|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
|
Author: tata Date: Jun 10, 2008 11:40
|
| |
|
| | 7 Comments |
|
|
Author: tata Date: Jun 10, 2008 12:17
On Jun 10, 2:40 pm, ta nc.rr.com> wrote:
Oops, that title should read *Nutrition* Science has hijacked our
meals and our health . . . .
Excerpt:
TMN: I want to finish with a big question. Over the last few weeks,
I've had the privilege to interview Lester Brown, founder of
WorldWatch, about his book, Plan B 3.0: Mobilizing to Save
Civilization, a big-picture look at energy and environment. And Nobel
Peace Prize winner, Mohammed Yunus, about creating a world without
poverty through social business. And Laura Flanders, about the power
of the grass roots in the presidential campaign.
All of these share something: They look at systems and relationships,
at bottom-up and local rather than top-down and mass market. It makes
me hopeful that all this stuff is percolating, and it seems that it's
about a worldview. Rather than food, I could be having this
conversation with someone about the American healthcare system where
we focus on symptoms, we look for magic bullets, we suffer with side
effects ...
|
| Show full article (1.60Kb) |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: PubliusPublius Date: Jun 10, 2008 17:34
> MP: That's a great example. The food issue and the healthcare issue
> are seen as separate. Of course, they're not. When I was a boy in
> 1960, we spent 18 percent of our national income on food -- twice as
> much as we do today -- and only 5 percent on healthcare. Today it's
> flipped. We spend 16 or 17 percent of our income on healthcare and
> only 9 percent on food. The less money we've been willing to spend for
> food, the more we've settled for processed, highly refined, cheap,
> fast food, the more our healthcare problems have escalated.
Yikes, what a glaring non sequitur. Ever read Maslow?
There are a hierarchy of needs. When incomes are low are relatively large
portion is spent for food, since that is among the highest priority needs.
As incomes increase, more is spent for other things, including healthcare
--- most of which is of rather low priority (people in 3rd world countries
don't spend hundreds of K dollars on terminal care for cancer patients, or
thousands for hospital child deliveries).
|
| Show full article (1.38Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: tata Date: Jun 11, 2008 07:10
On Jun 10, 8:34 pm, Publius nospam.comcast.net> wrote:>> MP: That's a great example. The food issue and the healthcare issue
>> are seen as separate. Of course, they're not. When I was a boy in
>> 1960, we spent 18 percent of our national income on food -- twice as
>> much as we do today -- and only 5 percent on healthcare. Today it's
>> flipped. We spend 16 or 17 percent of our income on healthcare and
>> only 9 percent on food. The less money we've been willing to spend for
>> food, the more we've settled for processed, highly refined, cheap,
>> fast food, the more our healthcare problems have escalated.
>
> Yikes, what a glaring non sequitur. Ever read Maslow...
|
| Show full article (2.22Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: ShrikebackShrikeback Date: Jun 11, 2008 08:14
On Jun 11, 7:10 am, ta nc.rr.com> wrote:> On Jun 10, 8:34 pm, Publius nospam.comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>>
>>> MP: That's a great example. The food issue and the healthcare issue
>>> are seen as separate. Of course, they're not. When I was a boy in
>>> 1960, we spent 18 percent of our national income on food -- twice as
>>> much as we do today -- and only 5 percent on healthcare. Today it's
>>> flipped. We spend 16 or 17 percent of our income on healthcare and
>>> only 9 percent on food. The less money we've been willing to spend for
>>> food, the more we've settled for processed, highly refined, cheap,
>>> fast food, the more our healthcare problems have escalated.
>
>> Yikes, what a glaring non sequitur. Ever read Maslow? ...
|
| Show full article (3.12Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: tata Date: Jun 11, 2008 13:58
On Jun 11, 11:14 am, Shrikeb...@ gmail.com wrote: > On Jun 11, 7:10 am, ta nc.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
>>> On Jun 10, 8:34 pm, Publius nospam.comcast.net> wrote:>
>
>>>> MP: That's a great example. The food issue and the healthcare issue
>>>> are seen as separate. Of course, they're not. When I was a boy in
>>>> 1960, we spent 18 percent of our national income on food -- twice as
>>>> much as we do today -- and only 5 percent on healthcare. Today it's
>>>> flipped. We spend 16 or 17 percent of our income on healthcare and
>>>> only 9 percent on food. The less money we've been willing to spend for
>>>> food, the more we've settled for processed, highly refined, cheap,
>>>> fast food, the more our healthcare problems have escalated.
>
>>> Yikes, what a glaring non sequitur. Ever read Maslow? ...
|
| Show full article (3.80Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: ShrikebackShrikeback Date: Jun 11, 2008 19:18
On Jun 11, 1:58 pm, ta nc.rr.com> wrote:> On Jun 11, 11:14 am, Shrikeb...@ gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
> >> On Jun 11, 7:10 am, ta nc.rr.com> wrote:>
>>> On Jun 10, 8:34 pm, Publius nospam.comcast.net> wrote:>
>
>>>>> MP: That's a great example. The food issue and the healthcare issue
>>>>> are seen as separate. Of course, they're not. When I was a boy in
>>>>> 1960, we spent 18 percent of our national income on food -- twice as
>>>>> much as we do today -- and only 5 percent on healthcare. Today it's
>>>>> flipped. We spend 16 or 17 percent of our income on healthcare and
>>>>> only 9 percent on food. The less money we've been willing to spend for ...
|
| Show full article (5.19Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: PubliusPublius Date: Jun 11, 2008 20:13
>> Because they live longer.
>
> So you're saying that in roughly 40 years, we live that much longer so
> as to cause us to spend 3 to 4 times more *as a percentage of income*
> on healthcare? Do you really believe that?
The original statistics are not clear. Are they percentages of *household
income* or *national income*?
|
| Show full article (1.99Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
