September 2007
Monthly Archive
Wed 26 Sep 2007
The Power of the Gods: Medical infallibility.
Wed 26 Sep 2007
The Universal Pander: There's nothing like a presidential election to bring out the healthcare crisis. And, since the presidential primary process is stretching into a two year long spectacle, there's been no shortage of proposals on how to fix our current system. Recently, Dennis Kucinich pointed out that his ideas are the closest thing to what the American people want:
In a CNN poll this spring, 64 percent of respondents said the government should "provide a national insurance program for all Americans, even if this would require higher taxes," and 73 percent approve of higher taxes to insure children under 18. Those results track New York Times and Gallup polls last year, in which about two-thirds of respondents said it is the federal government's responsibility to guarantee health coverage to all Americans.
Such polls allow Kucinich to joke that, far from being in the loony left, "I'm in the center. Everyone else is to the right of me."
Ask the American public a different question about the healthcare system, and you'll get a different answer:
For the fifth time in six years, Harris Interactive has asked the insured public to rate their own insurance plans. Two thirds of them continue to give their plans an A or a B, with only 10% giving them a D or an F. Substantial but not overwhelming majorities continue to say that they would recommend their own health plans to family members who are basically healthy (76%) or who have a serious or chronic illness (68%).
Health insurance companies are like politicians. We dislike all but our own. We should be careful what we wish for, however, for it won't just be our own politicians designing a nationalized health insurance plan; it will be all the others that we dislike, including politicians who believe hospital pork is a public service, that healthcare and personal autonomy are mutually exclusive, and that the right to earn a living takes second place to health insurance.
What are people really wishing for when they say they wish for a single nationalized health insurance program? Security. Our current employer-provided system means that most of us are just a pink slip away from losing our insurance coverage. It also means that, deprived of the bargaining power of large corporations and unions, the self-employed are left with fewer choices and higher premiums. Handing over the whole kit and kaboodle to the government is a seductively simple solution. But it would also be a very expensive solution.
The British are often held up as the standard to which we should aspire. But we don't live under a British style of government. We live under a government that's truly government of the people, by the people, for the people. And what the people want, the people get. Witness the influence of disease activism even now on disease specific government funding and treatment mandates. In England, the government only pays for colonoscopies to check for colon cancer if there are symptoms suggestive of cancer or a family history of colon cancer. In the United States, the Medicare pays for a colonoscopy every ten years for everyone over 50, regardless of symptoms or risk. So do many insurance companies., sometimes if not by choice, by mandate. In England, mammograms are only covered for women between the ages of 50 and 70, and then only every three years. In the United States, we pay for mammograms beginning at age 40, yearly, and with no upper age limit. We just don't have the heart for rationing that they have in other countries.
A common theme in politician crafted health care schemes is that by paying for prevention we will save money, and thus be able to offer limitless healthcare services without bankrupting the country. Both Hillary Clinton and John Edwards have explicitly emphasized the importance of preventive healthcare in their plans- even to the point of patient-directed mandates in the case of Edwards. But if preventive services save money and lives, then why is the United Kingdom, which offers less expansive preventive services than the United States, both healthier and cheaper? (Hint: Dead people neither spend health insurance dollars nor complain about their health.)
Don't be fooled by the promises of health and wealth to be found in government-provided, or even mandated, health insurance coverage. It may bring you health, but it will be at a very steep price - both in money and liberty.
(Note: Next installment, a look at the Republican candidates approach to "universal coverage.")
In a CNN poll this spring, 64 percent of respondents said the government should "provide a national insurance program for all Americans, even if this would require higher taxes," and 73 percent approve of higher taxes to insure children under 18. Those results track New York Times and Gallup polls last year, in which about two-thirds of respondents said it is the federal government's responsibility to guarantee health coverage to all Americans.
Such polls allow Kucinich to joke that, far from being in the loony left, "I'm in the center. Everyone else is to the right of me."
Ask the American public a different question about the healthcare system, and you'll get a different answer:
For the fifth time in six years, Harris Interactive has asked the insured public to rate their own insurance plans. Two thirds of them continue to give their plans an A or a B, with only 10% giving them a D or an F. Substantial but not overwhelming majorities continue to say that they would recommend their own health plans to family members who are basically healthy (76%) or who have a serious or chronic illness (68%).
Health insurance companies are like politicians. We dislike all but our own. We should be careful what we wish for, however, for it won't just be our own politicians designing a nationalized health insurance plan; it will be all the others that we dislike, including politicians who believe hospital pork is a public service, that healthcare and personal autonomy are mutually exclusive, and that the right to earn a living takes second place to health insurance.
What are people really wishing for when they say they wish for a single nationalized health insurance program? Security. Our current employer-provided system means that most of us are just a pink slip away from losing our insurance coverage. It also means that, deprived of the bargaining power of large corporations and unions, the self-employed are left with fewer choices and higher premiums. Handing over the whole kit and kaboodle to the government is a seductively simple solution. But it would also be a very expensive solution.
The British are often held up as the standard to which we should aspire. But we don't live under a British style of government. We live under a government that's truly government of the people, by the people, for the people. And what the people want, the people get. Witness the influence of disease activism even now on disease specific government funding and treatment mandates. In England, the government only pays for colonoscopies to check for colon cancer if there are symptoms suggestive of cancer or a family history of colon cancer. In the United States, the Medicare pays for a colonoscopy every ten years for everyone over 50, regardless of symptoms or risk. So do many insurance companies., sometimes if not by choice, by mandate. In England, mammograms are only covered for women between the ages of 50 and 70, and then only every three years. In the United States, we pay for mammograms beginning at age 40, yearly, and with no upper age limit. We just don't have the heart for rationing that they have in other countries.
A common theme in politician crafted health care schemes is that by paying for prevention we will save money, and thus be able to offer limitless healthcare services without bankrupting the country. Both Hillary Clinton and John Edwards have explicitly emphasized the importance of preventive healthcare in their plans- even to the point of patient-directed mandates in the case of Edwards. But if preventive services save money and lives, then why is the United Kingdom, which offers less expansive preventive services than the United States, both healthier and cheaper? (Hint: Dead people neither spend health insurance dollars nor complain about their health.)
Don't be fooled by the promises of health and wealth to be found in government-provided, or even mandated, health insurance coverage. It may bring you health, but it will be at a very steep price - both in money and liberty.
(Note: Next installment, a look at the Republican candidates approach to "universal coverage.")
Wed 12 Sep 2007
http://lookstare.com/blog///index.php/Health?cat=60
I was reading an article that claimed that eating ice cream might help woman get pregnant. I know, it sounds crazy and you might be led to believe that I was reading one of those crazy tabloids out there, but according to the article a study from the well known Nurses’ Health Study showed that eating two ice cream servings a week reduces a woman’s risk of infertility by approximately 38 percent.
Although scientists were able to observe the dramatic increase in percentage, to this date they are not able to figure out why. However, it is obvious that the fat in the ice cream and in other full fat dairy products or perhaps a substance inside the fat seem to help the ovaries function properly. Of course, I am not making this up. Dr. Chavarro who is a fellow in the research department at Harvard School of Public Health, Department of Nutrition, backs up this research according to the article I read.
The same Dr. Chavarro also found that woman that get their daily iron from pasta, cereals, legumes, fruits and vegetables, had a better chance of not suffering from the risk of infertility, as supposed to those who got their iron from chicken, beef and fish. He attributes this finding to the fact that pasta may encourage egg development, and that there is the possibility that the fat on meat limits iron absorption.
Tue 11 Sep 2007
http://lookstare.com/blog///index.php/Health?cat=60
One of the things that concern me the most about traditional medicine and its treatment protocols is that most of the drugs that are prescribed have major side effects. For instance, I was reading that the drug REQUIP (Ropinirole Hydrochloride) which is used to treat moderate to severe Restless Legs Syndrome, and some time is used to treat Parkinson’s disease, has some minor side effects that I think should be looked into by those who are about to use it.
The possible side effects of REQUIP are:
Nausea, vomiting, dizziness, drowsiness, sleepiness. Some patients also show urges to gamble, increase sexual urges, and hallucinations.
As always consult a licensed health care provider to discuss this side effects or any other questions that you might have. The content provided here is solely for informational purposes only and was not meant to treat or diagnose an illness.
Sun 9 Sep 2007
Zing the Body Electric: 
Treating high blood pressure, circa 1907 (click images to enlarge and read the text):
A close-up view of the blood pressure machine:
- from Scientific American, August 24, 1907.
The report sounds so confident:
The important feature is that the cure - the reduction of arterial pressure to the normal value - is permanent, and that the progress of the arteriosclerosis is arrested by the removal of the excess of blood pressure.
Seems kind of silly today, but look - one hundred years on and we're still flirting with the idea.
Here's what else was going on in 1907, and here's an early twentieth century text on treating diseases with electricity.
Treating high blood pressure, circa 1907 (click images to enlarge and read the text):
A close-up view of the blood pressure machine:
- from Scientific American, August 24, 1907.
The report sounds so confident:
The important feature is that the cure - the reduction of arterial pressure to the normal value - is permanent, and that the progress of the arteriosclerosis is arrested by the removal of the excess of blood pressure.
Seems kind of silly today, but look - one hundred years on and we're still flirting with the idea.
Here's what else was going on in 1907, and here's an early twentieth century text on treating diseases with electricity.