I must have missed the reply to this:


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/10/27/if_public_option_is_really_back_why_such_a_heavy_l ift_98890.html

States like Maine, Vermont, Massachusetts and New Hampshire that have imposed ObamaCare-style regulations have seen premiums jump for everyone. If people can wait to get sick until they obtain insurance, fewer healthy people will carry insurance. The cost of an older, sicker insurance pool naturally rises. To prevent this spiral of "adverse selection," ObamaCare imposes a mandate requiring all adults to buy insurance...

plus:

Originally Posted by playwrite

The 80% that are "first-generation affluent" are confined within the 92% that make less than $500K.

-The point is that it happens even at the highest levels (millionaires count as "high" in most people's estimation). It doesn't take much to get to a more typical (and comfortable) level. Social mobility works. It's no secret, except to "progressives".


---

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

WARNING: The poster known as jamesdglick has a history of engaging in fraud. He makes things up out of his own head and attempts to use these blatant lies to score points in his arguments. When you call him on it, he will only lie further. He has such a reputation for doing this that many people here are cowed into silence and will not acknowledge it or confront him on it.

Anyone who attempts to engage with glick will discover this and find out you have wasted your time and energy on an intellectual fraud of the worst sort.

-So cry many Boomers like Haymarket & Playwrite whenever they fail to explain their hypocritical self-justifications, their double-standards, and their double-think forays into evil. Perhaps their consciences bother them, perhaps not. Who knows.

Originally Posted by The Rani

It's none of your business why I entered the field, and I spend the little time that I still spend in the field fighting the propaganda. It's an uphill battle; people really want to believe.

What propaganda? Do you think illness doesn't exist? That specific illnesses don't exist?

Originally Posted by The Rani

And moreover, how many times per day do I beat my wife?

It's the propaganda that Western medicine is the answer to everything.

So defensive.

How is the effectiveness of "Western" vs "Eastern" medical treatments related to whether or not people go bankrupt due to lack of health insurance?

Originally Posted by The Rani

I wonder how many people who use "Eastern" medicine go bankrupt.

I dunno. Do you? Is "Eastern" medicine free? What exactly would it do to treat, lets say, colon cancer? A punctured lung from an auto accident?

think deep and peceful thoughts.......

Originally Posted by The Rani

Having no health insurance isn't ugly.

No kidding. We did just fine for several years and through at least one major medical crisis paying our way in a system that wasn't legislated primarily for the benefit of the preferred classes. Insurance isn't the problem, and coming up with a variation on insurance is just going to put another layer of crap on an already dysfunctional contraption.

What's ugly is the contraption. The propaganda is in people being led to believe that the solution lies other than where it clearly does.

Originally Posted by The Rani

And moreover, how many times per day do I beat my wife?

It's the propaganda that Western medicine is the answer to everything.

With all due respect, do you think that Western medicine can be the answer to anything?

I am all for eating healthfully, incorporating activity into your life, doing meditation and other stress release techniques, and using non-western tools when appropriate. On the other hand, I for one am glad for antibiotics and modern surgical techniques.

Originally Posted by The Rani

And moreover, how many times per day do I beat my wife?

It's the propaganda that Western medicine is the answer to everything.

The problem with Western medicine, as practiced in the United States at least, is that it operates 'for profit' rather than for the benefit of humanity. Profit for the insurance companies, profit for the drug companies, profit for the hospitals, profit for the lawyers, profit for the doctors, profit for pretty much everyone except the patients, who are sometimes driven into bankruptcy by severe illness even WITH health insurance.

About ten years ago or so urban legends started popping up about cures being available for all sorts of 'incurable' afflictions, cures that were being suppressed by the drug companies (and others) because there was more profit in keeping people chronically ill and treating the symptoms. I thought it was bullcrap then. I'm no longer certain. Indeed, every time I see one of those stupid TV commercials that tout the benefit of some new drug... then go on to inform of the horrible things that can happen to you if you take their product... the more convinced I become that they aren't urban legends at all.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

What's ugly is the contraption. The propaganda is in people being led to believe that the solution lies other than where it clearly does.

Ignoring the fact that people do go bankrupt due to health care costs, (personal anecdotes, while interesting, ultimately don't provide a clear picture of things), just what, exactly, is the silver bullet solution to the problem that the propaganda is leading us away from?

Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59

About ten years ago or so urban legends started popping up about cures being available for all sorts of 'incurable' afflictions, cures that were being suppressed by the drug companies (and others) because there was more profit in keeping people chronically ill and treating the symptoms. I thought it was bullcrap then. I'm no longer certain. Indeed, every time I see one of those stupid TV commercials that tout the benefit of some new drug... then go on to inform of the horrible things that can happen to you if you take their product... the more convinced I become that they aren't urban legends at all.

I'm not sure if I'd go so far as to believe that full on cures for diseases are being suppressed, although I guess anything is possible, but I do know that a lot of money is funneled into areas like advertising that don't do anything to advance medical knowledge. I also know that a lot of money is spent developing drugs like Viagra, while less profitable areas like antibiotic research are neglected, which occurred in the face of the growing threat of anti-biotic resistant strains of bacteria. If anything, my guess would be that there is a bias towards promoting expensive cures over inexpensive ones, and trying to find new markets for already developed drugs, or releasing minor revisions of already established classes of drugs with proven profitability, over spending money in order to take risks to develop completely new treatments.

btl2283 asks Justin

Ignoring the fact that people do go bankrupt due to health care costs, (personal anecdotes, while interesting, ultimately don't provide a clear picture of things), just what, exactly, is the silver bullet solution to the problem that the propaganda is leading us away from?

Now you have gone and done it. Such questions are better left never asked to such folks.

Originally Posted by btl2283

I'm not sure if I'd go so far as to believe that full on cures for diseases are being suppressed, although I guess anything is possible, but I do know that a lot of money is funneled into areas like advertising that don't do anything to advance medical knowledge. I also know that a lot of money is spent developing drugs like Viagra, while less profitable areas like antibiotic research are neglected, which occurred in the face of the growing threat of anti-biotic resistant strains of bacteria. If anything, my guess would be that there is a bias towards promoting expensive cures over inexpensive ones, and trying to find new markets for already developed drugs, or releasing minor revisions of already established classes of drugs with proven profitability, over spending money in order to take risks to develop completely new treatments.

That's all true of course, even if the drug companies really are sitting on cures that are less profitable than chronic treatments. It's also true that every time one turns around, some new 'disease' with a kooky acronym has rolled into town complete with a new 'medicine' to 'treat' (but not cure) it. It's corporate-scale Munchausen-By-Proxy.

Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59

That's all true of course, even if the drug companies really are sitting on cures that are less profitable than chronic treatments. It's also true that every time one turns around, some new 'disease' with a kooky acronym has rolled into town complete with a new 'medicine' to 'treat' (but not cure) it. It's corporate-scale Munchausen-By-Proxy.

Its a shame because, and I'm thinking of mental illnesses such as anxiety disorders and depression right now, there actually are really people who suffer from these things, but when drug companies put up ads on TV advertising cures and extorting people to "ask their doctors", over-prescription is inevitable because people start to self diagnose perfectly normal life problems and feelings as medical diseases in need of treatment, when often times they are anything but. That then makes it seem to people that these are "fake diseases", when they really aren't.

Regarding the suppression of cures, if anything, I'd compare it to the auto industry and the development of the electric car. Its true that, strictly speaking, there never were any electric cars that could compete with equivalent gas cars in terms of price and performance, but, if money were put into developing them, eventually such cars could be produced. Its that auto companies for a long time sought higher short term profits by making comparatively cheap refinements to internal combustion engines, rather than spend a lot of money disrupting their market to develop completely new technologies.

Originally Posted by btl2283

Ignoring the fact that people do go bankrupt due to health care costs, (personal anecdotes, while interesting, ultimately don't provide a clear picture of things), just what, exactly, is the silver bullet solution to the problem that the propaganda is leading us away from?

Who said there was a silver bullet? Rani (or anyone else in the medical field) could go into a lot more detail than me about the numerous shackles that are placed on the delivery of medical services by people who would supply them to people who would obtain them.

People go bankrupt from all sorts of things. And die for all sorts of reasons. Personal anecdotes are all anyone on any side of the question has. But one thing you tend to find in all the anecdotes is that people will do what they can to keep misfortunes from getting that bad. The solutions are as varied as the problems which arise. People are social creatures -- if a social solution is to be found for a particular problem (and getting a service from other people is quite a social solution), people are equipped to make a good go at finding it.

The propaganda is that people need the system -- that they are incapable of living any other way. Help them see that the system is a parasite on them, and let them come up with what works.

see what I mean btl?? - I warned you. Next time, please leave the door closed and spare us hearing the sermon ...... yet again.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Who said there was a silver bullet? Rani (or anyone else in the medical field) could go into a lot more detail than me about the numerous shackles that are placed on the delivery of medical services by people who would supply them to people who would obtain them.

There are plenty of people within the system who support UHC and the reform efforts. Besides, if the system is the problem, why should I listen to the people who are part of it?

People go bankrupt from all sorts of things. And die for all sorts of reasons. Personal anecdotes are all anyone on any side of the question has. But one thing you tend to find in all the anecdotes is that people will do what they can to keep misfortunes from getting that bad. The solutions are as varied as the problems which arise. People are social creatures -- if a social solution is to be found for a particular problem (and getting a service from other people is quite a social solution), people are equipped to make a good go at finding it.

Actually, we can do better than personal anecdotes. We can do studies that look at bankruptcy records, which we obtain through the courts since bankruptcy is a legal process, and look at what caused those bankruptcies. We have done so, and found that many of those bankruptcies come about due to unanticipated medical costs. Its not complicated at all.

The propaganda is that people need the system -- that they are incapable of living any other way. Help them see that the system is a parasite on them, and let them come up with what works.

How is the system a parasite? What are referring to anyway? The entire medical field? Just parts? Which parts? What is it you want people to come up with?

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

see what I mean btl?? - I warned you. Next time, please leave the door closed and spare us hearing the sermon ...... yet again.

I just see people making vague statements and I would like them to clarify.

Originally Posted by btl2283

There are plenty of people within the system who support UHC and the reform efforts. Besides, if the system is the problem, why should I listen to the people who are part of it?

Because, as you pointed out in your first sentence, not everyone in it supports it. And also because they know more stuff about parts of it than you do. Just listening to someone doesn't mean you have to agree with everything they say, you know...

Actually, we can do better than personal anecdotes. We can do studies that look at bankruptcy records, which we obtain through the courts since bankruptcy is a legal process, and look at what caused those bankruptcies. We have done so, and found that many of those bankruptcies come about due to unanticipated medical costs. Its not complicated at all.

"Many", huh? Compared to what? The number of people who had unexpected medical events and didn't go bankrupt? The number of people who would have been willing to bankrupt themselves if their unexpected medical events hadn't killed them first?
Talk about 'vague'.

Further, while you assert simply that unanticipated medical costs hurt people, you seem to be missing the point that it is not the 'unanticipated' which is so damaging -- at least, insofar as there is always the unanticipated and there's no evidence to suggest that the current US system is particularly bad on the count of simple foresight -- but rather the one word you left out: 'expensive'. It's not so much surprise that bankrupts people as it is the price tag attached to it.

It is completely possible to get quality medical care for tens of times less cost than the American system would have you treat as 'natural'.

How is the system a parasite? What are [you] referring to anyway?

A system is not its components; rather it is the framework in which those components coexist and interact. What I am referring to is characterized by the following things (perhaps not a comprehensive list, but I'm aiming for high points here):

• monopoly-provision of services
• imposed price supports
• buffers between supplier and consumer
• imposed restrictions on supply
• privatization of profits and socialization of risks

The second and fifth item are clear examples of parasitism (that is, of the system being set up in such a way as to allow some parties to obtain benefits at the -- unwilling or unwitting -- expense of others).

What is it you want people to come up with?

I'm not asking anyone to come up with anything in particular. I simply observe the fact that social creatures are equipped to generate solutions to social questions. Further, that medical care is a social question that people in America seem not to be answering, in part because they are restricted from doing so, but primarily because they are dissuaded from doing so.

Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59

The problem with Western medicine, as practiced in the United States at least, is that it operates 'for profit' rather than for the benefit of humanity. Profit for the insurance companies, profit for the drug companies, profit for the hospitals, profit for the lawyers, profit for the doctors, profit for pretty much everyone except the patients, who are sometimes driven into bankruptcy by severe illness even WITH health insurance.

About ten years ago or so urban legends started popping up about cures being available for all sorts of 'incurable' afflictions, cures that were being suppressed by the drug companies (and others) because there was more profit in keeping people chronically ill and treating the symptoms. I thought it was bullcrap then. I'm no longer certain. Indeed, every time I see one of those stupid TV commercials that tout the benefit of some new drug... then go on to inform of the horrible things that can happen to you if you take their product... the more convinced I become that they aren't urban legends at all.

I must say that this conversation more and more reminds me of Moliere's play The Imaginary Invalid:

Argon: But let us reason together, brother; don't you believe at all in medicine?

Beralde: No, brother; and I do not see that it is necessary for our salvation to believe in it.

Argon: What! Do you not hold true a thing acknowledged by everybody, and revered throughout all ages?

Beralde: Between ourselves, far from thinking it true, I look upon it as one of the greatest follies which exist among men; and to consider things from a philosophical point of view, I don't know of a more absurd piece of mummery, of anything more ridiculous, than a man who takes upon himself to cure another man.


ARG. Why will you not believe that a man can cure another?

BER. For the simple reason, brother, that the springs of our machines are mysteries about which men are as yet completely in the dark, and nature has put too thick a veil before our eyes for us to know anything about it.

ARG. Then, according to you, the doctors know nothing at all.

BER. Oh yes, brother. Most of them have some knowledge of the best classics, can talk fine Latin, can give a Greek name to every disease, can define and distinguish them; but as to curing these diseases, that's out of the question.

ARG. Still, you must agree to this, that doctors know more than others.

BER. They know, brother, what I have told you; and that does not effect many cures. All the excellency of their art consists in pompous gibberish, in a specious babbling, which gives you words instead of reasons, and promises instead Of results.

This play resounds quite well with me since I grew up watching supposedly well meaning doctors literally experiment on my mother. She had a strange tendency to adapt to whatever pain medication they gave her and was allergic to asprin--the reason I know for a fact the doctors were simply experimenting was that my mother had a life long allergy to asprin, and the doctors once assigned an asprin-based medicine. Luckily the pharmacist was a good enough friend to catch the doctor's folly in time. That brought attention to a revelation I had about doctors, health care, and the whole industry of modern medicine--the majority of them are simply poking around in the dark. I'll grant that there's a minority of them which probably do believe that they are doing good or want to do so, but most I think aren't taken in by the romanticism modern society has weaved around modern medicine. Instead I think most of them are in medicine for the oldest reason in the book: it's a good way to make a lot of money.

Even the more expensive doctors which we could get for a short time when my dad finally was able to get a teaching job back in 2006, weren't that much better. Granted I will say that there have been modern advances in diabetic treatment, however my mother had gained a sensibility and knowledge of her own brittle type I diabetic tendencies and how to manage and handle them. My mother had a way of mixing R & N insulin together and knew just how much to take and how much to balance it against what she was eating. When she was in the nursing home under this new medication--it was also a very good nursing home considering my mother was a member of the O.E.S. and could therefore get into a Masonic nursing home. The doctors there instead of listening to her, gave her a newer insulin where the R & N factors were already pre-mixed at a standard level. Every night she took it she had an insulin reaction. Each time she told the doctors she knew how to manage her diabetes, they took one look at the methods she was asking for and pooh-poohed her. After three weeks of consistent nightly insulin reactions the doctors grudgingly gave in to my mother's handling of her own diabetes. She didn't have another insulin reaction while she was there.

Another case which sounds silly would be that not all people have the same normal body temperature as others. It's a well held misconception that if a person has a body temperature of 98.6--when this is not the case. It' is only an AVERAGE body temperature, around which individuals tend to be. Some have a body temperature higher than 98.6, and some have it lower as I do. My normal body temperature is 97.7--which most people roll their eyes until I end up with a clear fever at 98.9.

Ultimately the only person who can cure you is yourself, and the best person who knows about your body and it's idiosyncrasies is yourself. If you lay your trust in others to do the job for you, you'll end up sorely misled and fooled. That's not to say that modern surgery doesn't have some benefits, but I will agree with The Rani and say that some surgery is unnecessary.

The ultimate goal of doctors and doctoring should be aimed towards getting a person more involved with their own health or be there to act as a general reference point--like an encyclopedia. Specialists interested in finding out more information on diseases, etc. should go into fields of research and add to the larger community's knowledge. If necessary surgery is needed, then those same specialists come into play. Doctors in general however should not make it their goal to cure people but rather act as an educational tool for those who take an active role in their own healths and as a last resort where the person is beyond being able to do something themselves (like doing a necessary surgery).

~Chas'88

[QUOTE=Justin '77;281423]

Because, as you pointed out in your first sentence, not everyone in it supports it. And also because they know more stuff about parts of it than you do. Just listening to someone doesn't mean you have to agree with everything they say, you know...

My point is that you are simultaneously making an appeal to authority, that of experts in the field, and an ad hominem attack against a parasitic system that prays on people and spews out propaganda to dissuade people from questioning it. The implication therefor is that there are "good experts" who should be listened to, and "bad experts" who are exploiters and propagandists. How does one tell the difference? Without anything else to back up it up, arguments such as this are meaningless. Of course, in this post you go on to elaborate your point, which is all I was asking for......

"Many", huh? Compared to what? The number of people who had unexpected medical events and didn't go bankrupt? The number of people who would have been willing to bankrupt themselves if their unexpected medical events hadn't killed them first?
Talk about 'vague'.

I don't need to compare it to anything. Many people die in fires, probably fewer than in auto accidents, that doesn't mean we shouldn't take steps to prevent fires.

Further, while you assert simply that unanticipated medical costs hurt people, you seem to be missing the point that it is not the 'unanticipated' which is so damaging -- at least, insofar as there is always the unanticipated and there's no evidence to suggest that the current US system is particularly bad on the count of simple foresight -- but rather the one word you left out: 'expensive'. It's not so much surprise that bankrupts people as it is the price tag attached to it.

I agree with this.

It is completely possible to get quality medical care for tens of times less cost than the American system would have you treat as 'natural'.

I think I see where your going here......

A system is not its components; rather it is the framework in which those components coexist and interact. What I am referring to is characterized by the following things (perhaps not a comprehensive list, but I'm aiming for high points here):

• monopoly-provision of services
• imposed price supports
• buffers between supplier and consumer
• imposed restrictions on supply
• privatization of profits and socialization of risks

The second and fifth item are clear examples of parasitism (that is, of the system being set up in such a way as to allow some parties to obtain benefits at the -- unwilling or unwitting -- expense of others).

So your blaming the remnants of the guild system then. For what its worth I agree that we need to increase the supply of doctors and other health care providers (dentists, orthodontists etc.). Its worth pointing out though that HMO's and insurance companies are already sort of doing what you suggest by paying physician's assistants and nurse practitioners to do work that traditionally was done by physicians. Where I live, supermarkets have built in clinics that are often operated by such professionals.

Even in countries where the guild system isn't nearly as strong or doesn't exist, however, the health system is never completely left up to the market. Probably because there are inherent properties of health care such as information asymmetries between customers and providers, the fact that many of the most expensive medical costs can't be planned for, and the fact that the demand for health care services basically is infinite, which make pure market based solutions flawed.

Originally Posted by btl2283

My point is that you are simultaneously making an appeal to authority, that of experts in the field, and an ad hominem attack against a parasitic system that prays on people and spews out propaganda to dissuade people from questioning it.

Very funny. I indicate that an insider's POV might be worth having, on a technical basis if nowhere else, and you see an appeal to authority. And then you turn around and call 'ad hom' -- after I clearly say that a person's association or lack thereof with a particular system does not justify dismissing them automatically as a worthless advocate-of-the-system.
You need to pay a bit more attention, new guy.

I don't need to compare it to anything. Many people die in fires, probably fewer than in auto accidents, that doesn't mean we shouldn't take steps to prevent fires.

Actually, statistics are only valid when used comparatively. So if you want to say anything of value with them, you need not only to compare them to something, but to place them in an overall context.
As a simple example might help make clear. I can find that 'many' people have been killed by Grizzly Bears in North America in the past several decades. There are pretty good statistics on that going back almost a hundred years, even. But without context -- exactly how many deaths, over how many years, under what kind of circumstances; how they compare to wild animal fatalities overall; to overall human mortality rates -- such an observation can hardly be considered validly indicative of a 'grizzly crisis' requiring immediate widespread social action.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Ask yourself who is more trustworthy, the one who tells you to keep believing in the system that benefits them, or the one who tells you the problems with the system that they are a part of.

I guess it depends on how they present their argument and what they say. If they have a specific claim, say, that the causes of disease A are different than what the consensus says they are and so the generally directed treatment is wrong, then I will listen, evaluate the evidence and reasoning the individual uses, and come to my own conclusion. If all they say is that system is a parasite, doctors are evil, crap, or misguided, and that medicine is junk and the medical establishment is engaged in some grand conspiracy, then I'll probably ignore them. For one reason, statements such as that aren't any use to me because they merely ask me to substitute one source of expertise for another, and for another reason, I don't generally like to make broad generalizations like that. I tend to think that the world is more complicated than simple binaries that pit traditional versus modern, eastern vs western, or establishment vs radical as though one is good and true and the other is evil or misguided.

Originally Posted by Chas'88

I grew up watching supposedly well meaning doctors literally experiment on my mother. . . . That brought attention to a revelation I had about doctors, health care, and the whole industry of modern medicine--the majority of them are simply poking around in the dark. I'll grant that there's a minority of them which probably do believe that they are doing good or want to do so, but most I think aren't taken in by the romanticism modern society has weaved around modern medicine. Instead I think most of them are in medicine for the oldest reason in the book: it's a good way to make a lot of money.

That's what I saw with my sister fighting leukemia from 1983 to 1986. She turned three, four, and five during that time, and went through hell for most of it only to basically live that much longer. It makes me wonder how effective chemotherapy and some other cancer treatments really are - are they even trying to offer recovery, or merely a chance of it based on what's worked in the past? (Meanwhile my mother has been back on that merry-go-round for a year with her cancer after several years off.)

The day of my sister's funeral we had to take a detour to get to the church. My mother pointed out the house of one of my sister's doctors. It was huge (like the other houses in that neighborhood). I wonder how big doctors' houses would be if they really cared - and why do they make so much more in this country than in other "rich" countries, anyway?

[QUOTE=Justin '77;281430]

Very funny. I indicate that an insider's POV might be worth having, on a technical basis if nowhere else, and you see an appeal to authority. And then you turn around and call 'ad hom' -- after I clearly say that a person's association or lack thereof with a particular system does not justify dismissing them automatically as a worthless advocate-of-the-system.
You need to pay a bit more attention, new guy.

Touchy touchy

I was merely expanding on my point. I'm glad you felt fit to qualify your statement though.

Actually, statistics are only valid when used comparatively. So if you want to say anything of value with them, you need not only to compare them to something, but to place them in an overall context.
As a simple example might help make clear. I can find that 'many' people have been killed by Grizzly Bears in North America in the past several decades. There are pretty good statistics on that going back almost a hundred years, even. But without context -- exactly how many deaths, over how many years, under what kind of circumstances; how they compare to wild animal fatalities overall; to overall human mortality rates -- such an observation can hardly be considered validly indicative of a 'grizzly crisis' requiring immediate widespread social action

This is simply untrue and bordering on pedantic. Generally we gather statistics on things that concern us, that is why we go to the trouble in the first place. Its true that sometimes we don't find what we expect to find, and so the original investigation is worthless, but when it comes to things like bankruptcy, deaths from fires, or even, like in your example, bear attacks, that doesn't happen. Bear attacks, bankruptcies, and deaths from fires are bad. Thats why we investigate them. We would only not care about them if they did not happen. Since they do, we care about them. We don't need to compare them to other things to know that they are bad. That is ridiculous.

BTW - Where I live bear populations are monitored and signs are put up to warn people in areas where they are known to live. If bears happen to wander into populated areas, warnings are put out and animal control is called to capture and remove the animal.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Oh good. What do you know about Type II Diabetes? One of the more serious not to mention expensive-to-treat diseases that plagues Americans.

Not much. What's your point?