Sometimes, a person will say: surely 'the powers that be' (TPTB) would not do anything that would lead to say, a person dying of cancer, because then that person is not a consumer, so it's not in their best interests. But this overlooks that the driving motives behind all of this are far wider/higher/larger than that.

It is about control, first and foremost. You do not prevent or cure cancer with iodine, magnesium, bicarbonate and vitamin C regardless of how many consumers this avoidance kills, because the devastation to income of using this for that and a million other situations is undesired. -- And because having anything people can do on their own that does not require patented pharma is a whole thought model they don't want to encourage at all.

It would not help them to save some consumers only to undermine the entire base of nationwide consumers -- and inventory, because we are both. As consumers we are endless renters of physician/nursing services, but as inventory we can be endlessly re-sold to various interests, in a large world of interconnected services, surgeries, pharmaceuticals, machines and other sundry.

And it's not merely the endless supply of everything from gallbladder surgery to insulin to wheelchairs to CPAP masks, you understand, this is a pyramid; every industry has a whole world of subsidiary industries -- the ones that make copy machines and rubber gloves and file folders and nurse uniforms and x-ray machines and the little clamps that hold mice while you experiment on them. The scope of it is enormous beyond what any of us can wrap a head fully around.

So what is 'logical' in terms of a person being more or less useful to insurance as costing more or less is really not the criteria at work here. Establishing and increasing complete control of the larger picture is the larger goal. Actual science, let alone individual situations, are completely irrelevant to this, unless useful as a controlling factor or for accomplishing the former priority.

I guess that seems a little cynical, but I think this is the way it is. I admire people who have the optimism to think anything else.

PJ

PJ - After reading your response, I believe you and I are in agreement. My statement is very simple, as we move toward the full implementation of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), we will find that Standards of Care are of utmost importance in determining adherence by the medical providers and the patients. So when you state the following, "It would not help them to save some consumers only to undermine the entire base of nationwide consumers -- and inventory, because we are both." This dovetails with my point that when individuals refuse to follow Standards of Care (SoC) guidelines that physicians are recommending (or will be bound to recommend), it (the noncompliance) then would result in the patient being perceived as an insurance risk and could lead to insurance revocation for that patient. In other words, the SoC are the criteria upon which this whole system is based. If health is defined by prescribing statins to a person with total cholesterol over 200, then physicians must comply with this. If health is defined by a person with T2 or metabolic syndrome symptoms in general adhering to a low fat, high carb diet, physicians will be bound to recommend this.

Similar to this, the ACA requires people of all ages to be insured and to pay for insurance. Why? The system won't work unless the younger, lower cost medical patients are paying into the system to subsidize the older, higher cost medical patients. Therefore, the close scrutiny about adherence to Standards of Care to keep costs in line (regardless of the validity and effectiveness of the care standards being recommended) becomes an integral part of this system. It's already started with the dispensing of the Standards of Care. Just a matter of time for the hitting of the fan . . .

It's enough to make me wish for the comet.

Adding the news about CDC's new report on Obesity in America on this thread as they are related.

CDC: http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/prevalence-maps.html



http://www.dietdoctor.com/the-ameri...es-a-new-record

Click on the link for those Maps of the spread of Obesity by state.

This is amazing more than surprising. We have a new category now called the politics of nutritional health of which the good people who frequent this forum are fully aware. I'm proud to be able to learn here; yet, it's becoming a situation where the approach to counter the ineffective or nonexistent responses to nutrition-based health epidemics must become more strident. The societal costs have become overwhelming, and it's still showing an upward trend with no serious solutions being considered.

The surgeon general recently gave us his solution...just walk more!

This "news" barely made a ripple, I see short articles on CBS and CNN and a few locals. Media apparently feels a leveling off at a crazy high rate as not news worthy. Or so common and depressing they would rather cover the pope's visit.

However as Dr Eenfeldt pointed out, five states moved up in category!

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-obes...still-cdc-says/

Would you like to hear something really depressing? Last night, husband and I were discussing diabetes. We disagreed on the percentage of the population who have it.

So, I googled percentage of population with metabolic syndrome. The true "pre-diabetes" is metabolic syndrome. It's gone from about a third adults over 50 about 15 years ago to 50% of adults over 60, today.