Janic wrote:obamot hello
Obamot wrote:Proof is that no!
Senior managers have a much higher life expectancy than factory workers, or worse, construction workers!
Where alcohol and tobacco have done more damage than the craft itself.
Well if the consumers of these "stimulants" do so to overcome their existential anxieties, it must be 50% / 50% ...
Except for Dedeleco, who doesn't have one!
Janic wrote:Obamot wrote:If we go to emerging countries, the economic situation which has deteriorated since 2008, is wreaking havoc ... These are tribes that are already barely afloat in "normal" times ... Suffice to say that the care that is already very expensive for them, they cannot afford it, so they only have one solution left: to die.
This is the drawback of the lark's mirror where the ancestral mode is abandoned in favor of higher economic hope with the abandonment of the advantages of a situation more precarious financially, but richer humanely. It is not new! In the days of dominant Rome, this city was full of unemployed and precarious people like today, hence the games to derive stomachs and empty lives:
Give them bread and games and I'll take care of the rest It is no coincidence that games have grown to such an extent today.
It is not false! Also playing with death, with open-pit chases (like never before), alcoholic drinking at a very young age and more
"games" headscarf ... Without forgetting the gangs (armed with live ammunition, and not only virtually in video games) in the suburbs and all kinds of use of hard drugs, very early.
So many challenging grounds, stemming from the absence of the symbolism of the father?
Janic wrote:Obamot wrote:Just by the way: this is already the case with this type of situation .... in Switzerland! With the system of “franchises”, where the most deprived take the maximum franchise (the first € 2500 of health expenditure is for their apple), result when the crisis arrives: they no longer have the means to seek treatment! So they die for lack of care with their mouths open! Yes friends, you heard right: this is the situation that already prevails in one of the richest countries in the world! (Finally I say rich, for the 1% who have all the money, the others ....) And people of the 3rd age are not outdone.
I do not share this opinion which implies that apart from even greater poverty the other conditions will remain the same.
However, it has been noted that when poor populations reach the status of modern populations, so-called civilization diseases (cancer, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, obesity, etc.) affect the same level as populations in place for a long time.
I do not know where you are coming from, but it takes a few generations for the "lines" to die out ... Observed, explained and proven, in particular by Dr Kousmine.
Thus there is effectively a "leveling down", simultaneous or not with a "leveling up".
There the Amha causal relationship ends. Besides the upper classes. are more aware of the dangers of junk food and also have more resources to eat better - in principle, because in fact, as they no longer know how to set the right priorities in the hubbub of divergent opinions, their "advantage" is reduced, especially since they are crazy about refined foods (and therefore denatured) in the image of their "success" - it is the "
leveling up".
Because the fact that the upper classes have a longer life expectancy is only temporary indeed, since their lineage disappears as much as those of the more modest classes, because they are supplied in the same distribution chains: it is this. that I would call the "
simultaneous leveling"(this is perhaps where our opinions meet, but that does not change the validity of Ahmed's humanist reflection).
And your words are a little mine, since I am talking about the precariousness in a country deemed "rich"! So our opinions converge it seems to me, except that I see it in the form of "leveling" (maybe you did not understand it like that?). Ahmed sometimes uses the word "
crumbling", Which proceeds from a protocol having some similarities, if not the same ...
Then, if they take the maximum deductible: it is because they cannot afford to pay more! They are therefore forced into it! It is the "race to the bottom", associated with the risks of their professional function!
Janic wrote:apart from a few high-risk professions such as miners or nuclear power or asbestos at present, the rest of the population is no more affected among the poor than among the rich (the Apple boss died of the same cancer than any homeless person or not. It is therefore the lifestyle (more sedentary) and the eating mode that most influences the state of suffering and illnesses (mainly alcohol, tobacco, meats, adulterated food) .
This is indeed a question of ill-defined "priorities" (see above). But also a great defect of the health authorities, irresponsible and criminal.
Janic wrote:So these very expensive treatments
In the case I am quoting, basic care is not covered in such a system - since patients are pushed to "save" it - that is the problem! And the patients then wait until they are very badly affected to finally cure, but it is already very late and the costs explode then! This is what is expensive! I say that without denying that the main point is the little effect of prevention since it is almost absent ...!
Janic wrote:These very expensive treatments are linked to the fact that they do not know (or do not want to) make the link between a certain lifestyle and the illnesses which are consecutive.
society must not only change economically but also in its way of life if we want to avoid suffering and illness.
We do not know how voluntary this situation is. If there was indeed - it is an assumption - a will to harm, then that would fall under criminal law ...
For the rest, I agree that if care is expensive, it is because the said health authorities do not promote prevention, nor early prevention (or so little). But here too, I do not see much adequacy between popular class VS upper classes, since the middle class to the upper class is gradually reduced to losing all its privileges? And since the absence of adequate sanitary measures, all customers of the stores are exposed to the same risk. So yes, I agree with the fact that there again, it would be necessary: to change the current theoretical model.
Where I am amazed is to see how well people are "trained", and how they let themselves go and drive!
