Socialized Medicine

[cldlhd]

Beer is good for your soul and as one of my favorites, Ben Franklin, said it's proof God loves us and wants us to be happy.

 

[kmarriner]

There are a lot of factors that go into weight loss, and it is harder for some people based on genetics.

For example, currently I am 185lb at 5' 9". I track every single thing I eat and I am a competitive cyclist (meaning that I spend anywhere from 8-15 hours on a bike every week, and I race 20-30 times a year). I would consider myself healthy (as would my doctors and my vital signs), I don't drink or smoke and my resting heart rate is in the low to mid 40s.

I was able to get down to 155lbs 4 years ago, and maintain that for 2 straight years, but I was only eating 1000-1200 net calories per day, just to maintain that weight. A few days eating 1500-1800 would see me gain weight like crazy. Which is odd, considering that the NIH recommends that men eat no less than 1,800 per day.

I ended up slowly eating more and more (1,200 a day is difficult mentally), and slowly gained weight back. I am trying to work myself back down to 150-155 but even with denying myself food I am having trouble losing weight. It is a delicate balance, I have to keep my intake low enough to lose weight, but I also have to eat enough so that I don't lose much power from it or else my racing will suffer.


And of course, I fully support socialized medicine and have for my entire life, nobody should have to choose between being in debt or suffering from an illness/injury/anything else.

 

[cldlhd]

There are a lot of factors that go into weight loss, and it is harder for some people based on genetics.

For example, currently I am 185lb at 5' 9". I track every single thing I eat and I am a competitive cyclist (meaning that I spend anywhere from 8-15 hours on a bike every week, and I race 20-30 times a year). I would consider myself healthy (as would my doctors and my vital signs), I don't drink or smoke and my resting heart rate is in the low to mid 40s.

I was able to get down to 155lbs 4 years ago, and maintain that for 2 straight years, but I was only eating 1000-1200 net calories per day, just to maintain that weight. A few days eating 1500-1800 would see me gain weight like crazy. Which is odd, considering that the NIH recommends that men eat no less than 1,800 per day.

I ended up slowly eating more and more (1,200 a day is difficult mentally), and slowly gained weight back. I am trying to work myself back down to 150-155 but even with denying myself food I am having trouble losing weight. It is a delicate balance, I have to keep my intake low enough to lose weight, but I also have to eat enough so that I don't lose much power from it or else my racing will suffer.


And of course, I fully support socialized medicine and have for my entire life, nobody should have to choose between being in debt or suffering from an illness/injury/anything else.

I agree . Some people have different resting metabolisms. Two people could each sleep for 8 hours- no calories consumed and no exercise- and have vastly different calories burned. The NIH is having their budget slashed this year.

 

[italynstylion]

There are a lot of factors that go into weight loss, and it is harder for some people based on genetics.

For example, currently I am 185lb at 5' 9". I track every single thing I eat and I am a competitive cyclist (meaning that I spend anywhere from 8-15 hours on a bike every week, and I race 20-30 times a year). I would consider myself healthy (as would my doctors and my vital signs), I don't drink or smoke and my resting heart rate is in the low to mid 40s.

I was able to get down to 155lbs 4 years ago, and maintain that for 2 straight years, but I was only eating 1000-1200 net calories per day, just to maintain that weight. A few days eating 1500-1800 would see me gain weight like crazy. Which is odd, considering that the NIH recommends that men eat no less than 1,800 per day.

I ended up slowly eating more and more (1,200 a day is difficult mentally), and slowly gained weight back. I am trying to work myself back down to 150-155 but even with denying myself food I am having trouble losing weight. It is a delicate balance, I have to keep my intake low enough to lose weight, but I also have to eat enough so that I don't lose much power from it or else my racing will suffer.


And of course, I fully support socialized medicine and have for my entire life, nobody should have to choose between being in debt or suffering from an illness/injury/anything else.

That means your body is efficient; which is NOT a bad thing. Realistically, it means you don't cost as much to run as a machine. But you said yourself, you know EXACTLY what it takes to keep you at a stable weight (regardless of what that weight is). The self control is another issue entirely.

I'm unfortunately on the opposite side of the fence. I'm 152 lbs and hopefully on the way up. This is the most I've ever weighed in my entire life and I'm 5'10. I too am a cyclist (mountain bike only) and a cross country runner. I require at least 3,000 calories to even MAINTAIN my weight. When I'm actually training hard, it's closer to 4,000. I have to eat to the point of uncomfortable fullness multiple times a day to even remotely see my weight go up. A recent discovery of lactose free milk has certainly helped me sneak extra calories into the diet and I'm enjoying that.

 

[kmarriner]

That means your body is efficient; which is NOT a bad thing. Realistically, it means you don't cost as much to run as a machine. But you said yourself, you know EXACTLY what it takes to keep you at a stable weight (regardless of what that weight is). The self control is another issue entirely.

I'm unfortunately on the opposite side of the fence. I'm 152 lbs and hopefully on the way up. This is the most I've ever weighed in my entire life and I'm 5'10. I too am a cyclist (mountain bike only) and a cross country runner. I require at least 3,000 calories to even MAINTAIN my weight. When I'm actually training hard, it's closer to 4,000. I have to eat to the point of uncomfortable fullness multiple times a day to even remotely see my weight go up. A recent discovery of lactose free milk has certainly helped me sneak extra calories into the diet and I'm enjoying that.

I of course should have pointed out that I track my calories in net intake, so anything I burn by training is "added back" for lack of a better word. I use a power meter so I have a highly accurate count of how many calories I burn from a workout.

In essence, if my goal is to eat 1,200 net per day (to maintain weight at 150lbs) and I went out for a 4 hour ride burning 2,300 calories; I'd actually end up eating 3,500 on that day. So when I do my BMR calculations I do them as someone who is completely sedentary so that I can get an actual number for a base (rest) day on, and then I judge the total for the day based on what my power meter says.

Now, you're right, I do know what it takes to run my body and maintain (or lose) weight but thats only because I have antagonized over it for years. I know plenty of people who are overweight but eat very healthy, and while I push for them to do a little research to figure out how they could lose weight, I can understand that my method is a bit of a faff and a lot of work; Like I said, I track every single thing I eat (for the most part) and I have access to the equipment to accurately track my calories burned plus years of knowledge from trying different things.

I will add, that I don't eat particularly healthy for what its worth. When I originally dropped from 195 to 155 I did it on a good amount of pizza and burritos, I just knew how much I could eat (and I went to the doctor and had my blood work done often enough to know that I am what they consider to be the picture of "health"); I also track my sleep and my heart rate throughout the day.


All of that said, if we were to implement a true single payer healthcare system, I have no issue at all with my tax dollars going towards the healthcare of others be them fat or skinny, drinkers or not, and so on. I want us to have the care we need and to not have to worry about the cost, because I have been in that position quite a few times. There are too many people who end up going into crippling debt because they can't afford preventative care and then end up with a serious condition with no other options.

 

[The Fed]

"Your pension is pretty generous. I'm still under the old federal civil service plan, and I receive 76.25% for 40 years. It's not 2% for every year; you get stiffed in the first few years. That's before the 10% reduction survivor benefits for your wife, if you so choose. And we use high 3. So we're pretty close"
______________________________________________________

Yeah, almost 80% of your working income in retirement, what a tragedy.

Not quite. Using a 3-year average reduces it some, and you lose 10%if you're married. So it's closer to 65%. The problem with the system is lately there have been no cost-of-living allowances, so you better not be relying solely on the pension. They say it's cheaper to live when you're retired. That's not the case. The only way to stay ahead is to work in a high-cost area where the wages are high and retire to a low cost area where your money goes further.

 

[The Fed]

My share is about $900 per month for health care premiums. No vision coverage except surgery. Co-pays average 50% for dental. Rx's are usually reasonable if generic or by mail order. No long-term care. I expect premiums to be $1,000 per month in 2 years.

I estimate it will cost the U.S. Government $36,000 per year per couple if they take it over completely and the people don't pay premiums for just what I have with me still paying co-pays. True Socialized healthcare where the people pay nothing will cost a hell of a lot more, like at least $50,000. Only a value-added tax can possibly help pay for it.

 

[MeltedSolid]

You would think that socialized health care would cost a similar amount as privatized health care. The costs of operating insurance can be broken down into labor and claims, and theoretically there would be little difference in the labor costs of running an insurance company vs. letting the government do it, and because the government is not profit minded they will only need to tax as much as is required. Of course on the flip side there would likely be more claims because more people would be covered and it would probably be less likely to be denied a claim, but I wouldn't call that a bad thing. Of course I would consider the most advantageous part of this model is it much easier to construct it in such a way that the people can afford more will contribute back to society more and the burden is lightened on the average person who can't afford more. Obviously that doesn't sound like a great thing to a lot of the people in this forum who has the money to afford a brand new car, but suck it up; if you can afford a brand new GTI/R your life isn't that bad.

 

[EXEA189]

The Fed:

I hope you find both of these worth a listen...

Journalist and author T.R. Reid set out on a global tour of hospitals and doctors' offices, all in the hopes of understanding how other industrialized nations provide affordable, effective universal health care. The result: his book The Healing of America: A Global Quest for Better, Cheaper, and Fairer Health Care.

Reid is a foreign correspondent for The Washington Post — in whose pages he recently addressed five major myths about other countries' health-care systems — and the former chief of the paper's London and Tokyo bureaus.

Reid was the lead correspondent for the 2008 Frontline documentary Sick Around the World, which examined five other capitalist democracies, looking for lessons on health-care delivery.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112172939

When it comes to taxes, T.R. Reid says other countries have done "what the U.S. Congress evidently can't do — they've made it simple." He also goes over the V.A.T. His new book is A Fine Mess.

http://www.npr.org/2017/04/03/522440141/author-looks-to-other-countries-to-rethink-americas-complicated-tax-code