I hope Jack replies, because I *don't* think he me-wrote. *I* think he
was focusing on each individual's ability to take care of himself, for
the benefit of himself *and* those around him (who might otherwise end
up helping to pay for his treatments, or who might get less of that big
inheritence). (01)
Some businesses (and non-profits, and the gov) /do/ benefit (financially
or otherwise) from disease. But while I'm annoyed that healthy food
sometimes costs more (and doesn't taste as yummy), your gloss of the
situation seems overly victim-like. Not getting enough fiber? :) (02)
Eric Armstrong wrote:
> Jack Park wrote:
>
>> Great stuff, Tom.
>> Could this be generalized such that every human on the planet is part
>> of a wellness care system and each has the same incentive to stay
>> healthy?
>>
> Hmmm. Another interesting discussion. (I love this stuff. Should
> we take it off Yak?)
>
> What occurs to me is that we all have the incentive to stay healthy,
> but it takes a serious amount of education to do so in the face
> of an economic system that rewards so grandiosely those who make
> an unhealthy environment.
>
> I suspect that what you meant to say was "(so) each of us has the same
> incentive to keep everyone healthy". Once businesses have a vested
> interest in keeping the population healthy, instead of profiting
> from disease in their pharmaceutical subsidiaries, then a healthy
> environment becomes a given, and people can choose whatever is most
> appealing (in terms of food, for example) without risking disease
> as a consequence.
>
> (03)
--
This message is archived at: (04)
http://collab.blueoxen.net/forums/cgi-bin/mesg.cgi?a=yak&i=3F79BC34.3080600@fluxent.com (05)
|