"Spending more on health care sounds like it should improve health, but our study suggests that is not the case and social spending could be used to improve the health of everyone," says Dr. Daniel Dutton, The School of Public Policy, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta. "Relative to health care, we spend little on social services per person, so redistributing money to social services from health care is actually a small change in health care spending."
Health care costs are expanding in many developed countries like Canada, and governments are seeking ways to contain costs while maintaining a healthy population. Treating the social determinants of health like income, education, or social and physical living environments through spending on social services can help address the root causes of disease and poor health. However, health spending continues to make up the lion's share of spending.
[...] The commentary author suggests governments should allocate social spending fairly for both young and old to ensure that the younger generation is not being shortchanged.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/01/180122104016.htm
[Related]: The need for health in all policies in Canada
(Score: 2, Insightful) by tftp on Wednesday January 24 2018, @12:37AM (12 children)
Only the smart people can be healthy. This means not just doing exercises and eating a healthy diet, but also not smoking tobacco, not drinking alcohol, not using other drugs... In other words, none of the "alternatives" of the TFA will have an effect.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday January 24 2018, @03:47AM (11 children)
Wait, weren't you lobbying for getting government out of the recreational drug business just a few weeks ago?
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 1) by tftp on Wednesday January 24 2018, @04:33AM (10 children)
(Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday January 24 2018, @07:11AM (4 children)
Ok, so let me get this straight,
1) you say everybody should live drug Free.
2) you say everybody should be able to do any drugs they want
3) you say everybody gets free drugs, as much as they want
4) you don't say who will pay for all these drugs, and the hospital an medical costs caused by all this free drugs use. hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical bills picked up by who?
5) you seriously seem to believe there are no health effects to drug use! WTF?
6) you seriously seem to think tax payers should be forced to participate in and pay for this state sponsored suicide.
To this, I say fuck you!
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 24 2018, @07:47AM
Are you off your meds? Again?
I mean, after all that socialised heath care contributed to their cost, you toss them aside, you tosser?
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 24 2018, @05:24PM (2 children)
People can think that's the ideal reality without also thinking it's actually reality.
Who pays for our current system when people overdose and cannot afford health care? You don't seem to understand that our system right now is actually more expensive than trying to prevent these health issues in the first place. You might ask, 'How can we afford to help these people?' I say that we can't afford not to do it.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday January 24 2018, @07:43PM (1 child)
And you don't understand that the GP was not suggesting ANYTHING that would prevent these health issues. Simply providing recreational drugs free of charge in any quantity in the (implied) hopes that the drug abuser will overdose and die early.
Government provided free drugs to help speed your way to the grave.
Nice job AC.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 24 2018, @10:17PM
Do you have a special club for clueless people? Oh right, the Republican party!
Sorry it was too easy, and we all know Democrats are the height of wisdom and purity!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by pTamok on Wednesday January 24 2018, @08:49AM (2 children)
Normal, sane, strong people do not need any drugs.
Whose definition of normal is the correct one? Or, for that matter, drug
And, come to that, normal (however defined) sane, strong people do have accidents and diseases, so it's a pretty good proposition that normal, sane, strong people will, at some time be likely to want analgesics and/or need antibiotics if they are not to have foreshortened lives.
If you are talking about recreational drugs, then that will rule out theobromine (chocolate), caffeine (tea, coffee), ethanol (beer, wine, spirits), nicotine (tobacco), capsaicin (chili, pepper, ginger), myristicin and elemicin (nutmeg), and a whole host of other chemicals that may not be psychoactive, but make food taste nicer, but are not necessary for human health. If you only ate or drank what you physically needed, it would likely be quite a bland diet. You can choose to be a ascetic if you want, but most people wouldn't.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday January 24 2018, @07:50PM
Nice job of hair splitting.
Of course he was talking about recreational and addictive drugs.
Provided FREE by the government, with your tax dollars, in some kind of hitleresq genetic cleansing exercise. But hey, carry on with your nit picking while avoiding the actual implications of such a government funded culling.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 1) by tftp on Wednesday January 24 2018, @08:11PM
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Wednesday January 24 2018, @03:29PM (1 child)
With that attitude, I assume you never consume coffee, chocolate, aspirin, or any other mind-altering drugs, right?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 24 2018, @05:27PM
If those things significantly altered my mindset, I would avoid them. But they don't. They have an effect on many people, sure, but not to the extent of other drugs like marijuana. I see no problem with saying you think recreational drug use should be legal while also saying that you prefer that people would not use them. Of course, other people don't have to listen to you.