many liberal causes as "social engineering", but construction of our highway system, that has led to suburban sprawl and automobile dependant transportation, is/was social engineering, in my view. It radically altered the course of our society.

Change our transportation system and we can radically alter the course of obesity (not to mention improving our energy and pollution situations).

BTW, missed ya this weekend at Tres Piedras. My arrival was a bit of an epic, but the climbing was fun with a capital F.

Let me guess.

He took the one on the right.

Pedro said "This is an EASY problem to solve. "

Okay smart guy, let's hear it. How about some realistic and practical solutions.

I'm still waiting. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

I find it incredible that ANYBODY needs this spelled out for them, but ok . . .
.
.
.

The above alone would ensure that all citizens have care, raise the quality of care, and reduce the cost.

Here's the big question: How do we implement all these changes, legally, within the free market economy, and do so without raising taxes through the roof?

This is a hybrid solution that takes advantage of the things the market does best and the things government does best.

Raising taxes? This solution will reduce costs, why would we have to raise taxes?

It's gonna take a LOT of infrastructure building. That costs money. LOTS of money.

Money we don't have.

Perhaps if weren't senselessly burning $300-$400 Billion in Iraq, we would have the money. That's the "neo-Republican" cop-out for everything these days--we don't have the money. Sure we don't, because they made sure we don't--by squandering it unwisely elsewhere.

Curt

Curt:

Got a secret for ya... we ain't EVER had that kind of surplus money. Not pre-Regan, not during Clinton, not during FDR.... not ever.

To totally revamp the infrastructure of the US healthcare system would cost TRILLIONS.

So tell me, Mr. Liberal, where do we get the money? We could quit Iraq tomorrow, get back the 300 billion, and double it every year for 10 years and STILL not have enough money.

So, what's the answer, oh wise and sagacious one? Or are you just blowing smoke again?

Please provide some credible basis for this number. Thanks.

Mr. Liberal? I've probably been a Republican for longer than you have been alive.

It has already been done in most major industrialized countries. A better quality of healthcare--at far lower cost. I would suggest we study the three or four best systems out there and then adopt one.

You don't know much about healthcare finance, do you?

Doubtful.

Poor wording on my part: 300 billion a year for 10 years. 3 Trillion.

Such as? A European national system, like the French?

Having founded a US stock exchange and done technology based investment banking for a number of years, I have some understanding of finance.

What are your credentials, in that respect? I hardly think working in the industry as a paramedic makes you any kind of expert in healthcare finance matters.

I've been a Republican since working on Nixon's 1968 campaign. What do I win?

The three or four best--I don't know which, at this point.

That hardly qualifies you to speak intelligently about healthcare, Curt.

Having worked for healthcare systems of all designs, from a "free" county tax funded hospital to private hospitals, municipal EMS operations and private medical transport services, including the Medicare, Medicaid, private insurance, and general billing as well as accounting departments, bond initiatives, and new operation financing, I think I have some understanding of healthcare finances. What healthcare systems have you worked in, Curt?

Nothing. So you got me by a couple months. Doesn't change that what you've posted on this subject is far liberal in it's leanings.

Exactly. You don't know.

As a paramedic? What high-level financial positions did you hold for those institutions, exactly? CFO perhaps? So you were some low-level grunt in multiple healthcare environments. So what? Again, you have no clue about what is involved in financing any kind of venture.

Nothing. So you got me by a couple months. Doesn't change that what you've posted on this subject is far liberal in it's leanings.

Precisely why I said we ought to study the existing models before doing anything rash. That would be smart; somewhat akin to you doing your homework before shooting your mouth off.

Your error, Curt, is assuming I'm "only" a paramedic and nothing more.

And yet again, I ask you the question: What do you know about healthcare? You're obviously the world's foremost expert on finance, according to you, but do you know anything about medical care, the hands-on provision of, and the needs associated with? No?