Those who think global warming is a problem that needs to be addressed are gullible? That list includes over 100,000 scientists in climate related fields.

Perhaps you are the gullible one, attacking anything Obama does because he is a Democrat? I voted Republican my entire life until Bush came along, and am proud of the fact that I have been able to judge politicians and issues on the merits rather than on the team uniforms. Perhaps you need to start doing the same.

(I like one of the reader remarks — but isn't this a violation of the “right” to health care?)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-42487…

In fact, many preventive measures that have long been identified as useful have not been routinely used because they are not cost-effective.

More to the point insofar as silly activism goes, the preventive care issue is vastly overblown, routinely is accompanied by a presumption that it is magical, and in the real world, not only does it bloat the cost of pre-paid health care or “insurance” (many state minimum benefit packages are responsible for the high costs due to the elaborate set of benefits that are required), but so often, those who most need it never use it even when it is available or offered to them. Or as was asked:

“will people who will benefit most — the young and indestructible — actually partake”

No, though they aren't the group that illustrates the most important part of the problem. However, it's worth revisiting this segment because they are so often actually the typical case for those without health insurance. (They decline to buy it, preferring to spend the money on other things; they believe they are indestructible, yes.)

* * *

As to the current hype about obesity (“the obesity crisis” and other such ridiculousness), it's a shame that so many people become so childishly emotional and irrational. (And as to their childishness, how many of them want the federal government once more to be their parent and to direct everyone's lives?)

* * *

To correct misstatements that begin this thread: The notoriously gullible segment of the public is not what Maher dishonestly portrays, or others dishonestly portrary, but of course those who still are in the silly swooning honeymoon with Obama even after the antics with the climate bill and now with health care — the flaky fringists who say typical tripe such as “health care is a 'right',” who childishly agree we need to rush stupidly to do whatever the Dems say we have to, NOW!, and who can be still plucked from the low tail of the bell curve and reliably exploited in Obama's staged town hall campaign circus appearances.

I must be incredibly jaundiced then. Preventive medicine is great, it prolongs lives and improves quality of life. What it doesn't do is save money.

Your example of juvenile diabetes isn't a good one – juvenile diabetes is almost always a failure of the pancreas to produce insulin and not related to obesity. It is thought to be genetic with a possible viral trigger.

What you are really talking about is prevention of type 2 diabetes, which is often related to obesity. Should we screen for it and counsel kids about obesity – sure but it will be expensive. The blood work, doctor's appointments and dietary counseling will cost a lot today. It might save us some money when these kids get into their 50's but I don't think the data is there to support this as a cost-saving measure.

The other problem is that obesity counseling in kids, like obesity counseling in adults, doesn't have a great success rate. It's really tough to change patterns that have been learned over years and often the results of the parent's lifestyle which they have no desire to change.

Don't get me wrong – preventive medicine is great for many reasons and I support it but with few exceptions will not save money.