Althouse: "1970s lifestyle 'protects planet.'"

April 20, 2009

"1970s lifestyle 'protects planet.'"

A headline.

152 comments:

Palladian said...: Obama & the Democrats seem eager to give us 1970s style leadership and a 1970s style economy with their 1970s ideas so pretty soon we'll all definitely be green...

Green with envy over China's prosperity, green with moss from idleness because we've all lost our jobs, green from nausea over having elected these nefarious buffoons.; 4/20/09, 8:06 AM
save_the_rustbelt said...: I thought this was about leisure suits.

Barack Obama = Jimmy Carter?

Wow, are we in trouble.; 4/20/09, 8:09 AM
MadisonMan said...: Time to get my Ford Pinto out of storage, apparently.; 4/20/09, 8:14 AM
Palladian said...: It would be safer for everyone if you got your AMC Pacer running instead, MadisonMan.

Can anyone help me with this tricky knot? I'm trying to finish this macramé owl before McMillan And Wife comes on.; 4/20/09, 8:21 AM
rhhardin said...: Green is a media template hook.

They should be covering something important, like the ten year anniversary of Columbine like the responsible media.; 4/20/09, 8:25 AM
rhhardin said...: Columbine was good for the environment.

Story merge.; 4/20/09, 8:26 AM
Bissage said...: If the 1970s lifestyle protects the planet, then I feel kind of guilty I didn't dump more industrial solvent into the stream out back.; 4/20/09, 8:26 AM
Anonymous said...: Every drop of oil we make into polyester is a drop we're not burning.; 4/20/09, 8:32 AM
Lem Vibe Bandit said...: You mean people in the 70’s didn’t throw their weight around?; 4/20/09, 8:32 AM
traditionalguy said...: The yearning for slimmer people with less transport costs is not a news article and has no human interest. This piece was published only to add to the Wall of Sound of the propaganda churning out based on a presumption that "Green Houses Gases" are a real problem that everyone needs to be saved from. If that kind of fake science Rules our lives, then we will all be like today's Cuban slaves instead of free citizens. And no one has to make up that truth.; 4/20/09, 8:43 AM
The Dude said...: People were skinnier. Cocaine was popular. Coincidence? We may never know.; 4/20/09, 8:45 AM
former law student said...: Barack Obama = Jimmy Carter?

No, Barack Obama as some weird amalgam of Dick Nixon and Gerald Ford.

I'm sorry I went to the link. I was thinking of my own personal 1970s lifestyle. Driving my 350 cu. in. V-8 (which averaged 13 mpg city, 19 hwy) Going to the latest thing in restaurants: places that let you pick out your own richly marbled steak to be grilled. Business dinners where the boss ordered three rounds of martinis before he even glanced at the menu.

Frankly, I would not have expected the 1970s lifestyle to have any planet-protection power.; 4/20/09, 8:45 AM
Peter V. Bella said...: Man oh man. What next? Are we going to bring back Disco to save the planet? God help us all!!!!; 4/20/09, 8:47 AM
Palladian said...: "Every drop of oil we make into polyester is a drop we're not burning."

Is the manufacture of polyester clothes a type of carbon sequestration?; 4/20/09, 8:47 AM
Ritmo Re-Animated said...: Most economists would find it lame to be more concerned with whether or not you can inflict negative externalities on others than whether or not you have the incentive to consume like a glutton. But what do they know? Fucking economists!; 4/20/09, 8:55 AM
MadisonMan said...: Palladian, I hope the macrame owl is a nice holder for your spider plants. Were you able to find enough orange and avocado-colored acrylic yarn?; 4/20/09, 8:56 AM
Salamandyr said...: More people thin because food cost more of a person's budget. More people at and close to the line of poverty.

I'll take fat and affluence, thanks.; 4/20/09, 9:02 AM
Palladian said...: "Palladian, I hope the macrame owl is a nice holder for your spider plants. Were you able to find enough orange and avocado-colored acrylic yarn?"

How did you know it was for my spider plants?!

Anyway, the colored yarn will be an accent, but the main body of the owl will be from the rolls of jute that I bought at the Ben Franklin. I thought the jute would go well with the driftwood.; 4/20/09, 9:05 AM
former law student said...: from the rolls of jute that I bought at the Ben Franklin

Don't diss the Ben Franklin. Sam Walton's empire started with his first Ben Franklin store.; 4/20/09, 9:10 AM
Tibore said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 4/20/09, 9:17 AM
Tibore said...: "1970s lifestyle 'protects planet.'"

Whatever. I refuse to indulge in the Bee Gees or the Captain and Tennile, no matter how good it is for the planet.; 4/20/09, 9:17 AM
Anonymous said...: Palladian,

That picture is going to give me nightmares. To update the image, though, it needs surveillance cameras focused on the thermostat in place of eyes.; 4/20/09, 9:18 AM
KCFleming said...: Peggy Noonan Über Alles.By The Dead Kennedys

I am President Barry O
My aura smiles
And never frowns
Soon I will be world leader...

US Power will soon go away
I will be Fuhrer one day
I will command all of you
Your kids will agitate in school
Your kids will organize in school!

[Chorus:]
Peggy Noonan Uber Alles
Peggy Noonan Uber Alles
Uber Alles Peggy Noonan
Uber Alles Peggy Noonan

Smilin' fascists will control you
100% natural
You will jog for the master race
And always wear the happy face

Close your eyes, can't happen here
Big Bro' on white horse is near
The hippies won't come back you say
Mellow out or you will pay
Mellow out or you will pay!; 4/20/09, 9:18 AM
Peter V. Bella said...: Pogo, the Alan Ginsburg of Althouse!!!!!!!!!; 4/20/09, 9:23 AM
chickelit said...: Is the manufacture of polyester clothes a type of carbon sequestration?

No, but packing on extra pounds is.; 4/20/09, 9:23 AM
Original Mike said...: Transport costs of a fatter population...There's such a thing as "overthinking the problem".; 4/20/09, 9:27 AM
SteveR said...: While we were worrying about going into a new ice age, regulations were going into effect in the US which have more or less eliminated airborne lead, and greatly reduced other real pollutants. And lets not forget what was going into the water and being dumped and buried in the ground.

I've already said too much. Its an idiotic premise.; 4/20/09, 9:32 AM
chickelit said...: Pogo: How's about a version of Kinky Sex Makes The World Go 'Round with Sec. Clinton calling Barry on the phone at 3 AM?; 4/20/09, 9:34 AM
The Drill SGT said...: Between 1994 and 2004, the average male body mass index (BMI) in England increased from 26 to 27.3, with the average female BMI rising from 25.8 to 26.9 which equates to about 3 kg - or half a stone - heavier.

"This is not really just about obese people, the distribution of the whole population is what's important," said Dr EdwardsGiven that the Population in 75 was dominated by folks who had lived through WWII rationing and their baby boomer offspring were perhaps 25.

Now 35 years later, all those WWII folks have died off and the Boomer bulge is 60 and put on a few stone?

who'd a thunk it.; 4/20/09, 9:45 AM
Anonymous said...: I think the drug culture treeman referenced is more accurate.; 4/20/09, 9:53 AM
traditionalguy said...: The ironic part of this writer's attempt to help out everyone with junk "science" is that the great Flowering of Obesity came after 10 years of intense junk science propaganda from great junk scientists calling for eliminating the Evil Fat from human diets. Those scientist were only propagandists-for-profit. The obesity culprit had always been the Carbs that these guys pushed everyone to believe were their only Salvation from Death by Fat. They were exactly 100% wrong, just like their new junk science about Evil CO2 now being pushed for trillions of dollars (and world government as a necessary little add on). This time instead of merely fattening up the world, they are about to destroy the economic engine of the last 100 years. What a friend we have in Obama/Pelosi.; 4/20/09, 9:53 AM
kimsch said...: I was considerably skinnier in the 70's - but then again, I was a child moving into young womanhood during the 70's.

Are the people who make this conclusion boomers who are nostalgic for "the good old days"? Days which, as I remember, weren't really all that great? I would certainly not want to relive my adolescence.; 4/20/09, 9:55 AM
hdhouse said...: Everyone put their neo-con britches back on for a minute.

The article makes a good point...the subjects (England) consumes 18% more food per person now than 30 years ago.

There is a measureable amount of greenhouse gas per food unit.

Why don't you guys read and just accept numbers for a change and stop with the silliness. It could make a difference and it doesn't hurt to "think" although for some that would be a mind bending experience.; 4/20/09, 10:02 AM
KCFleming said...: Here's how great it was in England back in the 1970s:

"When Thatcher was elected in 1979, Britain had just endured a winter of discontent—a season of strikes and trade union agitation so severe that the nation stood effectively paralyzed. Food supplies were interrupted, whole industries choked, and exports fell. “We don’t want to increase our trade with you,” said the Soviet trade minister to his British counterpart. “You’re always on strike.” Rubbish piled up on the streets that winter; at one point, so did human corpses. This was what had become of a nation that was once the world’s greatest trading power."

For Pete's sake, where does BBC news think punk music came from?
Wankers.; 4/20/09, 10:08 AM
KCFleming said...: "read and just accept numbers "

Oh, I accept them.

Poverty makes you thinner.
No shit, Sherlock.; 4/20/09, 10:09 AM
Ritmo Re-Animated said...: Didn't you know it, hd? God created the Heavens and the Earth for Americans to access and pollute an inexhaustible supply of it. It's in Genesis and the Constitution.; 4/20/09, 10:11 AM
Original Mike said...: The ironic part of this writer's attempt to help out everyone with junk "science" is that the great Flowering of Obesity came after 10 years of intense junk science propaganda from great junk scientists calling for eliminating the Evil Fat from human diets..

This is correct (sorry hd). Realizing this fact (after a fair amount of reading in the decidedly NON-popular press) allowed me to drop my BMI from 26 to 21. Junk science really is a scourge.; 4/20/09, 10:12 AM
Michael Haz said...: Tuesday night is Disco night on American Idol. Coincidence? I think not.; 4/20/09, 10:16 AM
Original Mike said...: This, however, was worth reading the article for:

which equates to about 3 kg - or half a stone - heavier..

I'll have to slip that into conversation next time I'm at a party.; 4/20/09, 10:17 AM
Cedarford said...: BBC opines via new article The rising numbers of people who are overweight and obese in the UK means the nation uses 19% more food than 40 years ago, a study suggests.

That could equate to an extra 60 mega tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions a year, the team calculated..

Now, the key to looking at this is to go past the narrative of "fat people eat more, so they are destroying the Planet with CO2"!!! Regulate food consumption!! Exhort fat people they don't love Gaia!!

It turns out this 19% more food!! story is primarily driven 11% population growth from 1970 to 2005. Mostly due to population. Now 1970 was a pretty rude, economically constrained time in the UK. A near doubling in GDP since 1970 has allowed Brits to "kick up their diet" by the remaining 8%.

Despite that, since 1970, the average energy use per capita in the UK has declined by 10%. (It was down more, but rising income meant more people could afford cars, carbon-gulping holidays, and living in a situation other that 8 worker apartments sharing a single water closet in a row of flats. And the UK didn't build the CO2-free nukes it had planned in the 70s in near the numbers they hoped to reduce coal use..)

Bottom line, energy use down 10% since 1970. One of the world's slowest growing populations limiting net energy use increase. A near doubling in GDP and energy efficiency per unit GDP created has allowed a modest improvement in the excrable British diet. Eating quality food instead of mashed peas, boiled turnips, and and bangers made from scraps now
fed to chickens instead.)

Beware of government-funded scientists stats as much as you are wary of feminist leader stats like "the Superbowl creates violent male behavior leading to a woman being violently assaulted per every second the game is played."

Apparantly, their 60 megatonne!! extra CO2 use for eating better from 1970 cuisine is 1 ton per person of "extra CO2". (Britain now has 61 million people.) But at the same time, by conserving in other ways, despite a doubling in per capita GDP wealth, Brits use 10 less energy per person.

Yeah, real crisis the average Brit is responsible for!!

Just once I'd like these sort of scientists stuck in a silo to look at the larger societal picture, since they ARE finding CO2 menace in one piddling area. WE had an energy crisis. People cut way back. They still use less energy per capita than their 1970s lifestyle. MOST CO2 net increase globally is from unchecked human population growth. Africa and Muslim countries have doubled their populations since the 1970s. The next big driver is 3rd world industrialization. The 3rd biggest driver is mass immigration into developed countries, the US in particular.; 4/20/09, 10:21 AM
Ritmo Re-Animated said...: Pogo would do well to read up on that whole increased "labor productivity" thing that's occurred over the last 20 years. As with the industrial revolution, not every increase in productivity leads to increased consumer savings, corporate profits or GDP. Sometimes it goes into Communist exercises like shortening work hours, to 40 per week for instance - an example of which would include the Soviet initiative now known as "the weekend" - brought to you by, you guessed it, organized labor.

Physicians, having a legal labor monopoly, are generally a pretty sheltered and paranoid lot when it comes to understanding how economics works - always fearing that the government will take away their job, or some other such nonsense. That's because the government limits access to those jobs in the first place with their cooperation and approval. You'll never hear a hypocrite like Pogo complain about that, though. So instead he entertains ridiculous conspiracy theories based on a Cold War mentality and tries to convince the plebians that they're under the same imagined gun also.

It's not working, Pogo.; 4/20/09, 10:22 AM
kimsch said...: Mike, a stone is 14 pounds. With a kilo being about 2.2 pounds, we get 3 kilos = 6.6 pounds.

When you're 140 pounds you're 10 stone. Which sounds like a lower weight? (Man, I'd love to be back to 10 stone or lower... working on it, working on it...); 4/20/09, 10:23 AM
Original Mike said...: I was, in fact, Kimsch, 10 stone this morning, and feeling pretty good about it. I've dropped from a 33" to 31" waist. Apparently, however, clothes manufactures make very few 31" pants (at least that's what I've been told when faced with a dearth of 31s. 30, check. 32, check. 33, check. 31? Not so much. How can that possibly be?; 4/20/09, 10:29 AM
Anthony said...: Time to get my Ford Pinto out of storage, apparently.Already there. Sorta.; 4/20/09, 10:33 AM
Anonymous said...: The big difference between then and now is that everybody smoked back then. It kept us from knawing on Snickers all day.

Various Obama/liberal programs like S-Chip are funded by cigarette sales. So the real patriots will start puffing today! Also, the die at an early age thing will help Medicaid remain solvent. Win-win.; 4/20/09, 10:37 AM
Peter V. Bella said...: "There is a measureable amount of greenhouse gas per food unit.

Why don't you guys read and just accept numbers for a change and stop with the silliness. It could make a difference and it doesn't hurt to "think" although for some that would be a mind bending experience."

Well, you start. Reduce your carbon footprint and stop polluting our mother earth. Kill yourself and leave the rest of us alone.; 4/20/09, 10:40 AM
KCFleming said...: "You'll never hear a hypocrite like Pogo complain about that, though."

Wrong, Montana.
I have done so, on this very blog, repeatedly.

But for you, I'll state it again.

I'm all for reducing the regulatory restrictions on practicing medicine.
NPs, PAs, Midwives?
Fine.
Other ways of training new medical personnel?
Fine.

Got any other bright ideas, Hannah?

And answer me this:
If Nationalized health Care is so wonderful for you, how did obesity become an epidemic in the UK, and why don't they survive cancer or heart attacks as well as we do?
Wankers.; 4/20/09, 10:42 AM
john said...: Cedarford said . The rising numbers of people who are overweight and obese in the UK means the nation uses 19% more food than 40 years ago, a study suggests."

C4, you are missing the major point. A recent article in a national magazine reported that the surface of the earth is getting much heavier because of fat people. This will have the calamatous effect of slowing the earth's rotation, thus giving one side of the earth much longer heating days and exacerbating half-global warming. Equally catastrophic will be collapse of the earth's surface due to the concentration of that much weight, especially in densly populated countries.

There was much more in the article but since I was in the 10 items or less line, I had to move on.; 4/20/09, 10:45 AM
ricpic said...: Pogo, he a doctor, don't know economics,
Part of the oppressor class.
Get with it Pogo, learn ebonics,
And get a nice piece of juicy black ass.

This poem has not been cleared with Pogo and has no redeeming social value.; 4/20/09, 10:49 AM
KCFleming said...: Hey, where's my Montana Urban Apology, huh?

And the only oppression I get to do is a prostate exam.

Especially when I get a running start.
Ba dum bum.; 4/20/09, 10:56 AM
Ritmo Re-Animated said...: "If Nationalized health Care is so wonderful for you, how did obesity become an epidemic in the UK, and why don't they survive cancer or heart attacks as well as we do?"

Who said I ever endorsed this?

It appears you're as willing to make assumptions about me as you claim I am to make assumptions about you?

For the record, I don't have a set opinion on what "should" be done in the area of health care "reform". Personally, I like market approaches that reduce the role of HMO's - particularly for here in the US. HSAs and medical boutique practices - subsidized for certain people who can't afford them or who have an existing, non-lifestyle based condition that is sure to cost much more than the average patient. But that's just my socialist/open-minded/willing-to-consider-complexities-without-regard-to-confliting-interest take on things.

For the record, NPs and the like are a release valve on your labor monopoly, to be sure. But insofar as any credential is required that could be argued as a barrier to entry, depending on the degree of difficulty required for receiving the credential.

Don't want to keep you too long from that prostate exam. I wasn't trying to keep you held up or anythying, so to speak.; 4/20/09, 10:59 AM
kimsch said...: Original Mike,

The dearth of waist size 31 pants must be related to the fact that when I am looking for children's clothes, I can find bottoms (shorts, pants, etc) in the right size, but the matching tops are not in the right size. So I can find red shorts that will fit my son, but there are no red tops in that size. Or there are blue tops in the right size, but no blue shorts. Are there that many children with different size tops and bottoms?; 4/20/09, 11:00 AM
former law student said...: how did obesity become an epidemic in the UK

My guess is that they're all sitting on their fat asses instead of getting out and moving, same as here.

If I had kids today I wouldn't have a screen in the house. We used to play from dawn till dusk -- nowadays kids sit in the airconditioning all summer.; 4/20/09, 11:05 AM
hdhouse said...: Peter V. Bella said...
"Well, you start. Reduce your carbon footprint and stop polluting our mother earth. Kill yourself and leave the rest of us alone."

Ohhh Peter you nudge you! Ladies before gentlemen Peter...you get to go first.; 4/20/09, 11:05 AM
Cedarford said...: hdhouse - Why don't you guys read and just accept numbers for a change and stop with the silliness. It could make a difference and it doesn't hurt to "think" although for some that would be a mind bending experience..

As I showed, hdhouse, to understand, you have to go past just reading and accepting the numbers shoved at you by "experts".

That is called "critical thinking".

Ask yourself if this is the optimal thing for them (or us with our own 70s cuisine analogs) to Save the Planet. You have a slow-growing population compared to others globally, and already use less energy per capita by 10%. If going back to meals of sausages made of sheep brains and lungs and mashed potatos laced with lard or wrecking the world's fisheries like they helped wreck the cod industry in the 60s and 70s to get "low energy expenditure" fish stocks - is a better "carbon sequestered" strategy.

One nuke plant replacing one 1200MW coal electric gen plant saves 60 megatons (or megatonnes) of CO2 every 3 months.

Also put on your critical thinking hat and ask why "obesity soared" in just a few years in the US and the UK from 4% to over 40% of our populations.
We were not hit by a fat bomb some enemy launched that made us bloat up. The main cause is we were hit by bureaucrats who changed what the definition of obese was - many of a Leftist persuasion who saw people eating well as a manifestation of "evil Western imperialism". Change the body mass formula so a healthy person should look like a Bangladeshi living in 100-DEG tropics - and voila! - you have an instant "obesity crisis".

We also did begin funding the feeding of the paraitic and indolent classes for as much food money as they demanded, but didn't regulate what they ate. Obesity has now become a fairly reliable (on the average) definer of who is on welfare, who has less than a college degree, who lives in certain sections of each country - in America and the UK.
And due to crime doubling in the 60s and 70s, we found the "good, healthy 20-block walk to and from work" in US and UK cities in the morning and after dark wasn't so healthy after all.

Lots of factors explain obsesity as well, as account for CO2 per person per diet.

Energy for food is a minor part of net energy use and per capita energy use in each country.

People lacking critical thinking will say "read the numbers! we must do as experts want because every little bit Saves the Planet!!"
No, not if it distracts from dealing with the major causes* that remain unaddressed because they are 'politically difficult'.

*Human population explosion, 3rd world industrialization, mass immigration into still-open developed nations. Lack of Will for changing out coal with nuclear.; 4/20/09, 11:06 AM
Peter V. Bella said...: "Are there that many children with different size tops and bottoms?"

If Trooper were awake, he would cal you a pervert. :); 4/20/09, 11:06 AM
KCFleming said...: "a release valve on your labor monopoly, to be sure.'
Mine?
So I personally created this monopoly?
Zounds!
I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds!!!1!
I do benefit from something I have no control over, but I also think it's entirely wrong.

"But insofar as any credential is required that could be argued as a barrier to entry"
I believe in credentialing, but not as a barrier to entry.
Except I do support private hospitals limiting their surgeries to those with credentials.

But if folks want to see a chiropractor, what do I care?;
just don't make me pay for it.; 4/20/09, 11:10 AM
kimsch said...: Peter,

Trooper would probably write a sitcom episode about it... But Trooper knows all about different sized tops and bottoms (especially for women's underthings...); 4/20/09, 11:11 AM
KCFleming said...: "My guess is that they're all sitting on their fat asses instead of getting out and moving, same as here."

Your guess would be wrong.
As usual.

Food is cheaper now, and all sorts of folks no longer have to work at all, and just get paid for existing. The dole in England and the UK here, as Cedarford points out.; 4/20/09, 11:11 AM
KCFleming said...: "NPs and the like are a release valve"

No, they are a replacement for FPs and general practitioners.; 4/20/09, 11:13 AM
Ritmo Re-Animated said...: Technically, even licensing constitutes a barrier to entry. Just saying.; 4/20/09, 11:15 AM
Anonymous said...: Montana Urban Legend,

But what are you going to count as "an existing, non-lifestyle-based condition that is sure to cost more than the average patient"? What's that "non-lifestyle-based" caveat supposed to exclude? Is it just tobacco-related illnesses (lung cancer, emphysema) and alcohol-related illnesses (liver failure) and such heart disease as you can trace directly to the patient's obesity? Or are you counting all adult-onset diabetes, or STDs, or acute injuries from (say) rock-climbing or hang-gliding or amateur boxing?

Really, it would be interesting to know. There's a hell of a lot of illness and injury that can be prevented if only you choose the right "lifestyle." I'm wondering how far you take the concept.; 4/20/09, 11:15 AM
Original Mike said...: Kimsch,

Also related to the fact that the only men's sock size available would fit Big Foot.

Failure of the market place, I say.; 4/20/09, 11:16 AM
Ritmo Re-Animated said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 4/20/09, 11:17 AM
Ritmo Re-Animated said...: "No, they are a replacement for FPs and general practitioners."

"Replacement?" That sounds a little less civic-minded and libertarian than your previous endorsement.; 4/20/09, 11:18 AM
Hoosier Daddy said...: Ironic that it was during the 70's that we had the doomsday movie du jour and now it's the decade we all need to go back too to save the planet.; 4/20/09, 11:23 AM
Ritmo Re-Animated said...: To some extent there's a blurring of lines between what is brought on by lifestyle and what is in the genes. Generally, there is an interaction between the two. Other times, it is almost completely based on one factor or the other. A number of diseases are purely genetic. Those cannot be significantly altered by lifestyle.

In any event, I am talking about expensive, existing conditions that already require treatment, and how those might be subject to a proposed subsidy if needed before applying for coverage. Lupus? Not a lifestyle choice. As far as fairness goes, it's a start - at least if you're going to endorse something as libertarian as HSAs.; 4/20/09, 11:25 AM
Cedarford said...: I don't want to see the thread derailed into national health care, but I would point out that Pogo picking UK PHS is cherrypicking the worst.

Why would we go with the worst universal health care system instead of trying to get one as good as the French, German, or Japanese ones?

It would be like Teddy Roosevelt saying Americans need to have better-tasting food sending two chefs to Scotland and a few Serf villages under the Czar - reporting back that based on the food they sampled there, there was no sense in going to France, Italy, Mexico, or China to see if we could adapt some of their cuisine ideas.

And as a physician, perhaps Pogo can inform us more on the extent that changing obesity "standards" as well as the infamous FDA "Food Pyramid" - Eat lost of healthy carbs and nutrious fruits and drink lots of fruit juices - fueled the "obesity epidemic".

(Not to mention the public health effect of massive WIC funding for parasites free to buy the "nutritious food" they want. If we limited WIC to things like bean sprouts, tofu, whole wheat, salads and egg-white only premix - you would have desperate welfare mammies swearing off more chilluns and begging for work so they could eat fried chicken and fries again); 4/20/09, 11:25 AM
former law student said...: Food is cheaper now, and all sorts of folks no longer have to work at all

Most of today's jobs involve a heavy dose of sitting on one's ass. Blue collar jobs required movement. If you're sitting on your ass it's a lot easier to snack, as well.; 4/20/09, 11:32 AM
KCFleming said...: "Why would we go with the worst universal health care system instead of trying to get one as good as the French, German, or Japanese ones?"
Because of the lesson.
The more socialist the plan, the worse the outcome. When markets are permitted, things improve.

And it's the oldest. Socialism takes awhile to ripen, die, and fall off the tree.
So what if markets held sway? What would happen?
We'll never know, at least not in this country.
P.S. France and Japan ain't doing so well either. Couldn't be Japan's central planning also hasn't worked all that well economically in health or anything else?

"the extent that changing obesity "standards" as well as the infamous FDA "Food Pyramid" ...fueled the "obesity epidemic".
Not to mention the public health effect of massive WIC fundingAll true.
Redefining 'fat' is fattening.
Too much of the wrong foods are fattening.
Indolence is fattening.; 4/20/09, 11:32 AM
traditionalguy said...: Eating Disorders are the ultimate suicide done by people only to prove who has the control over life. Talk about stubbornness mixed with hatred. We need to rejoice in the abundance of all things, and not let a secular religion like "climate control of the atmosphere" demand that we purchase of Indulgences from the Priests of Fake Science followed by our economic suicide.; 4/20/09, 11:33 AM
mariner said...: treeman:

"People were skinnier. Cocaine was popular. Coincidence? We may never know."

Now people are fat and cocain is still popular.

Coincidence? We may never kn; 4/20/09, 11:34 AM
KCFleming said...: "Most of today's jobs involve a heavy dose of sitting on one's ass."
So did all of the prior white collar jobs.
Fewer were fat though, because the percentage of salary that went toward food has declined in the past 40 years.

"Food expendituresby families and individuals were 13.8 percent of disposable personal income in 1970, compared with 13.4 percent in 1980 and 10.7 percent in 1997. The decline is the direct result of the income-inelastic nature of the aggregate demand for food: as income rises, the proportion spent for food declines. Expenditures for food require a large share of income when income is relatively low"

Rich people in all of human history tend to be fat. Even our 'poor' people are fat, for they as rich as kings of centuries past.; 4/20/09, 11:38 AM
former law student said...: Not to mention the public health effect of massive WIC funding for parasites free to buy the "nutritious food" they want. If we limited WIC to things like bean sprouts, tofu, whole wheat, salads and egg-white only premix - you would have desperate welfare mammies swearing off more chilluns and begging for work so they could eat fried chicken and fries again

Huzzah! Cedarford's dream has surely been realized. While the list of WIC-eligible foods varies from state to state, it is limited in California to

Milk
Eggs
Cheese
Peanut Butter
Dried Beans, Peas, and Lentils
Certain Cereals
Fruit Juice

Breastfeeding women in California can buy canned tuna.

http://www.cdph.ca.gov/programs/wicworks/Documents/WIC-NE-AuthorizedFoodListEnglish08-07.pdf; 4/20/09, 11:39 AM
former law student said...: The decline is the direct result of the income-inelastic nature of the aggregate demand for foodC'mon pogo. Your source implies people eat the same amount of food whether rich or poor. That's what "inelastic demand for food" means.; 4/20/09, 11:41 AM
Automatic_Wing said...: Why would we go with the worst universal health care system instead of trying to get one as good as the French, German, or Japanese ones?

Do you have any basis whatsoever for believing that Japan has a "good" healthcare system? I've actually been inside a Japanese hospital and I wouldn't say it was all that.

I hope you're not basing your evaluation on life expectancy figures - those have hardly anything to do with comparative healthcare systems.; 4/20/09, 11:43 AM
Ritmo Re-Animated said...: "Fewer were fat though, because the percentage of salary that went toward food has declined in the past 40 years."

"Rich people in all of human history tend to be fat. Even our 'poor' people are fat, for they as rich as kings of centuries past."

I think this is bullshit what you say, Pogo. Costs of producing, distributing, and yes, sadly "manufacturing" food have decreased, so the fact that the percentage of one's salary devoted for food has also decreased should be unsurprising and is not the point. Further, poor people have incentive to eat the food that packs the most calories per punch. For those ignorant of nutrition, those would be the fats, at ~ 9 kcal/gram. Our processed foods are made readily available, are heavily promoted, and are a much cheaper way to get food, once you figure in the costs of time required for preparation, etc., than anything else. How can you not realize this? Give me an effin' break!; 4/20/09, 11:46 AM
Ritmo Re-Animated said...: Sorry -

They're "a much cheaper way to get calories..."

They're also fatty as hell. And have a lot of other garbage in there that you don't need.

The twin elephants in the room here are that wealth is a relative phenomenon and eating habits are typically socially decided.; 4/20/09, 12:16 PM
Palladian said...: Woodsy Owl knows everything! Next she'll be sharing her knowledge of goat husbandry.; 4/20/09, 12:17 PM
Palladian said...: "They're also fatty as hell. And have a lot of other garbage in there that you don't need.

The twin elephants in the room here are that wealth is a relative phenomenon and eating habits are typically socially decided."

I'd rather have twin elephants in a room than a screeching owl.; 4/20/09, 12:18 PM
KCFleming said...: "Costs of producing, distributing, and ..."manufacturing" food have decreased, so the fact that the percentage of one's salary devoted for food has also decreased should be unsurprising and is not the point.It is surprising however to most people and is in fact the point. One reason, among many, that the bottom rung folks are fat is because they are not in fact poor, at least not when compared to any real poverty elsewhere.

"eating habits are typically socially decided."
Yes they are, to an extent.
So what?
You want the gummint to decide this for them, I suppose.
God forbid the lumpenproletariat actually choose what goes in their own rapacious and insatiable maws.

Anyway, Althouse is pointing out a fatuous conclusion not supported by any evidence except Wanker Eco-thinking, which has spewn BS for decades and has never once been right.; 4/20/09, 12:27 PM
MadisonMan said...: Crap, now I have that Give a hoot, don't pollute song stuck in my head. In the North, South East and West.

In the north, south, east and WEEEST!; 4/20/09, 12:35 PM
Anonymous said...: montana urban legend,

You were not quite clear about what is "lifestyle-related illness" and what isn't. Yes, I agree that lupus is not "lifestyle-related." That leaves a hell of a lot of chronic & expensive illnesses that can be tied in one way or another to past behavior. You wanna sort those out for us, or would you prefer the government do it?

Further, poor people have incentive to eat the food that packs the most calories per punch. For those ignorant of nutrition, those would be the fats, at ~ 9 kcal/gram. Our processed foods are made readily available, are heavily promoted, and are a much cheaper way to get food, once you figure in the costs of time required for preparation, etc., than anything else. How can you not realize this? Give me an effin' break!

Naturally, if you are really poor and really hungry, you would rather eat the cheapest source of calories you can find than anything else. This does not explain, at all, why the poor are fat -- that is, are eating more calories than they need. The poor aren't eating just as mch as they need of the cheapest food they can find. They are, on the contrary, often eating much more than they need of what I agree is unhealthful, and unnaturally cheap, food. So far as their caloric needs go, they're way overspending.

Look, I spent several years working a day job in San Francisco's Mission District. This is a place with not only a large Safeway but a few very good ethnic grocers and a Rainbow Foods outlet store within a few blocks; with a cheap Vietnamese noodle house, a cheap Indian buffet, and a couple other really inexpensive and not lethal cafes within a few blocks.

The only time I ran into black folk in this neighborhood was on the rare occasion I went to Burger King. You had to walk past oodles of cheaper and more healthful food to get there. They did it, so far as I could tell, daily.

You don't gain weight even on fast food if you eat only as much as you need; and if you're counting every penny, it's insane to buy more than you need.; 4/20/09, 12:35 PM
Anonymous said...: I'd like to see a website of the most successful CEO, professionals, and clergy: 100 mean and 100 women. They each post their full length photo from high school graduation or college graduation (if they attended) and a photo of themselves 30-40 years later.

Do the same for 100 men and 100 women who haven't worked, have lived in poverty or are presently unemployed through most of that period.

I know it wouldn't be an accurate nor thorough statistic. It would just be interesting to see the comparisons.

The only time i ever got into an unrecommmended fat or bmi zone was when i was prescribed a medication. At the same time I was "working" at school for a teacher that imposed way to many restrictions on me=stressed out.; 4/20/09, 12:36 PM
Cedarford said...: FLS - Huzzah! Cedarford's dream has surely been realized. While the list of WIC-eligible foods varies from state to state, it is limited in California to

Milk
Eggs
Cheese
Peanut Butter
Dried Beans, Peas, and Lentils
Certain Cereals
Fruit Juice
.

It could be improved. I'd go with skim milk, no cheese, limited eggs, soy spread instead of high-fat peanut butter, and absolutely ban fruit juice for ghetto kids (pure carbs and high fructose sugar in an 8oz container, sucked down relentlessly by the little porkers from dawn to dusk) You would have to fight the dairy lobbyists and lobbyists for the agribiz producers of high fructose corn syrup and industrial applejuice concerns bringing in product from China, Mexico, and Argentina, though.
--------------------
Maguro - Do you have any basis whatsoever for believing that Japan has a "good" healthcare system? I've actually been inside a Japanese hospital and I wouldn't say it was all that.Yes, Japanese I know who have lived in both countries and think we are crazy not to cover 1/6th of our population, lose global competiveness because health care burden is loaded onto each thing we try to export, costs 50% more than Japan's system, is far less efficient...and having care in both countries..judge them comparable.
Also we had a guy whacked pretty good - broken legs, concussion - on a business trip for forgetting they drive on the wrong side of the road in Nippon. The hospital he was in in Kobe was excellent and so was the convalescent care unit they trucked him off to. His only complaints about care were some language barrier difficulties, strange terrible food on occasion. "Sometimes I could only guess what I was eating, and it could really suck. Ask for noodles, if you're ever stuck in such a place - they weren't bad." And said that in some ways the Japanese patients and medical people were as wierd as they likely thought he was, in certain ways.
________________
"Why would we go with the worst universal health care system (British) instead of trying to get one as good as the French, German, or Japanese ones?"
Pogo responds: Because of the lesson.
The more socialist the plan, the worse the outcome. When markets are permitted, things improve.And it's the oldest. Socialism takes awhile to ripen, die, and fall off the tree.
.

NO, to my understanding, the oldest system is the German one, started under Bismarck in the late 19th century, refined under various regimes including the National Socialist Party, Christian Democrats, socialists..and by pressures of continuing to have an acceptable system with minimal resources in two total wars, and austere postwar periods.
The Germans have one of the best systems. They didn't deteriorate with socialism+time - but improved.

_____________

Anyhow, back to the thread. Too much chickenshit like people eating better is being tied to global warming is happening...and it appears, like with the equally chickenshit gore lightbulb - more to regulate society on the excuse of global warming than to have any real effect on CO2 generation.

Capping welfare payments at 2 kids would have a greater impact than forcing Brits to eat mashed peas and sheep lungs again.
One nuke power plant saves 3 times the CO2 that forcing Brits back to 1970s food would.

It's just another of those beyond stupid "narratives" the government and media try forcing on us, hectoring us to modify our behavior and attitudes for specious or even damaging results.; 4/20/09, 12:41 PM
Ritmo Re-Animated said...: "Woodsy Owl knows everything!"

Not everything. Just a few facts more than the proudly ignorant Fellatin' Palladian.

"Next she'll be sharing her knowledge of goat husbandry."

And you'll be sharing your experience with herpes and paternal relations.

"I'd rather have twin elephants in a room than a screeching owl."

If the room contains you and they're stomping on your head, so would the owl. As would the elephants. And apparently even, in your infinite foresight, you.

I can see that phrasing really set you off.

No go away and be an unproductive, screeching lacky for LaRouche or whomever you need to dissociate yourself from. Go work on your meaningless art, or whatever.

"One reason, among many, that the bottom rung folks are fat is because they are not in fact poor, at least not when compared to any real poverty elsewhere."

And perhaps you should be the one to offer them instruction in time-management skills?

"You want the gummint to decide this for them, I suppose."

There you go, Pogo. How many basic facts are required for you to build a slippery slope? How selective should we be with the dissemination of facts? I don't want to give you nightmares or anything.; 4/20/09, 12:45 PM
Peter V. Bella said...: Sorry house, I do not beileve in that carbon nonsense. I have never seen a carbon footprint? I do not believe in fairy tales. Yeti prints, the Loch Ness Monster, carbon footprints, Sasquatch Prints, UFO sightings; you know, myths and fairy tales.

So, go ahead, help yourself, elimiate your carbon footprint. The world will never know or miss you.; 4/20/09, 12:55 PM
KCFleming said...: Montana said: "And perhaps you should be the one to offer them instruction in time-management skills?"
Huh?
Seriously, I don't get it.
Is it a reference to how their behavior could be fixed?

Easy.
Remove the dole.

"How many basic facts are required for you to build a slippery slope?"
Usually one.
If from the outset the writer prefers or proposes a gummint solution to the problem over against any other, it's usually pretty easy to peg them from then on.

And hey, where's the apology for you calling me a hypocrite and then I showed you were incorrect?
Where's the love?; 4/20/09, 12:57 PM
Ritmo Re-Animated said...: "If from the outset the writer prefers or proposes a gummint solution to the problem over against any other, it's usually pretty easy to peg them from then on.

And hey, where's the apology for you calling me a hypocrite and then I showed you were incorrect?
Where's the love?"

Hey. As a wanna-be small business owner, don't you know that you have to give in order to get? You come up with your apology and then maybe you'll get one. As it stands, you were in extreme error (a position you haven't corrected) when fantasizing that I wanted an NHS-system here. But (unlike you) I actually proposed two approaches that were anything but governmental in nature. You proposed none. So don't be a lying retard and take note of when you're wrong. A physician should not be in the business of distorting. Palladian's just a proudly ignorant artist, so he can make the excuse of professing information to be aesthetically unpleasant and knowledge to be worthless. You don't.

Along those lines, here's another fun fact. A "slippery slope" is a fallacy of basic logic. That you not only committed one, but condoned it, says a lot. The possibility that you still don't know what one is is even more telling.

What you can be pegged as is a paranoid who fears that one word or thought can put someone into the wrong side of your simple-minded worldview.; 4/20/09, 1:10 PM
KCFleming said...: So lessee MUL, you insult me first, and I have to apologize first?

Interesting.

You proposed two approaches??
You briefly mentioned favoring subsidized HSAs and boutique care.
Subsidized = gummint where I live.

The "slippery slope" can be a fallacy of basic logic.
Some slopes are in fact quite slippery.
"A slippery slope argument is not always a fallacy. A slippery slope fallacy is an argument that says adopting one policy or taking one action will lead to a series of other policies or actions also being taken, without showing a causal connection between the advocated policy and the consequent policies."

You can argue whether I did or did not fulfill the requirement, but you're quite wrong to assert the argument as fallacious per se.

"that one word or thought can put someone into the wrong side of your simple-minded worldview."
Really?
One word or thought quite often exposes and correctly pegs racists, philanderers, thieves, serial killers, rapists, and socialists.

"More gummint is the solution" usually is the latter's tell.; 4/20/09, 1:27 PM
Palladian said...: "NO, to my understanding, the oldest system is the German one, started under Bismarck in the late 19th century, refined under various regimes including the National Socialist Party, Christian Democrats, socialists..and by pressures of continuing to have an acceptable system with minimal resources in two total wars, and austere postwar periods.
The Germans have one of the best systems. They didn't deteriorate with socialism+time - but improved."

I like how casually C-fud slips the "National Socialist Party" in with his list of political parties. The nonchalance with which that one is tossed out there is breath-taking: "Oh, this work was carried on by a succession of political parties, the Christian Democrats, the Greens, the Nazis...."

The Nazis certainly had a great system for keeping health care costs down, didn't they? Their gas bill, however, was absolute murder.; 4/20/09, 2:37 PM
Joan said...: Palladian, MM: you guys are killing me. My mom still has the jute macrame-hanging planters, but the spider plants died long ago.

C4 wants to take the eggs away from the WIC-ers in CA and put them on soy! Let's see: eggs are a cheap, perfect food, low in calories, high in protein and essential fats, and soy will screw up all the kids' thyroids and feminize the boys. Typical C4 plan. (It pains me to admit that I agree with him on the fruit juice ban, though. That's bad stuff for everyone.); 4/20/09, 3:06 PM
KCFleming said...: "That's bad stuff for everyone."

The bees seem to enjoy it.
Ants, too.; 4/20/09, 3:16 PM
Sofa King said...: The bees seem to enjoy it.
Ants, too.

Well, if it's enjoyable then it must be bad.; 4/20/09, 3:35 PM
KCFleming said...: Prob'ly a sin, too.; 4/20/09, 3:49 PM
jr565 said...: Wait a second, does that mean we want models to go back to being uncomfortorably skinny? Maybe anorexia, bulimia and kate moss and heroin chic are where its at?

Remember all those Dutch paintings by Rubens that showed all these portly women and when that was the ideal?Man, were those fatties bad for the environment.

Remember all those feminists talking about how fashion magazines created unrealistic beauty stereotypes for women that they couldn't attain, and how the fashion magazines were evil for doing so? Does that mean that they were right all along and that the feminists were in fact contributing to global warming?; 4/20/09, 4:15 PM
jr565 said...: The 70's - the time of all things great!
Seals and Crofts,The Carpenters, 8 track tapes, Ford Mustang Cobra II, Disco, platform shoes, Iran Hostage Crisis, Gas shortages. Stagnant economy and impossibly high unemployment.

Good times.; 4/20/09, 4:20 PM
traditionalguy said...: I wonder how many political liberals really believe that the climate of the earth got warmer this year? And how many political liberals really believe that CO2 pollutes the atmosphere? I suspect that they are smart enough to know both answers are no and no. But they will still be more than happy to ride that Faux-Science horse until there are no more free and wealthy Americans left around to irritate our European masters. That is a level of deluded thinking like none the USA has ever experienced before.; 4/20/09, 4:28 PM
Anonymous said...: from 1973 until 1979 was the only time i was working regularly more than 15 hours a week in this country. It's funny how a teenager's view of bad times doesn't exist economically. I always had a job back then.

What I remember the most about the domestic government is that they reorganized the post office. They built lots of those standardized postal buildings (lacking design detail) when the older ones with their stylish brass PO boxes lining the entrances and their classical architecture went into history.

As for fashion, twiggy had no hips. Like the post offices, the body must have reflected the design era. Adding feminism to this, such a body type made the unisex look possible. Women with less curves could wear guy-jeans and men's clothes. that was big in the seventies, gals shopping in the men's dept. (see my website and reference to marrimekko.) All girls with hips thought we were fat because guys jeans just never fit us right. If we bought the right waist size, are buts couldn't squeee into those pants. twiggy models could. it wasn't about being skinny. it was about being unisex.; 4/20/09, 4:43 PM
Ritmo Re-Animated said...: "So lessee MUL, you insult me first, and I have to apologize first?"

You demanded an apology for my getting your stance wrong. Yet, you got my stance wrong. So you are a hypocrite. If you feel insulted by being called a hypocrite, then acknowledge that you're in error, as I did. At that point you may be entitled to an apology for doing the same thing that you did, but did not apologize for.

The two approaches I advocated were medical boutiques and HSAs. Subsidizing HSAs for rare, expensive, pre-existing conditions is a realistic concession in a time of increasing scrutiny over the political failure of healthcare in America - a failure that physicians have brought on by not taking responsibility for their own profession. But that is not the basis of what I support - it's a concession that you are too unrealistic to understand even as a concession. That you do not understand the difference between a concession or compromise and a principled, idealistic position speaks to your own inability to live in the real world. It does not speak to what I would propose on idealistic grounds as a matter of principle.

"You can argue whether I did or did not fulfill the requirement, but you're quite wrong to assert the argument as fallacious per se."

It's obvious that you did.

If you accept payment from patients on Medicaid then I could argue that you are supporting "more gummint" - given the obstinant idiocy of your maximalist position. So, do refuse medical payment from the government? Or are you a hypocrite on two fronts? We already know that you are an arrogant idiot who is not contributing to resolving the situation that has seen the plebians rushing to the gates to get the government to takeover your practice entirely. But because I advocate and propose less interventionist approaches with extremely minor concessions as a way to build and preserve a system more libertarian than what we have now, I'm the "pro-government" advocate?!

What a damn fool you are!

"Really?
One word or thought quite often exposes and correctly pegs racists, philanderers, thieves, serial killers, rapists, and socialists."

Right. Especially over the internet. I have no incentive to lie to you. You know nothing about me other than what I wrote and you have not been able to use my words to prove anything close to what you wanted to prove.

"More gummint is the solution" usually is the latter's tell.

We've already been over this. Your obsession is telling. Go waste time with your nurse or complain about things no one cares about to her, or something.

Pogo is the next Ron Paul. Just as fatuous and ignorant and stupid.; 4/20/09, 4:44 PM
Anonymous said...: henry i siegel had a jean company.

It was h. i. s.

In the sixties it started getting bigger and better. Public offerings. Then his wife had a better idea;

h.i.s. for her.

Chic jeans were born that fit. i still have my 1973 jeans skirt from that company that fit my waist and hips.

From their history:
Rising imports hit the market for less expensive men's and boys' clothing especially hard in the 1970s. As a result, Jesse Siegel decided to suspend the men's line late in the decade to concentrate on the more profitable women's wear then being offered under the Chic label. In 1975, the company launched "proportioned to fit" jeans for women. This new sizing scheme took height as well as waist size into consideration, offering each waist size in a range of inseam lengths for a more tailored and comfortable fit. Later, Siegel added other fitting styles including relaxed fit, slim fit, and classic fit. By the mid-1980s, Chic was America's third-largest manufacturer of women's jeans, behind Levi Strauss and H.D. Lee.

george will, this it when it became about gals with with jeans and not just guys.

signed,

i wanted to be a fashion designer.; 4/20/09, 4:53 PM
KCFleming said...: "You demanded an apology for my getting your stance wrong. Yet, you got my stance wrong. So you are a hypocrite."
Our planet has but one sun.
And yours?

"brought on by not taking responsibility for their own profession"
What in God's name does this even mean?
Is it in code?
Do I hold it up to a mirror, or do I read every 7th letter to divine its true message?
Drink more Ovaltine."So, do refuse medical payment from the government?"
On Montana's planet, the lack of purity means hypocrisy. On my planet, accepting gummint pay is a Hobson's choice. Were I to refuse, I cannot work in any big hospital, university, or large clinic in America.
But I would be pure of heart, so I'd have that going for me.

"...it's a concession that you are too unrealistic to understand even as a concession."
This is starting to read like a posterboard pulled by a guy on a bike who has all his belongings in a rusty grocery cart.
I mean, what?

"now, I'm the "pro-government" advocate?!"
Careful there, Howland, yer glasses gone fall off.
I get it, dude, you are offering more detail on your support for HSAs and such.
Gosh I don't know how anyone could have misread your first post to me as some kind of ragged edge lefty, having your paean to unions and the Horror about "processed foods made readily available and heavily promoted" (Can you imagine ...they try to SELL Ding Dongs to the Poor!!!1!).

Seriously. Who are you trying to kid?
Yer flitting around like butter on a skittle.
Do you actually stand for anything other than that you dislike doctors?
I mean cause shit man so do I. But that's not place on which to base policy.

"What a damn fool you are! "
Heh.
Are you stuck in some B-movie from 1938?
You do realize we all are talkin' 1970s here right?; 4/20/09, 5:15 PM
KCFleming said...: What a damn fool you are!.

Man, I want to start saying that all the time now.

Thanks, MUL, made my day.; 4/20/09, 5:24 PM
Ritmo Re-Animated said...: So sorry. I assumed you were literate in English. That mistake won't be made again.

Keep up the good work, fighting the good fight against the weekend, assuming that physicians shouldn't take some responsibility for the state of health care in America (nice job pretending that you didn't get my point, or mistaking it as "hatred" for physicians), while accepting payments from the government. I don't demand purity, just reality. And if you want to change reality, you should lead by example - which you obviously don't.

You're doing an excellent job of promoting an impending government take-over of health care - even if you're too stupid to realize it.

Your colleagues must get a kick out of you. I take it you're the type who always thinks he's right and practices according to standards that were outdated years ago. Whatever. As I said, your refusal to understand politics is typical of older physicians, and it's part of why they don't have much if any control over the practice of their own profession.

Nice job pretending that you understand Walt Kelly, too. Here's a hint, dildo: You ARE your own worst enemy.; 4/20/09, 5:53 PM
Dust Bunny Queen said...: The two approaches I advocated were medical boutiques and HSAs. Subsidizing HSAs for rare, expensive, pre-existing conditions is a realistic concession in a time of increasing scrutiny over the political failure of healthcare in America .
.
You do understand that HSA means Health Savings Account? It isn't the actual insurance policy. The HSA is a savings account equal to the deductible on the insurance contract on which you still have to pay premiums.

The premiums on an HSA compatible insurance policy are lower but mainly because the people who have paid into the savings account want to keep their money and are more prudent about their medical care. If you just GIVE people money or coverage they are not going to be prudent. This is proven in those people whose employer pays for the traditional plan. Why should they care its FREE!!! They use the insurance much more than those who contribute their own money into the HSA.

Are you advocating that we subisdize the savings account or that we subsidize the insurance premiums.

What do you mean by subsidizing for rare conditions etc. Do you plan to genetically screen people and then subsidize based on whether they have Hodgkins disease or to give free medical care to people who have self inflicted diseases? How are you going to determine who is worthy and who isn't. Don't you think this is a very dangerous road to be taking?; 4/20/09, 6:07 PM
Michael Haz said...: @Pogo - I used to sell high-zoot diagnostic imaging equipment to hospitals. At one point there were more MRI and CT units operating in Montana than in all of Canada.

Women with lumps in their breasts could wait 7 months for a mammogram in Canada (and then 90% of the patients would need to travel overnight to a place that actually had equipment)or get one in Montana the next week, paying cash.

That national health care sure sounds good from a distance.

Here's hopin' MUL doesn't need a prostatectomy suddenly in Canada, especially at the end of the year when the budget for anesthesia has already been spent.

Or maybe it'd be a learning experience.; 4/20/09, 6:09 PM
Ritmo Re-Animated said...: Michael, you're obviously late to the discussion. Try reading it. Maybe you're just a salesman. But do try to be more politically savvy than poor Pole-Glow. And don't distort and misrepresent - if your arguments can afford it.

If you want to have a serious discussion about HSAs, DBQ - (rather than just wallow in one's own political impotence like Pogo does), that's fine by me. Yes, I think I know what they are. No, I didn't realize that they are used less "prudently" (could you bother to define that, btw?) than if they are self-funded. As far as "dangerous" roads go, I don't know why everyone is assuming I think the government should define a non-lifestyle based disease. Probably a board of physicians more responsible than Pogo and other stakeholders could decide. For people who work in healthcare, it's a less opaque judgment than I think you guys are making it out to be. And no, I wouldn't mandate testing. Once something's diagnosed, that's a different story. I understand many of you have ideological concerns, some of which I can understand, but I still think this is an incredibly balanced suggestion when it comes to considering ethics, affordability, self-care and preventive care, etc.

It would probably work better to subsidize the account than the premiums, but I'll admit you may have more expertise on this. Pogo certainly doesn't.; 4/20/09, 6:21 PM
David J. Backes said...: "1970s Lifestyle Protects Planet."

Heck, I've been saying that for 30 years....; 4/20/09, 6:25 PM
KCFleming said...: Oh now really Montana, did you just use the word 'dildo'?

And that is meant to make your arguments more serious?
Funny?
Biting?
What?

No, I don't argue much with poters like you. You remind me very much of a few defunct commenters here. Hmmmmm.....

No matter.
Not worth the effort, really.; 4/20/09, 6:31 PM
Ritmo Re-Animated said...: "No matter.
Not worth the effort, really."

Then go away. Goodbye! You obviously either have no knowledge of or interest in healthcare policy - which is why you won't take part in deciding its fate.

And I think using the word "dildo" as a pejorative against a male is pretty damn funny, actually. Perhaps you have other uses in life. But that doesn't appear likely.

See why the plebs are agitating, Bunny? Some people, who are in a position to know better, are either too proud or stupid to make a case for something better - let alone even listen to one.; 4/20/09, 6:45 PM
Anonymous said...: montana urban legend,

As far as "dangerous" roads go, I don't know why everyone is assuming I think the government should define a non-lifestyle based disease. Probably a board of physicians more responsible than Pogo and other stakeholders could decide. For people who work in healthcare, it's a less opaque judgment than I think you guys are making it out to be.

Um, we're asking you to define it, or at least give us a hint, because you're the one who brought it up. At minimum, someone has to decide whether you're to cover adult-onset diabetes, heart disease, &c. in overweight people, lung diseases in smokers, liver diseases in chronic drinkers, and for that matter AIDS in someone who demonstrably didn't contract it from his/her one and only lifetime spouse who got HIV from sleeping around and didn't fess up, but rather from sleeping around his/herself or from sharing needles with someone who had it.

At minimum, you might let us know whether these are the sort of "lifestyle-related" illnesses you propose to exclude. Or, maybe, give us a single example of one that you think definitely should be excluded? One will do -- for a start.; 4/20/09, 6:45 PM
Jeff with one 'f' said...: All that body hair will help keep the heating bills nice and low!; 4/20/09, 6:45 PM
Smilin' Jack said...: "1970s lifestyle 'protects planet.'"

It didn't help Pluto.; 4/20/09, 7:02 PM
Ritmo Re-Animated said...: "Um, we're asking you to define it, or at least give us a hint, because you're the one who brought it up. At minimum, someone has to decide whether you're to cover adult-onset diabetes, heart disease, &c. in overweight people, lung diseases in smokers, liver diseases in chronic drinkers, and for that matter AIDS in someone who demonstrably didn't contract it from his/her one and only lifetime spouse who got HIV from sleeping around and didn't fess up, but rather from sleeping around his/herself or from sharing needles with someone who had it."

It's hard enough for many here to allow me to propose a sensible idea, let alone a policy in full. And since we are talking about something that requires some expertise to understand, listing each of thousands of diseases puts me in the position of explaining a lot more than I should have to. I understand you are ethically uncomfortable with such a definition - and I think it would undergo a lot of debate. But in the interest of fairness, allow me to attempt to address some of the illnesses that have been mentioned recently, and if time and space allows, why it might qualify or not.

Someone mentioned Huntington's earlier. I think that qualifies. I mentioned Lupus. Yes, that too. NIDDM, no. Heart disease (in which there is, as in the great majority of cases, no known genetic component), no. Lung diseases (I assume you mean cancer and/or COPD) in smokers, obviously no. HIV, no. Does that answer your questions? What exactly are you trying to understand in your questions? The complexity between genetics and lifestyle? It can be complex. But most of our costs are derived from choices. Obviously, even someone as solipsistic as Pogo can understand that. And healthcare issues increase and costs go up as we age. That's the logic of HSAs. They collect money as time goes on from which to draw. So they address the fact that things become more inevitable as we age and they address choice, and incentive patients to undergo earlier, less costly, preventive care and make choices that are a part of that idea. I am merely addressing the things that don't apply, and making the concept ethically comprehensive, and politically viable. Give me credit for trying. As Pogo demonstrates, it's easier to just pretend problems away, whether they be clinical, ethical, or political. But then, he's an incurious idiot. At least in the greater scheme of things.; 4/20/09, 7:10 PM
Peter V. Bella said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 4/20/09, 7:45 PM
Peter V. Bella said...: It is interesting to note that the first Earthday was held on 22 April 1970, coinciding with Lenin's birthday.

In celebration, if the weather holds up, I will BBQ using real wood charcoal. Anyone know where I can get some "Red"wood charcoal?; 4/20/09, 7:46 PM
Anonymous said...: montana urban legend,

Well, thanks, sincerely. Now I have some idea what you're talking about.

I think the distinction you're trying to make is going to be hideously complicated even in theory and completely unworkble in practice.

If you limit your benefit entirely to genetically-identifiable conditions, for one thing, there will be increasing pressure to identify these before birth and abort the afflicted. I mean, there'll be such pressure anyway, but if you make a hard divide between the chromosonally birth-defected and everyone else in terms of chronic health care, the pressure will be a lot stronger.

You seem to be dividing chronic illness into "hereditary" on the one hand, "lifestyle-related" on the other. But obviously not everything not "hereditary" is something that could be prevented by changing "lifestyle." The fraction of chronic illness that is neither obviously caused by defective genes nor obviously caused by "bad living" is very large.

And HIV alone is going to get you into a hell of a lot of trouble. You can't seriously argue that a woman who got HIV from her husband (who without her knowledge swings both ways, or likes the odd needle) should be denied treatment because she made a bad "lifestyle choice."; 4/20/09, 7:58 PM
Anonymous said...: Can't you blame the precursor on j sterling morton who created arbor day in 1872.

secretary for agriculture

father of the founder of morton salt
grandfather of the inventor of the pageprinter; 4/20/09, 7:59 PM
former law student said...: It is interesting to note that the first Earthday was held on 22 April 1970, coinciding with Lenin's birthday.The day was picked by UW-Madison law school grad Senator "Gaylord" Nelson.

Hopefully since Althouse joined the faculty, no Lenin-loving Gaylords have been let graduate.; 4/20/09, 8:03 PM
kimsch said...: commenter,

Remember 5-7-9 shops? Back in the day when those sizes were what are now known as 0-2-4 more or less?

I remember marimekko and they still sell the fabrics at Crate and Barrel.

As a girl with hips I still can't find jeans that fit right. I like the waist on my waist too (to avoid muffin tops) and sometimes the zipper area is too short too. That leads to camel toes...; 4/20/09, 8:09 PM
Ritmo Re-Animated said...: But obviously not everything not "hereditary" is something that could be prevented by changing "lifestyle."

Yes. Obviously. That's part of the point.

The fraction of chronic illness that is neither obviously caused by defective genes nor obviously caused by "bad living" is very large.I think you mean to put the word "exclusively" in there. But that's precisely what Pogo doesn't want to address. And yet, it is true that there are things known as "disease of affluence". People don't get NIDDM in cultures where they only access a few hundred calories a day. They certainly don't get it as (clinically obese) children.

And HIV alone is going to get you into a hell of a lot of trouble. You can't seriously argue that a woman who got HIV from her husband (who without her knowledge swings both ways, or likes the odd needle) should be denied treatment because she made a bad "lifestyle choice."Medical bills that result from malevolent acts preformed against you can be (and I would assume, already are) covered by tort law. No need to make this an issue of health care policy.; 4/20/09, 8:13 PM
Anonymous said...: fls,

"Gaylord" used to be, not a common name, but not an impossible one. As a kid violin student I was assigned studies by one Gaylord Yost. I don't think they're easy to find any more, probably because teachers got tired of the students' snickers.; 4/20/09, 8:14 PM
Ritmo Re-Animated said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 4/20/09, 8:14 PM
former law student said...: grandfather of the inventor of the pageprinter

Interesting. While I had always thought that Sterling Morton, like his father Joy, was the money man behind the inventor, Howard Krum, I now see that Morton was a joint inventor. The Morkrum corporation became the Teletype Corporation, acquired by AT&T, then sold off around 1990.

The original Teletype factory buildings are in Lakeview, not far from Wrigley Field. The other Morton legacy is the Arboretum.; 4/20/09, 8:16 PM
Anonymous said...: montana urban legend,

I don't think a husband sleeping with his wife and giving her HIV can be construed as a "malevolent act" unless he knew he was HIV+ and didn't tell her nor do anything to protect her. If he didn't know his own status, can this possibly be a tort? I wouldn't think so; and, anyway, what makes you assume the husband himself has the funds to provide for her AIDS treatment, on top of his own (which you've already made his own responsibility)? Talk about squeezing blood from a stone ...; 4/20/09, 8:21 PM
hdhouse said...: Cedarford said "all kinds of idiotic made up stuff"....

the best is changing the definition of besity.

gotta love this guy...hey, he's someone's child.; 4/20/09, 8:35 PM
Dust Bunny Queen said...: That's the logic of HSAs. They collect money as time goes on from which to draw. So they address the fact that things become more inevitable as we age and they address choice, and incentive patients to undergo earlier, less costly, preventive care and make choices that are a part of that idea.

As a person who is licensed in several states to offer HSA compatable health insurance, I can tell you that I am a big fan of the program. You can put money into a HSA that will cover your deductible at the standard 80/20 coverage and if you expend the deductible and out of pocket for that year then the insurance will cover additional costs JUST LIKE ANY OTHER INSURANCE POLICY.

The reason the premiums are low on the insurance is that while the premiums are being paid, either by the insured or more likely by the employer, the HSA is growing and that money is 100% vested to the insured.

Whether they make their own contribution to the saving or more likely the employer is also footing that bill, the insured is more prudent about spending the deductible HSA amount. Greed. It is easy to spend someone else's money. Just ask Congress.

But now you also want to determine who is WORTHY of being insured? Don't like fat people? maybe they shouldn't be insured, greedy gluttons. Wait!!! what if there is a genetic component to fatness. Type 2 diabetes?. Alcoholism>?> Genetic or choice?

How about old people? Shall we have the government do a cost benefit analysis on your Grandmother's hip replacement? How about a cataract operation on yourself at the age of 60. What do you need to see for anyway? You are old and probably aren't going to be contributing much to society for very much longer ....plus it is your fault for being out in the sun and not wearing the appropriate glasses. Oh what!! You couldn't afford the glasses.....too bad.

Dangerous road. Watch out what you wish for.; 4/20/09, 8:35 PM
kimsch said...: DBQ:

Decisions on who to cover made by government bureaucrats scares the life out of me. I have a daughter with chronic illnesses who will never be a "productive member of society" where productive means working and earning and paying taxes. She's 18 years old, with the mind of a 3-4 year old. She has a developmental delay, epilepsy, a moderate hearing impairment, and she was diagnosed with lupus several years ago to top it all off. She has two de novo genetic mutations (one is rare, two is exponentially rarer) extra genes on her 10th chromosome pair and a "ring 19" in a mosaic pattern. Her 19th chromosome pairs look like 10 11 10 11 instead of the normal 11 11 11 11. Her chronic problems have absolutely nothing to do with lifestyle.

I am scared that someone will decide that she shouldn't have any further tests, that she shouldn't continue with maintenance meds because these resources could be better used elsewhere.

We've actually seen something like this with physical, occupational, and speech therapy. She was able to have all three therapies for an hour each on a weekly basis. Then insurance was changed and coverage since then will only cover so many visits (all three are cumulative so it's not like 30 visits of each, it's 30 visits total). Insurance doesn't want to cover these therapies for a chronic condition, they want it for temporary conditions that they can limit.; 4/20/09, 8:58 PM
Ritmo Re-Animated said...: "But now you also want to determine who is WORTHY of being insured?"

No one said this. I've spent post after post clarifying. Don't be like Pogo. Dangerous roads begin with illiteracy. And be more respectful. You find a way of winning wider support and addressing the inevitable opposition that will come of their (current) inability to distinguish between preventable conditions and those which can't be, propose it. Until then, just keep your mouth closed and keep selling. It's not a basis for expanding their support politically. But if losing political battles suits you, that's your problem.

See, mdulak. You clarify someone's obsessive questions, and they still believe what they wanted to hear over what you actually SAID.

As for squeezing blood from a stone, HIV is 100% preventable. If you don't want to get it, you find out the status of who you're sleeping with, use protection, abstain, or learn how to find and value the company of more honest or cautious people. I've not negligently or willfully misrepresented one person's statement here.

But someone asked me how age figures into prevention, I had already clarified it amply, and they felt like they needed to go on a diatribe about it that had nothing to do with that. As a matter of fact, HSAs are predicated on the general phenomenon that health care costs increase with age, regardless of whether you are engaging in riskier behavior or not. You'd think a salesperson for HSAs should understand that. Maybe not. Maybe she doesn't understand the difference between asymmetrical information and a valid selling point. OOOOOHHHHH!!!!

As it stands, neither of the newly-minted and self-styled medical ethicists here are going to win wider approval of HSAs as a rational alternative to increasing government control without addressing the ethical gaps that I did. But there's no policy for addressing irrational behavior short of evident self harm or harm to others. Hence, the discussion. Now, if I were to determine that one of them was also hearing voices in her head that told her to make enemies with potential allies for what she supports, then a dopamine-antagonist might offer relief. But I'm just speaking in terms of hypotheticals and cannot offer medical advice to someone for merely acting in ridiculous and self-defeating ways.

As Geoffrey Fieger said of his former client, Dr. Jack Kevorkian, a non-lawyer, upon his decision to build his own case: I do not take part in the assisted suicide of my clients.; 4/20/09, 9:00 PM
MadisonMan said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 4/20/09, 9:09 PM
MadisonMan said...: At some point, I'll remember the italics spacing problem. Anyway:

I wonder how many political liberals really believe that the climate of the earth got warmer this year?

What does belief have to do with observations?

And how many political liberals really believe that CO2 pollutes the atmosphere?

I would say that the people who live near Lake Nyos rightly consider CO2 a toxic pollutant in the atmosphere. Again, not a belief, just a fact.; 4/20/09, 9:15 PM
Meade said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 4/20/09, 9:16 PM
Dust Bunny Queen said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 4/20/09, 9:17 PM
Ritmo Re-Animated said...: "Decisions on who to cover made by government bureaucrats scares the life out of me."

This will definitely happen if you allow people like Dust Bunny to facilitate the discussion, kimsch.; 4/20/09, 9:19 PM
Meade said...: "We need to be doing a lot more to reverse the global trend towards fatness, and recognise it as a key factor in the battle to reduce emissions and slow climate change."

Round up all the fat people, feed them to the starving polar bears clinging to the melting ice caps.

Problem solved.; 4/20/09, 9:19 PM
Ritmo Re-Animated said...: "Up until now I was willing to have a debate with you."

No debate possible with someone who misrepresents your position.; 4/20/09, 9:19 PM
Dust Bunny Queen said...: As a matter of fact, HSAs are predicated on the general phenomenon that health care costs increase with age, regardless of whether you are engaging in riskier behavior or not. You'd think a salesperson for HSAs should understand that

You would think that you might be able to grasp the difference between a Health Savings Account and and Insurance Policy.

HSAs are predicated on no such thing. They are based on the concept that if you have some skin in the game, pay some of your own premiums or actually have to take some responsibilty for the cost of your health care, you might scale back on taking yourself to the emergency room or doctor for ever trivial thing.

Insurance is base on the concept that costs go up with age, which is why premiums increase with age.

Until then, just keep your mouth closed and keep selling

Up until now I was willing to have a debate with you.

Now, I've decided that the appropriate response is...

Fuck off with a frozen carrot you mental midget.; 4/20/09, 9:24 PM
Ritmo Re-Animated said...: "Insurance is base on the concept that costs go up with age, which is why premiums increase with age."

As does the amount of money in your account with which you can pay for medical costs. Now who doesn't understand HSAs?

You are really stupid. Where is the "debate" with someone who supports what you support?; 4/20/09, 9:29 PM
Ritmo Re-Animated said...: "Until then, just keep your mouth closed and keep selling"

Yes. It's what you should do. You don't have to. But you obviously have too much anger and lack of self-control issues to be politically effective with what you support.

You honestly think HSAs are going to be successful if they aren't tied to the high deductible health plan that they're marketed with? You honestly thought we were having a discussion predicated on carving out HSAs as a viable, stand-alone entity for broad consumption, politically? And I'm the mental midget?

Methinks the lady doth protest too much.

The rest of your frothy mouth weirdness just reflects some problem on your part. No need for me to address it.; 4/20/09, 9:36 PM
Ritmo Re-Animated said...: And as someone who sells health insurance, you don't understand that you're the one in the less enviable position of having to prove yourself ethically, and intellectually? Now that's funny.

These are the people who have been cutting off payments for kids with devastating, rare illnesses. Not the government. I don't want to tell you some of the horror stories I've heard from health professionals who have worked for both sides - in her industry and outside of it. Enrollees who have committed suicide over having a payment denials. I never knew it was that bad. But having heard what I've heard from some of the more ethically inclined who got out of the business, I can guarantee you that part of Bunny's wild and intemperate behavior may be rooted in a deep sense of guilt. This is not a political judgment in any sense. The conversation is no longer about that. It's about basic ethical responsibilities - that start with intellectual honesty - and basic observations.

But what's the use? I'm talking about someone who doesn't understand the difference between a subsidy and insurance! And she sells insurance!Do you want her making your health decisions?

I wouldn't.; 4/20/09, 9:49 PM
Ritmo Re-Animated said...: The first one to lose their temper loses the debate.

Wise words, for what it's worth.

Well, good night, everybody else. Have a good time trying to set the health care issue straight! Before it gets a hold of you! And it's your country. You have a right to have a say in the development of its policies.

And so does everyone else.

For some people, that's a problem.

Not for me, though.; 4/20/09, 10:03 PM
SteveR said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 4/20/09, 10:48 PM
former law student said...: Decisions on who to cover made by government bureaucrats scares the life out of me. I have a daughter with chronic illnesses who will never be a "productive member of society" where productive means working and earning and paying taxes.Your daughter needs more than health care, and government bureaucrats are not your biggest concern. From the 1800s, our society used to provide for those who could not provide for themselves, and whose families were unable to help. Counties had poor farms, and homes for the aged. States had mental institutions for the retarded and for the insane.

But, beginning in the 1960's, reformers noticed that the care provided by such institutions was sadly lacking. Republican politicians noticed that care cost money. Inmates were released to their families or to the streets, and as they lost population, the institutions were closed.

I do not know what the long-term solution for kimsch's daughter is.; 4/20/09, 10:55 PM
SteveR said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 4/20/09, 11:19 PM
SteveR said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 4/20/09, 11:19 PM
Peter V. Bella said...: "Round up all the fat people, feed them to the starving polar bears clinging to the melting ice caps."

It would be easier and more cost effiecient to feed them to polar bears in zoos, like that fat woman in Germany.; 4/20/09, 11:21 PM
Peter V. Bella said...: "The original Teletype factory buildings are in Lakeview, not far from Wrigley Field."

My mother worked for Teletype. She worked there and then she worked at the plant when they relocated to Skokie, Illinois. The plant is in Lincoln Park, not Lakeview. It is now a townhouse and condo project; for the past fifteen years or so.; 4/20/09, 11:26 PM
former law student said...: The plant is in Lincoln Park

I see now the plant is two blocks south of the LV-LP border. Good thing I'm not a real estate agent.

My ancestral saloon was in Lincoln Park, too, at Clybourn and Armitage. When I was a kid that was all industrial. Who would have thought it would one day become the home of Chads and Trixies?; 4/21/09, 12:35 AM
KCFleming said...: "But, beginning in the 1960's, reformers noticed that the care provided by such institutions was sadly lacking."

Bull.
Shit.
They found no such thing.
Here's the straight poop.

"Republican politicians noticed that care cost money. Inmates were released to their families or to the streets, and as they lost population, the institutions were closed."

Bullshit squared.
Those outcomes were tied both to Social Security in the 1930s and Medicare in the 1960s.

Query: who was in charge at the time?

Answer: Democrats.; 4/21/09, 6:29 AM
KCFleming said...: So is MUL just Cyrus Pinkerton's little sister, or what?

Here's her pattern, for future reference:
1) Insult to your intelligence.
2) Statement of fact, which may be debatable.
3) Abusive nonresponse.
4) Conclusion, somewhat based on facts, mostly $10 words masking paper-thin theories.

It would have been fun to stay, but real life intruded. Saying the long goodbye to a very good old man. I hope he heard me; may the new road be less rocky.; 4/21/09, 6:41 AM
Ritmo Re-Animated said...: When you are having a conversation with someone, you insult their intelligence when you distort their words and obsess over finding a way to fit what they say into your own prejudices and experiences. If you cannot be intellectually honest, then you admit that your bias, etc. blinds you to what they have to say and you refrain from pretending that you can engage them. Anything less is an insult to that person's intelligence.

At least 50% of 300 million Americans and countless people abroad have access to the internet. Yet Pogo fixates on a previous "enemy" in order to see two people over the ethernet with whom he can't agree as one and the same. I don't suppose it would dawn on someone who looks down on the majority of the people in his country, and even the poor, that his need to make such incredibly broad-ranging enemies is obscuring his ability to make sound judgments and rational decisions, let alone persuasive arguments.

Note to Pogo: Not everyone whom you can't beat is the same person. Get some help for your delusions. It's like you have an inverted version of multiple personality disorder.

But I should congratulate him on his progress this time. At least he didn't construct a list that included "racists, philanderers, thieves, serial killers, rapists, and socialists" with which to compare others as a way of extolling his deplorable forensic skills.

Socialists!

My lack of paranoia over them must make me one of them.

Tell me which one of these words earned me $10.

And I also wish your friend well. But if you're as effective with him as you are in what you've neglected to achieve in your own profession, then I can't imagine the words you just expressed would offer him any real comfort. They're just a bunch of pretty sentiments. And that's all you are. Except minus the "pretty" part.

Very wistful and elegaic you are, Mr. Pogo. All we need to do is get you off the government dole and then you'll actually be useful.Can't wait.; 4/21/09, 10:44 AM
addicted to life said...: "In the 1970s we had bigger portions of vegetables and smaller portions of meat...

The reasons we are getting overweight are
- lack of activities
- food industry
- the way we work

You can't control the food industry, but we can control ourself. What you are eating? When do you eat?
One year ago I was 70 kg, now I am 63. I made the diet by Dr. Dukan: http://www.thedukandiet.org/Program/Main.html

Just say NO to:
- cornglakes
- croissant
- bread
- burgers
enjoy chokolate just 2 times weekly...

Eat early in the morning!
I do not eat after 17h. Just refuse the dinner!; 4/22/09, 12:44 PM