Why the U.S. Needs Universal Health Care...Now! - Intelligent debate wanted here...

clark · 2003-10-10 19:37:12

Hey Cobra, lets jam.

Off the cuff, so don't pin me down...

Let's try to avoid the exportation of oppression... :laugh:

Yet, the idea has serious merit. How about instead of three, we have one. Physician groups form- freely assembled among themselves (call it a practice). Incentives are given out to these pracices based on whatever care criteria you can think of.

The private groups form to win the prizes. Incentive...

Medicare is just paying a flat rate. There is no incentive to work any harder... (other than the altrusitic reasons mind you...)

more later...

Josh Cryer · 2003-10-10 20:54:05

Commander, the birth control pill was created after the Planned Parenthood Federation gave a grant to some major players in the field of mammalian reproduction. This was pushed along by feminists. I'm afraid that, without these radical women, there was no actual 'demand' for birth control. Anyway, a Google search answers the question. It actually took 6 years to find the proper chemicals, I was wrong. 6 years is pretty quick, still, considering. It wasn't for another 4, though, that a private drug company manufactured the drug. Knowing how the market works, I would wager that drug companies were really just waiting for people to learn of this drug, and demand to actually exist.

But you make a good point, drug companies wouldn't do research if demand didn't exist; in other words, the pill may never had been discovered without these social radicals.

Interestingly, a lot of unnecessary surgeries are performed, because of profit, not because the well-being of patients is at stake. There's a study I can link you if you don't believe this, but it's rather common sense, really. If cutting open one heart is going to get you a few hundred grand, cutting open several hearts is going to get you even more. So the incentive to screw people over or unnecessarily risk peoples lives is greater.

Anyway, I liken health-care to hygine (in fact, I consider hygine the only 'public' resource man can legitimately share in a collective without being authoritarian, but that's another discussion). Back in the old days, only the richest people had access to the baths and so on. But as time progressed, more and more people had access to the baths, until eventually pipes and so on were invented, and electricity and all the other interesting magical things of civilization, and everyone in the civilized world can now have access to baths and other implements relating to current civilized hygine. It gets to this point where anyone can go to Lowes and get their own pipes and set up their own baths (though, obviously government restrictions exist that create an unnecessary demand for plumbers even still).

Health care is a different matter, somewhat, but not wholly dissimilar, despite what some might say. One argument here, is that health care requires profit as some sort of magical incentive; I find this to be too inadequate of an explaination. I will disregard how non-profit based health care works in practice (ie, Cuba), for now. I will just argue that, if we accept that health-care is hygine, we can't use the same argument for the baths; baths weren't reliant on profit to exist, it was merely a paradigm of desire (if not need- baths helped destroy germs and so on, and increased the wellness of society). Water systems are now shared and maintained publicly, despite private ownership of water companies, the lines, and access, are public; they go underneath public streets and throughout the city and are even maintained by city crews in many aspects; your taxpayer funds go into maintaining the system just as much as any other publicly available resource.

Health care becomes more like hygine, I think, as soon as it's so commonplace as to have as many doctors are you have famlies. Sort of like how baths became more like hygine as soon as they were buyable at the local hardware store (ie, commonplace). This is how Cuba 'solves' the problem of 'impossible' socialized medicine. They make medical equipment and medicins so common-place that every town and villiage has enough doctors to take care of themselves. Obviously Cuba doesn't have millions of brain surgons. But most people don't have brain tumors, either, so it's a moot point.

Individual health care (like how I mentioned about having a device that cures you) is merely an extension of this collective health care to the ultimate point; decentralization ultimately becomes individualism.

dicktice · 2003-10-11 08:35:18

Cobra: You want competition? Let the States "compete" quality-wise, with the Federal contribution to each State's contribution being the way National standards are encouraged. Works here: With all the Provences and Northwest Territory earning bragging rights for the health services their taxes pay for, while the Federal Government's contribution is substantial enough to be needed by the Provential Governments to maintain their standards. Professional pride is a great stimulus to competition, when financial gain is adequately indexed and salaried. I've always found it so in engineering, and I will continue to endorse it for space programs, where the ultimate profit depends upon successful accomplishments (such as eg. LEO tourism, or inner-asteroid access) instead of just getting paid to fulfill cost-plus space contracts regardless of feasibility or long-term merit.

Byron · 2003-10-14 06:57:04

Has anyone on here heard of the major strikes by grocery store workers in California over the cost of health care coverage? And it's starting to spread to other states as well, forcing management to play the part of cashiers, reducing store hours, etc. It looks like it's going to be a protracted strike as well, as the grocery chains don't seem willing to budge on their position on forcing their lowest-paid workers to shoulder an ever-increasing burden of soaring health care premiums.

Just another sign that our current system of health care coverage is starting to buckle....

B

Shaun Barrett · 2003-10-14 07:50:40

Sorry Byron!
I started to answer your question about the Australian health system days ago but got side-tracked and completely forgot to go back to it. My apologies!
I know I come across as pretty right wing but that's largely a visceral response to left-wing ideology, which I understand and sympathise with on one level but which I find an essentially bankrupt ideology on another level. And I've met too many 'champagne socialists' who are doing very nicely themselves but want other people to be altruistic and work for nothing for the good of the common man - something they themselves wouldn't think of doing in a pink fit!
This latter 'type' of person is amply represented by the Australian Labor Party (ALP), which once represented the working person but has since decayed into a caricature of its former self in the face of widespread prosperity in recent years.

I regard myself as first and foremost a practical man with a very healthy disdain for fanciful bull**** and political dogma, especially from the left.
I wasn't trying to imply that I have a solution to this problem because I don't believe there is one! Australia is currently facing up to the fact that doctors don't want to work for nothing, however philanthropic they may be or however much the 'champagne socialists' (with deep pockets and short arms) think they ought to be!
As far as I can tell, we're trying to rebuild the situation that existed before, wherein almost all Australians had private health insurance and Medicare was there for those who really couldn't cope. That system worked remarkably well and everyone had access to reasonably good health care. The universal health scheme, Medicare, was introduced by the ALP for ideological reasons rather than because of any pressing need; an attempt at collectivisation of Australian health.
The old system wasn't perfect, I grant you that, but it was probably one of the better systems in existence worldwide at the time, and definitely more sustainable than the mess we're having to clean up now.

Who knows what the ideal system is?! One in which saintly people study hard for many years just so they can go out and heal the sick for no pay while their families live in a state of almost religious poverty. Maybe that's the answer.
Maybe 'creating' hundreds of thousands of doctors, as Josh suggests, is the way to go. So that each village has an abundance of medical practitioners - one every second house. Although I confess I don't understand the logic in this argument at all, unless he is talking about centralised control of the populace a la Fidel Castro (?).

All I know for sure is that universal health care is an illusion. There'll always be antagonism between the state and the providers of the care because their agendas are always going to be diametrically opposed.
I truly wish everyone everywhere could have unlimited and cost-free access to the best physicians and medical specialists ... but sooner or later, someone somewhere has to pay the piper. No amount of political ideology will get around that fact.
???

Palomar · 2003-10-14 08:13:02

And I've met too many 'champagne socialists' who are doing very nicely themselves but want other people to be altruistic and work for nothing for the good of the common man - something they themselves wouldn't think of doing in a pink fit!

*That's a good term: "Champagne socialist."

Yes, the world is full of people (of every conceivable stripe) who say they are all rah-rah-sis-boom-bah for an ideal, etc...so long as someone else is doing all the "grunt work," making the sacrifices, taking the flak for it. Mmmmm-hmmmmm.

Lip service.

Actions speak louder than words.

--Cindy

Byron · 2003-10-14 08:59:32

And I've met too many 'champagne socialists' who are doing very nicely themselves but want other people to be altruistic and work for nothing for the good of the common man - something they themselves wouldn't think of doing in a pink fit!
*That's a good term: "Champagne socialist."
Yes, the world is full of people (of every conceivable stripe) who say they are all rah-rah-sis-boom-bah for an ideal, etc...so long as someone else is doing all the "grunt work," making the sacrifices, taking the flak for it. Mmmmm-hmmmmm.
Lip service.
Actions speak louder than words.
--Cindy

The same is true for some of these hard-core environmentalists who think that people should only use wind and solar power, and yet they drive around in gas-burning automobiles, fly in fuel-burning aircraft, use electricity generated from coal and oil, etc.

It is my opinion that one should practice what they preach without exception...

B

clark · 2003-10-14 10:18:15

MTA (public transit) is on strike as of today becuase of health care issues. I haven't gone to the supermarkets I normally go to due to the strike. Listening to a report, it seems as if some of the supermarkets were preparing for this in advance, having trained replacements ready to move in on the first day of the strike.

It's becoming more of a mess out here.

Ah well...

dickbill · 2003-10-14 10:25:54

*That's a good term: "Champagne socialist."

In France we use the term "Caviar leftist" or "caviar socialists".

clark · 2003-10-14 10:35:45

In California, we just call them 'politicans'.

Choose your welfare case, people, or business. But someone is getting paid by either party, and generally, both parties end up paying both.

Democracy, YOU can't lose...

Byron · 2003-10-14 14:23:42

I regard myself as first and foremost a practical man with a very healthy disdain for fanciful bull**** and political dogma, especially from the left.
I wasn't trying to imply that I have a solution to this problem because I don't believe there is one! Australia is currently facing up to the fact that doctors don't want to work for nothing, however philanthropic they may be or however much the 'champagne socialists' (with deep pockets and short arms) think they ought to be!
As far as I can tell, we're trying to rebuild the situation that existed before, wherein almost all Australians had private health insurance and Medicare was there for those who really couldn't cope. That system worked remarkably well and everyone had access to reasonably good health care. The universal health scheme, Medicare, was introduced by the ALP for ideological reasons rather than because of any pressing need; an attempt at collectivisation of Australian health.
The old system wasn't perfect, I grant you that, but it was probably one of the better systems in existence worldwide at the time, and definitely more sustainable than the mess we're having to clean up now.
Who knows what the ideal system is?! One in which saintly people study hard for many years just so they can go out and heal the sick for no pay while their families live in a state of almost religious poverty. Maybe that's the answer.
Maybe 'creating' hundreds of thousands of doctors, as Josh suggests, is the way to go. So that each village has an abundance of medical practitioners - one every second house. Although I confess I don't understand the logic in this argument at all, unless he is talking about centralised control of the populace a la Fidel Castro (?).
All I know for sure is that universal health care is an illusion. There'll always be antagonism between the state and the providers of the care because their agendas are always going to be diametrically opposed.
I truly wish everyone everywhere could have unlimited and cost-free access to the best physicians and medical specialists ... but sooner or later, someone somewhere has to pay the piper. No amount of political ideology will get around that fact.
???

I consider myself a practical person as well, so in this aspect, we agree...

If you don't mind me asking, how did most people obtain private health insurance prior to the introduction of Medicare? Was it available to everyone, regardless of their health condition?

I imagine the old system worked back then for the same reason the private system worked in the US...in fact, in the 60's and 70's, this system worked exceedingly well. Most companies offered full-coverage health insurance, fully paid for, families included, and a person could go see any doctor and go to any hospital, and pay a modest co-pay. Most people thought this was a great system. Although a few people (such as the unemployed) had no coverage, costs were generally low enough, plus doctors had "sliding scales" (which many health professionals still use today, due to the lack of coverage in this area) as not to cause an undue burden to the patient.

In the 1980's, medical costs started soaring, however, making the typical 15% or 20% co-pay more of a problem, and the HMO was invented. The idea of an HMO was that the insurer exercised some control over your health care choices in exchange for lower costs. In the beginning, you were entitled to one free doctor visit a year, with low payments for other services, presciption drugs were covered...it was actually a very good deal for most people...I was enroled in one myself, and I was very happy with it.

But as we all know, all good things must come to an end... For some reason, the HMO's started hemorraging money, and they began placing sharp limits on the health care that doctors can hand out to their patients (show me a doctor that likes HMOs, and I'll show you a place under our feet that's been frozen over... ) The premiums charged to employers started rising sharply, and increasing limits were placed on prescription drug coverage. Nowadays, most firms offer a bewieldering array of health care plans to offer people a way to "manage" their own care...but as far as the average employee is concerned, it's a matter of throwing the dart and hope it lands someplace good..lol.

The main problem with private coverage here besides cost, is insurers way of "cherry picking" the healthiest patients, and refusing coverage to those with pre-existing conditions. This is why so many people cling to jobs they may despise, because they have costly, chronic conditions that a future insurer would refuse to cover. People who retire before age of 65 (when Medicare kicks in) are particularily effected...if they can get coverage at all, it's usually at exhorbiant prices.

But the thing that's going to bring the house down altogether is the soaring cost of premiums to employers...already many small and medium business have begun dropping coverage. (Although some of them try to appease their employees by paying the extra money in cash of what they used to pay in premiums...so many people just pocket the cash and hope they don't get sick.) Larger companies are attempting to pass the increased costs to their employees, resulting in an actual loss in take-home pay for millions of paycheck earners. Needless to say, this is generating an ever-increasing level of strikes, such as the ones occuring in California. If I'm not mistaken, union membership is actually on the increase after decades of decline...primarily due to this one issue.

Clearly, it is a system destined for failure...and picking up the pieces will undoubtably be a painful process. I think something along the lines of what Josh and Clark have suggested might be in order, perhaps actually reducing the requirements to become a doctor in the first place to increase the supply. Also, the American people are going to have to realize that you just can't have unlimited high-end care for limited cost. If medical standards were held down just a bit lower, I think medical costs would begin to fall. Of course, we'll have to figure out a way to make sure the population gets back into shape...lol...so maybe the government could implement an incentive program for something like a $100 tax rebate for each pound you lose (limited to let's say 10 pounds a year or something like that.) Also, they need to make physical education in the schools a mandatory thing, from K-12.

In the meantime, I place my support behind the strikers throughout the nation, and I sincerely hope they are able to win out in the end. Perhaps then, companies will unite to face down the insurers and say "No more increases" instead of taking money away from the hands of those who need it the most.

B

Palomar · 2003-10-14 15:22:18

[ For some reason, the HMO's started hemorraging money, and they began placing sharp limits on the health care that doctors can hand out to their patients (show me a doctor that likes HMOs, and I'll show you a place under our feet that's been frozen over... )

*Oh yes indeed. The paper-pushers (NOT medically trained, are NOT physicians) ultimately decide who gets what treatment and what gets denied. This is beyond infuriorating to physicians who went through grueling, hectic years of medical school (obviously) in order to practice medicine, and now the "clowns in the 3-piece suits" (as Dr. Caughlan used to call them; a doc I worked for) are calling the shots.

It's like always being undermined in your professional decision making.

Sad thing is, doctors are not above exploiting situations for money. I recall this same Dr. Caughlan ordering me to charge an insurance company (NOT an HMO...this was a car insurance claim, relative to a patient who'd gotten hurt in a collision) $50.00 as the fee for me pulling the patient's chart, photocopying three (3) sheets of paper, stapling and folding and tucking the sheets into an envelope, stamping and mailing it, then replacing the chart. Takes all of 3 minutes, if that. I was rather gutsy in my younger days and didn't plan on saying it, but it just came out: "FIFTY dollars?!" He looked irritated, thought a minute, then said, "Oh...make it thirty dollars!"

Brother. So I saved the insurance company $20.00 on that one.

I feel sorry for people (not implying that anyone here is this way) who are still operating under this naive assumption that hospitals, insurance companies, and some doctors are "compassionate" and in it because "they care." Yeah, they care alright...about The Almighty Buck. And it gets to be a pretty ugly feeding frenzy behind the scenes; usually it's a three-way fistfight.

--Cindy

Josh Cryer · 2003-10-14 15:48:05

Maybe 'creating' hundreds of thousands of doctors, as Josh suggests, is the way to go. So that each village has an abundance of medical practitioners - one every second house. Although I confess I don't understand the logic in this argument at all, unless he is talking about centralised control of the populace a la Fidel Castro (?).

What's illogical about it? Everyone has their own first aide kits at home, why can't (or oughtn't) anyone have their own 'doctor kit' which they know to use? You don't have to 'create' hundreds of thousands of doctors, you just make the equipment and knowledge available. That's what Cuba does, for the most part, there is no central authority over doctors and medicine as far as I know.

I'm not saying that's a realistic solution right now though, I'm just saying that 'collective health care' in the context of abundently available knowledge and just a culture shift of proper hygine isn't 'bad.'

Palomar · 2003-10-14 19:30:05

[What's illogical about it? Everyone has their own first aide kits at home, why can't (or oughtn't) anyone have their own 'doctor kit' which they know to use? You don't have to 'create' hundreds of thousands of doctors, you just make the equipment and knowledge available.

*Sorry, Josh, but after working in the medical community for 16 years, I have to say this is not feasible.

Are you aware of how many chemicals there are in the human body? Are you aware of the differing parameters (also known as "ranges" and "levels") for adult males versus adult females versus children of both genders? And how weight factors in? Are you aware of the dozens of *blood* tests alone, to determine ranges/levels...not to mention the numerous tests done on urine and other bodily excretions? And how an increased level or decreased level can be detrimental to a person's immediate well-being? Do you know that the chemical composition of blood, urine, etc., can change drastically within a very short period of time? And then how to deal with those changes without crashing, say, a potassium or sodium level and then you've got a delirious, hallucinating person on your hands?

Do you know how many medications there are on the market? And their generic equivalents? And how to calculate the proper dosage amount for the proper body weight? And all the contraindications which can and do factor in? Not to mention the always-present side effects, allergic reactions, intolerances (there is a difference between allergies and intolerances), and then trying to treat those while still dealing with the condition which required the medication in the first place, which produced the side effect?

Same for herbal remedies.

That's just -starting- to *barely scratch* the tip of the iceberg.

I'm not a physician, but I've worked within the medical community for 16+ years. People drastically UNDERestimate what physicians need to know -- even "just" general practitioners (not to mention specialists). There are myriad kinds of diseases, cancers, and disorders. Did you know you can get tuberculosis in your lungs? Yep, not just for the liver.

As for equipment: They have to be calibrated. Parameters have to be factored in. Diagnostic tests have to be run and re-run to ensure consistent results.

Diagnosing illness (not to mention diseases, syndromes, and disorders -- and yes, there are differences to each category) is not as easy as it sounds either. Some illnesses have consistent and similar patterns of symptoms throughout a wide swath of patients...others do not. Mimickry is common, as are "red herring" symptoms and the like.

What you're proposing is akin to "Since I know how to ride a bicycle, and I bet I can fly the space shuttle now."

I don't mean to sound harsh, so sorry.

And I'm not seeking any debates or extensive conversation; I'm a bit under the weather right now (ironic, huh?) -- I've got a cold coming on.

If anyone doubts the veracity of what I'm trying to say here, by all means print it and check it with your local trusted physician. I hope to god I've done some justice to the extremely intricate and complex science of medicine with this little jot.

--Cindy

Josh Cryer · 2003-10-14 20:49:16

Shh, Cindy, I was fantasizing.

Shaun Barrett · 2003-10-14 22:34:57

Actually, Cindy, I thought that 'little jot' of yours was rather well put and did justice to the kinds of intricacies of medical practice a lot of people are most likely unaware of.
Josh's 'dumbing down' of medical practice, while greatly increasing the number of practitioners, is certain to greatly decrease the standard of care. In fact, we'd soon see a renaissance of unrestrained 'quack' medicine with all its accompanying disasters. Even as it is, highly trained and diligent doctors make occasional mistakes, which these days lead to litigation and massive payouts. The public is almost conditioned now to expecting flawless work from their medical practitioners, even though these practitioners are only human. Imagine the uproar if and when half-trained doctors appeared on the scene, causing more damage than the diseases they were supposed to be treating! And Cindy's very descriptive post leaves us in little doubt these half-a**ed "doctors" would have enormous scope for causing unmitigated clinical catastrophes.
I think there has to be a compromise somewhere, as Byron rightly suggests. Massive wealth accumulation by doctors and surgeons is probably a bad thing but, in a modern capitalist society where basketball and tennis players, rock singers and corporate executives get multi-million dollar salaries, it's difficult to point the finger at a person who has trained hard for many years and takes on the very grave responsibility of making life-and-death decisions every day. And, if we want the best people making these decisions about our lives, we need to make medicine an attractive proposition for our best and brightest. But then, we also want people who are attracted by the notion of helping the sick and saving lives, not just making big money.

As I said, I don't know where the line should be drawn. It's a particularly thorny problem. But I think teaching populations that medicine somehow ought to be free is counterproductive because it produces unrealistic expectations.
However I may come across with all this, in reality I applaud Clark, CC, and Josh for trying to suggest alternatives because, God knows, we need all the suggestions we can get! Sooner or later, with a little bit of goodwill and seeing-both-sides-of-the-argument, instead of unrelenting self-interest, we might just figure out a solution.

[Incidentally, Byron, in answer to your question, so many Australians were in private health schemes, the premiums were quite affordable. They paid their own premiums out of their own pockets at their local pharmacy (drug-store), which would act as agent for the health companies. If you tried to join a scheme whilst suffering some kind of ailment, the rules still allowed you to join but the pre-existing condition would not be eligible for cover for a fixed 'waiting period', though any new condition arising after enrolment would be covered. There were a number of such rules which protected health insurance companies from the type of person who might be tempted to wait until they were sick before joining a scheme temporarily.
Once the universal scheme was introduced, many people stayed in private health cover out of a sense of independence and because they wanted to be able to choose their own specialist in the event of requiring surgery. But, of course, huge numbers of people abandoned the private companies, making them less viable. They were left with a core of clients too sick to want to leave the safety of private health, but had lost most of the younger healthier clientele who helped keep premiums low. So premiums went up and more people left!
The present government is trying to encourage people back into private health insurance by giving us a 30% rebate on the cost of premiums if we join a private scheme.
In case you're wondering, the Barrett family always puts its money where its mouth is and we have been private health insurance members throughout the Medicare era. This means we have paid the extra Medicare tax (compulsory) each year plus the ever increasing private premiums. I would not, in good conscience, feel able to criticise public health schemes if I had taken advantage of one of them for years and then turned against it when it was down. In addition, I could see it was a flawed piece of political doctrine, ruining a very good extant system and doomed to extinction, and in principle I wanted as little to do with it as possible.]

clark · 2003-10-15 10:06:15

What's illogical about it? Everyone has their own first aide kits at home, why can't (or oughtn't) anyone have their own 'doctor kit' which they know to use?

There is nothing 'illogical' about this idea. It is extremly logical, and extremly rationale. It merely extends the modern trend that medical care is taking.

Most people call something like this, 'solving your own problems'. Others like to think of it as, 'being independant'.

Are you aware of how many chemicals there are in the human body?

I for one am not. But do I need this information to set a bone? To deal with frost-bite? To administer CPR? To diagnois a rash and treat it with some balm?

When is it neccessary to be aware of all the chemicals in the human body? For treatment of general ill health, or when you want to medicate a patient on a powerful narcotic?

Are you aware of the differing parameters (also known as "ranges" and "levels") for adult males versus adult females versus children of both genders?

When, and in what instances, is this information neccessary and relevant? For diagnoising cardiac arthemia, or to figure out if your dystolic pressure is to high? Is there some reason we can't learn why this is important? I'm thinking age/weight charts. I bet even doctors have them.

Are you aware of the dozens of *blood* tests alone, to determine ranges/levels...not to mention the numerous tests done on urine and other bodily excretions?

No, but when are lab tests neccessary? A 'doctor's kit' as Josh suggested wouldn't cover lab tests, at least I don't think he intended them to, and lab test are generally required when other health indicators don't jive with other measurable parameters. So, in other words, a doctor looks at you, pushes on various parts of your body, but can't identify any 'cause' for your ill health. So then he orders tests to get mroe info.

The same result can still happen from a self-diagnoisis. I feel ill, I do a self diagnoisis, but I can't finf a cause for my ill health. I then go to a doctor for a further evaluation and lab tests if neccessary. Or, if I do understand lab results, I pee in a cup and get the results back after mailing it in. Perhaps then I ask a real doctor what they mean.

Do you know that the chemical composition of blood, urine, etc., can change drastically within a very short period of time?

Are we unable to learn?And again, when is this information relevant and neccessary? It seems you are talking about hospitilization, not general practioner visits.

Do you know how many medications there are on the market? And their generic equivalents?

Well, unless Josh was intending to open up the prescription market, this isn't an issue. I don't think he was though.

I'm not a physician, but I've worked within the medical community for 16+ years.

Neither am I, but I was brought into the world by one.

People drastically UNDERestimate what physicians need to know -- even "just" general practitioners (not to mention specialists).

Well, I'm imagining that most people won't need to know what a physician knows becuase individuals would only worry about their personal health. It's a bit why HMO's and their ilk encourgae Personal Care providers. Why? becuase then a Phsycian has the opportunity to leatn about your unique needs and issues. But these general practioners have to be prepared for the widest possible contingencies (they never know what's going to walk through that door). individuals though can look around their community, and their family, and get an idea of what health issues they need to be aware of.

There are myriad kinds of diseases, cancers, and disorders. Did you know you can get tuberculosis in your lungs? Yep, not just for the liver.

LOL. I actually never knew you could get it in the liver. Lungs though, I've known since I learned to swim.

As for equipment: They have to be calibrated. Parameters have to be factored in. Diagnostic tests have to be run and re-run to ensure consistent results.

My last check up involved a weight scale, a thermometer, a sthescope, a popsicle stick (without the popsicle), and a flashlight for my mouth and ears, and a device to read blood pressure. Oh, latex gloves, and rough butcher paper to sit on too.

Do the gloves need diagnostic tests, or are we just talking about the CAT scan machine?

Diagnosing illness (not to mention diseases, syndromes, and disorders -- and yes, there are differences to each category) is not as easy as it sounds either.

No, diagnosing is easy. Being sure is hard. The trend in medicine is the result of more information being mroe readily available. You can look into this if you want, but more and more people (at least in America) are coming to the doctors with their illness already identified, and with a treatment plan, and which drugs they want. This is the result of self-education, which occurs when you find out you have cancer or some other illness. People go to the doctor, more and more, telling them what they have and what they want.

Some illnesses have consistent and similar patterns of symptoms throughout a wide swath of patients...others do not. Mimickry is common, as are "red herring" symptoms and the like.

Sure, and in some instances, one doctor, or even a team of doctors still can't figure it out. Just as one person might not be able to figure out what is wrong withthemselves- in those instances, they would go see an actual physciian. But by enabling people to do more and more for themselves, we reduce the actual number of people going to see a physician that don't need his help. The physicain is then freed to focus on the truly needy, as oposed to Joe Blow with a cold.

There are some things that should be left to physicians. But there are some things that we can do ourselves. I think Josh's idea has real merit. Just my buck fifty.

Palomar · 2003-10-15 11:20:52

*I guess you missed the part where I said I'm not interested in a long-term debate, nor discussing this much further. What is it about me you just can't resist debating, Clark? I notice you skipped Shaun's intelligent reply.

I wasn't discussing general first-aid stuff. Josh was taking it a step further, i.e. doctoring one's self. As for the rest, by all means check in with your physician and ask him/her your questions: They are more qualified than I to answer your indepth questions.

As for body chemistry: Humans ARE their body chemistry, in great part. If your potassium level were to crash, for instance, you could die. Will Average Joe and Jane have phlebotomy kits and centrifuges in their homes to continue checking such levels? Perhaps someday...but I doubt it.

Clark: "There are some things that should be left to physicians. But there are some things that we can do ourselves. I think Josh's idea has real merit. Just my buck fifty."

*The first-aid stuff, sure. As for the rest? Sorry, but you demonstrate your ignorance (especially as regards biochemistry...again, ask your doctor).

Physicians spend YEARS at medical school to learn what they know (and not to mention intensive continuing-education courses -- yearly); good luck to "do-it-yourself" guides. As for physician error you mention...sure. Who said they were perfect? No one. And I feel safe in saying the "do-it-yourselfers" will have a much greater percentage of errors on their side.

If medicine advances some day to the point where people can do most of their healthcare at home and upon themselves, that's fine by me. But I think it's about as likely as 2-year-olds ever learning to drive a car to a specific destination.

Most people grapple with programming VCRs and many cannot figure out their own yearly income taxes (me included!)...and yet you are expecting people to -- at least in some great part -- doctor themselves? I rather doubt it.

Again, a physician could provide you with more insights and information than I'm able to; check with yours.

--Cindy

clark · 2003-10-15 11:43:12

I guess you missed the part where I said I'm not interested in a long-term debate, nor discussing this much further.

Missed it? Naw. It should be your tag-line. You seem to like to talk at people, but not with them. But, that's just my impression, and I'm sure it's not true.

I notice you skipped Shaun's intelligent reply.

Because he was agreeing with you. Come on, you know about going to first-hand sources.

I wasn't discussing general first-aid stuff.

No, you were discussing hospitalization, something you work and deal with in a limited context. You then went on about how ordinary people could never do what doctors do. While i will agree that ordinary people can't do neurosurgery or organ transplants or prescribe the right amount of designer narcotic, I think you did a disservice to Josh's idea, which is more about empowerment of individuals to deal with a larger range of everyday maladies.

What do we see in the hospital now? We see Nurse Practitioner's doing jobs that were once exclusively held to the realm of physicians. We see more self-diagnosing books and devices for people, so they don't have to rely on a physician for general check-ups. We see the spread of medical information, more accessible (all you have to do is be able to read) so people can self diagnosis.

Everything you pointed out that showed people can't do what doctors do is all about hospitalization. That's serious illness, not the general stuff that consumes 90% of the doctors day.

If your potassium level were to crash, for instance, you could die. Will Average Joe and Jane have phlebotomy kits and centrigues in their homes to continue checking such levels? Perhaps someday...but I doubt it.

Okay Cindy, in what instances would I need to worry about my potassium level? That's my point. I have never had, nor has anyone I known, had their potassium levels checked when they went to see the physician for a check-up. Of for when they were feeling ill and the physician recommends a specialist. They end up using that device when they see a specialist, or are on some medication that affects potassium levels. Again, all of this is outside of what I believe Josh was considering.

Physicians spend YEARS at medical school to learn what they know; good luck to "do-it-yourself" guides.

Yeah, learning the wide range of maladies that are possible. So they can become effective at diagnosing anything. However, generally, individuals can learn less, and still be okay. By giving them more knowledge they become less reliant on the doctor to for everything. Instead, the doctor is used for those instance where it is beyond this general level of knowledge. You know, special cases, in the same way that a general practitioner sends you off to a specialist.

Most people grapple with programming VCRs and many cannot figure out their own yearly income taxes (me included!)...and we expect people to -- at least in some great part -- doctor themselves? I rather doubt it.

Most people are lazy. However, you grapple with Voltaire and other philosophers. So are you saying that you can handle the intellectual rigors of esoteric thought, but if push comes to shove, you can't figure your taxes? My condolences.

You don't because you don't have to, or you choose not to. But it's not because you are incapable.

this is the same thing.

And I know you type a lot, so please, feel free to drop "I'm not interested in this further (or any derivation)". I'll just assume as much. :laugh:

Palomar · 2003-10-15 12:09:49

Me: "I guess you missed the part where I said I'm not interested in a long-term debate, nor discussing this much further."

Clark: "Missed it? Naw. It should be your tag-line. You seem to like to talk at people, but not with them. But, that's just my impression, and I'm sure it's not true."

*I'm sorry you can't respect my decision of how far into a conversation I will or will not go. I'll answer you just once more; and remember: You asked for it. Why do you like to antagonize, and attempt to put me on the defensive? You needn't answer...those are simply rhetorical questions. Your impressions are just that -- yours, and your prerogative. Actually, my impression of you is that you are quite adept at projection.

Clark: "Most people are lazy. However, you grapple with Voltaire and other philosophers. So are you saying that you can handle the intellectual rigors of esoteric thought, but if push comes to shove, you can't figure your taxes? My condolences."

*I find -- and have found for quite some time -- it interesting how you always bring my studies of 18th century philosophers
into absolutely unrelated discussions. So I cannot do income tax; I've admitted many times that I'm not good with math. Also, I've been self-employed for years; that's added complexity. Many people cannot figure out their own income tax returns, either.

But what has all this got to do with 18th century philosophers and Voltaire? Nothing. And yet you have consistently and repeatedly brought my studies of the 18th century philosophers up to me in an unrelated manner, in unrelated conversations. Why? Please, do ask yourself. There are people here who profess and proclaim God, Jesus, Christianity and religious beliefs...but I have yet to see you bring up their religious beliefs/practices/studies in an unrelated context, as if using it in a slying insulting way -- as you have done to me repeatedly with philosophy.

Why do you do this?

It certainly raises the legitimate question of what your motive could be for the double-standard of how you approach and interact with others here, as opposed to me.

I think you've never really liked me; actions sure speak louder than words. That's fine; I don't live to please you.

Enough said.

--Cindy

clark · 2003-10-15 12:34:32

*I'm sorry you can't respect my decision of how far into a conversation I will or will not go.

Tell me how I am supposed to respect your decision not to continue a discussion. Not post?

I can't make you or anyone take part in a discussion. I can't make you or anyone else respond to what I post. I would imagine that you, I, and anyone else, would simply not respond if they don't want to speak further. Am I incorrect in my conclusion here?

Why do you like to antagonize, and attempt to put me on the defensive?

I apoligize that you find me antagonistic, and I certainly am not trying to put you on the defensive. I think this all results from a disagreement of opinions. You think the world works a certain way, I think it works a certain way, and then, here we are.

Actually, my impression of you is that you are quite adept at projection.

:laugh: Well, I did run the projector in my highschool. How could you tell? So Lucy, here's a nickel, what is it I'm projecting? :laugh:

*I find -- and have found for quite some time -- it interesting how you always bring my studies of 18th century philosophers
into absolutely unrelated discussions. So I cannot do income tax; I've admitted many times that I'm not good with math. Also, I've been self-employed for years; that's added complexity.

[sigh] Here is the problem. You always think I'm out for a kill. I pointed out, in what I thought was praise, your ability to handle rather grueling philosphical thought and text. To me, this demonstrates a capacity for learning, and comprehension (the prime requesite for intelligence). I was merely suggesting that you could do your own taxes, or just about anything, if you set your mind to it. But you don't, or you don't have to, so you fallback on this idea "I'm not good at math". Well, neither am . In fact, I'm bad with science too. But that dosen't mean I can't learn, or understand scientific or mathmatical principles (that many others have discussed here) when I feel I need to.

This whole physcian thing is part and parcel of the same thought.

There are people here who profess and proclaim God, Jesus, Christianity and religious beliefs...but I have yet to see you bring up their religious beliefs/practices/studies in an unrelated context, as if using it in a slying insulting way -- as you have done to me repeatedly.

I have, and I do. But then, many people who believe in their version of God are a lot less vocal about it than you are about Voltaire. You're not a bible thumper, you're a Voltaire thumper. Nothing wrong with that per se, but it's still pretty much the same thing.

Why do you do this?

I never cared for proselytizing.

I think you've never really liked me; actions sure speak louder than words. That's fine; I don't live to please you.

You mean... you don't! :laugh:

I don't know you Cindy, so how could I ever like, or dislike you?

I will say I do like some of your ideas. Not all. Not most. But some. And I have tried to play nice, but it seems such attempts are lost to animosity.

And I think I'm fairly even handed in my posts with others, I don't play favorites. Remember, you have the highest post count out of anybody here. Law of averages.

Now, time for a self-administered colonoscopy.

George H · 2003-10-15 14:05:52

*I'm sorry you can't respect my decision of how far into a conversation I will or will not go.
Tell me how I am supposed to respect your decision not to continue a discussion. Not post?
I can't make you or anyone take part in a discussion. I can't make you or anyone else respond to what I post. I would imagine that you, I, and anyone else, would simply not respond if they don't want to speak further. Am I incorrect in my conclusion here?
Why do you like to antagonize, and attempt to put me on the defensive?
I apoligize that you find me antagonistic, and I certainly am not trying to put you on the defensive. I think this all results from a disagreement of opinions. You think the world works a certain way, I think it works a certain way, and then, here we are.
Actually, my impression of you is that you are quite adept at projection.
:laugh: Well, I did run the projector in my highschool. How could you tell? So Lucy, here's a nickel, what is it I'm projecting? :laugh:
*I find -- and have found for quite some time -- it interesting how you always bring my studies of 18th century philosophers
into absolutely unrelated discussions. So I cannot do income tax; I've admitted many times that I'm not good with math. Also, I've been self-employed for years; that's added complexity.
[sigh] Here is the problem. You always think I'm out for a kill. I pointed out, in what I thought was praise, your ability to handle rather grueling philosphical thought and text. To me, this demonstrates a capacity for learning, and comprehension (the prime requesite for intelligence). I was merely suggesting that you could do your own taxes, or just about anything, if you set your mind to it. But you don't, or you don't have to, so you fallback on this idea "I'm not good at math". Well, neither am . In fact, I'm bad with science too. But that dosen't mean I can't learn, or understand scientific or mathmatical principles (that many others have discussed here) when I feel I need to.
This whole physcian thing is part and parcel of the same thought.
There are people here who profess and proclaim God, Jesus, Christianity and religious beliefs...but I have yet to see you bring up their religious beliefs/practices/studies in an unrelated context, as if using it in a slying insulting way -- as you have done to me repeatedly.
I have, and I do. But then, many people who believe in their version of God are a lot less vocal about it than you are about Voltaire. You're not a bible thumper, you're a Voltaire thumper. Nothing wrong with that per se, but it's still pretty much the same thing.
Why do you do this?
I never cared for proselytizing.
I think you've never really liked me; actions sure speak louder than words. That's fine; I don't live to please you.
You mean... you don't! :laugh:
I don't know you Cindy, so how could I ever like, or dislike you?
I will say I do like some of your ideas. Not all. Not most. But some. And I have tried to play nice, but it seems such attempts are lost to animosity.
And I think I'm fairly even handed in my posts with others, I don't play favorites. Remember, you have the highest post count out of anybody here. Law of averages.
Now, time for a self-administered colonoscopy.

Clark stop being a jerk.
I think your jealous of her. Or you got some kinda weird anger for girls.

Hey Cindy,
I like you. Your cool by me. I learn alot about Franklin & lots of other people, from your Enlightinment list. Your great!!!

@-}-----
@-}------

clark · 2003-10-15 14:09:31

George, stop stalking.

But thanks for the psychoanalysis. One day, you'll know half as much as you think you do.

Teenagers. :laugh:

Josh Cryer · 2003-10-15 14:20:08

Wow, clark defends me... it's the coming of the apocalypse I tell you!

But yeah, I didn't care to defend my position, but thanks clark, you conveyed what I was feeling.

I haven't been to a doctor in 6 years. How's that for scary?

clark · 2003-10-15 14:41:03

Don't worry Josh, you're wrong too.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#51 2003-10-10 19:37:12

Re: Why the U.S. Needs Universal Health Care...Now! - Intelligent debate wanted here...

#52 2003-10-10 20:54:05

Re: Why the U.S. Needs Universal Health Care...Now! - Intelligent debate wanted here...

#53 2003-10-11 08:35:18

Re: Why the U.S. Needs Universal Health Care...Now! - Intelligent debate wanted here...

#54 2003-10-14 06:57:04

Re: Why the U.S. Needs Universal Health Care...Now! - Intelligent debate wanted here...

#55 2003-10-14 07:50:40

Re: Why the U.S. Needs Universal Health Care...Now! - Intelligent debate wanted here...

#56 2003-10-14 08:13:02

Re: Why the U.S. Needs Universal Health Care...Now! - Intelligent debate wanted here...

#57 2003-10-14 08:59:32

Re: Why the U.S. Needs Universal Health Care...Now! - Intelligent debate wanted here...

#58 2003-10-14 10:18:15

Re: Why the U.S. Needs Universal Health Care...Now! - Intelligent debate wanted here...

#59 2003-10-14 10:25:54

Re: Why the U.S. Needs Universal Health Care...Now! - Intelligent debate wanted here...

#60 2003-10-14 10:35:45

Re: Why the U.S. Needs Universal Health Care...Now! - Intelligent debate wanted here...

#61 2003-10-14 14:23:42

Re: Why the U.S. Needs Universal Health Care...Now! - Intelligent debate wanted here...

#62 2003-10-14 15:22:18

Re: Why the U.S. Needs Universal Health Care...Now! - Intelligent debate wanted here...

#63 2003-10-14 15:48:05

Re: Why the U.S. Needs Universal Health Care...Now! - Intelligent debate wanted here...

#64 2003-10-14 19:30:05

Re: Why the U.S. Needs Universal Health Care...Now! - Intelligent debate wanted here...

#65 2003-10-14 20:49:16

Re: Why the U.S. Needs Universal Health Care...Now! - Intelligent debate wanted here...

#66 2003-10-14 22:34:57

Re: Why the U.S. Needs Universal Health Care...Now! - Intelligent debate wanted here...

#67 2003-10-15 10:06:15

Re: Why the U.S. Needs Universal Health Care...Now! - Intelligent debate wanted here...

#68 2003-10-15 11:20:52

Re: Why the U.S. Needs Universal Health Care...Now! - Intelligent debate wanted here...

#69 2003-10-15 11:43:12

Re: Why the U.S. Needs Universal Health Care...Now! - Intelligent debate wanted here...

#70 2003-10-15 12:09:49

Re: Why the U.S. Needs Universal Health Care...Now! - Intelligent debate wanted here...

#71 2003-10-15 12:34:32

Re: Why the U.S. Needs Universal Health Care...Now! - Intelligent debate wanted here...

#72 2003-10-15 14:05:52

Re: Why the U.S. Needs Universal Health Care...Now! - Intelligent debate wanted here...

#73 2003-10-15 14:09:31

Re: Why the U.S. Needs Universal Health Care...Now! - Intelligent debate wanted here...

#74 2003-10-15 14:20:08

Re: Why the U.S. Needs Universal Health Care...Now! - Intelligent debate wanted here...

#75 2003-10-15 14:41:03

Re: Why the U.S. Needs Universal Health Care...Now! - Intelligent debate wanted here...

Board footer