Weight Loss Forum / Low Carb / March 2006
U.S. Diabetes Population Grows 86 Percent Over Last Decade
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Roger Zoul - 08 Mar 2006 13:54 GMT {1. Instead of dancing around the problem, people need to get on the LC bandwagon. 2. It's amazing how few folks manage to achieve control WITHOUT pills or insulin. 3. That, IMO, is due to in large part bad advice from medical authories. - RZ}
http://www.diabetesincontrol.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3529
Research reveals diabetes complications are widespread and growing, and patients desire to gain better control.
There was a steady growth in the number of newly-diagnosed diabetes patients in the United States in 2005, with an additional 1.1 million patients bringing the total population to 14.5 million. And while the majority of these patients engage in regular blood testing and treatment therapies, GfK Market Measures' Roper U.S. Diabetes Patient Market Study reveals that achieving control over the disease remains difficult and resulting complications in the health of diabetes sufferers are widespread and growing.
Research results show treatment therapies and blood testing practices within the diabetes population remain similar to 2004 figures, with 61 percent of patients participating in the study reporting to be exclusive pill users, 30 percent as insulin users and nine percent as non-medicators, together with 88 percent reporting as regular blood glucose testers. Despite these treatments and monitoring, results reveal that achieving blood glucose control remains difficult for diabetes patients, as reported incidences of high glucose measurements suggest problems and 87 percent of respondents report they would like to be in better control of their disease.
Other highlights from the GfK Market Measures study indicate that further health complications from diabetes are prevalent and on the rise. The proportion of total patients experiencing cardiovascular and microvascular problems (76 and 79 percent, respectively) has increased since 2001, with a particular note that the increase in these same health complications is even higher among insulin patients.
"The impact of these added health problems is reflected in diabetes patients' attitudes toward their disease, particularly among insulin users who are more likely than those on other treatments to regard their diabetes as 'severe.' In addition, fewer than three in 10 patients in total consider themselves to be in 'excellent' or 'good' health," said David Jacobson, Senior Vice President of GfK Market Measures' Roper Global Diabetes Program.
Further key findings from the study point to growing trends in sources of information for these patients. When seeking sources of information and education on diabetes, the Internet appears to be used rather infrequently, with the majority of study respondents reporting Web activity less often than once a week. Conversely, nearly half of patients are turning to diabetes magazines and other general media sources for information, with an increase in reported use of these media over 2004 figures. This particular study focused on the U.S. diabetes population. The research is based on in-depth telephone interviews with a nationally-representative sample of 2,008 diagnosed diabetes patients, conducted between July 7 and September 18, 2005.
Hannah Gruen - 09 Mar 2006 11:04 GMT >{1. Instead of dancing around the problem, people need to get on the LC >bandwagon. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >Research reveals diabetes complications are widespread and growing, and >patients desire to gain better control. This is just very sad. The information is available, but it's just not getting to people. And more importantly, when it is getting to them, people tend to discard it because it conflicts so sharply with what they have been taught by their doctors, diabetes "educators," and all the "free" literature offered, directly or indirectly, by companies that stand to profit from people NOT learning to control bg and get off their pharmaceuticals.
Pathetic.
HG
Roger Zoul - 09 Mar 2006 14:31 GMT :: On Wed, 8 Mar 2006 08:54:10 -0500, "Roger Zoul" :: <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] ::: 3. That, IMO, is due to in large part bad advice from medical ::: authories. - RZ} http://www.diabetesincontrol.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3529
::: Research reveals diabetes complications are widespread and growing, ::: and patients desire to gain better control. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] :: :: Pathetic. Exactly. It will be very interesting to see how history paints this picture. We are failing tremendously with a major medical issue in a very needless way. T2D is very managable for most. And if our governments can't manage it, what should we expect with much more aggressive and hard to manage diseases?
hmm....I kinda like that. T2D = Type 2 Diabetes. T1D = Type 1 Diabetes. Easier than a lot of others for laymen conversation.
Paula57@yahoo.com - 09 Mar 2006 16:09 GMT Well, I'm going to toss this out and stand back with my flameproof suit on. While there are plenty of white people who have diabetes, it is even more common in the black and Hispanic community. How successful are we at fighting our "drug war" and who are the primary victims? How well did we take care of business in Florida with the hurricanes in 2004 and how well are we taking care of New Orleans and the other areas hit by Katrina?
And BTW, I'm a middle class white woman.
Ernst Primer - 09 Mar 2006 17:48 GMT > Well, I'm going to toss this out and stand back with my flameproof suit > on. While there are plenty of white people who have diabetes, it is [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > And BTW, I'm a middle class white woman. Well, I'm not sure how much politics relates to the cultural dynamic here, but I will say that I started LC in part because I saw what direction I was going in terms of my eating habits and weight gain.... at six foot three, 260 pounds (and rising) and with a BMI of 32.5, I felt it was only a matter of time for me, despite my regular excercise, to hit diabetic status. Maybe I was fine, just fat, but I don't think so... I think I was playing with fire.
Now such worries seem so, so far away for me.... and yes, it was alll very easy.
BTW, Paula, just keep in mind November approacheth rather quickly...
:-) Anyways....
260/200/200 4/27/06
DB - 10 Mar 2006 14:28 GMT "Ernst Primer" <dr_ernie_primeau@yahoo.ca> wrote in
> Well, I'm not sure how much politics relates to the cultural dynamic > here, but I will say that I started LC in part because I saw what [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > to hit diabetic status. Maybe I was fine, just fat, but I don't think > so... I think I was playing with fire. Same here, I didn't start this again just to make my pants fit more comfortable, it was a matter of health! I'm motivated to get my BP down and start feeling better, so ice cream, chips, cookies, fries and pies have no appeal to me and I don't miss that junk one bit. I think all those LC bars a not needed either! <PUKE>
Feeling so much better on LC again! :-)
 Signature LC again since 1/14/06 6' 1", 277/251/220
Dusty Bleher - 10 Mar 2006 15:38 GMT G'day all;
...
>> Well, I'm not sure how much politics relates to the cultural >> dynamic >> here, but I will say that I started LC in part because I saw what ...
>> felt it was only a matter of time for me, despite my regular >> excercise, >> to hit diabetic status. Maybe I was fine, just fat, but I don't >> think >> so... I think I was playing with fire. ...
> Same here, I didn't start this again just to make my pants fit > more comfortable, it was a matter of health! > I'm motivated to get my BP down and start feeling better, so ice > cream, chips, cookies, fries and pies have no appeal to me and I > don't miss that junk one bit. I think all those LC bars a not > needed either! <PUKE> Now that, was a home run, "DB"! That's exactly the attitude and demeanor that's going to carry you (and anybody else that adopts it) to individual success.
One of the things that continues to distress me when I read this group is that once folks get the "religion" of LC, they all tend to "see the (false) light", and rush right out and get all LC goodies to replace their non-LC counterparts. LC ice-cream, bread, cereal, chips, pudding, soups, stuffing, this, that, and the other. Like lemmings running towards ledge sure and certain that their "ledge" is a safe refuge to continue doing what they're doing (if you're a lemming, that would be running...(:-o)!). How do I know that? BTDT! But now "converted" and never looking back...
> Feeling so much better on LC again! :-) Welcome aboard, friend...
Dusty San Jose, Ca. -- Help stamp out sex-offenders: http://www.familywatchdog.us/
trader4@optonline.net - 10 Mar 2006 16:46 GMT > G'day all; > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > lemming, that would be running...(:-o)!). How do I know that? > BTDT! But now "converted" and never looking back... I think that is a very broad generalization that isn't true. There are people on here all over the spectrum. Some avoid all LC products that are on your list. Others, like me, use them in moderation. And there are others that use them more frequently.
I think another assumption people make is that everyone's metabolism is like there's, that eveyone has the same reactions to certain trigger foods and that everyone is in the same Atkins phase. I see no need for someone in maintenance to deny themselves LC bread, cereal, etc. if it;s done in moderation.
> > Feeling so much better on LC again! :-) > Welcome aboard, friend... [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > -- > Help stamp out sex-offenders: http://www.familywatchdog.us/ Ernst Primer - 10 Mar 2006 17:10 GMT > > G'day all; > > [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > for someone in maintenance to deny themselves LC bread, cereal, etc. if > it;s done in moderation. Bingo.
> > > Feeling so much better on LC again! :-) > > Welcome aboard, friend... [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > -- > > Help stamp out sex-offenders: http://www.familywatchdog.us/ Roger Zoul - 10 Mar 2006 17:17 GMT :: Dusty Bleher wrote: ::: G'day all; [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] :: see no need for someone in maintenance to deny themselves LC bread, :: cereal, etc. if it;s done in moderation. Nuts like almonds and macs are very low in carbs, yet I can manage to overeat them.
The real problem is food choice and religion are very similar to people. You believe what you believe and like what you like, and can't see the other side's POV.
Dusty Bleher - 11 Mar 2006 01:10 GMT G'day "trader4" & all; ...
>> > Same here, I didn't start this again just to make my pants fit >> > more comfortable, it was a matter of health! [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > etc. if > it;s done in moderation. While that's true, I think you've missed my point. Folks got to where they are (larger than they want to be) by eating things they shouldn't. Hey! I'm not naive. I too loved and ate all manner of nice crunchy, sweet, and other toothsome things. But the actual truth is, you don't "need" them. You need fresh fruits & veggies, berries, nuts, and meats & things...you don't need; LC bread, LC pancake mix, LC waffles, LC cereal, LC pudding, LC ice-cream, LC sweetners, and so on. It's just a mannerism or convention that we've adopted over time because we could.
Sure, you can eat those things. But, if you'll think on it a bit, whereas I used to eat half a loaf of fresh baked bread, now I eat a slice--maybe two if they're thin or small, and pile them high with butter, meats, cheeses, fishes, etc. Along with them crispy green peppers, celery, even bits of fruits all dipped in Blue-cheese dressing and such. I neither miss nor crave things like chips, cookies, soda's, and so on any more.
Others posting here have said, when they get a half-gallon of LC ice-cream they'll eat the whole thing in a day or two. I find that not eating any for some loooong interval, and then having a just a small amount--of a real, good quailty ice-cream, is most satisfying and enough. That's what folks used to do a 100 years ago. With the advent of the modern freezer and grocery sources, it's too easy to go in a pig out just because you can. That's all I was saying.
Certainly, as you'd pointed out, in the end it's an individual thing that pends upon your own metabolism, point in the weightloss curve, exercise level, age, and so on... There's certainly no fixed value that's suitable for all of us...
L8r all, Dusty --
>> Help stamp out sex-offenders: http://www.familywatchdog.us/ trader4@optonline.net - 11 Mar 2006 11:41 GMT > G'day "trader4" & all; > ... [quoted text clipped - 63 lines] > Others posting here have said, when they get a half-gallon of LC > ice-cream they'll eat the whole thing in a day or two. Oh, and the exact same thing can't happen when you buy a loaf of regular bread like you do?
>I find that > not eating any for some loooong interval, and then having a just a > small amount--of a real, good quailty ice-cream, is most satisfying > and enough. That's what folks used to do a 100 years ago. With the > advent of the modern freezer and grocery sources, it's too easy to > go in a pig out just because you can. That's all I was saying. And again, what's to stop you from eating the whole half gallon? The only difference between eating the regular ice cream and the LC version is the LC version has a lot less carbs. Both require counting carbs and having self control.
Certainly, as you'd pointed out, in the end it's an individual thing
> that pends upon your own metabolism, point in the weightloss curve, > exercise level, age, and so on... There's certainly no fixed value [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Dusty > -- But you made a very broad generalization, saying that all people in the newsgroup are rushing out to replace everything that they were eating before with LC substitutes. For most people here, I don't believe that is true at all. Most here have substantially changed what they eat and are eating a lot of meat, LC vegs, salad, etc. The fact that they may choose to use LC bread, so that they can have two slices, instead of your one slice of regular bread, and still get less carbs, is a very reasonable choice and IMO, a better alternative.
> >> Help stamp out sex-offenders: http://www.familywatchdog.us/ Dusty Bleher - 12 Mar 2006 06:04 GMT G'day "trader4" & all; ...
>> Others posting here have said, when they get a half-gallon of LC >> ice-cream they'll eat the whole thing in a day or two. > > Oh, and the exact same thing can't happen when you buy a loaf of > regular bread like you do? First off, I don't buy, I bake. Second I bake only sourdough...and mostly whole-grained (the SD critters seem to work to lower the real carb level, so that helps a bit as well).
>>I find that >> not eating any for some loooong interval, and then having a just [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > And again, what's to stop you from eating the whole half gallon? > The As you'd correctly pointed out, it takes some self-control. On top of that, I won't let myself buy a half-gallon of ice-cream (LC or any other kind). I take my grandkids and walk down to the Baskin-Robbins store, and buy (for me) their smallest cup. We did that 3-times all of last summer. Even if the treat was rather higher carb than I'd normally choose, I think that on average I'll stay under my ceiling amount.
> only difference between eating the regular ice cream and the LC > version > is the LC version has a lot less carbs. Both require counting > carbs > and having self control. True and correct on both counts.
...
> But you made a very broad generalization, saying that all people > in the > newsgroup are rushing out to replace everything that they were > eating > before with LC substitutes. For most people here, I don't > believe I'd have to disagree with you here. You can take what I said as a "broad generalization" if you like, but I only related what I and others that I've had first-hand experience in watching have done. And while my survey is admittedly from a rather small sample, it seems to fall well in line with what I read here. Most folks that want to go LC, as step #1, tend to seek and buy LC versions of their "comfort foods". I find that rather less of them decide to change their "comfort foods" to lesser impactful foods first. Many (but sadly not all) eventually come around to the fact that they've got to change their way of eating as opposed to changing the source, nature and color of the package their favorite things come in...
> that is true at all. Most here have substantially changed what > they [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > carbs, > is a very reasonable choice and IMO, a better alternative. I agree. Unfortunately, 1-slice becomes 2, and then 3, and then back to what they were eating/doing before they decided to go LC. Maybe it's just me...but that's what I've observed (and read) many times. Of course, given divergent points of view and conclusions, YMMV...
L8r all, DustyB
JC Der Koenig - 12 Mar 2006 14:50 GMT Bread is not low carb.
> First off, I don't buy, I bake. Second I bake only sourdough...and mostly > whole-grained (the SD critters seem to work to lower the real carb level, > so that helps a bit as well). trader4@optonline.net - 12 Mar 2006 15:15 GMT > G'day "trader4" & all; > ... [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > And while my survey is admittedly from a rather small sample, it > seems to fall well in line with what I read here. It isn't an issue of "taking" what you said as a broad generalization, that is exactly what it is. This is what you posted:
"One of the things that continues to distress me when I read this group is that once folks get the "religion" of LC, they all tend to "see the (false) light", and rush right out and get all LC goodies to replace their non-LC counterparts. LC ice-cream, bread, cereal, chips, pudding, soups, stuffing, this, that, and the other. Like lemmings running towards ledge sure and certain that their "ledge" is a safe refuge to continue doing what they're doing
I don't know what posts you've been reading, but they can't be the ones I see. I don't believe the majority of those in this newsgroup fit that description at all. Just look at all the recent threads, there are all kinds of discussions going on, but I don't see people saying "My approach to LC is to go out and just replace all the existing high carb foods I've been eating." Sure, we may see someone do that once in awhile, but that is different than claiming all those in this newgroup do it like a bunch of lemmings.
Most folks that
> want to go LC, as step #1, tend to seek and buy LC versions of their > "comfort foods". I find that rather less of them decide to change [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > times. Of course, given divergent points of view and conclusions, > YMMV... Apparently you think only you with your one cup of regular ice cream or one slice of regular home baked bread is capable of staying on track. The rest of us are just doomed lemmings.
> L8r all, > DustyB Roger Zoul - 10 Mar 2006 16:07 GMT :: "Ernst Primer" <dr_ernie_primeau@yahoo.ca> wrote in :: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] :: don't miss that junk one bit. I think all those LC bars a not needed :: either! <PUKE> Generally speaking, when you look better (ie, fit your clothes better) you feel better too. For me, it is just as "worthy" to make major changes to look better as it is to feel better. I almost see them as the same thing.
Roger Zoul - 09 Mar 2006 17:53 GMT :: Well, I'm going to toss this out and stand back with my flameproof :: suit on. While there are plenty of white people who have diabetes, :: it is even more common in the black and Hispanic community. And in the native American community.
How
:: successful are we at fighting our "drug war" and who are the primary :: victims? How well did we take care of business in Florida with the :: hurricanes in 2004 and how well are we taking care of New Orleans :: and the other areas hit by Katrina? Are you trying to imply something here? :)
:: And BTW, I'm a middle class white woman. Noted.
Hannah Gruen - 10 Mar 2006 14:26 GMT >Well, I'm going to toss this out and stand back with my flameproof suit >on. While there are plenty of white people who have diabetes, it is [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >And BTW, I'm a middle class white woman. I don't think this warrants a flame-proof suit. LOL.
This isn't really a race/class issue, IMO. There are *many, many* white T2 diabetics, from all socioeconomic classes. Granted its even more common, statistically, in the groups you and Roger named, but it's pretty much across-the-board.
I think the reasons it's being mishandled so badly by the medical community are many and complex. But I really doubt that it is due to race/class issues to any large extent. I personally think it has more to do with institutional inertia, over-conformity, and probably laziness on the part of the medical community, coupled with a big profit drive (you could read this as greed) of the pharmaceutical industry.
But that's just opinion on my part.
HG
trader4@optonline.net - 10 Mar 2006 15:29 GMT > >Well, I'm going to toss this out and stand back with my flameproof suit > >on. While there are plenty of white people who have diabetes, it is [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > I don't think this warrants a flame-proof suit. LOL. I think it does warrant a flame-proof suit when you start playing the race card and throwing politics and all the bizarre crap above into it, as if there was some sinister plot linking diabetes in minorities to the war on drugs or hurricanes. There is plenty of information out there on how to avoid diabetes and stay healthy. Whether it's right or wrong is not even an issue, because the same info is readily available for free to the entire population, independent of race. And for all we know, it could simply be that some races are more genetically pre-disposed. But, it's interesting how some minds work.
> This isn't really a race/class issue, IMO. There are *many, many* > white T2 diabetics, from all socioeconomic classes. Granted its even [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > HG Roger Zoul - 10 Mar 2006 16:03 GMT :: On 9 Mar 2006 08:09:07 -0800, "Paula57@yahoo.com" <Paula57@yahoo.com> :: wrote: [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] :: :: But that's just opinion on my part. The thing is, if this disease hit those who have class status hard, then there would likely be a "reaction" that tends to overcome inertia, conformity and laziness. The sleeping giant can be roused if you tickle it just right. The weak have little influence with the giant.
trader4@optonline.net - 10 Mar 2006 16:57 GMT > :: On 9 Mar 2006 08:09:07 -0800, "Paula57@yahoo.com" <Paula57@yahoo.com> > :: wrote: [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > conformity and laziness. The sleeping giant can be roused if you tickle it > just right. The weak have little influence with the giant. I don;t know what makes you believe that is true. Isn;t juvenile diabetes skyrocketing and hitting all classes hard enough? How about all the fat kids across classes? Or the obese adults across all classes. There may be some differences in percentages in one class vs another, but I don't think there is any evidence that it's not hitting mainstream America, and that's why no one cares or does anything. There's already a tremendous amount of info out there that says being fat is unhealthy, trying to get people to lose weight, eat healthy, yet peope are still fat across all classes.
Roger Zoul - 10 Mar 2006 17:30 GMT :: Roger Zoul wrote: ::: Hannah Gruen wrote: [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] :: :: I don;t know what makes you believe that is true. My preception is that it doesn't happen in the upper status like it does among the poor and uninformed (which includes most of the middle class).
Isn;t juvenile
:: diabetes skyrocketing and hitting all classes hard enough? Not from my POV. It's definitely hammering the poor and middle class.
How
:: about all the fat kids across classes? Or the obese adults across :: all classes. I guess it comes down to what you see as "class". I personally deal with no one in the upper levels of social strata, but as you go to higher levels people tend to be much more health conscious. For example, they pay attention if their child starts to get fat.
There may be some differences in percentages in one
:: class vs another, but I don't think there is any evidence that it's :: not hitting mainstream America, See, I wasn't including "mainstream" America, because I don't consider mainstream America to be upper class. IMO, "class status (the term I used with isn't really specific enough)" means significant class status, not average. I would agree 100% that mainstream is getting hard, but they are being ignored (IMO) because they generally don't have much influence individually and don't act as a group well.
and that's why no one cares or does
:: anything. There's already a tremendous amount of info out there that :: says being fat is unhealthy, trying to get people to lose weight, :: eat healthy, yet peope are still fat across all classes. Well, I'm going based on impressions based on what I see everyday. Perhaps you have some hard data.
Hannah Gruen - 11 Mar 2006 13:05 GMT >I guess it comes down to what you see as "class". I personally deal with no >one in the upper levels of social strata, but as you go to higher levels >people tend to be much more health conscious. >For example, they pay attention if their child starts to get fat.
>Well, I'm going based on impressions based on what I see everyday. Perhaps >you have some hard data. Well, there is definitely some truth to this. Upper socioeconomic classes tend to be better educated and have better access to health information and medical care. Not to mention better quality foods. There also tends to be a higher level of social stigma against obesity, which will trigger parents, as you say, to "do something" if a child puts on excess weight.
That said, there are still many, many people in upper socioeconomic groups who are overweight or obese or diabetic. I live in a very high income area. What I see at the local shopping center and the local country club, is a range of weights. There are a lot of emaciated-looking women, of course. And the older ones show every sign of well-developed osteoporosis, BTW. But there are plenty of overweight individuals of both genders and every age. In no way as many as you'd see in a lower-income neighborhood, though. This is not a scientific sampling, and there's no way to know how many are diabetic.
HG
Roger Zoul - 11 Mar 2006 14:37 GMT :: On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 12:30:53 -0500, "Roger Zoul" :: <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] :: a scientific sampling, and there's no way to know how many are :: diabetic. I can accept that. I would add though, because I think it's important, that the relative numbers of folks in upper socia strata are few compared to the other groups. So while there are enough of them to see "many", the numbers are still relatively small. And of course, these are just my musings on the matter.
RRzVRR - 12 Mar 2006 13:40 GMT > Well, I'm going to toss this out and stand back with my flameproof suit
> on. While there are plenty of white people who have diabetes, it is
> even more common in the black and Hispanic community. How successful
> are we at fighting our "drug war" and who are the primary victims? How
> well did we take care of business in Florida with the hurricanes in
> 2004 and how well are we taking care of New Orleans and the other areas
> hit by Katrina? > > And BTW, I'm a middle class white woman. I see it from a different viewpoint... yet still a tragic hidden agenda. I see similarities in the general view on T2D and the debt. Both are effected by society, commerce and the government... and both can cause accumulated damage from making thouhsands of poor choices.
Commerce and the government encourage debt, even though debt can (and often does) have life altering consequences for individuals. Our current culture willingly excepts the burden of debt as required matter of life. Like T2D, the effect debt has on persons life can't easily be seen, but the effects often show up once the situation is has already caused the most damage. Most who have T2D, or who are in deep debt, seem resigned to the consequences -- as though the situation was out of their control (I'm getting older so my 'sugar' is a little higher / I'll be making payments on this vacation until next years vacation, who doesn't.)
Generally, the better educated, or the more analytical the person, the better and their chances to see either situation clearer. By taking a more objective view people are able to challenge the misconceptions of popular beliefs that surround both issues
Can the genetic cards dealt to you cause T2D, sure -- and few can afford to purchase a house with cash. But its the small daily decisions that have damaging effects in both situations. The everyday mindset of impulse charging and/or eating (charging your french fries as an example of both) that's damning. Its the influence and pressure from the market, the government and society norms that effect those small decisions.
Bottomline, I don't think that society, commerce or the government want us to seriously look at the effects T2D or debt has on us individually or collectively, for if we did the status quo would be in upset and all would have to take a hard look at responsibility and make changes.
 Signature Rudy - Remove the Z from my address to respond.
"It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees!" -Emiliano Zapata
Check out the a.s.d.l-c FAQ at: http://www.grossweb.com/asdlc/faq.htm
Roger Zoul - 12 Mar 2006 13:48 GMT :: Paula57@yahoo.com wrote: :: [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] :: quo would be in upset and all would have to take a hard look at :: responsibility and make changes. I like this viewpoint.
Marengo - 12 Mar 2006 20:20 GMT <snip>||
|| Bottomline, I don't think that society, commerce or the || government want us to seriously look at the effects T2D or debt || has on us individually or collectively, for if we did the status || quo would be in upset and all would have to take a hard look at || responsibility and make changes. I do agree with your bottom line conclusion. I don't think that any group of people in the government or commerce make a conscious decision to purposely keep us in debt or diabetic. But having said that, the effect is the same. There is little motivation for them to change the decisions they've grown accustomed making. It's easier to ignore the fact that the world is actually not flat, and more comfortable to continue to act as if we'll drop off the edge if we sail on the sea of high fat and/or fiscal conservatism.
Not to get into politics, but rather just an factual observation: I find it so ironic that the only U.S. Administration in the past 40 years to balance the national budget and show a surplus was Clinton's, the "liberal" -- when financial conservatism is ostensibly a Republican platform. And by the same token, the American Diabetes Association, champion of controlling blood sugars, is the organization that has probably singlehandedly caused more obesity in America than any other over the past weveral decades in promoting their low fat, very high-carboydrate diet. The world is upside down!
Hannah Gruen - 13 Mar 2006 12:24 GMT >Not to get into politics, but rather just an factual observation: I find >it so ironic that the only U.S. Administration in the past 40 years to [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >weveral decades in promoting their low fat, very high-carboydrate diet. The >world is upside down! Both good observations, Peter. And very apt.
I'm a life-long Republican, but I just shake my head at the fiscal disaster Bush has managed to create in such a short time. That's not mah daddy's Republicanism, fer sure.
HG
trader4@optonline.net - 13 Mar 2006 13:45 GMT "I'm a life-long Republican, but I just shake my head at the fiscal disaster Bush has managed to create in such a short time. That's not mah daddy's Republicanism, fer sure. "
Of course the impact of the worst stock market crash since 1929, the recession, and 911 had nothing to do with going from a surplus to a deficit, right? Just the revenue loss in capital gains from the stock market reversal, which was a once in a lifetime extraordinary overvaluation, was a big impact. We all knew that companies with no earnings and no revenue couldn't continue to climb to the sky.
I agree that Bush and Congress should be doing a lot more to restrain spending, but the simple fact is, a lot of what caused the current deficit was beyond anyone's control. And spending has been growing faster than the rate of inflation, regardless of who occupied the White House. This is a problem here in NJ too. Our new Gov Corzine, is running around crying that the state is broke and faces a $4Bil budget gap, which is huge. Yet, he has a laundry list of new spending, lead by spending $200mil on stem cell research. I think that a constitutional amendment to put a cap on total taxation and spending as a percent of GDP is something that is long overdue. It's one big thing the framers of the constitution didn't think about, which is the ability for govt to continue to grow faster than the economy. And that unchecked growth ultimately will cost people their freedom.
FOB - 13 Mar 2006 19:55 GMT It's the war, stupid. The stupid unnecessary war against the wrong people.
In news:1142253904.237421.231690@j52g2000cwj.googlegroups.com, trader4@optonline.net <trader4@optonline.net> stated
| Of course the impact of the worst stock market crash since 1929, the | recession, and 911 had nothing to do with going from a surplus to a [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] | economy. And that unchecked growth ultimately will cost people | their freedom. trader4@optonline.net - 13 Mar 2006 22:54 GMT > It's the war, stupid. The stupid unnecessary war against the wrong people. Excellent example of the typical arrogant liberal elitist attitude. Anyone that doesn't share your point of view must be stupid. Oh, BTW genius, if you exclude the spending for the war in Iraq, there still would be a substantial deficit.
> In news:1142253904.237421.231690@j52g2000cwj.googlegroups.com, > trader4@optonline.net <trader4@optonline.net> stated [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > | economy. And that unchecked growth ultimately will cost people > | their freedom. FOB - 14 Mar 2006 00:46 GMT I didn't vote for this deficit maker. That makes me smart.
FOB wrote:
> It's the war, stupid. The stupid unnecessary war against the wrong people. Excellent example of the typical arrogant liberal elitist attitude. Anyone that doesn't share your point of view must be stupid. Oh, BTW genius, if you exclude the spending for the war in Iraq, there still would be a substantial deficit.
Dusty Bleher - 13 Mar 2006 23:56 GMT > It's the war, stupid. The stupid unnecessary war against the > wrong people. Another fine example of a loud braying fool that would rather fight Islamists nut-cases in our cities one skyscraper at a time... What a mensch!
DustyB--Who's been to war...didn't like it a lot...and decided that it's better to fight it on somebody else's dirt rather than your own. ...
Ernst Primer - 13 Mar 2006 16:37 GMT > >Not to get into politics, but rather just an factual observation: I find > >it so ironic that the only U.S. Administration in the past 40 years to [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > HG A-MEN.
I've been a registered Libertarian and have voted primarily Republican and Libertarian my whole life. Completely out of desperation, I'm voting for Democrats, probably down the line this year.
Mind you, I don't like Democrats. I just despise this current crop of goons in Congress and the White House even more....
Anyways, off topic rant ovver....
RRzVRR - 13 Mar 2006 14:22 GMT > x-no-archive: yes > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > we'll drop off the edge if we sail on the sea of high fat and/or fiscal > conservatism. That's pretty much my view. The more I thought about the situations the more it seems like an enabling situation. "Your doing something that's bad for you and our society, but if you change, then I'll have to change -- and I have a vested interest in your current bad choices."
 Signature Rudy - Remove the Z from my address to respond.
"It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees!" -Emiliano Zapata
Check out the a.s.d.l-c FAQ at: http://www.grossweb.com/asdlc/faq.htm
Marengo - 12 Mar 2006 19:57 GMT When I read this subject line,
'U.S. Diabetes Population Grows 86 Percent Over Last Decade'
I had to check to see if it meant that they grew 86% in numbers -- or in size!? My guess is both <g>
Peter
|
|
|