Posts by ds1973

Broccoli and F*(%(ing STEAK!

When everyone around you is in the "overweight" category, of course they think you're anorexic.  I'm also around your weight/height 170-175 lbs and  5' 11 (and three quarters).  I got the same comments from people at work when I lost weight (from around 215) and also when I haven't seen family in a while.  I've been around 170 now for over 6 years and I'm at a different company now in another state, so this is my new "normal" to others. 

I think in general:

1) People get used to seeing big guys, even if that big is mainly fat.  You're in the normal weight range. 

2) People don't seem to think men are sensitive about their weight at all and tend to blurt things out.

3) People think men should be big - even if that means fat (see #1).

You could toy with their heads.  My sister-in-law made a comment about me being too skinny when she was in town.  Later I posted to facebook something like:  "Love it when people who are borderline obese call those of us with normal BMIs too skinny". 

She spent the next few months losing weight - without any serious lifestyle change - and then put it right back on again and now looks even chubbier.  LOL...

Original Post by catwalker:

Original Post by ds1973:

Original Post by catwalker:

Original Post by ds1973:

Kathy, you're right about shopping around for broken bones.   However you don't need to be a doctor to set a broken bone.  You don't need to be a doctor to do a lot of things, however various states set requirements for opening a practice (one of which is having a doctors name on it).  These regulations drive up costs to the patient.  Part of the blame also goes to the doctors union - the AMA.  They limit the quantity of doctors available to keep doctors salaries artificially high.

In a true free market, you could imagine that clinics would be opened by nurses or former army medics that aren't M.D.s but are fully qualified to perform minor procedures like drawing blood, vaccinating, setting broken bones, etc...

This would increase availability of service and drive cost down significantly.

This is one of the dumbest ideas I've ever seen.

Hmmm, this seems to work for every other industry that provides a service.  The AMA definitely had a hand in some of the legislation that's been passed to keep it difficult for doctors not educated in this country or people without an M.D. to practice any form of medicine in this country.  Protecting the salaries of their dues paying members under the guise of protecting the public.

Free markets work.  Prices are lower and the various levels of service expand.  The medical community would be forced to become more patient focused because the patient would be the customer.  Right now the customer is whoever is paying the bill - usually the insurance company or the government.

The best interests of the patient will be served when the patient becomes the customer again. 

Do you really believe that it's doctors salaries that are driving up health care costs? And do you really believe that doctors salaries are protected by the AMA not allowing unlicensend doctors to practice?

I was not saying that's the sole problem.  If you read my post and understood something about markets, you'd realize I'm saying that is part of the equation. 

You really need to read articles like this to see how the AMA has historically limited the supply of physicians and worked closely with state and federal government to protect member salaries first and foremost:

"According to a 2007 study by McKinsey&Company, physician compensation bumps up health care spending in America by $58 billion annually,on average, because U.S. doctors make twice as much as their OECD peers. And even the poorest in specializations like radiology and surgery routinely rake in around $400,000 annually."

"excessive physician salaries contribute nearly three times more to wasteful health care spending than the $20 billion or so that defensive medicine does."

"other studies have found that doctors' salaries contribute more to soaring medical costs than the $40 billion or so that the uninsured cost in uncompensated care"

"The AMA convinced lawmakers to shut down "deficient" medical schools, drastically paring back the supply of doctors almost 30 percent over 30 years. Few new medical schools have been allowed to open since the 1980s."

"even convincing Congress to limit the number of residencies it funds to about 100,000 a year. This imposes a de facto cap on new doctors every year given that without completing their residencies from accredited medical schools, physicians cannot obtain a license to legally practice medicine in the U.S. Even foreign doctors with years of experience in their home countries have to redo their residencies—along with taking a slew of exams—before they are allowed to practice here."

"One way to relieve the shortage of providers that the medical industry has created would be for the AMA to abandon its aggressive game of turf-protection and allow nurses, midwives, physician assistants and practitioners of alternative therapies such as chiropractors, to offer standard treatments for routine illnesses without physician supervision. For instance, midwifery, once a robust industry in this country, has been virtually destroyed, thanks to the intense lobbying against it by the medical industry. In 1995, 36 states restricted or outright banned midwifery, even though studies have found that it delivers equally safe care at far lower prices than standard hospital births"

"the net effect of AMA-type restrictions hasn't been to make better quality doctors available to more people, but to reduce existing options, especially in rural and other under-served areas."

Kathy, you're right about shopping around for broken bones.   However you don't need to be a doctor to set a broken bone.  You don't need to be a doctor to do a lot of things, however various states set requirements for opening a practice (one of which is having a doctors name on it).  These regulations drive up costs to the patient.  Part of the blame also goes to the doctors union - the AMA.  They limit the quantity of doctors available to keep doctors salaries artificially high.

In a true free market, you could imagine that clinics would be opened by nurses or former army medics that aren't M.D.s but are fully qualified to perform minor procedures like drawing blood, vaccinating, setting broken bones, etc...

This would increase availability of service and drive cost down significantly.

Original Post by caloricat:

Had he sat on the court during the Roosevelt administration, he'd have stood in the way of social security using the same arguement. 

You can take his arguement and apply it to every federally mandated law or rule that requires ANYONE to pay ANYTHING for ANYTHING.  Taxes, social security, medicare, medicaid, etc...  Pretty much ANY tax levied by the federal government would become unconstitutional because it requires someone to pay for something.

Last I checked, we can't just decide not to pay our taxes because we don't use federal services.  We can't decide to pay state taxes only for the roads we drive on.  I've been paying into social scurity since I was 15...I was never given the option of just keeping the money because I didn't think I'd ever be disabled or live to retirement.

And if people want to get a fancy surgery that the new government healthcare won't pay for...I don't think anything is stopping you.  I'm sure all these insurance companies that are in existence now will have all kinds fo booster plans to cover all kinds of things.  Nobody is taking away your right to have whatever surgery you want or have whatever extra insurance you want.  All the government is saying is that EVERYONE has to have at least a "little" health insurance.  Just like car insurance...you don't need GOOD car insurance...you just need the STATE MINIMUM to drive.

So you're using one confiscatory entitlement program (social security) to justify a new one? 

Just because someone gets away with pointing a gun to your head and taking from you the first time, doesn't make it right to continue doing it.

As for this car insurance thing, I'm not aware of anyone that has car insurance covering routine maintainance and wear and tear.  My car insurance is not going to cover my leaking water pump.  If you really want to apply that analogy to health care, it would require that everyone have insurance to cover major emergencies, not routine visits, flu shots, colds, broken bones from falling out of a tree, etc. 

Third party payment is one major reason costs have risen so significantly.  The consumer and service provider are no longer dealing directly with each other.  The consumer has no incentive to minimize spending and the service provider is losing control of pricing. 

You don't need to snack.  You can lose fat on 2 meals a day if that's meets your calorie requirement for the day.   Don't be fooled by the bro-science.

BS.  low carb is all relative.   By the way, "low carb" is also used to effectively treat diabetes. 

Also, i'm willing to bet that what got your blood glucose under control was not the 6-meals-a-day, but eliminating the high gi carbs (aka processed sugary foods).

First of all, personal experience is not science.

Second, you are a diabetic, not an average person.  That may well work for you, however studies indicate that intermittent fasting actually improves insulin sensitivity and can help diabetics.

Third, Martin is actually one of the most thorough "usual suspects".  He actually reads full papers and if you read his comments at the end, he does actually say that more studies should be done to validate this work.

Finally, it's a fact of life that doctors are poorly versed in nutrition.  As Martin points out that there is "overwhelming scientific support for the positive effects of high-protein diets on fat loss, weight management and health markers".  Yet, "many medical professionals and dietitians are still hesitant to recommend high-protein diets."

I often wonder how it is that so many overweight, unhealthy doctors and nurses can continue, in good conscience, to give out dietary advice.  Some change seems to be happening in the field, but when a doctors entire day is dedicated to seeing as many patients as possible to maximize revenue because co-pays are so small, most doctors aren't spending the time keeping up with the science.  One of my good friends from college recently left family practice because of this bureaucratic insanity.  He's also obese and ignorant about nutrition. 

You don't actually need small meals throughout the day.  The "revving your metabolism" is a myth.  If you feel more satisfied eating 2 or 3 big meals, do that.

Original Post by shane_paladin:

Thanks.  The fact that you love it means I have brought happiness into this world.

You're an old hippie, aren't you?