Reader comments
U.S. favors health-care prevention, poll finds

Thank goodness this logic is getting through. How ever that does not mean prevention of government healthcare for the poor.

In fact a government healthcare program that everyone could have access to would keep the other insurances honest. The government would see the value in Quality healthcare care and prevention programs.

The government would be interested in us being healthy because it would not cost them if we are healthy. It would be a great start on monitoring the private healthcare industry which is corrupt with ethic problems and Republican handouts.

The reason there is more money in health care's treatments than there is in it's prevention is because the health care industry exists, for the most part, to treat ill people. Whoever said it was responsible to make sure people live healthily? Prevention responsibilities belong to individuals themselves.

How do you get people to just walk 30 minutes a day and eat 5 servings of fruit and vegetables a day? That will add about 14 years to your life. A fish or two a week and red meat maximum once a week. This is the prevention that works.

Most Americans favor prevention only for OTHER people.

But when it comes to their own health care, they want the best their money can buy.

As with so many things, the core problem is entitlement, laziness, and greed. Americans feel entitled to health care, are too greedy to pay for it themselves (but manage a host of other "necessities" like cell-phones, cable TV, Nintendo DS, etc.), and too lazy to maintain their good health.

ANY government program will only exacerbate the situation.

But, we all seem too stupid to realize this, so, let's let China continue to pay for our gluttony and we'll just saddle our children and grandchildren with the responsibility of paying the piper.

I think most of you miss the point. I actually work in the health care industry, and the biggest problem is the Government. Costs could be reduced a great deal if physicians didn't have to use defensive medicine to protect themselves from lawsuits. Belgie is correct, people buy motorhomes, cell phones, ATV's, expensive cars and homes, but won't pay for health care. The government can't even run the post office, or GM, and you expect better health care with a government run program. GET REAL!!!!!

RE: Belgie and RP,
Have either of you had a weight problem? If not, you're ignorant, your criticisms aren't constructive and criticism without construction is judmental, and harmful! The recommendation of 2,000 calories a day is wrong. There needs to be a list of calorie intake per height, age, weight, active, and inactive. I've lost 80 pounds (postdate) by eating 1200 calories for my 5'4" height. In order to stay a decent weight, I'll have to count calories the rest of my life. Weight Watchers works-they count calories by a point system. When I was single and extremely active, able to have a support system of guys, roommates, etc. I exercised daily. I got married, my support gone and I ended up living in an area where I was frightened to go out by myself. Husband worked all the time, responsibilities in the home and elsewhere doubled. I wasn't caring for myself anymore, and now I had an overwhelming learning curve. We couldn't afford the expensive exercise equipment. My diet didn't change, exercise did. To my surprise, I fattened! Constructive critics buy equipment, become exercise buddies, and don't criticize.

"...the core problem is entitlement, laziness, and greed..."

Actually, the core problem is with people like you, who have no ability to see the larger picture, and use only your personal experiences in dictating what you think is correct.

Here's the reality check. 60% of bankruptcies are due to medical bills, and 75% of those bankruptcies had medical insurance but were still overwhelmed by the costs (American Journal of Medicine). These aren't entitled, lazy or greedy people! They are hard working, tax paying Americans who were financially destroyed due to a medical condition in the family. Yet you would label them as leeches on the system. The irony is that unless you are infinitely wealthy, or already covered by some government program, you also are only a medical emergency away from a similar fate and label.

There are many countries who do health care more effectively and less expensively, while covering ALL their citizens. Failure to examine and adopt a better, cheaper system puts the US at an economic disadvantage, and amounts to nothing more than nationalistic hubris.

Well, Woody and Belgie have it right. The people who cry the loudest for preventative care being taught or forced on every one, cannot work unless there is incentive. If you want preventative (By the way AGREE preventative does cost a lot in some cases more that insurance.) then define those things that can be prevented and let the insurance companies exclude treatment for those conditions, if you aren't doing your preventative, then you don't get coverage for it. If the people using the health care system don't have "skin in the game" then they don't and won't take care of preventative issues. Most of you don't take your cars in for full diagnostics and tests when it is running fine, and most of you don't go to the doctor, unless there is a problem, that is unless someone else is paying for your checkups. In all the health reform in Utah and US every one is bellying up to the trough to get their share of the freebies. None are saying Hey I am willing to pay for that, let the other guy pay it.

Wow where did that come from Criticize?

Re: criticize constructively - You're right. I've never had a weight problem. But, I still drag myself out to run 3-4 times a week to maintain my fitness (no coaches, buddies, or expensive exercise equipment required). I also try to make good decisions about what I eat.

Everybody has problems. Some are just more visible than others. I don't see why a predisposition to obesity is any more of a societal problem than low IQ or just plain laziness.

I'm fine with programs to educate people. In fact, I'm all for them. I also enjoy helping my neighbors and providing support when they need it. If you happen to live in the Portland area, I'd love to go for a run with you.

But, I'm adamantly opposed to a nanny-state, where all the hard decisions are made for us.

Have you ever tried to count calories? It's hell and it's not sustainable. So, I'm currently trying to change my list of recipes and try that. People aren't always willing to share their healthy recipes either. So, unless you're willing to share your recipes, keep your ignorance to yourself. Also, getting out for 30 min. a day isn't easy either when you're already running faster than you have strength. I think weight is a problem too when you're too responsible and won't let things go. It needs to be a priority to prevent weight additions, but then people need to never visit, never be critical of ones home without being willing to help clean it, weed it, or otherwise fork out money to help maintain it. Watch children so they can exercise! Never sign up to bring desserts unless it's fruit, never bring sweets to peoples homes with weight problems, never keep it out so that a person with a weight problem doesn't have to suffer trying to not eat it. Any weakness/problem has been given to strengthen them. Don't give up, find a way!

"But, I'm adamantly opposed to a nanny-state, where all the hard decisions are made for us."

Do you beling to a religion that is essentially a "nanny church" where all the hard decisions are made for you?

Just wondering...

Re: to Belgie | 4:29

Well, you're close, but as usual, the statistics are deceiving. I think you're referring to the Harvard study, which said 50% of bankruptcies were caused by "illness and medical bills".

Of those 50%, 75% of the people did have insurance, but 38% lost their coverage because they could pay for it. Besides the medical bills, I'm sure than general irresponsibility had a lot do to with it. People should plan for at least one disastrous event in their lives.

Reports like the one you cite serve themselves if they can make alarming and sensationalize claims. I read last month that 20% of Utah children are hungry, which is crap, unless you count teenagers because they're always hungry.

Look around you. How many people have 3 months salary in the bank? How many people have disability insurance? How many people have a boat, RV, iPhone, Sony PS3, 3000 sqft home, new cars, etc. It's incredible to see where our priorities are.

And, I do have a right to get mad and criticize. I'm paying for your medical bills.

Before I retired I regularly worked out during my lunch hour during which time I walked past the snack bar where fat people ate their calorie rich lunches and complained about how they couldn't loose weight and blamed their problem on "heredity." Since retiring, if I stop exercising regulary and am not careful with my diet, I gain weight. Then I have to loose it by exercising and watching my diet. It's as simple as that.

I would be interested in a government assisted health insurance program in which the individual or family would be responsible for a reasonable deductable amount and insurance or government would pay for catastrophic costs only (deductable based on the person or family's income). But I would have a problem if the catastrophic costs paid for by the government were because of the recipient's drug or tobacco or alcohol abuse. Or because of gluttony or sexual promiscuity or other health issues in which the person placed themselves at risk.

I also would like to see tax sheltered health savings accounts. But liberals hate that idea.

We have usually paid more in premiums than we have used, being generally healthy people. One family member is overweight and has a pacemaker. Everyone else does routine preventive checks, etc. Counting the premium our employers have paid on our behalf, insurance companies have made plenty on our family, since our out of pocket would typically be far less than the full premiums charged by insurance companies.

I'd love to have some of that coverage pay more (instead of offer minimal contracted discounts) for health education, customized diet and lifestyle education (everyone knows about the food pyramid and 30 minutes 3x a week general guidelines), and mental wellness education. Maybe it would help motivate our struggling, overwhelmed family member to think less and do more.

We're not pros, but we do the best we can.

Hey, Belgie, guess what? Lost 10 pounds in Norway in 5 months, and didn't need to drag myself out to do it. Why? No need for a car, so a person walks constantly. How and why? First, awesome public transportation, run by the government. No sprawl -like America, especially the west - so everything you need is, guess what, within walking distance. Again, no sprawl, so hiking mountains was, guess what, within walking distance, and you didn't have to worry about being in someone's backyard. And the attitude of the people there was to be in nature, not to "drag" themselves out for a run. And I mean all the people there, the old and young. Aside from a mere handful of people, the only ones that were overweight were, guess what, Americans, and the occasional tourist. Guess what? Norway has a government-run - ah, "nanny-state" healthcare system, and it works beautifully and cheaply. Americans are too hung up on drill here, drill now, can't walk a block to the grocery store to ever prevent most illnesses caused from being overweight. Can't imagine what the next generation will be like.

What a smug individual.

You place yourself on a pedestal as if you alone support the uninsured, when in all likelyhood, you don't even pay your medical bills. Heaven help you if you actually have a catastrophic medical issue in your family. No amount of insurance or savings will help you if you hit your policy's maximum coverage. And no provider would touch you after that. 3 months savings equates to one night in intensive care.

Spend a day at Primary Children hospital. It might give you some perspective.

re: xscribe: I think you hit the nail on the head, perhaps without recognizing it. It isn't likely the gov't run "nanny-state" healthcare has much to do with those outcomes: diet and exercise is clearly the reason. Any system where people eat/exercise to keep themselves healthy is going to cost less than one, like we have, that is focused on trying to fix people after they become sick, even though a significant portion of that disease burden is preventable. But having a gov't run health care system will not fix that problem, or even affect it. Switching to a gov't program will just change our current problems to different ones, not solve them. Personally, I think we will dislike the new problems worse than the ones we currently have.

You say we will dislike the new problems with a gov't run health care system worse than the problems we currently have. What is worse than having no health care or insurance at all?