Eating lots of sugar and carbs is a huge factor in becoming a type 2 diabetic, which then means your body isn't able to regular blood sugar as effectively.
Additionally, even in a healthy person, eating sugar causes spikes in blood sugar level. Your body corrects for it quickly but it almost certainly causes more damage than somebody who avoids eating sugar.
So many diabetics have a much better life on the Keto diet. And if you have type 2 then you can eliminate medication on the Keto diet. Might be a better option than hoping to die in the next 10 years.
BMW sells more electric cars only if you count hybrids. As somebody who owns a Tesla and previously a hybrid Iâ(TM)ll tell you they are quite different, with the Tesla being far superior.
Also, every Model S and Model X Tesla sells at a profit. But they invest all of those profits, and much more, into R&D and expansion.
Letâ(TM)s fix it by deregulation, not more regulation. When I switch jobs there is no impact on my life insurances, homeowners insurance, and car insurance. I simply buy these on my own. But health and disability insurance are only deductible if your employer provides them which is just dumb. Employers started providing healthcare during WW2 to attract and retain employees when the government froze wages.
Already today there are millions of jobs in entertainment, arts, and services that didnâ(TM)t exist before. Even if an elite few owned most of the automation they would want to spend that profit on something. Art, research, etc.
I hope this passes because I don't live in WA and I want to laugh at the fallout. Will Apple design a whole new iPhone just for one state? If so perhaps they'll just make it twice as thick. That would be fun.
Or just stop selling it there? I don't know what the expected result is, but I doubt reality will match anybody's expectations.
I'll also be curious to see how many other products are caught in the crossfire. Medical devices? Safety devices? I have tools with non-replaceable batteries. There will be a whole new class of illegal products.
I don't necessarily agree that you should be forced to seal them up to attend, but on the other hand I can't stand when I'm watching a concern and all I can see is tens of thousands of cell phones recording video and taking pictures. I mean just enjoy the concert. You probably paid $100+ to attend. If you want video, buy a video later for $20 that will be way better than anything you'll take on your crappy cell phone.
That's actually interesting, thanks for sharing! But the article goes on to prove my point, because in order to cut costs (perhaps to pay for this crazy expensive treatment), they have to choose who gets to live and who gets to die. See here:
Thank you, yes, my point exactly. Strawman arguments are being made here. Oh the CEO pay is causing all of our problems! Is CEO compensation a problem? Maybe, maybe not. But that's not why our healthcare is expensive.
You completely misunderstood everything in my post, but hey.
I'm not saying the US subsidizes in terms of sending drug companies cash (perhaps we do, but it wasn't my point). When we pay $x for a drug, and the rest of the world pays $x/10, we are subsidizing the rest of the world.
Looking at Pfizer, they spend $3 billion per year in advertising (source https://www.statista.com/stati...), with revenue of $52 billion. That's not trivial, nor is it a "very large cost per pill". It is about 5% of revenue. Meanwhile they spend almost $8 billion in R&D (source: http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/p...).
Fully 50% of their revenue is from the US (source: https://www.statista.com/stati...). And we pay more for drugs (source: https://www.bloomberg.com/grap...). So looking at the financials, let's say that Pfizer takes a 25% reduction in revenue (if the drug prices in the US cut in half). There goes the R&D budget, the advertising budget, and more.
So to keep the R&D going we'd have to raise drug prices everywhere, or subsidize R&D.
I don't see how that is relevant to my comment. If there was a pill that cost $1 million and helped you lose weight, would they pay for it? Or how about a $1 million pill that killed cancer?
Sure, take the total compensation of all CEOs of all healthcare companies, then divide by the number of insured, and the number is still small. It doesn't change anything. If you want to add it up go ahead.
Meanwhile, Google tells me this is the highest-paid healthcare CEO, at $22 million per year:
Oh, and on the single payer aspect, it won't be the solution you are looking for. Currently the US subsidizes much of the world's healthcare costs. When we pay $50 for a pill that other countries pay $5 for, we are effectively keeping many drug companies afloat, and funding their R&D, etc. If the whole world only paid $5 per pill, then it would be a problem. Either all prices would go up, or R&D would cease, etc.
The other issue is that there is unlimited demand for healthcare, and limited supply. Nothing will change that. If money isn't the rationing factor than something else needs to be (e.g. "death panels").
I'm not saying it isn't a problem, but if you divide out the CEO compensation by the number of insured people, you'll find it isn't going to be that significant. I'll do the math for you if you reply with the most egregious health care CEO salary you can find.
Considering most people need mortgages to buy houses, they are a leveraged "investment" and you can therefore lose more cash than you put in. Bitcoin normally you can lose at most 100%.
Considering most people use mortgages to buy houses, they are a leveraged "investment" and you can therefore lose more cash than you put in. Bitcoin normally you can lose at most 100%.
Look, if you are not inclined to do your own research then so be it. I don't have any motivation to convince you otherwise. I have read through hundreds of studies and attended numerous talks from actual doctors and scientists on this topic.
And don't get me wrong. Carbs are not inherently evil, but in the quantities that most Americans eat them it is just not good for our bodies. For some people they get away with it, and it probably depends on what they are actually eating and their genetic makeup.
But if you are overweight, have high blood pressure, high cholesterol, high triglycerides, or have type-2 diabetes, then you owe it to yourself to look into this, because you are being lied to by the USDA about grains being healthy.
Oh, I misunderstood then. Yes, pretty much all wheat is bad, GMO or not. Well, perhaps if you could actually dig up whatever wheat was 1,000 years ago before we made it so pleasant and easy to digest it wouldn't be so bad...
Slashdot Mirror
Eating lots of sugar and carbs is a huge factor in becoming a type 2 diabetic, which then means your body isn't able to regular blood sugar as effectively.
Additionally, even in a healthy person, eating sugar causes spikes in blood sugar level. Your body corrects for it quickly but it almost certainly causes more damage than somebody who avoids eating sugar.
So many diabetics have a much better life on the Keto diet. And if you have type 2 then you can eliminate medication on the Keto diet. Might be a better option than hoping to die in the next 10 years.
No different than 1% of any population being idiots really.
I agree, and it is a negative consequence of typically fixed pricing in this market by government agencies.
BMW sells more electric cars only if you count hybrids. As somebody who owns a Tesla and previously a hybrid Iâ(TM)ll tell you they are quite different, with the Tesla being far superior.
Also, every Model S and Model X Tesla sells at a profit. But they invest all of those profits, and much more, into R&D and expansion.
Letâ(TM)s fix it by deregulation, not more regulation. When I switch jobs there is no impact on my life insurances, homeowners insurance, and car insurance. I simply buy these on my own. But health and disability insurance are only deductible if your employer provides them which is just dumb. Employers started providing healthcare during WW2 to attract and retain employees when the government froze wages.
If our standard of living was reduced to that of 50 or 100 years ago then most of us could definitely have a 20 hour work week.
Already today there are millions of jobs in entertainment, arts, and services that didnâ(TM)t exist before. Even if an elite few owned most of the automation they would want to spend that profit on something. Art, research, etc.
I hope this passes because I don't live in WA and I want to laugh at the fallout. Will Apple design a whole new iPhone just for one state? If so perhaps they'll just make it twice as thick. That would be fun.
Or just stop selling it there? I don't know what the expected result is, but I doubt reality will match anybody's expectations.
I'll also be curious to see how many other products are caught in the crossfire. Medical devices? Safety devices? I have tools with non-replaceable batteries. There will be a whole new class of illegal products.
So if you want a replaceable battery.... buy a phone with a replaceable battery. How hard is that?
I don't necessarily agree that you should be forced to seal them up to attend, but on the other hand I can't stand when I'm watching a concern and all I can see is tens of thousands of cell phones recording video and taking pictures. I mean just enjoy the concert. You probably paid $100+ to attend. If you want video, buy a video later for $20 that will be way better than anything you'll take on your crappy cell phone.
That's actually interesting, thanks for sharing! But the article goes on to prove my point, because in order to cut costs (perhaps to pay for this crazy expensive treatment), they have to choose who gets to live and who gets to die. See here:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new...
Thank you, yes, my point exactly. Strawman arguments are being made here. Oh the CEO pay is causing all of our problems! Is CEO compensation a problem? Maybe, maybe not. But that's not why our healthcare is expensive.
You completely misunderstood everything in my post, but hey.
I'm not saying the US subsidizes in terms of sending drug companies cash (perhaps we do, but it wasn't my point). When we pay $x for a drug, and the rest of the world pays $x/10, we are subsidizing the rest of the world.
Looking at Pfizer, they spend $3 billion per year in advertising (source https://www.statista.com/stati...), with revenue of $52 billion. That's not trivial, nor is it a "very large cost per pill". It is about 5% of revenue. Meanwhile they spend almost $8 billion in R&D (source: http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/p...).
Fully 50% of their revenue is from the US (source: https://www.statista.com/stati...). And we pay more for drugs (source: https://www.bloomberg.com/grap...). So looking at the financials, let's say that Pfizer takes a 25% reduction in revenue (if the drug prices in the US cut in half). There goes the R&D budget, the advertising budget, and more.
So to keep the R&D going we'd have to raise drug prices everywhere, or subsidize R&D.
I don't see how that is relevant to my comment. If there was a pill that cost $1 million and helped you lose weight, would they pay for it? Or how about a $1 million pill that killed cancer?
Sure, take the total compensation of all CEOs of all healthcare companies, then divide by the number of insured, and the number is still small. It doesn't change anything. If you want to add it up go ahead.
Meanwhile, Google tells me this is the highest-paid healthcare CEO, at $22 million per year:
https://www.fiercehealthcare.c...
Looks like they have 12 million members:
https://www.centene.com/
So, definitely the $1.83 per year that he is taking from each member is really ruining their lives.
Oh, and on the single payer aspect, it won't be the solution you are looking for. Currently the US subsidizes much of the world's healthcare costs. When we pay $50 for a pill that other countries pay $5 for, we are effectively keeping many drug companies afloat, and funding their R&D, etc. If the whole world only paid $5 per pill, then it would be a problem. Either all prices would go up, or R&D would cease, etc.
The other issue is that there is unlimited demand for healthcare, and limited supply. Nothing will change that. If money isn't the rationing factor than something else needs to be (e.g. "death panels").
I'm not saying it isn't a problem, but if you divide out the CEO compensation by the number of insured people, you'll find it isn't going to be that significant. I'll do the math for you if you reply with the most egregious health care CEO salary you can find.
I do know that some Superchargers today have liquid cooling in the cables to keep them thinner. Thatâ(TM)s likely for these mega chargers.
Wow, somebody with actual facts and using an account!
Also note that some of Toyotaâ(TM)s EVs are using Tesla drivetrains:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...
They are definitely both pretty bad in any significant quantities (quantities which are common for most Americans).
Considering most people need mortgages to buy houses, they are a leveraged "investment" and you can therefore lose more cash than you put in. Bitcoin normally you can lose at most 100%.
Considering most people use mortgages to buy houses, they are a leveraged "investment" and you can therefore lose more cash than you put in. Bitcoin normally you can lose at most 100%.
Look, if you are not inclined to do your own research then so be it. I don't have any motivation to convince you otherwise. I have read through hundreds of studies and attended numerous talks from actual doctors and scientists on this topic.
And don't get me wrong. Carbs are not inherently evil, but in the quantities that most Americans eat them it is just not good for our bodies. For some people they get away with it, and it probably depends on what they are actually eating and their genetic makeup.
But if you are overweight, have high blood pressure, high cholesterol, high triglycerides, or have type-2 diabetes, then you owe it to yourself to look into this, because you are being lied to by the USDA about grains being healthy.
Oh, I misunderstood then. Yes, pretty much all wheat is bad, GMO or not. Well, perhaps if you could actually dig up whatever wheat was 1,000 years ago before we made it so pleasant and easy to digest it wouldn't be so bad...