Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

I really notice the obesity after spending a few weeks in Europe, it his one upside the head.  And of course it's a major health issue.  Europeans with some obvious exceptions are much thinner than we, and it's rare to see a hugely fat European.

This is true, but not as true as it was 25 years ago when I first began making regular trips to Europe.  The difference between how thin they were then, and how relatively fatter they are now, is somewhat surprising.  They're basically on the same curve we started 70 or so years ago, right after WW2.  I'm sure the proliferation of American-style fast food hasn't helped them.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/comcast-customer-still-more-hated-irs-214241365.html

Moving this over here from the Olympics thread...


The reason that Comcast, and other government-granted monopolies, are hated is simple. They're monopolies. They don't have to compete on an even playing field, which means that they don't have to compete for consumers. The implications are simply--why work seriously on customer service if they have no other options? 

Where I live, Cox Communications is the cable company, and obviously offers cable internet. AT&T provides landline phone service, and offers DSL for internet. As it relates to internet, those are my ONLY two options. And AT&T has a maximum 1.5 Mbps download speed for my address. That's not a typo. I'm an engineer and I know what Mbps means. It means I don't have two options; I have one. It's Cox or effectively no internet. I'm sure that other cable or phone providers are barred by law from attempting to compete... 

Is it any surprise that I'm overpaying for internet here? I have good internet--200 Mbps download. But I pay >$100/month for that (w/o TV or anything else).

If at some point we get 5G coverage and I have access to a wireless home gateway, my guess is that it'll come in at reasonable speeds for less money than that. And at that point Cox will have to lower prices to compete. 

But for now, nobody wants to put in fixed infrastructure wired to the home, so I'm stuck waiting for wireless that won't be subject to a government-granted monopoly. 

I agree with most of your rant, but not so much on this part...

The US has the best health care in the world, IMHO. That best health care actually DOES translate into better outcomes. If due to your SES and health insurance status you have access to the system, outcomes are great here.

Our health care SYSTEM is a giant charlie foxtrot, it offers horrifically unequal access to care, and I'd call the system broken--agree 100% there. But that doesn't mean that the care--if you have access--is worse.

We also have some trappings of our wealth as a society that cause worse outcomes based on worse starting points. Obesity, diabetes, etc... Sadly the poorest among us are typically the most fat because they have access to cheap calories but not healthful food. But that's a completely different issue than quality of healthcare...

I probably worded it wrong, but you're right in that respect. US has amazing, cutting edge health care for those that can afford it. We still have around 30 million people in the US without any form of health insurance. That's roughly as many people as the entire state of Texas- the second most populated state in the country.

Having said all of this, the US ranks 33 out of 36 OECD countries in infant mortality rate. And most of the rest of these sort of stats- when compared to OECD countries- well- it ain't good. US is middle of the pack or bottom in most all of them. Now, some of that as you have pointed out- might have to do with our shitty American diets- filled with fast food and sugary soda and other sugary bullsh*t- which poisons us and makes us fat and sick. 

I think the US probably needs to move to a single-payer system. There has been study after study done on this topic- which all seem to suggest that single-payer would lead to trillions in savings over the long haul and out-comes would be not much different than we have now. But any sort of single-payer system would have to allow for serious negotiating power by the gov't- which Medicare/Medicaid is barred from doing by law currently- just giving medicare to everyone won't solve the problem. Have to blow up the whole system and rebuild it.

Moving this over here from the Olympics thread...


The reason that Comcast, and other government-granted monopolies, are hated is simple. They're monopolies. They don't have to compete on an even playing field, which means that they don't have to compete for consumers. The implications are simply--why work seriously on customer service if they have no other options?

Where I live, Cox Communications is the cable company, and obviously offers cable internet. AT&T provides landline phone service, and offers DSL for internet. As it relates to internet, those are my ONLY two options. And AT&T has a maximum 1.5 Mbps download speed for my address. That's not a typo. I'm an engineer and I know what Mbps means. It means I don't have two options; I have one. It's Cox or effectively no internet. I'm sure that other cable or phone providers are barred by law from attempting to compete...

Is it any surprise that I'm overpaying for internet here? I have good internet--200 Mbps download. But I pay >$100/month for that (w/o TV or anything else).

If at some point we get 5G coverage and I have access to a wireless home gateway, my guess is that it'll come in at reasonable speeds for less money than that. And at that point Cox will have to lower prices to compete.

But for now, nobody wants to put in fixed infrastructure wired to the home, so I'm stuck waiting for wireless that won't be subject to a government-granted monopoly.

And this is why I hate Comcast and every monopoly out there and root for them to fail. The US gov't is suppose to block monopolies from forming or break-up them up- yet they don't do any of this. FTC virtually rubber stamps every major merger which allows these monstrosities to form and the DoJ virtually never goes after monopolies in court and breaks them up.

One other issue is how the US health care market subsidizes "all others".  New developments hit here first, and our market pays for the development costs and profits, then a new drug or technique gets spread globally at much lower pricing because the company already made its nut.  They can afford to make far less profit once their R&D costs are amortized.  So, a thing like MRI hits the US first and then trickles down to Europe and Asia and is much cheaper there.  And here, the cost of an MRI can vary all over the place depending on where you go, and "we" got where we're sent.  I didn't have a choice, nor an incentive to shop around.

MRI prices in Japan are all the same no matter where you go.  We have a very bollixed system and I don't expect "Congress" to fit it, ever.

How Federal Drug-Pricing Proposals Could Affect Medicaid | Commonwealth Fund

The idea around Medicare not negotiating prices is to encourage drug company investment in drugs for the elderly, a sort of orphan drug situation. 

A main reason we don't have single payer is that way back in the day, companies couldn't give employees raises, so they gave us benefits in lieu of, and corporate expenses for our drug insurance was tax deductible as a business expense.  So, employer based health insurance is in effect subsidized.

A) Sure, that's the idea it was sold it on- as most god awful things need a line to be sold to the public in order to pass- but in reality all it does and ever did or ever was intended for was to protect enormous big pharma profits and give zero incentive for drug companies to ever charge less. 

B) So you mean- the gov't cut a deal for corporate welfare. How shocking!