Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Tut to use a well worn cliche....the answer to your question is because there is no such thing as a free lunch.... You have to take from Peter to give to Paul...

Steve is absolutely right. There is NO denial of care due to economic circumstances.
If people are not getting care then perhaps they don't know the options available for them . Perhaps there is a case that we should do a better job informing the needy about their options .

---

Hi Tom,

Yes, there is no such things as a free lunch.When I was working I paid for other people's health. When I was working I also paid into 'freedom of speech' in the form of a national government run T.V. station. The caption was, 'It cost the tax payer 4 cents a day' ( probably a lot more now). Most people accept that the national station provided. 'a good balance' when put up against the private networks.

The point is that almost everyone is prepared to pay in order to guarantee freedom of speech. There is no degree of quality when it comes to free speech. A poor person has just as much right to freedom of speech as a wealthy person.

Saying there is no denial of health care does not address the problem of EQUITY in health( this is why I keep asking the same question). If equity is not a problem in health then someone having more freedom of speech shouldn't be a problem. If there is a problem with freedom of speech then I am sure most people would be prepared to pay in order to ensure such freedoms are maintained.

Regards

Tut

Well I certainly disagree that paying for a government mouthpiece represents Freedom of Speech .

Now as to equtiy of health care that is not a right nor should it be. You have your safety net system and you also have the privilege to pay for additional coverage Down Under . Given that system I find it strange that you would consider the system equitable when the more affluent can buy a better degree of health care than the poor.

You extend your safety net to all. We don't ;and I don't think it necessary. I'll gladly pay for the health care of the poor and my family . Why should my hard earned wealth go to pay for anyone else's ?

Why is health care a right for all and not food clothing and shelter ? Do you pay into a system where everyone eats "for free " or is housed "for free" or is clothed "for free " ? Of course you don't .

On this very post we came to a bit of a consensus that those who depend on the government largess have no business complaining about the choices they are given by the government . In my view that is just as true with health options.

Potatoes are cheap and easy, often fried and/or drenched in grease. As a parent... if I ever count a potato as a vegetable... please shoot me for stupidity.

Its carbs. Where are the antioxidants? Cancer fighters? With veggies, go with colors. Yeah, there are some vitamins and minerals. Carotenoids. Nothing like what you get with intense colors.

Seriously... if you count taters as your child's quality portion of veggies... uhm... well... k.

Now... do I need my government to bar and/or ban the use of potatoes in a kids school lunch? no.

But if it happens, am I willing to do the work to make sure my kid gets quality veggies with home packed meals?

If the answer is no then you are relying on the nanny state to feed your child... so... then you only want a nanny state that you approve of?

Potatoes are nutrient rich . Those who say it is the things used to doctor potatoes that contribute to empty calories have a point. But pound for pound the potato offers as many nutrients as many other healthy food choices ;and in addition provide valuable soluble and insoluable fiber .And yes they are loaded in phytochemicals .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Well I certainly disagree that paying for a government mouthpiece represents Freedom of Speech .

Now as to equtiy of health care that is not a right nor should it be. You have your safety net system and you also have the privilage to pay for additional coverage Down Under . Given that system I find it strange that you would consider the system equitable when the more affluent can buy a better degree of health care than the poor.

You extend your safety net to all. We don't ;and I don't think it necessary. I'll gladly pay for the health care of the poor and my family . Why should my hard earned wealth go to pay for anyone elses ?

Why is health care a right for all and not food clothing and shelter ? Do you pay into a system where everyone eats "for free " or is housed "for free" or is clothed "for free " ? Of course you don't .

On this very post we came to a bit of a concensus that those who depend on the government largess have no business complaining about the choices they are given by the government . In my view that is just as true with health options.

---

Hi Tom,

Actually, we now have two government networks. Strange place Australia, isn't it?

A Steve pointed out there is no such thing as equity and this is true. This however does not stop anyone from from trying to get as close as possible to that goal. In terms of equity our system is a close as anyone could hope for at the moment. I am not saying it does not have its share of problems and I am not saying it is completely equitable. There is no health care system that is ideal;they all have problems.

Why do I see health care as a right? Because it is a scarce commodity. I don't think scarce commodities should be subject to the whim of the free market. We all know where the best bits end up.

The problem seems to be that some people don't want to pay for fundamental rights if they seen to be valuable and in short supply.

Actually, we do pay into a system to house people but it is not for free. It is a nominal rent.

Why is food and clothing different? Because it is not a scarce commodity for the vast majority of Australians. Actually, come to think of it some fresh food items are G.S.T free.

Regards

Tut

And the remedy for scarcity is increases on the demand side without concurrent increases on the supply side... and that's supposed to lower costs as our advocates claim ? That's a new economic theory to me . Where are all these new doctors and health care providers supposed to come from ? Are there incentives like increases in income to entice students to become doctors ? Nahhh... over here we are threatening to cut reimbursements to doctors who cater to the government subsidized health care systems .
Peter Ferrara and Larry Hunter: How ObamaCare Guts Medicare - WSJ.com

Yes indeed... health care becomes a scarce commodity under a socialized system. That's why you hear of case after case of service denial in these systems that promise health care for everyone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

and the remedy for scarcity is increases on the demand side without concurrent increases on the supply side....and that's supposed to lower costs as our advocates claim ? That's a new economic theory to me . Where are all these new doctors and health care providers supposed to come from ? Are there incentives like increases in income to entice students to become doctors ? Nahhh ...over here we are threatening to cut reimbursements to doctors who cater to the government subsidized health care systems .
Peter Ferrara and Larry Hunter: How ObamaCare Guts Medicare - WSJ.com

Yes indeed ....health care becomes a scarce commodity under a socialized system. That's why you hear of case after case of service denial in these systems that promise health care for everyone.

---

Hi Tom,

I think you have made a contextual error here. Health care IS a scarce commodity in your free market system. In time it may well turn out to be a scarce commodity under 'socialized medicine' as well.

It seems to me that you argument can only be valid if 'socialized medicine' is the ACTUAL CAUSE of resource scarcity. What you have presented is not a demonstration of this considering the limited American experience to date.

Regards

Tut

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kp2171

potatoes are cheap and easy, often fried and/or drenched in grease. as a parent... if i ever count a potato as a vegetable... please shoot me for stupidity.

its carbs. where are the antioxidants? cancer fighters? with veggies, go with colors. yeah, there are some vitamins and minerals. carotenoids. nothing like what you get with intense colors.

seriously... if you count taters as your childs quality portion of veggies... uhm... well... k.

now... do i need my government to bar and/or ban the use of potatoes in a kids school lunch? no.

but if it happens, am i willing to do the work to make sure my kid gets quality veggies with home packed meals?

if the answer is no then you are relying on the nanny state to feed your child... so... then you only want a nanny state that you approve of?

---

Most of the good nutrients are in and near the skin. Eaten with the skins and prepared properly they are a good to have as part of your diet. But obviously... in moderation. And prepared in other ways than peeled, and deep fried in Goose fat.

yeah I failed to qualify in my a-potato-isnt-a-great-vegetable rant that most kids I know won't touch the skin, most schools don't present it with the spuds, and when you check out the nutritional value of a baked potato with versus without skin, it shows peeled taters aren't all that and a bag of chips when you're ranking veggie power. Good carb fuel and some minerals and nutrients... add fat and salt. etc. but even the nuns didn't make us eat potato skins in elementary.

so unless they're steaming (not boiling or frying) potatoes with skins on... there is great loss of nutrients. And its believed that phytochemicals are largely lost with industrial processing. Just cause its in the veggie that came out of your grandparents garden doesn't mean its anywhere near as present in the prepackaged, processed, deep fried crap that get served in schools.

lycopene is an exception. Id run chemistry labs with students isolating the lycopene from betacarotene in second year organic labs and lycopene is very well preserved in tomato pastes that are canned.

again... I don't want the govmt meddling in this, and id rather have my son at school eat some carbs for energy and satiation than not... my job as a parent to make sure he gets his vitamins at home.

I'm just not willing to count his side of fries in a happy meal as his vegetable. I doubt California would either. ;) happy meal toy haters.

*note to self: never, ever again cite California logic when trying to make a legitimate point*

Quote:

---

and lycopene is very well preserved in tomato pastes that are canned.

---

Indeed... in the case of lycopenes ,it's better to have the tomatoes cooked .

Graphic image strategy used to decrease smoking not planned to be used to decrease abortions


Of course not. Why use graphic images to discourage instant death?

McDonald's sued for marketing Happy Meals to children

Quote:

---

The lawsuit, filed by a Sacramento mother and the Center for Science in the Public Interest, contends that giving toys with children's meals circumvents parental control and teaches children unhealthy eating habits.

---

Apparently parents are too stupid and powerless to not buy Happy Meals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Apparently parents are too stupid and powerless to not buy Happy Meals.

---

That seems to be the case with the Sacramento mother who filed suit --

In a call with reporters, Monet Parham, a Sacramento mother of two, said she was bringing the case because of the constant requests for McDonald's Happy Meals.

"I don't think it's OK to entice children with Happy Meals with the promise of a toy," Parham said, adding that she tries to hold her daughters, 6 and 2, to monthly visits to the fast-food chain. But she said their requests increased this summer...

"Needless to say, my answer was no," Parham said. "And as usual, pouting ensued and a little bit of a disagreement between us. This doesn't stop with one request. It's truly a litany of requests."

She is apparently allowed to give only one "no."

By the way, according to futureofcapitalism.com --

Ms. Parham is the same person as "Monet Parham-Lee". Monet Parham-Lee is an employee of the California Department of Public Health. Interestingly, her name has been scrubbed from the website of Champions for Change, the Network for a Healthy California. She has given numerous presentations and attended conferences on the importance of eating vegetables and whatnot.

She presents herself as an ordinary mother. She is not. She is an advocate, and an employee of a California agency tasked with advocating the eating of vegetables. To the extent that Monet Parham-Lee has EVER taken her daughter to a McDonald's, she should have known better.

Her bio and photo are here --

http://jammiewearingfool.blogspot.co...roup-sues.html

Thanks for the bio. I knew if the Center for Science in the Public Interest was involved it was no ordinary plaintiff... they think think we're all too stupid for our own good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

they think think we're all too stupid for our own good.

---

Hello again, Steve:

They?? THEY?? Excuse me?? When it comes to stuff you LIKE being banned (marijahoochie) then the government ain't so stupid, are they? How can one decry a government ban, and support a government ban at the same time??

I understand... A ban comes out of the left side of the mouth, while the right side is CRITICIZING bans... It's perfectly clear to me...

excon

You'd think the fat people on the streets is graphic enough for people to take responsibilitiy for their own dietary habits.

Mothers who won't be parents and set rules for their own children should have their kids taken from them when they try to sue someone for selling them a legal product they walked in and bought on their own initiative.

What next... Sue Betty crocker for selling cake mix?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smoothy

Mothers who won't be parents and set rules for their own children should have their kids taken from them

---

Hello again, smoothy:

Sooo, keeping pot OUT OF THE HANDS of children, ISN'T one of the reasons it should be banned. Hmmmm... Somewhere, back in my pot addled memory, I seem to recall that is the EXACT reason you do it...

So, it continues... Out of the right side your mouths, you decry mothers who can't discipline their children, but out of the other, you BAN stuff because the parents are TOO stupid to do it themselves...

I understand perfectly.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, smoothy:

Sooo, keeping pot OUT OF THE HANDS of children, ISN'T one of the reasons it should be banned. Hmmmm.... Somewhere, back in my pot addled memory, I seem to recall that is the EXACT reason you do it....

So, it continues.... Out of the right side your mouths, you decry mothers who can't discipline their children, but out of the other, you BAN stuff because the parents are TOO stupid to do it themselves....

I understand perfectly.

excon

---

POT is a narcotic...

A happy meal isn't. HUGE differnce.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

They??? THEY??? Excuse me??? When it comes to stuff you LIKE being banned (marijahoochie) then the government ain't so stupid, are they?

---

Yes, They... THEY!! I was very clear in referring to the Center for Science in the Public Interest thinking we're all too stupid for our own good. I didn't mention the government or a ban.

I take it then an individual suing McDonald's over toys in Happy Meals in conjunction with an activist group on the basis that "giving toys with children's meals circumvents parental control and teaches children unhealthy eating habits" makes sense to you.

That some nitwit activist could lead to McDonald's no longer providing toys in Happy Meals because she's being held hostage by her children offends me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

That some nitwit activist could lead to McDonald's no longer providing toys in Happy Meals because she's being held hostage by her children offends me.

---

Hello again, Steve:

I don't disagree with you... I think we should be free to buy whatever the hell we WANT to buy. The only thing that offends me, is your support for ONE ban, and not the other.

I too, am offended when they want to put me in the slammer for smoking a joint in the privacy of my own home.

excon