Thread: About healthcare.

I thought that was a serious news report when I saw the title, then I played it and saw it was The Onion. Phew.

Originally Posted by JMS

What? Junk food cheaper than healthy food? I beg to differ with you.

Not to get too off-topic but, seriously? You'd argue that junk food isn't less expensive than good, healthy food?

The majority of our food supply has become industrialized, and the foods produced by these companies are almost always less expensive (and more readily-available) than local vendors -- especially when it comes to meat.

Originally Posted by commiecat

Not to get too off-topic but, seriously? You'd argue that junk food isn't less expensive than good, healthy food?

The majority of our food supply has become industrialized, and the foods produced by these companies are almost always less expensive (and more readily-available) than local vendors -- especially when it comes to meat.

I'd argue that junk food is more expensive than a whole bunch of healthy food options. We eat very little junk food. My wife recently bought a large sized bag of potato chips as a "treat". $4. Those sugar cereals in the stores kids like are that price or more.

Dry beans, lentils, brown rice are dirt cheap. Eggs and tofu are inexpensive protein as are combined grains and legumes. Even fresh veggies go a long way when cooked with. Chicken legs and thighs are inexpensive. We buy mostly organic food and still we're money ahead over buying manufactured processed food in bags, tubs, boxes and tubes.


If I were king of the world, highly processed foods would not be eligible for those on public assistance unless such unhealthy items were paid for out of their own pocket with whatever disposable income they may have.

Chris L

Originally Posted by ChrisL

I'd argue that junk food is more expensive than a whole bunch of healthy food options. We eat very little junk food. My wife recently bought a large sized bag of potato chips as a "treat". $4. Those sugar cereals in the stores kids like are that price or more.

Dry beans, lentils, brown rice are dirt cheap. Eggs and tofu are inexpensive protein as are combined grains and legumes. Even fresh veggies go a long way when cooked with. Chicken legs and thighs are inexpensive. We buy mostly organic food and still we're money ahead over buying manufactured processed food in bags, tubs, boxes and tubes.


If I were king of the world, highly processed foods would not be eligible for those on public assistance unless such unhealthy items were paid for out of their own pocket with whatever disposable income they may have.

Chris L

I'm talking about comparing apples to apples (quite literally!). Yes, rice is cheaper than a Happy Meal. The products you get that are loaded with high fructose corn syrup, sodium, and various stabilizers are cheaper than the alternatives. The meats you get -- and you even cite chicken -- from industrial companies (e.g. Perdue) cost less than their natural counterparts.

The state of our food supply is a whole other thread worth of discussion. There is a plethora of information out there and it's quite troublesome. Look up our soy and corn supplies and how it affects the majority of products in any grocery store.

I agree that unhealthy food is generally cheaper than the healthy alternatives.
But you have to compare the equivalents. You cannot just shove the cost of preparation (even if it's just in time) under the rug in one case and count it in the other.

So when you compare McDonalds, Burger King, etc. you should use as a counterpart an equivalent in nutrition value, but healthier meal at say the farmer's market.

If you want to compare food you cook with food you cook and ignore the cost of preparation, then the difference is in the cost of the products only.
At my store the organic (presumably healthier) produce,meat and poultry costs on average 2-3 times more than their conventional counterparts.

And yes the chips, drinks and snacks at the hippie store that are supposed to be healthier for you do cost more than their counterparts at the regular store. The difference is about 2-3 times, i.e. instead of a big bag of chips for $3 you pay $4 for a bag half the size.



BTW same with drinks, I read on the internet that those 30 year old scotches are much healthier than the $10 ones.

Unhealthy food? I think that is a myth. Protein, carbohydrate, fats, and micro-nutrients. Doesn't matter if it comes from a cheese burger and fries, or from lentils and brown rice. Once digested it's all the same. Too much of any one nutrient and the body will deal with it. It's called homeostasis.

Quantity and variety are much more important variables.

Originally Posted by honedright

It's called homeostasis.

Pfft! I can make up words too, you know! Because when you get right down to it, it's mostly up to the the stomach's digestivflorgen.

On topic: I'm very happy with my free health care. In fact, I'm going to go down to the ER right now simply because I'm lonely. I'll chat with the people in the waiting room, and then after a short wait, the doctor! Once they've run some unecessary tests and kicked me out of there, it will all be free! They'd charge you at least $3000.00 for what I'm about to do in the US!

Originally Posted by honedright

Unhealthy food? I think that is a myth. Protein, carbohydrate, fats, and micro-nutrients. Doesn't matter if it comes from a cheese burger and fries, or from lentils and brown rice. Once digested it's all the same. Too much of any one nutrient and the body will deal with it. It's called homeostasis.

Quantity and variety are much more important variables.

Not a myth at all--I used to be a biochemist. For starters, the glycemic index of what you're eating will drastically affect your body's insulin response, which over time can lead to insulin resistance
& possibly even type 2 diabetes... HFCS (which is in bloody near everything these days thanks to corn subsidies) has not only very high GI (I forget what the number is), but containing so much fructose, it really puts a nice strain on your liver. Very different from complex grains which take much longer to break down (much lower GI) and in many cases are far nutritionally superior (vitamin, mineral content, etc.)

Then we have pesticide residues (including in some cases organophosphates), preservatives of various kinds--some nicer than others, antibiotics fed to CAFO animals, RBST (MOL IGF-1) in milk. Many seeds (various crops) are Roundup-Ready, meaning they can be drenched in the stuff & survive--basically leaving weed-killer still remaining on the final product. Lots of these goodies bioaccumulate to some degree, and some are quite potent xenoestrogens. Unfermented soy is a major one. (Fermentation denatures the estrogens--soy sauce for example is fine. ) Soy isoflavones (and others) not only mimic estrogens (there are several), but also stimulate cytochrome P-450 aromatase, which converts androgens (testosterone et al.) into estrogens. In small doses, it serves a purpose (hormonal regulation), but overstimulated as it is by todays "food" choices...
Some girls are entering puberty as early as 8, and some boys not until 15 or later. Obviously, not all of this is due to soy consumption, but rather everything on this quick list.

Just a quick overview of some of the goodies you might be eating.

Originally Posted by honedright

Unhealthy food? I think that is a myth. Protein, carbohydrate, fats, and micro-nutrients. Doesn't matter if it comes from a cheese burger and fries, or from lentils and brown rice. Once digested it's all the same. Too much of any one nutrient and the body will deal with it. It's called homeostasis.

Quantity and variety are much more important variables.

Interesting philosophy. I think you are involving different complex concepts in your post, for example it's possible to become poisoned by pure water:

Water Intoxication & Hyponatremia

I would like to point out that it seems like a matter of risk quantification, as you specified (one cheeseburger isn't normally going to kill you, but eating one a day for the rest of your life might, given circumstances), for example:

Diet and colorectal cancer: current evidence for e... [Nutr Hosp. 2005 Jan-Feb] - PubMed result

How does this relate back to the topic on-hand? Wealthy health insurance companies have caught on that they aren't making money on sick people. They make money on the healthy insured people who don't need to go to the doctor. Their solution? Promote preventative medicine (good for everyone already insured) and introduce candidacy clauses so they can screen out the sick (bad for anybody who gets sick who needs insurance). Is this system broken? Maybe, maybe not. Should the government look at fixing the healthcare problem? Maybe, maybe not. If it is a broken system, can they fix it? Maybe, maybe not. Can they come in and say they are going to fix the problem and make matters worse but divert the attention elsewhere? Maybe, maybe not. Now then, to make use of this stated tactic, I just want to comment: current CMS programs don't generally pay for preventative services. Now why would that be? Does this factor into the healthcare equation for you? How does this affect the research of human health?

This is just something to think about. I am on the fence about everything I've talked about here and just want to voice things that haven't been voiced yet to explore them here. I lay no claim of knowing or understanding anything involving truth, just what has been real for me.