Alastriss Posted February 12, 2009 Report Share Posted February 12, 2009 K, I'm just throwing this out there, it's might not be a good idea but I'm curious to know what people think. What if the private health care was allowed, but ONLY in rural areas. So, private medical clinics and hospitals could be opened in rural towns, and the government would be relieved of some of the burden of funding medical facilities in all these places. It would further act as an incentive for Canadians to practice rural medicine because they would have the opportunity to open their own practice. Does this make any sense? How are you insuring the rural areas? btw you used the P word, which is our equivalent of the S word south of the border Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ashleym Posted February 12, 2009 Report Share Posted February 12, 2009 I guess they would have to be publicly insured, like everyone else. The taxes paid by the private sector would contribute to the funding of public health care in these areas. So public health care would not be lost from rural areas. I don't know what the P word is... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ninjaface Posted February 12, 2009 Report Share Posted February 12, 2009 Two other rural disadavantages I've thought of: 1) No way in heck making it to info sessions or mock interviews is possible. Also not likely you are going to have anyone else in your town to prepare with/get quizzed by who is actually applying as well. 2) The culture of drug abuse that is much more prevalent in rural communities - Northern ones in particular. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alastriss Posted February 12, 2009 Report Share Posted February 12, 2009 I guess they would have to be publicly insured, like everyone else. The taxes paid by the private sector would contribute to the funding of public health care in these areas. So public health care would not be lost from rural areas. I don't know what the P word is... Well that is what we have. We have private hospitals with a public insurance plan. The taxes paid by the private sector contribute to the funding as well with vertical equity in mind so what you have suggested is basically our system. the p word is private the s word isi socialism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halcyon Posted February 14, 2009 Report Share Posted February 14, 2009 Two other rural disadavantages I've thought of: 1) No way in heck making it to info sessions or mock interviews is possible. Also not likely you are going to have anyone else in your town to prepare with/get quizzed by who is actually applying as well. 2) The culture of drug abuse that is much more prevalent in rural communities - Northern ones in particular. So true! More good points here.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpanishFly Posted February 16, 2009 Report Share Posted February 16, 2009 ok totally bored at work today, all the patients think we're closed for family day (which we should be!) so its quiet and gives me time to read Anyways, what do you guys think about govt. involvement in regulating trans fats? Should companies be told to limit their fat content or is this going too far? http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090212.wtransfat12/BNStory/specialScienceandHealth/home Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meme me Posted February 16, 2009 Report Share Posted February 16, 2009 ok totally bored at work today, all the patients think we're closed for family day (which we should be!) so its quiet and gives me time to read Anyways, what do you guys think about govt. involvement in regulating trans fats? Should companies be told to limit their fat content or is this going too far? http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090212.wtransfat12/BNStory/specialScienceandHealth/home It's going too far. As long as the health or nutrional information for 'X' food product is easily accessiblea, then it's up to the producer to decide how much trans fat they want to through in the mix. It's unhealthy, but it can't be illegal. If we can legally buy cigarettes and alcohol, I think we should be able to legally buy an extra tasty croissant... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jochi1543 Posted February 16, 2009 Report Share Posted February 16, 2009 It's going too far. As long as the health or nutrional information for 'X' food product is easily accessiblea, then it's up to the producer to decide how much trans fat they want to through in the mix. It's unhealthy, but it can't be illegal. If we can legally buy cigarettes and alcohol, I think we should be able to legally buy an extra tasty croissant... Well, cigarettes and alcohol are under SOME restrictions (age), so they cannot be exactly compared to trans fats. Why would, say, lead be banned in toys or cosmetics, but trans fats couldn't be banned in food? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hkmedbound Posted February 16, 2009 Report Share Posted February 16, 2009 It's going too far. As long as the health or nutrional information for 'X' food product is easily accessiblea, then it's up to the producer to decide how much trans fat they want to through in the mix. It's unhealthy, but it can't be illegal. If we can legally buy cigarettes and alcohol, I think we should be able to legally buy an extra tasty croissant... I will have to disagree with you... Unlike saturated fats, trans fats drastically increase your risk of CVD. Unfortunately, they don't add to the deliciousness of a product, although, they do help increase shelf life. The added health care costs of ‘trans fat consumption’ is quite substantial... The article you posted states that trans fats are responsible for 3000 deaths per year, but how many of these cardiac events do not result in death? My bet is more than 3000. These people are left with chronic conditions that require a large sum of health care expenses. Unlike cigarettes and alcohol, the health care costs of trans fats are not offset by the prodigious taxes imposed on alcohol and tobacco products. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpanishFly Posted February 16, 2009 Report Share Posted February 16, 2009 I will have to disagree with you... Unlike saturated fats, trans fats drastically increase your risk of CVD. Unfortunately, they don't add to the deliciousness of a product, although, they do help increase shelf life. The added health care costs of ‘trans fat consumption’ is quite substantial... The article you posted states that trans fats are responsible for 3000 deaths per year, but how many of these cardiac events do not result in death? My bet is more than 3000. These people are left with chronic conditions that require a large sum of health care expenses. Unlike cigarettes and alcohol, the health care costs of trans fats are not offset by the prodigious taxes imposed on alcohol and tobacco products. in reference to your last point, do you think the solution is to impose taxes on products that contain trans fats? This could also be a deterrant to many non-compliant companies, forcing them to cut out trans fats, without the necessity of regulatatory policies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meme me Posted February 16, 2009 Report Share Posted February 16, 2009 Well, cigarettes and alcohol are under SOME restrictions (age), so they cannot be exactly compared to trans fats. In most places, it's only illegal for minors to buy cigarettes, not to smoke them. So yeah, I think it's a pretty apt comparison. Why would, say, lead be banned in toys or cosmetics, but trans fats couldn't be banned in food? There's a difference between knowingly idulging in an unhealthy snack and unknowingly destroying your nervous system by a poisonous metal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hkmedbound Posted February 16, 2009 Report Share Posted February 16, 2009 in reference to your last point, do you think the solution is to impose taxes on products that contain trans fats? This could also be a deterrant to many non-compliant companies, forcing them to cut out trans fats, without the necessity of regulatatory policies. Perhaps that is one viable solution... The government I'm sure will weight out the cost/benefit ratio and do what is in their best interest financially... If it was really a matter of "health," cigarettes would have been banned years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meme me Posted February 16, 2009 Report Share Posted February 16, 2009 I will have to disagree with you... Unlike saturated fats, trans fats drastically increase your risk of CVD. Unfortunately, they don't add to the deliciousness of a product, although, they do help increase shelf life. How we can we realistically ban trans fat without doing the same for cigarettes? 3000-3500 deaths/year? Not that that's an insignificant number, but I'll let you tell me how many deaths/year are associated with smoking. The added health care costs of ‘trans fat consumption’ is quite substantial... The article you posted states that trans fats are responsible for 3000 deaths per year, but how many of these cardiac events do not result in death? My bet is more than 3000. These people are left with chronic conditions that require a large sum of health care expenses. Unlike cigarettes and alcohol, the health care costs of trans fats are not offset by the prodigious taxes imposed on alcohol and tobacco products. So would advocate for banning trans fat based on this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hkmedbound Posted February 16, 2009 Report Share Posted February 16, 2009 How we can we realistically ban trans fat without doing the same for cigarettes? 3000-3500 deaths/year? Not that that's an insignificant number, but I'll let you tell me how many deaths/year are associated with smoking. Smoking results in many more deaths per year than trans fats... http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hl-vs/pubs/tobac-tabac/idcds-adctc/index-eng.php What I'm saying is that the taxes imposed on cigarettes are able to at least partially balance the health care costs associated with smoking related illnesses.... Plus, I’m sure there are less stakeholders in the trans fat industry than the multi-billion dollar smoking industry. *Yes... I would be in favour of banning trans fats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meme me Posted February 16, 2009 Report Share Posted February 16, 2009 For me, it's hard not to have the 'why bother' attitude because I think it's such an amazing hypocrisy that you can choose to kill yourself with cigarettes, but not cheeseburgers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpanishFly Posted February 16, 2009 Report Share Posted February 16, 2009 For me, it's hard not to have the 'why bother' attitude because I think it's such an amazing hypocrisy that you can choose to kill yourself with cigarettes, but not cheeseburgers. I agree, I'm sick of having to pay for people's bad habits, but we have to start somewhere don't we? I think tackling trans fats is the *much* easier thing to do now, than banning cigarettes. Lets start with the smaller battles and work our way up. I think why I initially brought this up wasn't so we could have a battle of cigarettes vs. trans fats but rather societal restriction vs. personal rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
japlanet Posted February 16, 2009 Report Share Posted February 16, 2009 In most places, it's only illegal for minors to buy cigarettes, not to smoke them. So yeah, I think it's a pretty apt comparison. This reminded me of this. I agree with the law but I'm really not sure how to respond to this 'glitch.' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sailor_d198 Posted February 16, 2009 Report Share Posted February 16, 2009 I agree, I'm sick of having to pay for people's bad habits, but we have to start somewhere don't we? I think tackling trans fats is the *much* easier thing to do now, than banning cigarettes. Lets start with the smaller battles and work our way up. I think why I initially brought this up wasn't so we could have a battle of cigarettes vs. trans fats but rather societal restriction vs. personal rights. I agree, and I think the individual rights vs. societal restriction debate is the more interesting one. Imagine if you took a poll of Canadian consumers asking whether or not they'd support a ban on trans fats. If everyone polled was fully aware of the health risks associated with eating trans fats as well as the burden placed on the health care system as a result, they would likely be in support of a ban, or at least increased regulations imposed by the government. Assuming a ban is in place, the individual still retains the right to eat that cheeseburger with fries, and this ban on trans fats doesn't take away that right, just *some* of the risks associated with that behavior. People don't eat junk food for just the trans fats, and will continue to eat junk regardless of a trans fat ban or not. If a ban is in place our favorite junk foods won't be disappearing off the shelves, they will just be a little less unhealthy. The right to choose those foods won't disappear. To me, a ban on trans fats, introduced along with a good public health campaign, seems like a viable option. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FABS Posted February 17, 2009 Report Share Posted February 17, 2009 I agree with you...many companies are taking the initiative to make their products without trans fats and health educated buyers are choosing to buy the products that are trans fat free. In my opinion, food with and without trans fat taste the same; its often the preparation either at home or in the factory that adds the trans fat factor. Therefore, in my opinion, its the cost associating with eliminating trans fat from the products and the health factor that needs to be considered. I think leaving it up to the uneducated buyer to choose whether or not to buy a trans fat product is dangerous. It would be like masking the danger/caution signs on the cigarette cartons and eliminating all the negative media attention. Buyers would have no idea of the dangers of smoking, similar to how many ppl do not have any idea of the dangers of trans fat. I think before it even gets to the level that cigarettes are at, the government should either ban trans fats or do what was suggested in previous posts, tax tax tax away that was fun first ethics post ever, so if you respond, pls be nice lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.