Quote:
Originally Posted by OccultHawk
No. I don't get it. Spell it out for me like I'm retarded.
My thinking is if people can't go see a doctor all kinds of fixable things don't get fixed. Strep throat, scabies, syphilis, pink eye, and on and on. Am I wrong to conclude our general public health could be improved by allowing people to fix this stuff? I'm thinking in your mind it's like when a person confuses weather and climate but if you could do me the kindness of spelling it out for me.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pet_Sounds
Don't those things factor into the general health of the population, from a statistical standpoint?
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chula Vista
You are correct sir!
|
The way I've been using health is the physical wellness of the body. If you take a healthy person and an unhealthy person, and give them the same sickness they will have different responses. Whatever sickness you want to use as an example (Strep in the case of Occult) isn't really important to my point. General health is not determined by temporary sickness, especially in the case of Occults sh
itty example of strep which is self-limiting and doesn't even need to be treated in a healthy person (possibly an unhealthy one? idk im not a doctor).
@PetSounds - yes, I never said that healthcare has absolutely ZERO affect on population health. My argument from the start was that it is not the primary factor elph was making it out to be. If you go back a couple pages you can see my other responses.