Dog Brothers Public Forum

HOME | PUBLIC FORUM | MEMBERS FORUM | INSTRUCTORS FORUM | TRIBE FORUM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
February 24, 2018, 10:00:00 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
107521 Posts in 2406 Topics by 1095 Members
Latest Member: dannysamuel
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
| |-+  Politics & Religion
| | |-+  The Politics of Health Care
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 32 33 [34] Print
Author Topic: The Politics of Health Care  (Read 447631 times)
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 42556


« Reply #1650 on: October 13, 2017, 08:39:04 PM »



President Donald Trump signed a new executive order on Thursday that moves health care a step in the right direction.

The executive order instructs the secretaries of treasury, labor, and health and human services to propose regulatory changes that would increase choice and competition in health insurance.

This is the right course of action. In the absence of congressional action to address Obamacare’s damage, Trump is right to seek ways within his power to help those hurt by Obamacare’s skyrocketing premiums and the reduced access to quality plans.

Trump’s executive order addresses three problems that hinder people’s access to the insurance and care they need.

Americans need an alternative to the mainstream media. But this can't be done alone. Find out more >>

First, small business employees and the self-employed are most hurt by Obamacare. The percentage of workers at small firms receiving coverage through their employer has declined from nearly half in 2010 to about one-third in 2017. They face skyrocketing premiums and reduced choice in plans.

One challenge small businesses face is that, under current interpretations of a federal employee benefit law, they are limited in their ability to band together and secure coverage similar to plans offered by larger employers.

Obamacare exacerbated that problem by imposing costly new benefit mandates on small employer plans, but not on large employer plans. Thus, Trump is right to ask the Department of Labor to help by exploring ways to update this interpretation.

A change of this sort could allow small businesses and the self-employed to escape Obamacare’s costly benefit mandates and access new options run by associations that they have a stake in.

It could also help more small employers offer coverage to their workers. Newly enrolled individuals could save money—up to 20 to 50 percent on the cost of their insurance—by taking advantage of the tax break for employer-provided health insurance.

Second, President Barack Obama’s administration sharply reduced access to a low-cost option known as short-term, limited duration insurance.

These plans are often one-third of the cost of the cheapest Obamacare plans, yet typically feature broad provider networks and high coverage limits. That makes it harder than it should be for people between jobs to access a low-cost insurance plan.

As a result, people between jobs face suboptimal choices such as buying Obamacare’s heavily regulated and expensive plans, or going on Medicaid.

To address this, Trump rightly asks the departments of the Treasury, Labor, and Health and Human Services to consider reversing Obama’s decision.

Third, the Obama administration issued regulations limiting the ability of businesses to offer their employees coverage through “Health Reimbursement Arrangements,” in order to force such plans to comply with Obamacare’s standardized, one-size-fits-all benefit design.

Yet the whole point of those plans is to give businesses and workers a tool for customizing their health benefits according to their own needs and preferences.

Thus, Trump has rightly asked the departments of the Treasury, Labor, and Health and Human Services to explore ways to revise those regulations so that employers and workers have more flexibility and choices for health benefits.

While Trump’s executive order on health care is a step in the right direction, he needs Congress to get back to work in order to more fully improve our health system. The administration can only do so much, as it has to work within the confines of exiting law, including Obamacare.

For instance, the administration likely has sufficient authority to revise the regulations on health reimbursement arrangements so that employers have new options to give workers tax-free contributions to buy the individual market coverage of their choice.

But the potential benefits of that policy change will remain largely unrealized, so long as the law prevents insurers from offering anything other than Obamacare’s limited menu of standardized, overregulated, overpriced individual market plans.

Thus, Congress needs to do its job, fully undo Obamacare’s damage, and offer broader relief to all Americans struggling with rising premium costs and reduced choice of plans.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 42556


« Reply #1651 on: October 14, 2017, 07:10:32 AM »

http://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/355374-on-cutting-obamacare-funding-trump-has-the-law-on-his-side
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 7840


« Reply #1652 on: October 14, 2017, 08:55:33 PM »

and I pay subscriptions has become a branch outlet of the Huffington Post:

http://www.acpinternist.org/archives/2017/10/why-acp-must-speak-out-against-discrimination.htm

What the hell does this have to do with health care or representing my interests ?
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 15533


« Reply #1653 on: October 14, 2017, 09:21:04 PM »

and I pay subscriptions has become a branch outlet of the Huffington Post:

http://www.acpinternist.org/archives/2017/10/why-acp-must-speak-out-against-discrimination.htm

What the hell does this have to do with health care or representing my interests ?

Nothing at all. The left does to organizations what a virus does to a healthy cell.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 42556


« Reply #1654 on: October 15, 2017, 02:31:51 PM »

The ObamaCare ‘Sabotage’ Meme
The solution for illegal health subsidies is a bipartisan trade.
Sens. Patty Murray and Lamar Alexander in Washington, Jan. 18.
Sens. Patty Murray and Lamar Alexander in Washington, Jan. 18. Photo: Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg News
By The Editorial Board
Oct. 13, 2017 7:10 p.m. ET
369 COMMENTS

By our deadline Friday the world had continued to spin without interruption—planes taking off and landing; men and women commuting home after another week at work—and if you’re reading this then you survived the ObamaCare subsidy apocalypse of 2017. We’re referring to the political meltdown over the Trump Administration’s decision to end extralegal payments to insurers.

The White House leaked Thursday night that the government will stop making “cost-sharing” payments, which are ObamaCare subsidies for insurers that defray the cost of deductibles or co-pays for some folks below 250% of the poverty line. President Trump unloaded on Friday in one of his predawn tweets that “The Democrats ObamaCare is imploding” and “subsidy payments to their pet insurance companies has stopped.” Why he chose to swamp his Thursday health-care executive order with this fresh controversy is a mystery.

In any event, first order of business: The payments are illegal. The Affordable Care Act leaves the subsidies contingent on an annual appropriation, but since 2014 Congress has declined to dedicate the funding. The Obama Administration wrote the checks anyway, and the House of Representatives sued. Federal Judge Rosemary Collyer last year ruled that the Obama Administration had violated the Constitution, and an appeal is pending.

Mr. Trump continued the payments on the hope that Republican health-care reform would repeal ObamaCare and moot the subsidy dispute. That did not happen. Now the Administration has decided to follow the Constitution, and fidelity to the law should trump the policy merits or political risks.

The left is accusing Mr. Trump of—this is a partial list—sabotaging the Affordable Care Act; conspiring to harm the poor; sending a wrecking ball into the American health-care system; killing people. One frequent citation is a Congressional Budget Office report from August that predicted premiums would increase if the subsidies ended, which is true.

Yet CBO also noted that the added expense would be covered by subsidies for individuals that increase with premiums. The market would continue to be stable by CBO’s report, and the change won’t invite the ObamaCare death spiral that Democrats would love to pin on Republicans. More generous individual subsidies mean the insurers now predicting Armageddon will still get paid.

But more uncertainty and turmoil could still drive some users from the exchanges, and the solution is straightforward: Congress can appropriate the money in a legal fashion. Republicans have an incentive to compromise, lest they have to take responsibility for rising premiums. Democrats could in exchange agree to liberalize the insurance markets—e.g., by repealing the individual or employer mandates, or allowing more flexibility on state waivers.

Republican Senator Lamar Alexander has tried to work a deal with Democratic Senator Patty Murray, but Democrats have refused to allow states any running room to experiment, aside from de minimis paperwork exemptions. Chuck Schumer has said for months that he’d negotiate once repeal was off the table, and now we’ll find out. If Democrats really care about the poor—and fixing a problem they helped create by violating the separation of powers—then they’ll compromise.

Meantime, the insurers will uphold the great American tradition of litigation and try to force the government to fork over the money. Mr. Trump deserves credit for upholding the Constitution, but this messy episode is one more consequence of the GOP’s failure in Congress to replace the Affordable Care Act.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 42556


« Reply #1655 on: October 19, 2017, 07:44:35 PM »

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/10/17/nhs-provokes-fury-indefinite-surgery-ban-smokers-obese/
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 7840


« Reply #1656 on: October 19, 2017, 08:29:50 PM »

and they had a national health care system to tell us all what to do.

But they have no problem taxing cigarettes in Britain like here
Why not make them illegal and put smokers in jail?

Why not tax those with BMIs over 30 and those over 40 double tax and those over 50 -> jail.

What about all the drunks in England and Ireland?  Refuse them care if they don't stop drinking.

I suppose gender re assignment surgery is covered.
What about all the people spreading STDs?  Talk about irresponsible behavior.  (can't blame it on Reagan he's dead)
I could think of other examples

Make it LAW ->  1) all people must exercise for 30 minutes a day for 6 days a week

2 )  Sweets banned

3)  limit red meat to 8 oz per week per person
4 )  you must prove you are eating your greens and fruit and nuts daily

Otherwise your labeled a deplorable and SJW have the right to decide your fate.


(PS my BMI is about 26)
« Last Edit: October 19, 2017, 09:48:03 PM by ccp » Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 15533


« Reply #1657 on: October 19, 2017, 08:43:34 PM »

and they had a national health care system

But they have no problem taxing cigarettes in Britain like here
Why not make them illegal and put smokers in jail?

Why not tax those with BMIs over 30 and those over 40 double tax and those over 50 -> jail.

What about all the drunks in England and Ireland?  Refuse them care if they don't stop drinking.

I suppose gender re assignment surgery is covered.
What about all the people spreading STDs?  Talk about irresponsible behavior.
I could think of other examples

Make it LAW ->  1) all people must exercise for 30 minutes a day for 6 days a week

2 )  Sweets banned

3)  limit red meat to 8 oz per week per person
4 )  you must prove you are eating our greens and fruit and nuts daily

Otherwise your labeled a deplorable and SJW have the right to decide your fate.

Most socialist paradises have been very successful at ending obesity in the general population.


Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 7840


« Reply #1658 on: October 19, 2017, 09:42:15 PM »

GM,
Yes and
Venezuela is a more recent example
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 7840


« Reply #1659 on: November 09, 2017, 09:32:39 AM »

Has nice ring to it to all those who will not have to pay for it much:

http://thefederalist.com/2017/11/06/democrats-finally-admit-real-goal-single-payer-health-welfare/
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 9483


« Reply #1660 on: November 09, 2017, 09:55:26 AM »

Has nice ring to it to all those who will not have to pay for it much:

http://thefederalist.com/2017/11/06/democrats-finally-admit-real-goal-single-payer-health-welfare/

Why don't they call it V.A. for all?  Venezuela for all...

Equal requires coercion; it is not the natural state of things.

And if the wait is too long, we go to Canada, Mexico, Haiti?
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 7840


« Reply #1661 on: November 14, 2017, 08:56:54 AM »

*Finally* a concise well written discussion of the political self serving often data driven drivel I am seeing regularly in the medical literature.

This weeks journal of the american [political] medical association

has two more articles about "gun violence" !!!!


What the hell does that have to do with medicine?

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/453676/doctor-screening-not-key-preventing-gun-violence
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 42556


« Reply #1662 on: December 23, 2017, 07:10:45 PM »



https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-didnt-obamacare-work-1513978521?mod=djemBestOfTheWeb
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 7840


« Reply #1663 on: December 24, 2017, 04:15:00 PM »

talking head on MSNBC with the coordinated left wing attack on the tax cuts criticizing them for being not "bipartisan"  and making the ridiculous claim that bills that are not bipartisan always fail

My first thought was how come in that case she was not blasting Obamster care!

Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 7840


« Reply #1664 on: December 30, 2017, 10:27:35 AM »

***At some point in the future, be it years, decades, or a century hence, the federal government will seek to ban driving. This, I’m afraid, is an inevitability. It is inexorably heading our way. The dot sits now on the horizon. As is common, the measure will be sold in the name of public health. ***   

and from same article:

****Our debate will rest largely upon charts. The American Medical Association will find “no compelling reason to permit the citizenry to drive,” and Vox will quote it daily. Concurring in this assessment will be The New England Journal of Medicine, the Center for American Progress, and the newly rechristened Mothers against Dangerous Driving,.. ****

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/455018/autonomous-vehicles-will-spark-government-efforts-ban-driving

Mr Charles Cooke is EXACTLY right that medical organizations have in the past few yrs become propagandist  tools for the LEFT radicals.  Health care has never been more political . 

A recent JAMA (journal of the American [left wing] medical association ) had recent articles about firearms and now this month's Annals of Internal Medicine had half the journal dedicated to LEFT wing propaganda and again telling all doctors it is their duty to discuss guns with all patients and be a force for action (political activism ) for an assault on the Second Amendment .

Check out all these articles just from ONE journal this past month .  One could just imagine the authors are from Hollywood, the DNC or from faux - Pochahantus ' family:

http://annals.org/aim/fullarticle/2659346/state-interstate-associations-between-gun-shows-firearm-deaths-injuries-quasi

http://annals.org/aim/fullarticle/2659347/firearm-injury-after-gun-shows-evidence-gauge-potential-impact-regulatory

http://annals.org/aim/fullarticle/2658284/what-you-can-do-stop-firearm-violence

http://annals.org/aim/fullarticle/2658283/health-care-professional-s-pledge-protecting-our-patients-from-firearm
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 15533


« Reply #1665 on: December 30, 2017, 04:31:13 PM »

***At some point in the future, be it years, decades, or a century hence, the federal government will seek to ban driving. This, I’m afraid, is an inevitability. It is inexorably heading our way. The dot sits now on the horizon. As is common, the measure will be sold in the name of public health. ***   

and from same article:

****Our debate will rest largely upon charts. The American Medical Association will find “no compelling reason to permit the citizenry to drive,” and Vox will quote it daily. Concurring in this assessment will be The New England Journal of Medicine, the Center for American Progress, and the newly rechristened Mothers against Dangerous Driving,.. ****

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/455018/autonomous-vehicles-will-spark-government-efforts-ban-driving

Mr Charles Cooke is EXACTLY right that medical organizations have in the past few yrs become propagandist  tools for the LEFT radicals.  Health care has never been more political . 

A recent JAMA (journal of the American [left wing] medical association ) had recent articles about firearms and now this month's Annals of Internal Medicine had half the journal dedicated to LEFT wing propaganda and again telling all doctors it is their duty to discuss guns with all patients and be a force for action (political activism ) for an assault on the Second Amendment .

Check out all these articles just from ONE journal this past month .  One could just imagine the authors are from Hollywood, the DNC or from faux - Pochahantus ' family:

http://annals.org/aim/fullarticle/2659346/state-interstate-associations-between-gun-shows-firearm-deaths-injuries-quasi

http://annals.org/aim/fullarticle/2659347/firearm-injury-after-gun-shows-evidence-gauge-potential-impact-regulatory

http://annals.org/aim/fullarticle/2658284/what-you-can-do-stop-firearm-violence

http://annals.org/aim/fullarticle/2658283/health-care-professional-s-pledge-protecting-our-patients-from-firearm

There will be a direct and undeniable connection from those trying to take away guns from free people and those would be gun grabbers suffering GSW.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 9483


« Reply #1666 on: January 01, 2018, 06:46:12 PM »

[I forgot, what is GSW?]

I had the opportunity to drive a friend's top of the line Tesla this past year.  Besides accelerating 15-85 in 2 seconds with all wheel drive traction, you tap the cruise control twice and it shifts into 'self drive' mode.  Change lanes with the tap of a turn signal and keep a safe distance from the car in front of you - without your attention.  This is amazingly cool technology that will soon be reasonably affordable to many new cars and has great safety enhancement possibilities.  But I too fear / know that the central planners would love to use this power to stop us from driving, and control who can use our roads, when, at what speed, by what route, etc etc.

When they say switch to driverless vehicles, I say show me that you solved the hacking and cyber warfare issue for good.  But even then, this is an issue of liberty.  In spite of the dangers and costs, it was and is one of the most liberating moments of your life when you get your own car and can go where you want, when you want.  You were now in charge instead of your parents or school bus driver.  Therefore, it will be one of the greatest losses possible when they take that away - in the name of 'safety' and 'public health', and then the state is in charge, not you.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 15533


« Reply #1667 on: January 02, 2018, 12:47:46 AM »

GSW=Gunshot wounds
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 15533


« Reply #1668 on: January 02, 2018, 12:49:56 AM »

This is a major issue on the horizon.


[I forgot, what is GSW?]

I had the opportunity to drive a friend's top of the line Tesla this past year.  Besides accelerating 15-85 in 2 seconds with all wheel drive traction, you tap the cruise control twice and it shifts into 'self drive' mode.  Change lanes with the tap of a turn signal and keep a safe distance from the car in front of you - without your attention.  This is amazingly cool technology that will soon be reasonably affordable to many new cars and has great safety enhancement possibilities.  But I too fear / know that the central planners would love to use this power to stop us from driving, and control who can use our roads, when, at what speed, by what route, etc etc.

When they say switch to driverless vehicles, I say show me that you solved the hacking and cyber warfare issue for good.  But even then, this is an issue of liberty.  In spite of the dangers and costs, it was and is one of the most liberating moments of your life when you get your own car and can go where you want, when you want.  You were now in charge instead of your parents or school bus driver.  Therefore, it will be one of the greatest losses possible when they take that away - in the name of 'safety' and 'public health', and then the state is in charge, not you.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 42556


« Reply #1669 on: January 08, 2018, 07:07:20 PM »

Trump To End ObamaCare As We Know It
By DICK MORRIS
Published on DickMorris.com on January 8, 2018

The other shoe in Donald Trump's war on ObamaCare is about to drop.  It will end ObamaCare as we know it.

The first step in ending this obnoxious, intrusive program was to end the requirement that everybody must have health insurance coverage.  Thanks to deft manuring by a unanimous Senate majority, this diktat was lifted in the Christmas tax cut.

Now, the second step is about to happen: Trump will eliminate the requirement that all ObamaCare policies cover everything -- from psychological counseling to drug addiction therapy to maternity benefits to smoker cessation to sex change operations whether the customer wants it or can afford it or not.
 
It is this requirement -- enacted at the behest of the various lobbyists representing the provider organizations -- that has forced up the cost of ObamaCare, triggering the need for massive taxpayer subsidy, and putting its premiums and deductibles, even after the federal subsidy, out of reach for many Americans.

But, soon you will be able to buy what coverage you want from ObamaCare without restriction or buy nothing at all.

Eureka!

All of the prodigious efforts of Texas Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) and others to make these changes by amendment are now being swept up in a massive rule change by the Administration.

With this change, ObamaCare could become just one of the many options consumers have and not a particularly bad one at that.

To make this change work within the current statutory language, Trump will loosen the rules governing small businesses that band together to buy health insurance, through what are known as association health plans.  This change, recommended in this column for months, will allow them to circumvent ObamaCare's regulations.  Under the new rules, associations will be able to buy cheaper health insurance that won't cover the ten "essential health benefits" mandated in ObamaCare.

Trump is also expected to allow the expansion emergency, short-term health insurance plans, allowing them to last for an entire year and to be renewed.  These plans would be exempt from the regulations governing ObamaCare policies, meaning that insurers will be able to charge more for people with pre-existing conditions.  (But, don't worry, those with major pre-existing conditions -- that make policies unaffordable -- will still be able to get low cost coverage through the Pre-Existing Conditions Insurance Program (PCIP) created by ObamaCare and unaffected by the current regulations.  Currently, over 100,000 people are covered by PCIP.

If, as Democrats contend, President Trump is losing it mentally, he must still have something upstairs to come up with so deft a way of reforming ObamaCare by regulation.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 42556


« Reply #1670 on: January 11, 2018, 07:29:51 AM »

Trump officials move to allow Medicaid work requirements

The Trump administration on Thursday unveiled guidance allowing states for the first time to impose work requirements in Medicaid, a major shift in the health insurance program for the poor.

The move opens the door for states to apply for waivers to allow them to require Medicaid enrollees to work in order to receive coverage.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 42556


« Reply #1671 on: January 22, 2018, 12:12:55 PM »

Single-Payer Health Care Isn’t Worth Waiting For
An orthopedic surgeon challenges Canada’s ban on most privately funded procedures.
by Sally C. Pipes
Jan. 21, 2018 3:27 p.m. ET

When Brian Day opened the Cambie Surgery Centre in 1996, he had a simple goal. Dr. Day, an orthopedic surgeon from Vancouver, British Columbia, wanted to provide timely, state-of-the-art medical care to Canadians who were unwilling to wait months—even years—for surgery they needed. Canada’s single-payer health-care system, known as Medicare, is notoriously sluggish. But private clinics like Cambie are prohibited from charging most patients for operations that public hospitals provide free. Dr. Day is challenging that prohibition before the provincial Supreme Court. If it rules in his favor, it could alter the future of Canadian health care.


Most Canadian hospitals are privately owned and operated but have just one paying “client”—the provincial government. The federal government in Ottawa helps fund the system, but the provinces pay directly for care. Some Canadians have other options, however. Private clinics like Cambie initially sprang up to treat members of the armed forces, Royal Canadian Mounted Police officers, those covered by workers’ compensation and other protected classes exempt from the single-payer system.

People stuck on Medicare waiting lists can only dream of timely care. Last year, the median wait between referral from a general practitioner and treatment from a specialist was 21.2 weeks, or about five months—more than double the wait a quarter-century ago. Worse, the provincial governments lie about the extent of the problem. The official clock starts only when a surgeon books the patient, not when a general practitioner makes the referral. That adds months and sometimes much longer. In Novemberan Ontario woman learned she’d have to wait 4½ years to see a neurologist.


Some patients would gladly go to a clinic like Cambie for expedited care, paying either directly with their own money or indirectly via private insurance. But Canadian law bans private coverage for “medically necessary care” the public system provides and effectively forbids clinics from charging patients directly for such services. The government views this behavior as paying doctors to cut in line. Doctors who accept such payments can be booted from the single-payer system.


Dr. Day’s lawsuit aims to overturn these provisions. It alleges that the government’s legal restrictions on private care are to blame for the needless “suffering and deaths of people on wait lists.” Dr. Day argues that the current system violates citizens’ rights to “life, liberty, and security of the person,” as guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the equivalent of the U.S. Bill of Rights.

Moreover, Dr. Day claims the government has long tacitly approved of patients paying private clinics out of their own pockets. For decades, he argues, conservative and liberal politicians have offered him quiet praise and encouragement even as they publicly defend the single-payer system. It’s easy to understand why Canada’s leaders would talk out of both sides of their mouths. Private clinics perform more than 60,000 operations a year, saving the public treasury about $240 million.

British Columbia’s lawyers know that Dr. Day could embarrass Canada’s double-talking politicians by naming them at trial. This could explain the endless stream of seemingly deliberate delays that have kept the court proceedings moving at a snail’s pace. Dr. Day and his colleagues were supposed to testify in November but may not take the witness stand until February or March at the earliest.

Canadians have suffered long enough under single-payer waiting lists. There shouldn’t be a waiting list for justice, too.

Ms. Pipes is president and CEO of the Pacific Research Institute and author of “The False Promise of Single-Payer Health Care,” forthcoming from Encounter.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 42556


« Reply #1672 on: February 07, 2018, 11:16:57 PM »



SANTIAGO, Chile — They killed Tony the Tiger. They did away with Cheetos’ Chester Cheetah. They banned Kinder Surprise, the chocolate eggs with a hidden toy.

The Chilean government, facing skyrocketing rates of obesity, is waging war on unhealthy foods with a phalanx of marketing restrictions, mandatory packaging redesigns and labeling rules aimed at transforming the eating habits of 18 million people.

Nutrition experts say the measures are the world’s most ambitious attempt to remake a country’s food culture, and could be a model for how to turn the tide on a global obesity epidemic that researchers say contributes to four million premature deaths a year.

“It’s hard to overstate how significant Chile’s actions are — or how hard it has been to get there in the face of the usual pressures,” said Stephen Simpson, director of the Charles Perkins Centre, an organization of scholars focused on nutrition and obesity science and policy. The multibillion dollar food and soda industries have exerted those pressures to successfully stave off regulation in many other countries.

Since the food law was enacted two years ago, it has forced multinational behemoths like Kellogg to remove iconic cartoon characters from sugary cereal boxes and banned the sale of candy like Kinder Surprise that use trinkets to lure young consumers. The law prohibits the sale of junk food like ice cream, chocolate and potato chips in Chilean schools and proscribes such products from being advertised during television programs or on websites aimed at young audiences.

Beginning next year, such ads will be scrubbed entirely from TV, radio and movie theaters between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m. In an effort to encourage breast-feeding, a ban on marketing infant formula kicks in this spring.

Still craving Coca-Cola? In Chile, beverages high in sugar include an 18 percent tax, which is among the steepest soda taxes in the world.

The linchpin of the initiative is a new labeling system that requires packaged food companies to prominently display black warning logos in the shape of a stop sign on items high in sugar, salt, calories or saturated fat.

The food industry calls the rules government overreach. Felipe Lira, the director of Chilealimentos, an industry association, said the new nutrition labels were confusing and “invasive,” and that the marketing restrictions were based on a scientifically flawed correlation between the promotion of unhealthy foods and weight gain. “We believe that the best way to approach the problem of obesity is through consumer education that changes people’s habits,” he said in an emailed statement.

PepsiCo, the maker of Cheetos, and Kellogg’s, producer of Frosted Flakes, have gone to court, arguing that the regulations infringe on their intellectual property. The case is pending.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 15533


« Reply #1673 on: February 08, 2018, 09:18:08 AM »

Venezuela has been very effective in reducing obesity through policy.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 42556


« Reply #1674 on: February 14, 2018, 08:19:48 AM »

http://dailysignal.com/2018/02/13/new-white-house-budget-bail-obamacare/?utm_source=TDS_Email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=MorningBell%22&mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiTURVMlpqQTROMlV6TW1GaCIsInQiOiJDYWFpdytRMzF1SU1wcWpPNWJ1bUNzTkVWcThtemM2RzBzTVwvUGdXYlBBRndKTFFUR1RWcEJ2dWxGaW9oNkxYZVZlN3dzbUc4MjFPV21URjZROFBOMFVIUDk5YjA2ODg3M2hZalcyV2dFanJNSnVNTjQweGxuWU1NWFJXa29OMTNWWk9JSmNrMzhZU1g5bWVBb3drMXpad0ZueEJ2WVFYYXV0ZFNNU0FhV1lFPSJ9
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 42556


« Reply #1675 on: Today at 09:00:45 PM »

https://www.westernjournal.com/dick-morris-dc-states-passing-great-new-ideas-health-insurance/?utm_source=email&utm_medium=deepsix&utm_content=2018-02-24&utm_campaign=can

Logged
Pages: 1 ... 32 33 [34] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!